FEV to Showcase Ford TwinForce Direct Injection Concept and Future DI Work
12 April 2007
 |
| Operation of the TwinForce dual turbo, direct injection engine. Click to enlarge. |
FEV Engine Technology will showcase its work with Ford on the new turbocharged, gasoline direct injection engine concept—TwinForce—at the upcoming SAE World Congress. This is the first time that an OEM concept car will be displayed as a feature technology in a supplier exhibit at SAE.
At the North American International Auto Show in January, Ford introduced the Lincoln MKR concept car with a V-6 TwinForce engine that suggests the future direction for Ford’s gasoline engines.
Based on the Ford Duratec 35 all-aluminum production V-6, the concept TwinForce engine adds two turbochargers and direct injection to deliver increased power while maintaining fuel economy.
The E85-capable engine offers the performance of a 415 hp (309 kW) V-8 with 15% better fuel economy than a V-8 with similar power, according to Ford. The concept TwinForce also produces 400 lb-ft (542 Nm) of torque. Ford claims that it would take a V-8 with at least six liters of displacement to match those performance levels.
Ford says TwinForce technology will appear on future Lincoln and Ford vehicles, but has yet to announce timing. The company already has several direct-injection four-cylinder engines on the market, including the 1.8-liter in the Ford Mondeo and, from partner Mazda, the 2.3-liter turbocharged engine that powers the Mazdaspeed6.
The TwinForce technology used in the Lincoln MKR represents Ford’s first application of direct injection on a V-6 engine. Its development was led by Ford Powertrain Research and Advanced Engineering, the same group leading the production design and development of this technology in a pilot program intended to speed the time to market with the new engine.
FEV will also highlight:
A developmental gasoline/E85 turbocharged direct injection engine that also features variable compression ratio to better exploit the higher octane of high-ethanol blends;
A UPS hydraulic hybrid, the result of a FEV/EPA/UPS joint project;
A diesel-powered Chrysler Sebring demonstrating FEV’s advanced diesel engine integration capabilities;
A new diesel exhaust aftertreatment concept, coupled to a GEP engine, that offers the potential to retrofit existing state of-the-art engines for future emissions standards compliance;
Advanced transmission testing capabilities; and
FEV’s benchmarking capabilities, illustrated by a Lexus IS 350 Engine.
A 415 hp V6,that's sure to save Ford's market share.
Posted by: DS | 12 April 2007 at 11:15 AM
Ds, no kidding. Why not demonstrate the tech on a nice lightweight 4-cyl, which would surely be able to produce enough power for any ldv in their fleet, but with much better fuel economy than any of the over sized turds in their current lineup. Heck if they wanted to, they could build a highly tuned version for the concept car that could get close to that 415 hp, while the standard model might produce about half that. If they really feel they need a little something extra, instead of adding extra displacement, throw in a mild hybrid (BAS or similar) system. Are we still that stigmatized, here in the US, by the idea of driving a 4-banger, regardless of its performance?
Posted by: Bob Bastard | 12 April 2007 at 01:13 PM
Does anyone really need 400+ hp , one of my cars is a 1989 toyota
land cruiser with a 5 cylinder 2.5 diesel turbo , I have pulled a boat
all over europe with this car and even after 18 years it returns 30mpg
and this car is seriously low tech, no electronics at all !
Posted by: andrichrose | 12 April 2007 at 01:34 PM
andrichrose, the short answer is no. Most tow trucks are in the 300 hp range I believe. The 350 cu in. V8 in my truck only puts out about 150 hp and I can pull a house with that thing. I am relatively confident that no one who buys a 450 horsepower lexus will ever use even 300 hp. Ever. The people who drive them simply don't have the driving skills (or testicular fortitude) to control that kind of power. Its pure specsmanship, although quite effective for marketing:
"Your Jaguar puts out 430 horsepower? Oh yeah? My Lexus puts out 450! Say, did you renew your membership over at the country club yet?"
Posted by: Bob Bastard | 12 April 2007 at 02:04 PM
And if anyone cares, and I'm sure you don't, my daily driver is an 84 vw rabbit diesel (golf for my Eurobuddies) which puts out a mindblowing 52 hp. It's a bit of a dog going up the mountain with the AC on, but I've had it up to 85(mph) on the freeway :)
Posted by: Bob Bastard | 12 April 2007 at 02:12 PM
I would venture to say that nobody here is the target market for this engine.
Posted by: Cervus | 12 April 2007 at 02:46 PM
Its an engine for thoe who love prtformance driving. cars are not just tranport any more then boats or bikes are. People just have a kod of selfish ssues around cars.
Fact is every buyer of such a doodad pays a great deal of the cost of our econoboxes. Without them thr vheap end would die insrantly fromlack of money.
Posted by: wintermane | 12 April 2007 at 03:23 PM
Wow! I'm impressed! a V6 with an intercooler and turbo. Other than the direct injection, there's nothing new here but the hype! Their Volvo division has been doing this with straight block 5 cylinders engines for years. Duh!
Posted by: Lad | 12 April 2007 at 04:05 PM
i feel the issue here is an old fashioned case of rich people telling us what we should want, and then us actually starting to want it. the reality is that most passenger vehicles registered in the country in the last 15 years are 4 cyl. engines. the reality is that they are adequate to suite our needs. the reality is that many automakers are at least partially supported in their tough times by the oil lobby. there is no incentive for the big guys to make non-wateful cars that suit our needs.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Beall Sinclair
if we made up our own minds about what we want and don't want, then decided not to listen to anyone who tried to convince us we were wrong, we'd all be driving ZEVs by now.
