Ford targets Toyota with Aussie wagon - T6 SUV - Page 2

jpd80 · 01-05-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Ahh... the Expedition. That is one big ship. Not sure how well it would sell here, as it looks big and tough, and fuel guzzily.

But it is an AWD/RWD platform with IRS. Something else we have down-under that could become one.

It's a similar size to the Landcruiser stationwagon, and a fair bit wider than the Territory.
As for fuel guzzling:
The latest Ecoboost V6 in F150 has the same city/highway fuel consumption as the V8 Pontiac G8.
So if Expedition was given the Ecoboost V6 it would be no worse than a V8 Commodore,
a V8 diesel would be that much better, even the 2.7 V6 diesel would do in a pinch...

Buntz · 01-05-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

It's a similar size to the Landcruiser stationwagon, and a fair bit wider than the Territory.
As for fuel guzzling:
The latest Ecoboost V6 in F150 has the same city/highway fuel consumption as the V8 Pontiac G8.
So if Expedition was given the Ecoboost V6 it would be no worse than a V8 Commodore,
a V8 diesel would be that much better, even the 2.7 V6 diesel would do in a pinch...

Maybe FoA could get the job of co-developing an extendable platform for expedition off territory. Could make terri heavier though.

And be careful there jpd. I don't think that the V6 going into a much heavier leather laden vehicle will miraculously produce the same figures of a lighter one.

jpd80 · 01-05-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Maybe FoA could get the job of co-developing an extendable platform for expedition off territory. Could make terri heavier though.

And be careful there jpd. I don't think that the V6 going into a much heavier leather laden vehicle will miraculously produce the same figures of a lighter one.

No intention of that, but the Expedition is around the same weight as the Land Rover Discovery
and the fuel economy for that vehicle is known......

Buntz · 01-05-2011, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

No intention of that, but the Expedition is around the same weight as the Land Rover Discovery
and the fuel economy for that vehicle is known......

Not with the EcoBoost V6 it's not.

jpd80 · 01-05-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Not with the EcoBoost V6 it's not.

Ah, I lost you when I crossed over references.

Right, the fuel economy of 2.7 V6 TCDI Discovery is known....
that's what I'm on about, the Disco is 2.7 tonnes - around 6,000 lbs
which is very similar to the weight of the Expedition.

Therefore, the fuel economy and performance of a 2.7 Disco
would be similar to an Expedition fitted with the same V6 diesel..

Do you follow now?

Buntz · 01-05-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Ah, I lost you when I crossed over references.

Right, the fuel economy of 2.7 V6 TCDI Discovery is known....
that's what I'm on about, the Disco is 2.7 tonnes - around 6,000 lbs
which is very similar to the weight of the Expedition.

Therefore, the fuel economy and performance of a 2.7 Disco
would be similar to an Expedition fitted with the same V6 diesel..

Do you follow now?

Yes I was before. But I'm being very specific here. In saying that one can't expect the same fuel economy figures of the F150 3.5EB, if the Expedition were fitted with the 3.5EB

FPV GTHO · 02-05-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

So is it a given that this car will have the same engines as the Ranger, or maybe something a bit "better" (like say the Duratec 35?)

I dont see why they wouldnt be identical mechanically. Why would it need something over the pickup variant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

How awesome would it be if the I6 became the standard six for the APA region?

I dont see the point. Its too long now, in the future a short engine will only be even more important with more stringent vehicle and pedestrian crash test regulations dictating front bodywork.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Maybe FoA could get the job of co-developing an extendable platform for expedition off territory. Could make terri heavier though.

Again, i dont see the point. Expedition is Fords last fullsize proper SUV. Why change that after all the effort put into changing Explorer? Expedition is developed off F150 anyway.

Road_Warrior · 02-05-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I dont see why they wouldnt be identical mechanically. Why would it need something over the pickup variant?

Because its a completely different market segment and what may appeal to Ranger buyers may not appeal to Mum & Dad SUV buyers.

In fact, I can see the 3.2TDCi and Duratec 35 being standard engines for this car - in the Australian market anyway. For markets in Asia it may stick with the 2.2TDCi and 2.5 petrol, I can't see the bigger diesel and petrol motors going well in Asia.

FPV GTHO · 02-05-2011, 12:25 AM

Theres too much effort to put one drivetrain into just one variant. If theyre going to do it, the whole pickup and SUV range would get it i'd imagine.

