CNN: DETROIT AUTOMAKERS . . . "TRADING JABS LIKE JUNIOR HIGH BOYS" OVER HORSEPOWER RATINGS ON FUEL-EFFICIENT V6 PONY CARS?

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" Here)

Comment: You mean not everybody agrees with Joe Oldham?
Here’s our choice for who wins the "Battle of the Buzzin’ Half-Dozen" in 2011:

Here’s how most junior high schoolers (and to be totally honest, Truth With Speedzzter) would evaluate the 305-horse V6 Mustang . . .

Over at Bangshift.com, there’s more support for the V6s than you might imagine.

However, Truth With Speedzzter would rather see small DOHC V8s in the 2.0 to 4.0 liter range, not V6s, carry the banner for "entry level" pony car muscle in the future. With technology such as EcoBoost (tm), Ethanol Boosting Systems’ on-demand direct ethanol injection , start-stop, variable-geometry intake manifolds, and cylinder deactivation, V8s could achieve spectacular performance with startling fuel efficiency.

FUTURE SHOCK: FORD START CONCEPT CAR WITH 3-CYLINDER ENGINE PREVIEWS TINY FUTURE

Comment: Nobody will get "Start" confused with a Shelby GT500. A one-liter, three cylinder EcoBoost (tm) engine isn’t exactly the stuff of dreams . . . unless you live in Bangladesh. And without any traditional headlamps, Start looks half-asleep. Still, its design is cleaner than Fiesta. And although it beats a moped or riding a bus, it will be a sad day when "Ford" becomes synonymous with tiny fruit cups like Start. Now if it had a 1.0 liter EcoBoost (tm)V8 and RWD . . . .
FREEP: LET OUR TECHNOLOGY CREATE A GREENER WORLD, FORD ASKS

Comment: William Clay "Li’l Billy" Ford, Jr. accepted his green leader award from the FREEP in style.

Yet the idea that Michigan will emerge as some sort of green technology leader may be a bit wishful. Advantages similar to the catalysts that made Detroit an automotive manufacturing leader a century ago (abundant iron ore, timber, timber baron money) seem to be absent this time.

FORD’S 2011 FLEET VEHICLE LINEUP LAUNCHES WITH 100 PERCENT SUSTAINABLE POWERTRAIN TECHNOLOGY

"Ford, the industry leader in commercial and government fleet sales, will offer 100 percent of its fleet vehicles this year with fuel-efficient powertrains and other sustainable technologies – including battery electric, hybrid, natural gas, propane, E-85, biodiesel (B20) and EcoBoost – making the Blue Oval the industry’s greenest full-line fleet provider."

Comment: Too bad FoMoCo won’t ever build a EcoBoost Coyote V8-powered electric hybrid P71 Police Interceptor.

YOU’VE GOT TO KNOW WHEN TO HOLD IT: JERSEY GOV. CHRISTIE SHUTS HIGHWAY TOILETS TO SAVE MONEY

Comment: $270,000 to operate two restrooms? Of course some New Yorkers would probably quip that the whole "Garden State" is a big toilet . . . .

HOLY MOLEY, MARIA MOPAR! CHRYSLER’S MARKET SHARE MAY DROP TO SEVEN PERCENT AS DETROIT MOVES ON FROM THE BANKRUPTCIES

Comment: Not even Iacocca had to face such market-share headwinds. And that’s before they start trying to sell Americans FIATs. Who knew that when Chrysler bought American Motors that they'd virtually BECOME AMC.

COMMUNIST CHINA: NUMBER ONE IN AUTOMOBILE SALES

Comment: With a billion people and a manipulated currency, it’s not surprising that the CHI COMS have slingshot past the U.S.A. in auto sales. But sales per capita and ownership rates lag far behind the U.S.A. Despite America’s over-taxed and over-regulated auto market and a myriad of assaults on automotive liberty, the U.S.A. is still a better place to be an automotive consumer than China.

JALOPNIK: TOP GEAR USA: WHAT TO EXPECT

COMMENT: A show with all the essential elements of the BBC/UK’s "Top Gear" . . . except Clarkson, May and Hammond . . . A BBC-sized budget on basic cable . . . "absolutely and brutally honest" evaluations of test cars. No kowtowing to automotive sponsors.

