The DL on Ford’s lack of DI

The DL on Ford’s lack of DI
By Drew Johnson - Posted January 15th 2010

Ford’s latest V6 and V8 engines stand out for their good performance and even better fuel economy, but the new mills also stand out due to their glaring lack of direct-injection. DI is quickly becoming the industry standard but, as Ford found out during development, the latest technology isn’t always the best.
We’ve been lead to believe that direct-injection is better for fuel economy in all instances, but this purported fact doesn’t hold true for all applications. “When the program started, it [the new Duratec in the Mustang] was a direct-injection engine,” Greg T. Johnson, a powertrain integration manager whose responsibilities include both engines, told The Car Connection.

But after a number of tests, Johnson’s team realized they could better manipulate intake air temperatures – thereby increasing power and fuel economy – by omitting the DI technology.
Johnson admits the test engines with direct-injection helped with knock, but the technology didn’t make a marked improvement in overall performance – especially when the overall cost was entered into the equation. “Yeah, it helped us a little bit with knock, but it wasn’t that much for all the cost,” he said.
The results seem to speak for themselves. Ford’s new 3.7L V6 engine develops 305 horsepower, besting General Motors’ highest output 3.6L DI V6 by 1 horsepower. Ford’s V6 also clips GM’s by 1mpg highway. Ford’s latest 5.0L V8 performs comparatively as well, developing a healthy 412 horsepower and returning 25mpg.
Although adding direct-injection to the engine range would seem like the next logical step in the coming years, Johnson says there are no such plans in the works.
72 COMMENTS
1. Borat195 days ago
  0 0
  
  That’s may explain why we don’t see DI from Nissan, Honda or Toyota. I assume, that DI is great in combination with turbo charging, at least based on VW experience.
  
  Reply
2. liberalsrinsane195 days ago
  0 0
  
  I thought DI stood for Dick Insertion. (mature, I know)
  
  Reply
3. Smegley Wanxalot195 days ago
  0 0
  
  The DL on DI from DJ?
  
  .
  
  Does DL = LowDown?
  
  Reply
4. ajm11195 days ago
  0 0
  
  I will trust the mpg claims that Ford has when I see them. Very few cars ever come close to what they are rated at. Out of all the cars I have owned the one that got the closest to what it was rated at was a Chev Impala that would get repeatedly within 1 Canadian mile per gallon off what it was rated at. All other cars have been much worse than the window sticker.
  
  Reply
5. Darren Donnellan195 days ago
  0 0
  
  So the only DI engines Ford use’s are for the ecoboost?
  
  Reply
6. Borat195 days ago
  0 0
  
  ajm11, Impala actually outperformed itself in my experience. I rented it as often as I could when I was road warrior and it was consistently getting close to 29-30 mpg on a highway even in snow.
  
  Most of cars I owned actually were very close to the posted mpg. Cars with manual transmission are usually have 10-20% better mileage then advertised sticker. The saving grace here that all cars are tested about equal, so they all either under performers or overachievers to the same degree.
  
  Reply
7. Architect195 days ago
  0 0
  
  Seems like Ford has experienced the old adage “The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.”
  
  Reply
8. JakeK66195 days ago
  0 0
  
  My pops had a Mercury Montego a couple years back and it actually beat the sticker’s 24 MPG Hwy by at least 3 mpg in mixed driving with the 3.0L Duratec and 6 speed auto combo. Most Fords I’ve experienced do match, if not continually best the posted MPGs. My 07 VW GTI did so too with it’s turbo 4 averaging 30 mpg over about 30,000 miles.
  
  Reply
9. sprockkets195 days ago
  0 0
  
  DI is nothing new, been around since 1955 and even as far as 1925. Back then even Ford tried it in 70s but wasn’t cost effective back then.
  
  Reply
10. 928dreamer195 days ago
  0 0
  
  I would imagine the fuel pump you would need to do DI in a high output V8 would have to be a monster. As is they use very heavy duty fuel pumps on the turbo 4s. Fuel has to be injected at around 20,000 psi.
  
  The fuel delivery in the larger system may have been cost prohibitive. The true benefit probably doesn’t come until you force feed the engine. And really, for a standard production ford, they are not going to develop an engine rated at the 800 HP that would produce.
  