Road_Warrior · 02-05-2011, 12:35 AM

Not really, there are three plants that have been tasked with T6 production, and they could pick and choose which one based on its ability to accommodate the different package. It may be that only one of those three produces the SUV and the production line is tailored to suit it.

Production line complexity wouldn't be that bad as the engines will be crate engines that get fed into sequence on the production line as per the just-in-time mantra. Ford Australia do it now with I6, I6T, V8, now with the Territory's diesel and at the end of the year the Ecoboost for the Falcon so the ability is definitely there to be a bit flexible with powertrains.

FPV GTHO · 02-05-2011, 12:49 AM

I think development would be the bigger hurdle. Currently theres only inline engines confirmed for T6 as a start, who knows what changes a V engine would bring. It also seems SUV development is every bit a sideshow to pickup development based on the priority given

Road_Warrior · 02-05-2011, 11:33 AM

There's no doubt that the SUV is a spinoff of the original brief, but a hardly surprising spinoff given Derrick Kuzak's most recent comments to the press. Toyota should be worried about this car, and it's pickup cousins.

As for development for a V6 - I don't know. The vehicle is certainly larger than its predecessor which suggests that the acreage under the bonnet would be able to accommodate the D35, and being an all alloy motor it shouldn't upset the handling balance of the vehicle over say the 3.2 I5 diesel. Passing the requisite emissions regulations could be an issue though as it will be in a far heavier vehicle than the passenger cars it is fitted to however.

Buntz · 02-05-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Not really, there are three plants that have been tasked with T6 production, and they could pick and choose which one based on its ability to accommodate the different package. It may be that only one of those three produces the SUV and the production line is tailored to suit it.

Production line complexity wouldn't be that bad as the engines will be crate engines that get fed into sequence on the production line as per the just-in-time mantra. Ford Australia do it now with I6, I6T, V8, now with the Territory's diesel and at the end of the year the Ecoboost for the Falcon so the ability is definitely there to be a bit flexible with powertrains.

The 2.5L Duratec is LPG capable. So I wouldn't mind seeing a 4cyl EcoLPi for Falcon... perhaps even with forced induction. Hell, put it ranger too, it'd be a hit with tradies.

Buntz · 02-05-2011, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I dont see why they wouldnt be identical mechanically. Why would it need something over the pickup variant?

I dont see the point. Its too long now, in the future a short engine will only be even more important with more stringent vehicle and pedestrian crash test regulations dictating front bodywork.

Again, i dont see the point. Expedition is Fords last fullsize proper SUV. Why change that after all the effort put into changing Explorer? Expedition is developed off F150 anyway.

Just my hypothetical thinking out loud.

Buntz · 02-05-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I think development would be the bigger hurdle. Currently theres only inline engines confirmed for T6 as a start, who knows what changes a V engine would bring. It also seems SUV development is every bit a sideshow to pickup development based on the priority given

It has a longer bonnet than Territory. So it may be able to fit the I6 no worries. That would keep the Aussie engine plant going... and we'd have the export in the form of the engine. But then Ford would have to be committed to the engine over the long haul, and Falcon, Territory, and Ranger for that matter.

But this is just fantasy talk... or is it? Money is the end the result, how much would it cost to ship the V6 from the Americas to APA... and which factories get it and assemble it? And where would they distribute it from there? And how would that cost. Whereas there is an engine here til 2015 at least, which could serve in the ranger.

FPV GTHO · 02-05-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There's no doubt that the SUV is a spinoff of the original brief, but a hardly surprising spinoff given Derrick Kuzak's most recent comments to the press. Toyota should be worried about this car, and it's pickup cousins.

As for development for a V6 - I don't know. The vehicle is certainly larger than its predecessor which suggests that the acreage under the bonnet would be able to accommodate the D35, and being an all alloy motor it shouldn't upset the handling balance of the vehicle over say the 3.2 I5 diesel. Passing the requisite emissions regulations could be an issue though as it will be in a far heavier vehicle than the passenger cars it is fitted to however.