R-I-G-H-T. What we’ll likely see is three obnoxious young frat-boys engaged in a mindless, weakly-scripted succession of demolition derbies, gratuitous burnouts, and tired, sophomoric jokes on a show with the production values of a midnight infomercial. Of course, if it’s even that good, it will be a "Fast and Furious" hit.

WAR ON V8s: VOLVO TO KILL V8 OPTION?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Jalopnik is reporting that soon to be ex-Ford Volvo is canning all sorts of appealing hardware, including the V8 option for the S80.

For the time being, the Volvo V8 will remain available in the XC90 because a turbo six is not available.

While this move may seem to some as merely consolidation, in the bigger picture, it's a harbinger of what's likely to be a recurring story during the model years leading up to the draconian 35.5 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard in 2016.

As Truth With Speedzzter wrote on Bangshift.com regarding GM's development of an EcoBoost-fighting 3.0 twin-turbo V6:

But the overwhelming concern is probably future compliance with CAFE standards. These turbo V6s are clearly aimed at V8 territory. And some experts predict that even V6s aren't going to be very common by 2016. http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100322/OEM06/303229994/1186 & http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100322/OEM06/303229992/1186

To be sure, CAFE and the confluence of lazy marketing (the entire basis of the current EcoBoost "economy of a six with the power of a V8" campaign) and rabid beancounting is shaping up to be a "war on V8s." Just the "Cash For Clunkers" giveaway amounted to a war on vintage V8s (and a backdoor attack on hot rodding and other forms of grassroots motorsports), the current pressures against new V8s amounts to a "second front" in the Anti-V8 war.

As Truth With Speedzzter further explained at Bangshift:

If GM obtains about the same horsepower-per-liter as the EcoTec turbo/DI 2.0 (~130 hp/l), the GM 3.0 will produce around 390 h.p.

Of course Ford's initial EcoBoost engine is tuned more for quick response and a flat torque curve than maximum h.p. And reportedly FoMoCo is working on "Project Bobcat" (supplemental direct ethanol injection), which would easily crest 130 hp/l. Former FoMoCo exec Dr. Neil Ressler is involved in Ethanol Boosting Systems, L.L.C., the holder of key patents on the EBS process. http://www.ethanolboost.com/

[UPDATE: "Project Bobcat" has primarily been a government-grant subsidized research project aimed at light truck powerplants. Mike Harrison, FoMoCo's chief engineer on 5.0-liter and 6.2-liter "Boss" truck V8s, who told Autoblog Green "the 5.0-liter Bobcat was actually derived from the old 5.4-liter V8 currently used in the F150 and the Shelby GT500."

Autoblog Green further reported "For Bobcat use, the longer-stroke 5.4 was used in combination with a smaller bore giving thicker cylinder walls needed to withstand the high internal pressures of the boosted 750 pound-foot engine. According to Harrison, the Bobcat was part of a Department of Energy-funded research project and there are no current plans for a production engine based on the technology. Harrison tells us that the extra cost of the dual injection systems and more robust block and heads negates much of the savings from not needing a diesel after-treatment system."

It would appear that the Modular's FWD-oriented narrow bore centers may have scuttled another promising development. Moreover, Ford may have decided to focus more on turbo-diesels, which will not pay as many "trickle-down" dividends to hot rodders and grassroots motorsports enthusiasts as a "full-throttle" development of a "Bobcat" EBS system would]

It's unlikely that the current regime at Ford is going to get beat in a horsepower war. For example, a recent chassis dyno test of the Coyote-Powered 2011 Mustang GT yielded the following:


Quote:
"Inside Line's tester reliably belted out 395 horsepower at 6,600 RPM and 365 pound-feet of torque at 4,350 rpm. That's at the wheel, natch, and since IL estimates the 'Stang sees only an 11% to 13% driveline loss thanks to its stick axle, the car is likely making somewhere between 438 and 446 horsepower at the crank -- far more than the advertised 412.

