New alloy inline 6 220kw/460Nm

[Lumpen]

Isn't 7200rpm rather high for a factory engine that's so square?

But its not exactly square is it Steve? I mean, it may be NEAR square and all but if you look closely it is actually undersquare

Heh, you just KNEW some smartarse would, didnt ya :lol: Just shouldn't have put the thought in my head! Sorry

[eatV8]

Isn't 7200rpm rather high for a factory engine that's so square?

But its not exactly square is it Steve? I mean, it may be NEAR square and all but if you look closely it is actually undersquare

Heh, you just KNEW some smartarse would, didnt ya :lol:

Thanks Lumpy, never telling you my secrets anymore :lol:

[Venom XR6]

This is total crap. The Falcon straight 6 is unique in the Ford world, so why would someone else do the development on it. The 2007 Falcon engine is still being discussed and no one knows what will be done to it as yet, its totally in the planning stages.

[Phido]

While the rest of the engine doesn't sound too crazy.

Electronic valve actuation does. I doubt that Ford will debute it on the falcon first and have it completely production ready by the all new falcon.

I can certainly see the I6 continuing life, as a alloy block, with higher specific power and torque, with a higher redline, and several new technologies. However electronic valve actuation is years off, as far as I know no one has demonstated a working engine that operates over the full rev range of a petrol engine and is reliable enough. Peak power is beliveable, peak torque isn't, that sounds a bit high 115Nm a litre.

I can see a improved barra I6 engine with a 6800 redline, 220Kw of power at say 6500 rpm, 400Nm of torque, and possibly a alloy block. Engine development costs could be spread out by Chinese manufacturing of the Territory and LWB models and US production of the Falcon and LWB.

V6 is a possibility, but ford really doesn't have any V6's that suit the falcon at the moment. I don't know of any in development that would be markably better than the I6. The duratec lumps are too small and not torquey enough and still lag in outright torque and power. the OHV V6 as used in the mustang is weaker than a E series I6. It would need to be a new, large DOHC, ~4L, Quad VCT V6, and be low cost and can be produced locally. Which means big dollar investments.

[Macktheknife]

But its not exactly square is it Steve? I mean, it may be NEAR square and all but if you look closely it is actually undersquare

Now this brings up an argument that I just cant walk away from so here am boots and all.

When did the definition of undersquare and oversquare change?

Since reading my first automotive magazine more than 40 yers ago (Yes Claude, he said 40) the definition has followed along a logical course. IE:

Bore and stroke the same = Square.

Stroke greater than bore = Oversquare.

Bore greater than stroke = Undersquare.

Its only been in the last few years that I have noticed some motoring scribes refering to the layout incorrectly (I say)

Henceforth, (whilst not intending a thread hijack) I hereby demand that my interpretation of engine layout be stricly adhered to by all and sundry.

*Smarties..?....Where are my smarties...?*

Oh....and not directed personally at you my friend brengun....

[Turbo6man]

Sorry Mack but you have it around the wrong way. Here's the history lesson.

Once upon a time a long time ago all engines had a long stroke and small bore. IE the bore dimension was smaller than the length of the stroke. These early engines were made that way because engine technology was in it's infancy, having evolved from steam driven engines, and were slow revving. Something in the order of 300rpm was the limit. So they had to have a very long stroke in order to produce enough torque to do work (develop horsepower).

As engine technology advanced and higher rpm were achieved it became a natural progression to decrease the stroke while increasing the bore and therefore reduce the size of the engine which up until now were monstrously large things.

When the bore and stroke dimensions eventually became close to equal the engine was referred to as being "square". Then as the bore became even greater than the stroke they became "oversquare". Up until "oversquare" engines were developed the term "undersquare" was actually never used for the simple reason that it was never thought of in that way previously if you can follow my drift.

Cheers,

Teacher Jeff.