Arguably the I5 diesel would not only be heavier but also taller and longer, so a V6 should fit. I still just think if it goes into SUV it'll be because it'll go into pickup first, thats all. I cant see any precedent with other manufacturers such as Pathfinder or Fortuner putting different engines into the SUV either.

jpd80 · 02-05-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Yes I was before. But I'm being very specific here. In saying that one can't expect the same fuel economy figures of the F150 3.5EB, if the Expedition were fitted with the 3.5EB

Why not Expedition is closely related to F150 and both around the 5,500 to 6,000 lb mark..

maybe you're thinking of the Huge Excursion that was built a few years back, that was a monster....

Buntz · 02-05-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Why not Expedition is closely related to F150 and both around the 5,500 to 6,000 lb mark..

maybe you're thinking of the Huge Excursion that was built a few years back, that was a monster....

Well I can't find any weight figures for either on the Ford website... but with all the extra Expedition comes with... it's bound to have at least a couple hundred more pounds.

As for the Excursion. Good riddance to that enormous monstrosity. And the E series van too hopefully

Bossxr8 · 02-05-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

It has a longer bonnet than Territory. So it may be able to fit the I6 no worries. That would keep the Aussie engine plant going... and we'd have the export in the form of the engine. But then Ford would have to be committed to the engine over the long haul, and Falcon, Territory, and Ranger for that matter.

But this is just fantasy talk... or is it? Money is the end the result, how much would it cost to ship the V6 from the Americas to APA... and which factories get it and assemble it? And where would they distribute it from there? And how would that cost. Whereas there is an engine here til 2015 at least, which could serve in the ranger.

Last week Ford (in the facelifted Taurus article) were talking not only global platforms, but also global engines. Its pretty clear Ford want the V6 to replace the I6, its an orphan engine being built in tiny numbers, that could easily be replaced by the V6. Its a matter of not if, but when. Why build 2 6 cylinders at 2 different plants when you can just use the one built at the one plant. Ohio has the potential capacity to build 1 million V6's a year, thats massive.

jpd80 · 02-05-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

Well I can't find any weight figures for either on the Ford website... but with all the extra Expedition comes with... it's bound to have at least a couple hundred more pounds.

It is slightly heavier and I concede than the economy might change ever so slightly
but the Ecoboost also gives it way more power trhan the diesel does, swings and roundabouts...

If you ever want to know obscure stuff, use this link as a start, they have good info on lots of vehicles.

URL="http://autos.yahoo.com/ford/

XLT Trim for all 2011 models:

Expedition 4x2 = 5515 lbs
Expedition 4x4 = 5847 lbs

F150 4x2 dual cab 157" wheelbase = 5378 lbs
F150 4x4 dual cab 157" wheelbase = 5716 lbs

Those are the common sized that a lot of those vehicles come in, there barely 100 lbs difference.

Road_Warrior · 02-05-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Last week Ford (in the facelifted Taurus article) were talking not only global platforms, but also global engines. Its pretty clear Ford want the V6 to replace the I6, its an orphan engine being built in tiny numbers, that could easily be replaced by the V6. Its a matter of not if, but when. Why build 2 6 cylinders at 2 different plants when you can just use the one built at the one plant. Ohio has the potential capacity to build 1 million V6's a year, thats massive.

The other thing is, with such limited numbers and fitment options, the I6 has no hope of having things implemented to it that the Duratec motors have or will get (like DI, cylinder shutdown etc). If a global motor brings those things to Falcon buyers then that can only be a good thing. Maybe that Gorman guy wasn't such a clown after all...

jpd80 · 02-05-2011, 09:20 PM

Maybe Burela looked at the cost of stopping I-6 part way through E8 product cycle
and found that the cost of doing a slight upgrade to Euro 4 more than outweighed
doing anything radical at the moment, especially if the changes could be done later
when he's not CEO anymore.....

why do something today when you can avoid spending cash and do it much later on....

Falcon momentum 101:
It costs more to change to things that seem like they save you money,
it's just cheaper in the long run to stick to the plan and keep evolving...

Bossxr8 · 02-05-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpd80

Maybe Burela looked at the cost of stopping I-6 part way through E8 product cycle
and found that the cost of doing a slight upgrade to Euro 4 more than outweighed
doing anything radical at the moment, especially if the changes could be done later

Thats exactly what happened. Crash testing of the FG V6 alone was rumoured to be in excess of $20 million to make it pass. Would have been a lot of engineering and design work and a lot of crash tests to make sure it was crumpling the way it should.