This should come as no surprise to anyone, especially Inside Line. After all, last year they did the same thing with a 2010 GT500 only to learn that - surprise! - it was underrated. (Their tester put down 511 horsepower at the wheel. The guys figured the number at the crank to be around 570 horses, not the 540 advertised)."

IS THE COYOTE V8 THE LAST HURRAH FOR MASS-MARKET V8 POWER?

Regardless of how incredible the new DOHC Coyote V8 is (or could be in supercharged, EcoBoost or Twincharged form), the pressure of CAFE will force engine downsizing.

Uwe Grebe, General Motors executive director for global advanced engineering, told Automotive News that meeting CAFE will be costly because "everyone is done picking the low-hanging fruit." He suggests the improvements to conventional engines and drivelines will "include turbocharging, gasoline direct injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation and dual-clutch transmissions. Grebe estimates that 15 to 20 percent more fuel economy can be squeezed out of conventional gasoline powertrains."

Cutting the number of cylinders will be a quick and lazy method to reduce cubic inches.

Certainly, smaller V8s that are scaled-down to equivalent cubic-inch displacement of current sixes and even fours could produce striking fuel economy along with the sounds, driving feel, and aesthetics of traditional V8. But the marketers are simply too lazy to make the sales case for up-to-date "right-sized" DOHC turbo V8s and the green-eye-shade gang is probably too cheap to fund them.

Sadly, V8s are increasingly likely to become an endangered species. They will be sacrificed for no legitimate reason on the altars of uninformed public opinion, cost cutting, and regulatory compliance.

Volvo's decision is just an early warning of this.

SPEEDZZTER DEBATES DOHC V8S AND ECOBOOST

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

GM Performance Parts released a "Pre-SEMA Show teaser video" on a "Crate Engine that Changes the Industry." GM's "gamechanger" will be officially announced to the public on the first day of the 2009 SEMA Show (November 3, 2009)

But ridiculous pre-show hype prompted a debate at Bangshift.com on what a hot rod V8 engine that could REALLY change things would be like. Truth With Speedzzter was in the thick of it.

Ford also got into the pre-SEMA publicity game, with a couple of "teasers."

A bevy of tuned Ford Mustangs prompted this discussion involving Truth With Speedzzter.

But the real fireworks ensued when Truth With Speedzzter commented on an EcoBoost V6-powered 1934 Ford street rod that will be shown at the SEMA Show. The debate ranged far and wide on what sort of power a street rod ought to have and whether the EcoBoost program ought to be expanded to V8s (including pocket-sized 2-3.5 liter V8s).

Happy reading!

ECOBOOST® OR “ECOBUST”: INSIDE FORD’S NEW TURBO ENGINE (And a response to the FREEP’s Mark Phelan)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

When Ford Motor Company ® first proposed a new line of turbocharged “TwinForce” engines, many of FoMoCo’s long-suffering turbo fans had visions of 7,000+ r.p.m. redlines and “fifteen minute hop-ups” to 500 horsepower dancing in their heads.

The more idealistic turbophiles imagined that Ford would take the good parts of the late Yamaha SHO V6 design, such as the beautiful variable geometry intake manifold, and then add modern turbocharging.

Some crazies even anticipated that the Glass House Gang would tap into the Zeitgeist of Ford’s storied V8 heritage and the current 2.4-liter V8 limit in Formula One to offer a fully-modern, displacement-on-demand, VTEC-equipped (Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control) twin turbo (or even "twincharged") mini-V8.

(No matter how much high-tech "lipstick" you put on a V6, it's still a "PIG SIX" and not a V8. Moreover, cubic inch displacement, not cylinder count is the primary factor in off-boost fuel efficiency)

When news came out about Ford-ex Dr. Neil Ressler landing at Ethanol Boosting Systems, turbo lovers expected Ford’s new turbo mills to come with direct, on-demand injection of ethanol, providing a 160+ effective octane support for huge, ZR1-killing boost spikes, combined with brilliant off-boost fuel economy that cannot be matched by old-school two-valve pushrod engines.

And when Alan Mulally’s marketing crew reacted to the anti-performance political hurricane flowing from Democrat-controlled Washington D.C. by renamed the turbo engines under the silly “EcoBoost” moniker, turbo fans held their breath and kept the faith that finally Dearborn would offer state-of-the-art high performance turbo engines.