  Reply
11. 928dreamer195 days ago
  0 0
  
  By the way, the road tests I have read of the Fusion seem to indicate that the posted MPG figures reflect real life to about a tenth of a mpg.
  
  Reply
12. idrinorbarsaku195 days ago
  0 0
  
  So, as I read this, I pretty much understand DI as being just a cheap gimmick to increase the price of an engine that is perceived to be greatly tuned! I would take the new 3.7 given the chance!
  
  Reply
13. sprockkets195 days ago
  0 0
  
  let’s just put it this way, KISS. Keep it simple stupid. The more tech you put in an engine, the more efficient/less emissions it puts out, but always at a cost.
  
  I bet that pump costs around $500 or more to replace. That electro hydraulic steering pump I have on the Mazda3 is around $800 the last time I checked.
  
  Reply
14. howsmydriving195 days ago
  0 0
  
  I would be very, very skeptical of Ford’s claims. Automakers are very good at rationalizing their failures to implement the latest technologies. Ford in particular is less than ingenuous with its public statements (e.g., Ford’s claim that new Fiesta is a “global” car, when in actuality the car has only 60% components shared with Euro models).
  
  Reply
15. olds307195 days ago
  0 0
  
  my favorite EFI tech is TBI. Simple, works good, smoothness of a carb and efficiency of efi.
  
  Reply
16. neptronix195 days ago
  0 0
  
  howsmydriving, not true. The v6′s have a 10.5:1 compression ratio, yet they run on 87 octane, whereas most engines at that compression require 89 or 91 octane. I’m not sure how they’re achieving this, but that’s along the lines of how direct injected motors are.
  
  Reply
17. AFSOCSARGE195 days ago
  0 0
  
  So the Ford Engine is Less Sophisticated that the Chevy The Case Is Closed on this one
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
18. 441Zuke195 days ago
  0 0
  
  @ Sarge
  …. What?
  
  Reply
19. xevious2501195 days ago
  0 0
  
  @AFSOCSARGE -Sarge
  
  ????? WHAT!!!!! wow, i heard of dumb comments but that takes the cake.
  It seems these days memories are Very short. seems this guy forgot GM and CHEVY are one and the same and in all there ‘Sophisticated’ its didnt keep them from going out of business (which wouldve been complete if not for the gov BAILOUT!) anyways, I would say fords direction of straying from DI is pretty foolish and a bit frustrating. they are allowing other manufactures using DI to gain ground and experience while they milk old tech. When time to move into DI, they may find themselves once again producing engines that cant compete. I also find it frustrating how Ford can only now make these engines with better performance and economy using the same tech they’ve had for years.
  Ford is making moves, but they had better stray far away from the american way of making cars.
  Those old ways led to nothing but industry failure. My 30 something generation knows just where to spend our dollars.
  
  Reply
20. johnnycanuck195 days ago
  0 0
  
  liberalsrinsane, I think we’re going to get along famously here.
  
  sprockkets, you’re absolutely right about the cost of parts… not to mention you’ll likely be shelling out dealer shop rates on top of that since I’m sure the average backyard mechanic would be lucky just find some of them.
  
  Reply
21. AFSOCSARGE195 days ago
  0 0
  
  @xevious2501
  
  Please explain how the New V-6 in the Chevy is less sophisticated ? You go on about how the company was run I was referring to the technology in their engine. Poor company management is totally different from their Technology. Your diatribe had zero to do with my statement which was 100% correct weather agree that it will benefit GM or not the fact remains the Chevy V-6 is a more advanced engine period. Now if you want to debate about GM Marketing and Sales we can but please stay on point next time Your deranged off subject diatribe was not only dumb but schizophrenic when you yourself agreed with me:
  
  “I would say fords direction of straying from DI is pretty foolish and a bit frustrating. they are allowing other manufactures using DI to gain ground and experience while they milk old tech. When time to move into DI, they may find themselves once again producing engines that cant compete.”
  -xevious2501
  
  The 3.6L DI engine produces 304 horsepower (227 kW) at 5,900 rpm and 273 lb.-ft. of torque (370 Nm) at 5,200 rpm. Its 60-degree cylinder block and cylinder heads are cast aluminum to help reduce mass. A forged steel crankshaft provides optimal strength in the bottom end. The cylinder heads include four valves per cylinder, with a dual overhead camshaft design incorporating infinitely variable cam phasing.
  
