Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Where Is Ford taking the Lincoln Motor Company?

17071737576144

Comments

  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    As BR said, the Turbo 6 doesn't even exist.
    Frankly, who knows if it really ever will.
    The V8 DOES exist,and could be dropped into the car today.

    Think about this logically for a second.
    Ford hasn't spent any real money on Lincoln,why would they give Lincoln such a turbo engine?
    Where does that even begin to make sense?
    The V8 costs Lincoln zero for development,it already exists,and it was made for a car like the MKS.
    It is a cheap solution that would make the MKS competitive.
    The Turbo 6 would cost alot to develop,would cost more to manufacture than the V8 would,and Lincoln would have to bear 100% of the cost for both.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Have a question.

    You stated the platform wouldn't support a hi-power V8; but then ask the question of which would you rather have, a 315hp V8 or 380+ hp Twin Turbo V6. In that case, wouldn't the TT V6, at 380+, be a hi-power unit? And if the car platform couldn't handle a hi-power unit (v8), how could it handle a higher-powered V6 that would weigh just as much if not more than the V8 (as was earlier stated) due to the turbos, intake / exhaust plumbing, intercooler(s)?

    Another question:

    Was it stated that the TT V6 would have 380+ in the MKS, or that the engine is capable of making 380+ hp? There is a difference.

    Can you please clarify, thank you.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    As BR said, the Turbo 6 doesn't even exist.

    And the MKS itself won't exist until next summer, so what's your point?

    The V8 costs Lincoln zero for development,it already exists,and it was made for a car like the MKS.
    It is a cheap solution that would make the MKS competitive.
    The Turbo 6 would cost alot to develop,would cost more to manufacture than the V8 would,and Lincoln would have to bear 100% of the cost for both.


    It's not "Lincoln" doing this - it's FORD. That 4.4L Yamaha V8 is much more expensive than the 3.5L TwinForce. Ford will be producing in excess of 500,000 3.5L engines which is the basis for the 3.5L TwinForce with huge economies of scale. There is no way it's more expensive than buying an imported V8 off the shelf from Yamaha. Ford is also planning to use that engine in many other applications including RWD vehicles.

    Forget about the number of cylinders and look at the performance numbers (whenever they're available).
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    And the MKS itself won't exist until next summer, so what's your point?

    Well, the MKS does exist.
    Just because retail production hasn't started yet doesn't diminish this fact.

    It's not "Lincoln" doing this - it's FORD. That 4.4L Yamaha V8 is much more expensive than the 3.5L TwinForce. Ford will be producing in excess of 500,000 3.5L engines which is the basis for the 3.5L TwinForce with huge economies of scale. There is no way it's more expensive than buying an imported V8 off the shelf from Yamaha. Ford is also planning to use that engine in many other applications including RWD vehicles.

    do you have ANY idea how much engineering goes into t turbo car?
    If Ford thinks that the stock 3.5 V6 is going to work as a high powered turbo car,they have another think coming(and alot of blown engines)
    AT BEST, they can use the block. even the,they SHOULD increase the water jacket.
    However,the heads, pistons,crank,valves and valve train, not to mention the intake,exhaust,turbo's,intercooler,ecu will all be unique.
    THAT is where the cost is.
    Next, you have the issue of HOW to get that power to the ground. 380 hp is alot for a transaxle to deal with,so you will probably have to design a new one. More cost.
    Next,what Ford product would the turbo engine go in?
    Taurus? Not likely
    Mustang?
    No, the 5.4V8 is a better,cheaper alternative.
    Lincoln would have to do what Caddy did,and keep the engine unique. just like Caddy did w/ the NorthStar.
    The Yamaha V8 is already in series production. Building more would just lower the unit cost for everybody.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    Not sure exactly what I said but what I meant was the 4.4L V8 was the only V8 that would fit. The 300 hp 4.6L Modular V8 won't fit - if it did then Volvo would be using it. Remember we're talking about a transverse engine.

    The TwinForce 3.5L in the concept MKR made 415hp and 400 lb ft and was E85 capable. It also uses direct injection. Ford has not announced the estimated power of the MKS TwinForce 3.5L but I think 380 is certainly feasible when distributed to all 4 wheels with AWD. The tranny might be the weak link but we'll have to wait and see.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    The 3.5L was designed with turbocharging and direct injection in mind. TwinForce technology will also be applied to a new 2.5L I4 in the Fusion, a 5.0L V8 for the Mustang and the new 6.2L Boss for large trucks and SUVs.

    This isn't some one-off project. Ford says you'll get V8 power with 15% better fuel economy.

    http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/07/2009_lincoln_mks_sedan_will_de.html

    http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=25149
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    It isn't about design,its about components.
    for example, the Volvo I5 was designed with turbocharging in mind.
    HOWEVER, the S60R engine is almost entirely different from the regular 2.5 turbo engine.
    the engine internals,turbo,intercooler etc are all beefed up to handle the extra hp.
    You can't just take a stock 3.5L V6 and poof,get 400hp.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    You can't just take a stock 3.5L V6 and poof,get 400hp.

