EU4 will not kill the I6 engine - it will be our government

[US kills Falcon]

The Rudd government is currently investigating bringing forward introduction of EU5 and EU6 emissions requirements. Details of the draft Regulation Impact Statement can obtained at the following location:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ent/index.aspx

It is economically unviable for car companies to make their engines comply with EU4 from 1st July 2010 and then have to change to EU5 in 2012. There is no way the car companies can recover the engineering costs in such a short period.

[Mr Hardware]

We've already discussed this ad nauseum - there's actually very little change between Euro4 and Euro5 - and i'd be damn surprised if the I6 didn't pass, especially with their new $230m powerplant investments.

Mr Hardware recommends

[cosmo20btt]

I was under the illusion that was more to do with the fuel & some tuning, please correct me if I am wrong.

[US kills Falcon]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I was under the illusion that was more to do with the fuel & some tuning, please correct me if I am wrong.

Correct for EU4. But EU5 and EU6 will require a lot more work and money.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by US kills Falcon

Correct for EU4. But EU5 and EU6 will require a lot more work and money.

I thought I heard eu5, but stand corrected.

[Windsor220]

I was under the impression euro5 affects direct injection engines a bit but not port injection as much.

[g220ba]

From my understanding Eu5 is more about diesels than anything else.

[Mr Hardware]

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...passenger_cars
The jump from Euro4 to Euro5 for port injected vehicles is no biggie.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...passenger_cars
The jump from Euro4 to Euro5 for port injected vehicles is no biggie.

For the I6, none what so ever.

[jpd80]

It's not the emission levels that are the problem with Euro 4 to Euro 5/6,
it's the fact that durability has to extend from 100,000 klm to 160,000 klm.

I think our I-6 flies through the emission levels bit
but has a problem with the 160,000 klm bit....

Proposal and emission criteria: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...w_20100104.pdf

[Mr Hardware]

it's the fact that durability of the emissions systems has to extend from 100,000 klm to 160,000 klm.

clarified.

[jpd80]

I-6 is a good engine but I wonder whether she's running out of time....


I should have clarified that I was speaking about the durability of the emission controls....

[Wretched]

I have no problems in the government introducing the Euro 5/6 standards ASAP.
They're not unknown to the manufacturers and Ford have experience with them in Europe. Having the Euro standards is a good idea, like ANCAP, it benefits us consumers and forces manufacturers to innovate and produce better technologies. How can having our cars meet world standards that many other countries/manufacturers use be a bad thing?

I don't think it will be the killer of the I6, it is purely a business decision probably made long a go, Ford US already have a six cylinder engine that pretty much meets these standards. Why spend millions trying to get another one up to scratch when it's only used for one market? It is all about costs and the benefits they may bring to Ford. Ford is a business, they need to make money to keep them in business. The I6, as good as it is seems to be on the home stretch, enjoy it while it lasts, Duratec/EcoBoost are on the horizon ready to take over.

[jpd80]

Unless I miss my guess, the next product cycle will usher in the use of lighter body shells,
I wonder what Ford has in mind for weight reductions in this area,
if we get back to a 1600 kg Falcon, the power needs are much less....

[rodderz]

probably ruddy getting in some more brownie points for the UN in lowering emissions in new cars more so than what they already have. Too bad the savings had will be offset by population increases with more cars on the road

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Unless I miss my guess, the next product cycle will usher in the use of lighter body shells,
I wonder what Ford has in mind for weight reductions in this area,
if we get back to a 1600 kg Falcon, the power needs are much less....

I don't think it will take much to get back to 1600kg to be honest. Fractionally smaller here and there, same interior space. Lighter engine up front. More Boron & ultra high strength steel too. It fits with One Ford policy to substantially reduce vehicle weight.

How much does the 3.7L V6 weigh? The FG i6 was essentially agreed upon in the Coyote thread to weigh 195kg. Which is exactly the weight of Coyote...

[Road_Warrior]

Just remember, fancier construction materials equals a more expensive car.

Aside from moving to an alloy engine block and alloy control arms for the IRS, there isnt that much more weight that can be shed from the car.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Just remember, fancier construction materials equals a more expensive car.

Agreed it can make for a more expensive car. But, remember boron steel and Ultra High Strength steel are both used in Fiesta and Mazda2. Both are 15-25k small car. Superior design and these materials aid the refinement and crash strength.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Aside from moving to an alloy engine block and alloy control arms for the IRS, there isnt that much more weight that can be shed from the car.

Well, almost certainly, GRWD will mean the move to the 3.7L V6 and most likely a 40kg saving. The FG saved 22kg with the Virtual Pivot Control Link. Doing something similar to the IRS, there is probably an easy 25kg.

[jpd80]

Could the Ecoboost I-4 Falcon see a newer, lighter shell variant introduced?
One with lighter rails, reduced tow rating and with a 1500-1550 Kg weight....

Now that would make an interesting competitor for large mid sized vehicles.

[Airmon]

I wouldnt be too worried, the Barra 4lt probably makes Euro V look easy.
Long live the 4l I6!

It wont be the government that kills the I6, it will be the media and the public who decide not to buy it based on useless speculation.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Could the Ecoboost I-4 Falcon see a newer, lighter shell variant introduced?
One with lighter rails, reduced tow rating and with a 1500-1550 Kg weight....

Now that would make an interesting competitor for large mid sized vehicles.

I speculated last year, the return of the 'Falcon Compact'. Having said that, i'm not talking about XK-XP Falcon size. More like a 100kg weight loss with a small reduction in length.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Just remember, fancier construction materials equals a more expensive car.

Aside from moving to an alloy engine block and alloy control arms for the IRS, there isnt that much more weight that can be shed from the car.

VE has plastic spare wheel well, and Ford apparently will have this soon too. Holden are also rumoured to be looking at plastic front guards. Magnesium seat frames, dash support panels etc.

There's plenty of scope for weight loss.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

VE has plastic spare wheel well, and Ford apparently will have this soon too. Holden are also rumoured to be looking at plastic front guards. Magnesium seat frames, dash support panels etc.

There's plenty of scope for weight loss.

Part of Ford's strategy from 2015/2016 and beyond was for 250 to 750 lb weight reduction on vehicles,
if Falcon is about the mid point, that's a 200 kg weight loss , I figure that would be the 2016 EB I-4 Falcon?