  A full dual exhaust system, with dual catalytic converters, helps reduce back pressure for optimum power. It also helps the engine reach operating temperature quicker to help burn off cold-start emissions. And despite a compression ratio of 11.3:1, the 3.6L DI engine is designed to run on regular gas
  
  http://www.superchevy.com/features/camaro/sucp_0904w_2010_camaro_engines_transmissions/index.html
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
22. johnnycanuck195 days ago
  0 0
  
  Sarge, that’s the key. You never used to be able to run those kind of compression ratios on regular gas. But again, the cost of repairing one of these engines after the warranty has run out scares the sh*t out of me.
  
  Reply
23. AFSOCSARGE195 days ago
  0 0
  
  @johnnycanuck
  
  Oh I agree the entire generation on new vehicle technologies will be expensive as all heck!
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
24. Viktor King195 days ago
  0 0
  
  Let’s assume for ten seconds that Ford is, perhaps, *not* lying to us or throwing up the old PR shield of downlplaying a particular technical innovation until they can make it work for them.
  
  Let’s ask the hard question – Does sophisticated engineering deliver exceptional results?
  
  Enzo vs Corvette. One costs like a mansion to buy and a restaurant to maintain, requires an advanced engineering degree to service and has the unfortunate tendency to split in half in an accident. The other is considerably more affordable, infintely more reliable new or aged, is generally twice as fuel efficient on average, yet, sadly, is only 80%+ as fast, depending on trim.
  
  The carbon fiber, the magnesium engine bits, the unobtanium suspension, the flat-pane crank revving at hummingbird-flap speeds for hours, they’re all very shiny – but does the whole thing work?
  
  So Ford’s new engines won’t have Direct Injection after all. So what? For what was it supposed to be there? To prove they weren’t gutless penny-shaving weasels? To whom?
  
  Let’s keep our shorts dry for this one.
  
  Reply
25. Bankruptcy2009195 days ago
  0 0
  
  Actually I see Ford’s Point ..Its actually a More Sophisticated Engine than Chevy because no manufacturer has never been able to manipulate intake air temperatures before now. And Now Ford Motor has done something that scientists and Mechanical Engineers, and Electrical Engineers wonder how they were able to create the 8 th wonder of the world in autotive engineering but now Ford has done it! Congrats Ford and Kudos on more power and better fuel economy than DI. Yahoo!
  
  Reply
26. casper194 days ago
  0 0
  
  AFSOCSARGE: Hey Dude Corvette engine is still Push ROD……. Do not just write anything, at least show some intelligence….
  
  Reply
27. AFSOCSARGE194 days ago
  0 0
  
  Bosch manipulate intake air temperatures In 1982, Bosch introduced a sensor that directly measures the air mass flow into the engine, on their L-Jetronic system. Bosch called this LH-Jetronic (L for Luftmasse and H for Hitzdraht, German for “air mass” and “hot wire”, respectively). The mass air sensor utilizes a heated platinum wire placed in the incoming air flow. The rate of the wire’s cooling is proportional to the air mass flowing across the wire. Since the hot wire sensor directly measures air mass, the need for additional temperature and pressure sensors is eliminated. The LH-Jetronic system was also the first fully digital EFI system, which is now the standard approach.[citation needed] The advent of the digital microprocessor permitted the integration of all powertrain sub-systems into a single control module.
  This system was first used on the 1982 Volvo 240 and Porsche 928
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
28. AFSOCSARGE194 days ago
  0 0
  
  @casper
  What are you talking about who is talking about? The Corvette Engine has nothing to do with this, This is about the Base V-6 Engines of the Ford Mustang and the Chevy Camaro. I have not stated anything that was less than intelligent or correct. The Chevy has a more sophisticated fuel injection system, is that not true ? Nowhere did I state it was better did I. This proves your total lack of intelligence when you can’t comprehend what you read then you bring up the Corvette Engine being a Push Rod Design how about I bring up the most powerful piston engine in the world a Hemispherical Head Push Rod Design that is Nitro powered in a Dragsters ? The Porsche hull King Tiger II was the most Sophisticated Tank in the world but the Detroit Powered Sherman defeated it to be honest it took 4-5 Shermans to accomplish this feat but all that sophistication did not make it invincible. The Sherman’s less sophistication freed the world for democracy and you have the right to make your nonsense ridden comment.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
29. caramelcutie92962194 days ago
  0 0
  