What were WE all smoking?

FoMoCo’s engine department – which often seems more conservative than Barry Goldwater and less creative than Barry Mantilow – has delivered up an underwhelming initial installment for the EcoBoost saga: The 365-horse 3.5 EcoBoost V6.

While the gory details have been known in industry circles for some time, Stephen Kim, in the October 2009 issue of Popular Hot Rodding Magazine, gives the general public the most clear insight yet into how Ford’s engineers and bean-counters slouched their way into building a V6 that’s really not that much better than what could (and should) have been offered fifteen years ago.

And as PHR's sickeningly fawning espose' on the EcoBoost 6 shows, much of this technology will not be "rodder friendly" in the initial years.

The EcoBoost 3.5 has a brace of tiny GT15 turbos that run out of breath at 200 h.p. each. The pistons and rods are not forged. The intake and exhaust manifolds are probably the worst things this side of an antique A-series BMC. The compression/boost relationship is virtually maxed out at the factory. The rev limit is a pushrod-esque 6,200 r.p.m.

There is no displacement-on-demand, or variable geometry intake, or full VTEC (just variable cam phasing), or direct ethanol injection.

Seemingly the lessons learned by the Ramchargers nearly fifty years ago on the scientific design of intake and exhaust manifolds have been lost or, more likely, ignored to placate the penny-pinchers.

To say these pedestrian specifications are tractor-like, is probably an insult to some of the high-tech tractors now available.

Moreover, the early tests report that Ford’s electronic management of the EcoBoost system manages to deprive enthusiasts of the sensations and sounds that have made turbocharging legendary. It’s as if Ford set out to engineer a clandestine, tamper-proof “black box” engine that no ordinary motorist would even suspect was turbocharged.

About the only really exciting development that probably couldn’t have been offered in the late 1980s or 1990s is direct injection. GDI allows for a stratified charge at part throttle, more targeted fuel induction events, and in-cylinder evaporative cooling. All good stuff, but an expensive, steep hill to climb for tuners and hot rodders.

Thus, turning the not-so-stunning 3.5 EcoBoost into a legitimate performance engine will take buckets of money and time. (a limp 104 horsepower per liter isn’t exactly the stuff of legends)

Also, given the fact that the underwhelming initial installment of the EcoBoost family will be implanted into a series of 4000+ pound AWD sleds, any aftermarket pressure to develop the engine may be initially limited. And the EcoBoost V6 option runs over a couple of thousand dollars – which doesn’t exactly feel like the deal of the century.

Maybe it will get better in future installments. But the first chapter of EcoBoost is decidedly less exciting than some anticipated.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped many in the legitimate media to uncritically sing Ford’s praises for offering up such tardy and expensive mediocrity. In addition to Mr. Kim (who undoubtedly has to keep his sources at Ford happy), many “buff books” have treated the EcoBoost with the reverence of the Second Coming. They only obliquely point out the inferior relationship of the EcoBoost-equipped vehicles to some of the V8-powered bruisers from GM, Chrysler and even Hyundai.

Detroit Free Press auto scribe Mark Phelan opines the EcoBoost 3.5 is “stunning” in support of his Pollyanna argument that “Muscle cars aren't slowing down” under the coming weight of the 2012-2016 increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. In fact he says:

Don't believe the fuel-economy fear mongers who say the fast car will be an outlaw in a future world of high-m.p.g. bore-mobiles. New systems and technologies from automakers and suppliers will maintain the upward trajectory.

As Truth With Speedzzter opined over at Bangshift.com:

The crack pipe at the FREEP must be industrial-sized.

It's going to be worse than 1975 again for new, affordable V8 muscle. Sure, a few with deep pockets will hang on, mostly with aesthetically-inferior substitutes, such as the EcoBoost/Ecotec 4 and 6s or rare, exotic-priced V8s. But all of this new technology will most certainly cause dramatic increases in the costs of a dwindling number of truly high-performance cars. Phelan simply does not have a grip on this reality.