Just easier to fit the V6 when you have a clean sheet to work from, so you're designing it to fit from the start and not taking what you already have and modifying it to work. Its like doing everything twice.

**Luke Plaizier** · 02-05-2011, 11:35 PM

It makes you wonder why computer modelling isn't enough to satisfy crash testing these days. The first Space Shuttle, Columbia, carried two men into Space in 1981 with nothing more than computer modelling - no unmanned tests or anything. Not the smartest thing I've ever seen I'll be honest. But it worked. Back even further in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo days of the 1960's the rockets had to fly at least twice unmanned before they put live humans on board.

But that Space Shuttle flight was 30 years ago. Surely the computer modelling is even better these days. My Quad Core Sandy Bridge i5 in combination with a GTX-460 would in total have to have more processing power than a shuttle Super Computer of the late 1970's.

Maybe the 20mill is what it costs for that one guy with enough of a clue to program that model into the system and know how to run the tests.....

Lukeyson

Road_Warrior · 03-05-2011, 10:20 AM

All the computer modelling in the world is no substitute for real world testing. Cars are nowhere near as well designed and engineered as a Space Shuttle so everything is not going to be conclusive through computer simulations.

Oh and don't forget they did manned glide tests with the Shuttle Enterprise before the first Shuttle launch :P

chevypower · 03-05-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buntz93ED

As for the Excursion. Good riddance to that enormous monstrosity. And the E series van too hopefully

A guy at work has one, he loves it. Personally, I don't see the point in needing an 8 seater heavy duty truck, but I can see the appeal.
E-series van will probably remain a motorhome only chassis. I think they make good shuttle busses though, so it would be sad to see them go. Every hotel near an airport uses them, and they are comfortable to ride in. I think they could revise the Transit lineup later, and include the E-150, with a 4.4L diesel, but I doubt they will do it. I would have 3 Transit platforms. Connect, standard, and E-150.
As for Expedition. I have honestly never been in a car with a smoother ride, than the Expedition EL. I drove it, and it was an absolute pleasure to drive. I have driven and been in a lot of cars too.

aquahead2001 · 03-05-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

E-series van will probably remain a motorhome only chassis. I think they make good shuttle busses though, so it would be sad to see them go. Every hotel near an airport uses them, and they are comfortable to ride in.

Done a trip from Buffalo AP to a transit hotel in an E-series shuttle bus in early feb last year. Must have been 5 below freezing that cold winter's night and nothing felt better than climbing aboard that big Ford bus and thrawing out with the most impressive cabin heater I've ever experienced! I reckon a Transit van would need a second engine to drive the heater fitted the th E-Series it was so powerful!!!!

Bossxr8 · 04-05-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

It makes you wonder why computer modelling isn't enough to satisfy crash testing these days. The first Space Shuttle, Columbia, carried two men into Space in 1981 with nothing more than computer modelling - no unmanned tests or anything. Not the smartest thing I've ever seen I'll be honest. But it worked. Back even further in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo days of the 1960's the rockets had to fly at least twice unmanned before they put live humans on board.

But that Space Shuttle flight was 30 years ago. Surely the computer modelling is even better these days. My Quad Core Sandy Bridge i5 in combination with a GTX-460 would in total have to have more processing power than a shuttle Super Computer of the late 1970's.

Maybe the 20mill is what it costs for that one guy with enough of a clue to program that model into the system and know how to run the tests.....

Lukeyson

Computer simulations are used to a high degree initially, but the concept has to be proven. Imagine the backlash if they never did any crash tests and the car turned out to be a death trap when it was ANCAP tested or in real world crashes.

Buntz · 05-05-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Last week Ford (in the facelifted Taurus article) were talking not only global platforms, but also global engines. Its pretty clear Ford want the V6 to replace the I6, its an orphan engine being built in tiny numbers, that could easily be replaced by the V6. Its a matter of not if, but when. Why build 2 6 cylinders at 2 different plants when you can just use the one built at the one plant. Ohio has the potential capacity to build 1 million V6's a year, thats massive.

Yeah.. just hopeless fantasizing on my part.

munners · 05-05-2011, 06:16 PM

What is it that makes the I6 such a good engine? Or at least, why is it held in such high regard? When you look at the specs it seems ok but nothing super advanced or technical like say the EB in its various guises? And further, why is it not possible to build the V6 engine here should FoA decide to drop the I6?

Munners