  Correct me if I am wrong how did this conversation get changed to the the cost of repairs we were strictly talking about the sophistication of the engine. So how did we get off track and start talking about the cost of parts or shelling out dealer shop rates on top or about the average backyard mechanic and how lucky they would be on just finding some of them.
  
  @ Casper what does the Corvette engine have to do with this ?
  
  Reply
30. leftwingagenda194 days ago
  0 0
  
  who cares what engine is more “sophisticated”? you don’t date your engine, or bring it home to meet your mom….all that matters are the numbers…who cares what acronyms went into it…
  
  Reply
31. caramelcutie92962194 days ago
  0 0
  
  @ Leftwing last I checked you don’t date numbers and bring them home to your mother either! Oh wait then again maybe you do. I on the other hand are about facts and performance! How an engine performs is all that matters.
  
  Reply
32. Madcapp194 days ago
  0 0
  
  Sounds like the money would be better spent implementing dual clutch transmissions across the lineup.
  
  Reply
33. AFSOCSARGE194 days ago
  0 0
  
  The issue in “Sophistication” is if it is effective in improving engine performance or not obviously Ford deems the “Sophisticated” Direct Injection beneficial enough to place in it’s Higher End version of this Engine the famed “EcoBoost”. I’d run a a car with a 2 Hamster powered engine if it put out 850 Horse Power and 1000 lbs of Torque.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
34. caramelcutie92962194 days ago
  0 0
  
  Thanks Sarge
  
  Reply
35. AFSOCSARGE194 days ago
  0 0
  
  @leftwingagenda
  Obviously “Engine Sophistication” means something to people who are automotive enthusiast so why would you want to rag on them?
  
  “stang67
  I was waiting for the Camaro convertible, but will go with the 2011 Mustang 5.0 due to more sophisticated motor and lesser curb weight. Camaro is a looker though, too bad looks are not everything. I may change my mind though”
  
  I don’t know Stang67 he wrote this on the Camaro Convertible Thread but I’m sure he’s not looking to date anyone’s engine and would assume he knows something about Ford Mustang Engines.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
36. AFSOCSARGE194 days ago
  0 0
  
  @caramelcutie92962
  Anytime, some people take a 100% true statement take it totally the wrong way and get “Their Panties” all twisted up !
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
37. fubar194 days ago
  0 0
  
  To me the mustang v6 is more sophisticated due to the fact they reworked older tech to get better numbers then the newer tech. That tells me there are some special things going on in that engine
  
  Reply
38. e46Ne90194 days ago
  0 0
  
  most of europrean companies + GM use DI. I trusted them much more than ford. If ford doesn’t have money to invest on one why talk smack?
  
  Reply
39. 441Zuke194 days ago
  0 0
  
  …. Anyway.
  i think this articule is about how they diden’t need to implement DI to get better performance.
  and in that case if it works isn’t broken and does the job just fine at a more reasonable price why bother.
  
  Reply
40. 441Zuke194 days ago
  0 0
  
  …. Anyway.
  i think this article is about how they diden’t need to implement DI to get better performance.
  and in that case if it works isn’t broken and does the job just fine at a more reasonable price why bother.
  
  Reply
41. leftwingagenda193 days ago
  0 0
  
  caramelcutie92962
  
  what’s the difference between the numbers an engine puts out and how it “performs”? define how an engine “performs” that doesn’t use numbers, please…i’m waiting…
  
  Reply
42. leftwingagenda193 days ago
  0 0
  
  sarge, sophistication is not a technical term…sophistication is not a measurable quantity…you proved my point, basically, as you said you’d go with a 2 hamster powerplant because it produced better numbers…
  
  so while you and caramelcutie can high five each other, you are supporting my side of that argument, so thanks!
  