Posted by: tim | 12 April 2007 at 04:32 PM
Good job Ford or should I say "quality is job one". You guys
must figure that drivers want to keep subsidizing the ongoing
relationship with Middle East Dictatorships. They are betting on our failure to install Democracy in the region and can't wait
to stir the pot further to stoke revenue on our increasing petrol addiction. You can keep foisting these 415hp machines with 15% better MPG and we will just keep paying with real
hearts and mines(IEDs). It seems as though you have, at last, invented the self perpetuating machine. A business model that
guzzles down barrels and bucks while churning out foes and schmucks.
Posted by: William | 12 April 2007 at 05:49 PM
you guys are a bunch of tools
if toyota came out with this, you'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I mean obviously you must be the best engineers on earth with the way you all talk on here and I am SURE that you know the auto/energy industry better too.
its pretty easy to come up with unrealistic ideas and blame everyone when you are sitting behind a computer.
You treehugging/environmentalist liberal types are all the same, all pie in the sky "ideals" based on emotion/beliefs/politics and no grasp on reality.
You guys really need to step off your high horse and step back into the real world.
Posted by: joe | 12 April 2007 at 07:59 PM
You're definitely wrong about that, Joe. Nobody here seems to like the guzzling Toyota Tundra either, and we sneer at the sales of the hybrid Lexus SUV too.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 12 April 2007 at 09:02 PM
Attension all wonks. All ford is actualy sayimg is this is thier fitst v6 engine to have all this stuff. Its as powerful as a potent v8 even in torque and yet uses lrdd fuel. It is slated to go into lincons so likely we are talkimg big lux cars without the abismal mpg. Id also expect this bugger might wind up in suvs and trucks.
Posted by: wintermane | 12 April 2007 at 09:48 PM
I don't think a 15% increase moves a fuel economy rating of "abysmal" to anything better than "pathetic". That takes something closer to 50%.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 13 April 2007 at 05:37 AM
Only the green lobby would find something to complain about in a 15% efficiency improvement.
Posted by: Matthew | 13 April 2007 at 07:00 AM
The complaining stems from the fact that this technology has been around for a while (Isuzu had DI gas engines years ago) and Ford will have it available on "future" vehicles.
Complaining brought on buy frustration created by the US automakers being SO far behind the curve. They should be selling this NOW.
Posted by: BillW | 13 April 2007 at 08:41 AM
Direct injection and taking advantage of higher octane makes sense. I read that NG has an octane rating of 120 versus ethanol at 100. If you could have smaller displacement variable compression engines, you could take advantage of that higher octane and get more power out of smaller displacement.
Posted by: SJC | 13 April 2007 at 09:20 AM
Matthew, I suppose if treatment increased your life expectancy from 5 months to 6 months you'd still have the nerve to complain. That's a whole 20%!
In fuel economy as in medical treatment, whether 15% is a reasonable improvement or not depends on the starting point.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 13 April 2007 at 02:46 PM
E-P - If I got a 20% life extension I'd be pleased, regardless of the starting point. And I certainly wouldn't sneer at those responsible while asking them for more in the next breath.
Posted by: Matthew | 13 April 2007 at 06:27 PM
Now assume that the people responsible for the cure had made you sick in the first place, and that they could have made you healthy instead. In other words, start from "abysmal" and compare to "excellent".
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 14 April 2007 at 07:21 AM
o.k., So let me get this straight, Ford it turbocharging a V-6 and using direct injection. This is a major leap forward for an american car company. This is why the American companies are falling behind. Ford is now onto what most of the Automotive engineers have figured out 6 years ago. Direct injection is nothing new, turbo charging is nothing new, and putting them together is certainly nothing new. Arrrgh, when will we see real innovation out of these guys.??!!!
Posted by: christopher | 14 April 2007 at 08:19 AM
Most likely what ford has done is make an enine with all this and e85 that isnt too spendy to put into a ford;/
Its one thing to make an engine for a high endcar that is engineering driven its anouther to make an engine for a car where the emgine is unseen unheeded and unimportant save for the performance it goves thecar its hidden in. lincolns arnt about engines they are something else entirely.
Posted by: wintermane | 15 April 2007 at 03:40 PM
You people seemed to have missed:
"The company already has several direct-injection four-cylinder engines on the market, including the 1.8-liter in the Ford Mondeo and, from partner Mazda, the 2.3-liter turbocharged engine that powers the Mazdaspeed6."
The twin force is a great way to have big V8 power without big V8 MPG.
Posted by: Tim Russell | 16 April 2007 at 09:53 AM
I think the Mazdaspeed6 engine may be the same one in the Mazda CX7. It has good horsepower and torque specifications, but the mileage is about the same as a V6 with similar output.
4-Cyl, Turbo, 2.3 Liter V6, 3.0 Liter
Horsepower 244 @ 5000 RPM 212 @ 6000 RPM
Torque 258 @ 2500 RPM 197 @ 5000 RPM
Gas Mileage 19 mpg City / 24 mpg Hwy 19 mpg City / 27 mpg Hwy
This compares a CX7 with a Mazda 6 V6. The CX7 performance is probably good, but the gas mileage is not impressive. The specification that catches my eye is the 258@2500rpm for the CX7.
Posted by: SJC | 16 April 2007 at 05:30 PM
The engine in my car is rated at 247 ft-lb @ 1900 RPM.
Only 134 horsepower, but it's a far more competent transport machine (even with a ton of cargo) than most things built to be more like racers.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 18 April 2007 at 06:28 AM