Phelan squeals like a Detroit fanboy or someone from an OEM P.R. operation. Either that, or he sounds like someone desperately trying to convince himself that a disposable 500cc Japanese bike is as satisfying as a classic V-twin Harley. Either way, he just doesn't get it.

* * * *

Most of the bureaucrats at the OEMS would abandon high performance in a flash if it meant career advancement.

And if some super-high tech Shelby Mustang V8 with a full array of fuel saving technology and aluminum/carbon fiber body work costs $100,000.00 to buy -- and because of the 2016 CAFE averages can only be produced in tiny, dealer-gougefest numbers . . . while the masses are left to fend with some piddly EcoBoost Fiesta or tiny electrified Bill Ford dream whip -- haven't most of us been in effect "abandoned?"

In the '60s, just about any industrious young person could sign up for a new Tri-power GTO or a Cobra Jet Mustang or a Road Runner. Even the less industrious could score a "junior muscle car," such as a Ram Rod Cutlass or a 340 Swinger or a Nova SS. And on “Day Two,” these hard-working kids could start building their new muscle cars into screamin' machines.

A similarly situated young person these days usually has to settle for some horrible Korean or Japanese wusswagon. And maybe one out of 1000 has the technological savvy to get beyond adding tacky body kits, ugly stick-on "graphics", "cold air kits" and other cheap Pep Boys accessories to build any of these FWD jellybeans into some sort of legitimate "tuner" car.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any of that as progress.

While Truth With Speedzzter recognizes the reality that higher tech is probably the only way a semblance of performance and automotive liberty are to be salvaged under the “new world order” and power-hungry greeniac religion, we shouldn’t pretend that it will come without an enormous cost and a massive chilling effect on grassroots hot rodding of new vehicles.

LEAVE IT TO PORSCHE TO REINVENT THE GAS/ELECTRIC HYBRID

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Perhaps not a full-blown "reinvention," but Porsche's still-in-development clutched two-mode hybrid system points the way for future high-performance gas/electric hybrid vehicles.

Of course, Truth With Speedzzter won't truly be interested until a Porsche-style hybrid system is offered with a DOHC displacement-on-demand, variable valve-timed "twincharged" EcoBoost (r)V8 in a RWD Mustang (hopefully with a proper manual transmission** and driver-controlled overrides) . . . .

**There's no technical reason why a second clutch cannot be added downstream of the electric assist motor (On further review, perhaps just an electric field cut is all that's necessary). And there's no reason why drivers cannot shift for themselves in the EV mode (as some drivers of EV conversions already do).

IS THE 2011 FORD “COYOTE” V8 A DOHC?

[Get the Latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Since the first photos leaked in January 2009 of the 2011 Mustang “Coyote” V8, internet speculation has been rampant about whether the “new 5.0" is an OHV, an OHC or a DOHC.

The valve covers tell the tale.

The coil-on-plug ignition starts well aft of the front of the valve covers, indicating overhead cams. OHV engines have no technical need for the valve covers to extend so far ahead of the front spark plugs.

The plugs run down the center of the valve covers, indicating twin cams per bank -- unlike the early photos of the Boss/Hurricane SOHC V8 drag tested by Roush and available in the upcoming SVT Raptor high-performance off-road pickup.

The valve covers are similar (but not identical) to the pattern of the 3.5-liter “Cyclone” Duratec V6. This suggests that the Coyote has similar direct-acting mechanical bucket tappets instead of the rockers used on the Modular.

This photo also shows a couple of curious electrical connections at the front of the passenger-side bank, possibly related to the cam gear phasing or cam position sensors.

Thus, the “Coyote” engine in the internet “spy” photos appears to be a DOHC four-valves-per-cylinder engine, hopefully with wider bore centers than the DOHC 4V 4.6/5.4.

The only real defect in the Modular DOHC design is that the bore centers were set far too narrow in order to accommodate FWD applications that never really materialized (save the forgotten FWD Lincoln Continental).

A wide-bore-center DOHC 4V engine should produce greater power density than the comparatively low-tech 3G Chrysler Hemi and the GM LS. 80-85 horsepower-per-liter (naturally aspirated) should be easily achievable with a DOHC 4V V8.