  Reply
43. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @Leftwingagenda
  We are with the “High Fives” because you proved “Our Point” the issue as in the article was the Ford Engine’s lack of Direct Injection which is a “More Sophisticated Fuel Delivery System”. Ford accomplished Comparable Performance without Direct Injection their was a slight gain but not significant enough to justify the higher cost of the system. This action by Ford makes perfectly good sense and as I stated they have applied Direct Injection to Higher End versions of this engine which their would be a justification in the cost. Caramelcutie92962 and I “Never At Anytime” stated that the Chevy Camaro V-6 “Performed Better” than the Ford V-6 so please go back and check just to reassure yourself your argument is “Null and Void”. Having a More Sophisticated Design does not automatically equate into better performance which Caramelcutie92962 and I have bot been consistent on that point. So no thank you for fully validating and supporting our point.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
44. caramelcutie92962193 days ago
  0 0
  
  Good Looking out Sarge. I could not have said it better. I don’t see how leftwingagenda figures that you and I are High 5ing each other nor did I ever state the Chevy Camaro performed better!
  I think someone needs to clean the old spectacles off..LOL
  
  Reply
45. rarson193 days ago
  0 0
  
  “Fuel has to be injected at around 20,000 psi.”
  
  Pump laws: Speed is proportional to flow rate, pressure to speed squared, and power to speed cubed. Unless they’re using some atypical pumps that bend the laws of fluid dynamics, to maintain volumetric flow going from 45 psi to 20,000 psi (assuming your number is correct), your pump speed needs to increase by a factor of about 444 squared, while your power is going to increase by a factor of 444^ 3 (I’m guessing they’re going to use a different impeller design and a more efficient pump motor). I can easily see how the needs of such a high pressure fuel system would vastly outweigh the viability on instituting it in their engines for meager savings.
  
  “my favorite EFI tech is TBI. Simple, works good, smoothness of a carb and efficiency of efi.”
  
  HA! Good one! TBI is the worst fuel system ever designed. Take a manifold designed to flow air and add a single injector at the intake. Great. Then try dispersing the fuel evenly between cylinders which vary significantly in air flow. Smoothness of a carb? Maybe, but that’s not saying much. Efficiency of EFI? Not any modern EFI system. At least carbs make tuning simple.
  
  “Its actually a More Sophisticated Engine than Chevy because no manufacturer has never been able to manipulate intake air temperatures before now”
  
  Wrong. The vast majority of you people making comments here are displaying gross ignorance with regards to how engines, and direct injection in particular, work. Direct injection results in higher cylinder pressures under the compression stroke. Higher cylinder pressures result in higher air temperatures. It’s that simple. Colder air is more dense and makes more power. THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT DIRECT INJECTION HELPS PREVENT KNOCK IN ENGINES. This matters about ****all when it comes to naturally aspirated engines, which most people happily fill up on regular gasoline anyway. So Ford is not wasting the money to reduce detonation in engines that aren’t prone to damage from detonation in the first place. Makes a ****load of sense. DI is useful for turbocharged cars where detonation is both more common and more harmful, due to extremely higher cylinder pressures and more chaotic detonation events.
  
  “The rate of the wire’s cooling is proportional to the air mass flowing across the wire”
  
  Yeah, it’s called a Karman Vortex air flow meter and tons of cars use them. All it does is sense the temperature of the air so that it can calculate the mass flow rate of the air as the volumetric flow passes by the sensor. It’s not controlling the temperature of the air at all, it’s using it for calculating the mass of the air entering the engine. Bosche wasn’t manipulating anything other than mass air flow calculations.
  
  “how about I bring up the most powerful piston engine in the world a Hemispherical Head Push Rod Design that is Nitro powered in a Dragsters?”
  
  Nitromethane ignites without any oxygen added to it. You’re comparing apples to vaginas. A hemispherical pushrod head will never have the power potential of a hemispherical overhead cam head due to the limitations inherent in 2-valve heads, such as lack of proper quench pads and increased valve shrouding. The only reason nitro cars make so much power, aside from their absolutely absurd displacements, is because of the fuel they burn.
  
  Lots of dumb comments on this Leftlane story!
  