    Ford has been working on this engine for quite some time. Test mule F150s have been using it on the streets for over a year. It's not like they came up with the idea yesterday.

    Ford even said the 4.4L V8 was about $2K more than the Twin Turbo 3.5L. I don't know why you don't believe that.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    I don't think Volvo would use the 4.6L even if it did; remember, there needs to be some differentiation. Has the transaxle would be the weak length and I would hope that if they decide to do it they would beef that up. But I don't think the 380 / 415 hp version, if there is one, would make. Again, concept. I think it's a capable versus actual thing. Not doubting that in concept it was capable of making 415 with hardware / components, programming that the production version won't see. That's good, but lets see what the production tune will be. I mean, it's constantly listed in article after article after article that an engine produced high hp & torque in "concept version" but then the production version is quite different.

    But in any event I hope your right in your thinking that Lincoln is starting to come out the cave.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    Never believe anything Ford says about the cost of anything.
    Trust me on that.
  • The primary advantage of the Yamaha 4.4 engine, as I understand it, is that it is a 60 degree layout so it is narrower than a traditional 90 degree V8. Volvo wanted a narrow engine for crash worthiness - more room for a front crumple zone. That was also a major reason for the inline 6 rather than a V6.

    The problem with a 60 degree V8 is firing imbalance. I believe they use a balance shaft to quell the natural vibration caused by this layout but I could be wrong about that. In any case, I have heard mixed messages about this engine. In a C & D test, it was referred to as "thrashy." Other publications have been more positive but I don't see any other manufacturers building 60 degree V8s. I haven't driven a Volvo with that engine so I have no first hand experience with it's power or refinement.

    As Akirby has said, cost was the big factor in not using it in the MKS. By using the high volume V6, made in North America, they obtain the power at a much lower cost. Considering the naturally aspirated 3.5 makes 265 HP in production tune, it isn't much of a stretch to assume the 380 with twin turbos and direct injection. My only question is what do they use for a transaxle. I know the Ford/GM joint venture unit was not designed for that kind of power.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    Never believe anything Ford says about the cost of anything.
    Trust me on that.


    Why should we trust you? Why would Ford lie about that? They could have easily used the 4.4L V8 if they wanted to. What reason would they have to use something else other than cost?
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    as the next guy, but 380-400 is almost more than anyone needs...since almost any car will fly with 300 HP (and, I assume, corresponding torque) Ford will not gain sufficient sales to be profitable if the put 400 HP engines in a few select cars...they may get some high perf PR out of it, but the massive middle which buys most cars could care less about 400 HP...I think that would be a mistake...

    Ford needs volume sales, not a few race cars to a few speedsters...dropping 275-300 HP in most of their lineup (like my Crown Vic) would be more than what 95% of their buyers need or want...
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    But they still need to offer high performance versions as halo cars and to garner respect in the marketplace. Every other competitor has a high performance version or two of their 275-300 hp luxury models. Of coursem Lincoln needs to get in that league first! (238 hp for the Town Car may be entirely adequate, but it is no longer competitive).
  • I hear what you are saying but as buyers move into the $40,000 range and higher, it is not so much what we need but more about what we want.

    Even with the TwinForce, the MKS will not directly compete with low-volume ultra high performance sport sedans like the CTS-V. I see the TwinForce as more comparable to other luxury car V8's - like the Lexus GS series, Northstar Cadillacs, or Infinity "M" series. All of those offer V6 versions, of course, but if Lincoln just tries to compete with their low-end engine offerings, I think they would be criticized. I think it is a good plan to be a bit different than just sticking a big V8 in MKS. Remember one of the goals was V8 performance with V6 fuel economy. Time will tell if that is true.

    For me, fairly strong performance is essential in the luxury car class. I know I want more performance than my old V8 LS but I don't want an all-out high performance car with a stiff suspension, and harsh ultra low profile tires. I would expect an MKS with the naturally aspirated 3.7 and direct injection should be capable of 0-60 in the mid six second range. That is about a second quicker than my LS and the MKS is larger, heavier, and more luxury oriented.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,328
    The 239 hp in your CV is fine for level driving, however, for us who navigate the Cascade and Rocky mountain ranges, we could use an optional engine of 300 or more h.p.

    The 1980 Lincoln Continental (Town Car) offered two engines.
    351 c.i. and 302 c.i. Our 351 made a significant difference compared to the 302 we had later. :)
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    The 239 hp in your CV is fine for level driving

    239? :surprise: All the work that Ford has done on V8 Mustangs over the years and none of that ever made it into the Crown Lick or the Frown Car?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,415
    That surprises you, when they have done almost nothing of any sort to keep these cars up to date?
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    I don't drive the mountains and I feel the need for more than 239 HP, which is why I think that they can throw in a tweaked 4.6L around 300 HP and the car would fly...380-400 HP would truly be overkill, halo or not...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    Actually it's 224 hp. But it does have 275 lb/ft of torque @4000 rpm.