In comparison, the ultimate “all motor” LS engine (the expensive 2V 7-liter Z06) yields a paltry 72 horsepower-per-liter in emission-legal trim. The stock SRT-8 Hemi even fails to break the 70 horsepower-per-liter barrier.

More power with less displacement promises the possibility of improved part-throttle efficiency because of reduced pumping losses, albeit at the cost of some low-end torque (which could be easily replaced -- and surpassed -- with on-demand forced induction).

Given Ford’s reluctance to build high-horsepower naturally-aspirated Modulars (the best unblown OEM Modulars were in the low 70 horsepower-per-liter range due to Ford’s reluctance to add variable cam timing and other torque-broadening technology), a 400-horsepower 5.0 “Coyote” would be a significant milestone in Ford's proud V8 tradition.

The “Coyote” code name is also historically interesting. When A.J. Foyt took over development of Ford’s 1960s DOHC Indy V8 (which was based upon the pushrod Fairlane/Challenger/Windsor V8) after Henry Ford II’s disastrous retreat from racing in November 1970, Foyt’s cars were “Coyotes.”

Thus, based on the “spy” photos now available, “Truth With Speedzzter” predicts that the 2011 "Coyote" V8 is a DOHC.

Now if Ford would just start work on a EcoBoost Coyote V8 . . .

FOMOCO: GETTING COZY WITH THE U.A.W.?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Walter Reuther and Richard Frankensteen must be turning at a “slow idle” r.p.m. in their graves by now.

Over seven decades after the infamous “Battle of the Overpass” between Reuther’s fledgling United Auto Workers organizers and Ford Motor Company’s “Sociological Department” outside the hulking River Rouge colossus, Ford is poised to make the U.A.W. its top shareholder.

BusinessWeek even speculates that the U.A.W. could demand a seat on FoMoCo’s board.

Although the U.A.W. has repeatedly failed in its efforts to unionize the Japanese “invader” auto assembly plants and create a level playing field for the Detroit-based “Beg 3,” the emerging Ford-U.A.W. deal to fund up to 50% of FoMoCo’s Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) liabilities with stock evidences absolute triumph by what’s left of the union.

Ford's stock is trading at all-time lows and closed on Feb. 23 at $1.73 per share. Its market value on Monday was just barely above $4 billion. (GM's was a distressing $1.1 billion.) By today's share price, Ford, if it availed itself of the maximum terms of the deal, would pay more to the UAW in stock than all of the company's shares are worth today.

Certainly, if and when shares of “F” recover some value, the U.A.W. VEBA is poised for a windfall. And if disaster strikes Motown, undoubtedly the U.A.W. will be first in line at the Obama bailout window.

Speedzzter predicts the U.A.W. will eventually attempt to off-load a substantial portion of the VEBA liabilities onto the Feds.

For Ford, not having to blow cash that ought to be used to sustain future operations on funding platinum benefit packages extorted when times were better is dodging a huge “Bullitt (tm).”

At least it promises to keep FoMoCo in the game a little longer.

And that’s at least a little good news in these tough times for Ford’s loyal “Total Performance” owners and fans.

Even better than Roush-Fenway's Matt Kenseth winning two in a row in his NASCAR "funnycar-of-tomorrow!"

Now if Ford would just get busy with those EcoBoost (tm) V8s . . . and a supercharger-ready V8 Mustang for blue collar "Stang Bangers" . . . .

Who knows if the U.A.W. would support either of these plans.

Moreover, will the new "employee-owners" of Ford be willing to make the tough calls necessary to compete in the global auto marketplace? Or is entrenched labor inefficiency the new "Job One" in Dearborn.

Time will tell. Time will tell.

Don't hit the rev limiter, Reuther . . . .

SPEEDZZTER’S NOTE: Freiburger’s Junkyard, minus the legendary David Freiburger (who returned to the executive helm at Hot Rod Magazine a few weeks ago), is now .“bangshiftcom” It will be interesting to see how long the site stays viable without the brand name. At least they didn’t call it “Speedzzter.com”

WHY AN ECOBOOST V8?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

“Why an EcoBoost V8?”