  Reply
46. Bankruptcy2009193 days ago
  0 0
  
  AFSOCSARGE stick with your Jurassic age period old Dinosaur Push-Rod V-8…. and bigger displacement while every other automobile manufacturer is shrinking and getting more power out of their engines and using Ti-VCT and DOHC to get power the MODERN WAY. !
  
  Reply
47. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @rarson
  
  That was my point I was being sarcastic when I made that statment Someone brought up the Corvette Push Rod Engine. and I stated “how about I bring up the most powerful piston engine in the world a Hemispherical Head Push Rod Design that is Nitro powered in a Dragsters?” That engine has nothing to do with this Baseline Mustang Ford V-6. Apples and Oranges was my point on bringing up the Nitro Hemi Engine and yes there were many dumb comments posted on this thread this one takes the cake
  
  ” Its actually a More Sophisticated Engine than Chevy because no manufacturer has never been able to manipulate intake air temperatures before now”
  
  “The mass air sensor utilizes a heated platinum wire placed in the incoming air flow. The rate of the wire’s cooling is proportional to the air mass flowing across the wire.”
  
  I was using “His” interpretation of “manipulating intake air temperatures” when I brought up what Bosch did in 1982 Knowing full and well he did not know what he was talking about . Once again I was being sarcastic. I see “Sarcasm” does not interpret well posting on a website.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
48. rarson193 days ago
  0 0
  
  Yeah, sorry if I jumped on you for that. Cars have been using heated air intake temperature wires for decades now. Any car that uses mass air flow (most cars these days, including Chevy) uses them.
  
  Reply
49. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @Bankruptcy2009
  
  What are you talking about ? You are truly Schizophrenic you praise Sophistication and Technology in breath then cheer when it is not used in the next did you or did you not state this:
  
  “Actually I see Ford’s Point ..Its actually a More Sophisticated Engine than Chevy because no manufacturer has never been able to manipulate intake air temperatures before now. And Now Ford Motor has done something that scientists and Mechanical Engineers, and Electrical Engineers wonder how they were able to create the 8 th wonder of the world in autotive engineering but now Ford has done it! Congrats Ford and Kudos on more power and better fuel economy than DI. Yahoo!”
  
  Now explain yourself on it because it makes no sense. What Ford has done has been done for years nothing “Wondrous or New” The very same can be said about Direct Injection since it has been around since 1925 and ford used it on a few hundred Ford V-8s in the late 70s. I’m all for Advance Technology and Sophistication in Engine Design when it is Cost Effective with it’s Performance and Reliability. I’m so far from hanging on to Old Dinosaur and Ineffective Technology I can’t begin to explain but if it is not any better the Juice Is Not Worth The Squeeze !
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
50. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @rarson
  
  No problem and thanks it was my delivery on my statements I was making dry attempts at being sarcastic responding to people who had no idea of what they were talking about. I’m glad you responded because it is refreshing to know someone here has knowledge on automotive technology. You certainly are well informed and highly knowledgeable Thanks again!
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
51. rarson193 days ago
  0 0
  
  Thanks for your kind words!
  
  Reply
52. rarson193 days ago
  0 0
  
  And regarding “Jurassic age period old Dinosaur Push-Rod V-8s,” GM has been using variable valve timing on OHV engines since at least 2006. In fact, the LS-series engine is such a great engine that it really makes a case for the viability of OHV engines in today’s market. And considering that OHC engines were invented BEFORE OHV engines, “Jurassic age period old Dinosaur Push-Rod V-8″ is a pretty dumb statement to make.
  
  Reply
53. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @rarson
  
  You are welcome and we need more rational and informed people such as yourself
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
54. rarson193 days ago
  0 0
  
  By the way, AFSOCSARGE, I share your pain: many comments I read here are just completely clueless. It’s rare to actually find someone that knows ANYTHING about cars, so I do have a tendency to jump on bad info. My apologies again, you’re a classy (and knowledgeable) guy.
  