    But gregg makes a good point - why put a new drivetrain in a 30 yr old platform?

    The new RWD unibody platform is on the way from down under - in about 3 years.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    if you have the dual exhaust and performance (HA!) package, it is 239 HP...I do not remember what the tork is, but part of my failing memorory places the number quite near the HP rating...
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,690
    I don't see the HA package listed as an option right now.
    The CV is now fleet only.
  • The 07's had 239 HP and 287 lbs-ft of torque at 4100. It is too late now but if they had used the 3 valve 292 HP engine a couple of years ago, and spruced up the interior a bit, they would likely have seen a spike in retail sales. I might have bought one myself while waiting for something more entertaining to come along.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Posts: 5,274
    As Akirby has said, cost was the big factor in not using it in the MKS. By using the high volume V6, made in North America, they obtain the power at a much lower cost. Considering the naturally aspirated 3.5 makes 265 HP in production tune, it isn't much of a stretch to assume the 380 with twin turbos and direct injection. My only question is what do they use for a transaxle. I know the Ford/GM joint venture unit was not designed for that kind of power.

    With 380 hp,the only component they can use from the regular V6, is the engine block.
    All the other components have to be re-inforced,or made especially for the engine.
    going from 265hp to 380 hp increases the engine stress exponentially.
    Then,there is the transaxle issue.
    Now, if they are dumb enough to use the stock internals,to save cost,those engines will blow up with more regularity than the old GM diesels.

    The other advantage of the Yamaha engine is that it is available in the here and now.
    The MKS can be launched with a proper engine for the class.
    You can maximize the appeal right out of the chute.
    Later,if and when the Turbo 6 becomes real, you can upgrade.
  • Owning recent models of both cars, I like them both, the DTS has 275 HWP. and as most all of you know the T.C. 239.
    The T.C. does very well given those less impressive stats.
    My only disappointment is that there is an annoying hesitation
    in the T.C. when the accelerator is quickly floored whereas the DTS gives an almost instant response. Oddly enough my 2006 DTS replaced a 2004 Deville that had 8 lbs more torque than the DTS. The DTS is however much faster in acceleration than was the 2004 Deville, suspect this difference is in the gear ratios for the two models. The speed limits where I live are mostly 55 MPH and in a few instances 60 MPH so it isn't that great an issue for me. Both cars accelerate quickly from a stop position. While I would like a more immediate power response from my T.C. I enjoy the car just as much as the DTS and it's always a good experience to take either one out. I generally alternate cars, one day DTS the next day T.C. Surprisingly I value performance a lot and considered a Chrysler 300C before I bought the DTS. But the value package in both T.C. and DTS
    outweighed the power of the 300C.
  • No doubt there is more to the twin turbo than just slapping on a couple of turbos. I haven't read specifically what internal changes there are but I have no doubt that proper beefing up has been done. Ford engines do not have a history of blowing up. They are sometimes late to the party with engine tech but the final product is always good.

    Even back in the 80s, when they turbocharged the Pinto 4 cylinder and put it in T-birds and SVO Mustangs, the engines were bullet proof even though they had humble beginnings. Same thing when they supercharged the 3.8 V6 for the T-Bird Super Coupe. Internal components were beefed up and those supercharged engines were far superior to the naturally aspirated versions. I still have confidence that Ford knows how to build engines that last. Actually, the only problematic V8 Ford ever offered was the V8 SHO and Yamaha had a big hand in that one.

    Shortly after the MKS concept was introduced, Ford had a survey on their website asking if customers would prefer the 4.4 V8 or a 350 HP twin turbo V6. Has anyone ever heard the results of that survey?
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    Sorry, I forget to tell you that my CV LX Sport was a 2004 model...
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Understand the harmonics, width and V-angle very well but thank you. As stated, Volvo wouldn't have used the 4.6L even if they could. Also keep in mind Volvo was part of now-defunct PAG, so the 4.6L was not going to make it. 60-degree is good for V6, not for an V8, just as 90 V6 needs a balance shaft for NVH, something much wanted / needed on premium product.

    In terms of the turbos it depends on how they're used. Do they run in sequential / series, where a small one helps with the initial start-off and the larger one kicks in at upper rpm levels. Or will they be used one per bank. Other things to consider are intercooler location, usage and type; exhaust; plumbing;, amount of boost; peakiness - is there a smooth power transition throughout the range or will there be big spike(s) in the power band. There's a little more to it than just putting on a couple turbos to get good, reliable gains.

    I too wonder about the transaxle; as you stated the GM/FOMOCO transaxle, unless it has extra capacity built in, won't be able to handle large power loads for long.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Anyone remember the Marauder from a few years back? 305 rated hp from what was essentially the first SN-95/Fox+4 Mustang Cobra motor, which was the Mark VIII InTech. I have to remember as I see two everyday at work.
  • PAG isn't defunct yet and Volvo is still owned by Ford with no definite sale announced.

    Ford used the 4.6 liter V8 in the Lincoln Continental for several years and that was a transverse mount FWD car.
Sign In or Register to comment.