1. Better breathing (more valve curtain area possible for a given displacement) with better port velocities.

2. Increased firing pulses per crankshaft revolution provides smoother torque delivery.

3. Only a V8 can produce the classic V8 burble. Six cylinders sound . . . like sixes. A
“buzzin’ half dozen” simply doesn’t sound as good as a proper V8. (Even V8s of less than two liters sound like V8s)

4. Higher RPM potential in modified form with direct injection because injector dwell time is less.

5. No American manufacturer has built a world-class turbocharged V8 . . . ever (the Oldsmoblie Jetfire and the V8 Turbo Trans-Am were poorly done and did not have DOHC or modern engine controls).

6. Heritage: Harley-Davidson is known for V-Twins (even though that's not the best for high power density) and it's part of their brand persona. Similarly, Ford introduced the mass-market monoblock V8 to the world in 1932 and the 135-cube V8-60 (later a Simca engine) in 1937. Ford V8s have been legendary in 70+ years of motorsports. Ford has led American V8 development with its Modular and Boss/Hurricane engines in recent years. An EcoBoost V8 would be a worthy successor to this tradition and heritage.

7. Cylinder deactivation: Although Honda and GM successfully deactivate 3 of 6 cylinders, cutting 4 of 8 is inherently less vibration prone.

8. Motorsports: An EcoBoost V8 (if it were small enough in displacement) could homologate a hand-grenade-sized V8 for several forms of grassroots motorsports. A larger EcoBoost V8 would also be a boon to grassroots motorsports.

9. Efficiency: The current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s lack sufficient fuel efficiency for the coming CAFE standards. An EcoBoost V8 could increase off boost efficiency.

(Probably what will eventually happen someday is a computer-controlled, electrically-assisted Miller/Atkinson/Otto-cycle (MAO) engine with a clutched Eaton TVS, split-pulse turbocharging, intercooling, and direct Ethanol/E-85 injection. Such a MAO engine would allow for dramatic off-boost efficiency gains (Atkinson Cycle with cylinder deactivation, hybrid electric torque assist, and engine start-stop), low-boost efficiency gains (Miller Cycle), instant torque upon full throttle acceleration (via the TVS blower operating in the Otto Cycle, transitioning to larger-than-otherwise split-pulse turbos), an even broader torque curve than the current EcoBoost engines, waste energy recovery at mid and high R.P.M. (via the turbos) and dramatically increased power density. An EcoBoost V8s would be the first step toward the MAO engine. While a MAO engine would take a large amount of computer processing power to manage its transitions, it would not be as hard to manage as an HCCI or HCCI/Otto-cycle engine.

10. Intake ram-tuning/variable geometry intake: Unlike the current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s, an EcoBoost V8 could use a variable geometry intake manifold for Helmholtz resonance tuning, and multiple torque peaks (Ford, if it were so inclined could also add some intake runner length to the Eaton supercharged Modular V8s (ala Saleen & Edelbrock), but it’s more likely they’d do it with a turbo engine)

11. Halo Effect: V8 EcoBoost engines would stand out as unique in a sea of similarly-sized turbo sixes that will likely flood the market as CAFE requires increased power densities.

12. Camshaft timing: V8s can run wilder cams with acceptable levels of low-speed driveablity because of the increased number of firing pulses per revolution. Thus an EcoBoost V8 could potentially not have to sacrifice as much cam timing on the altar of the idle smoothness that the Japanese-dominated marketplace expects.

13. Dashes the “Gas Guzzler” stereotype: Many uninformed people believe that V8s are inherently thirsty. Displacement, not number of cylinders is the primary factor in fuel consumption. Thus a properly-sized EcoBoost V8 would go a long way in rebutting the mistaken belief that V8s cannot be fuel efficient.


WHY COMPARE THE 2010 TAURUS TO JAPANESE TUNER CARS?

Comparison of the WRX/EVO to the 2010 Taurus SHO is not as unreasonable as it might seem. Each of these cars are all-wheel-drive performance cars using turbocharged engines. The EVO and the SHO have the same basic layout (transversely mounted engines). Each of these cars are four-door sedans. Thus, it’s reasonable to see the SHO as a larger, “grown-up,” Americanized version of a Japanese WRC homologation car.