  Reply
55. AFSOCSARGE193 days ago
  0 0
  
  @rarson
  The pleasure is mine it is great to discuss cars with someone who truly understands Automotives, it was shocking how some become so strong opinionated on subjects they don’t know and are totally wrong about. I appreciated how you convey your thoughts. I will have to take tips from you and follow your lead. There is one thing I do is research something I’m not certain about prior to posting an opinion and deeming it irrefutable as some here.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
56. psiclone193 days ago
  0 0
  
  This is strange because Ford only recently revealed on Left Lane News that the 2012 Focus would have a normally aspirated DI motor. That story states, “Ford says this next Focus will feature a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine equipped with direct-injection for increased fuel efficiency and power – but without a turbocharger.” Additionally, in the article Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president, powertrain engineering is quoted on the topic as saying, “Ford is delivering on our commitment to lower emissions, improve fuel economy and deliver the highest quality powertrains in the industry.”
  
  The two stories make Ford sound somewhat contradictory on the subject of DI, to me. Am I missing something?
  
  source: http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-gen-ford-focus-to-debut-at-detroit-show.html
  
  Reply
57. idrinorbarsaku192 days ago
  0 0
  
  You know, I don’t know which engine is the best, but to lack DI, as well as have a smaller engine than that of the camaro, while still having relatively the same amount of power, I can’t seem to understand the bad thing about it! The way I see it is, if the camaro’s engine is a 6.2L with DI why is it ONLY making 426hp while Ford’s 5.0 is lacking size and DI while cranking out 412hp, that makes it a PIG! I don’t care if it has DI or not, the 6.2 is a weak engine! What ever happened to the saying, “No replacement for displacement?” And as I see it, you are paying more for extra cubic inches and a fuel delivery system that just got beat by something that is obviously built better…and arguably cheaper too!
  I believe that overall, the new 5.0 is a more refined engine. Adding a new mechanism to an engine to increase power is not refining, more like cheating. Having DI doesn’t automatically make an engine better, as I have experienced personally along with many other reputable automobile magazines.
  
  Just wait ’til they compare the new GT to the SS…arguing on here just to make yourself appear to be the smartest is a waste of time! If you want to write a novel, go to a publishing company!
  
  Reply
58. tonkatoytruck192 days ago
  0 0
  
  Another advantage of direct injection is lowered emissions. Some vehicles drop NO2 by 40% when DI is used.
  
  I think that DI will gain ground as EPA requirements become more stringent. Higher timing and higher compression are added benefits for power and fuel economy.
  
  It is expensive to add to a car so no one is going to include it on an engine unless they have to.
  
  Import mfg’s can hold out because most are not stradled with low mileage vehicles like the Yukon and Suburban that they must offset with good mileage.
  
  Reply
59. tonkatoytruck192 days ago
  0 0
  
  idrinorbarsaku
  
  The Ford engine will not get as good as good mileage or meet the same emission levels. It is a trade off for cost that Ford is willing to pass on to you.
  
  Using technology to add power, get better mileage, and reduce emissions is not cheating. What planet are you from?
  
  With that mentality, superchargers, turbos, fuel injection, and TBI are all poor solutions and cheating.
  
  The bottom line is, the Chevorlet engines get better gas mileage with DI and you get to pay the difference at the pump with your Ford.
  
  Reply
60. idrinorbarsaku192 days ago
  0 0
  
  tonkatoytruck,
  YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT!!!!
  I know DI has it’s good points! I am talking about the engine! If you take out DI from the 6.2L to make it an equal comparison to the 5.0, the 5.0 would rape it! Same would go if DI was added to the 5.0!
  
  That’s what happens though when someone jumps to comment back without thinking too much or analyzing what they said!
  
  Reply
61. idrinorbarsaku192 days ago
  0 0
  
  tonkatoytruck,
  Another thing you seem to NOT know, is that the SS shows 16 City / 24 Highway right on the window sticker! This engine, minus DI, shows 17 City / 25 Highway….so much for your DI talk bullsh!t!!
  
  Reply
62. The Realist192 days ago
  0 0
  
  I know the ‘DL’
  
  Ford is run by a bunch of cheap, bean counting, knuckle dragging apes. The reskinned crap to come out of FMC the last couple of years prove that. Cheap appliances. Ford is America’s Toyota..
  
  Reply
63. AFSOCSARGE192 days ago
  0 0
  
  The Mustang is nearly 400 lbs lighter which would relate to the gas millage difference.
  
  -Sarge
  
  Reply
64. MrTreize192 days ago
  0 0
  
  DI is not and end all solution for better economy and mileage. The crying shame is that it took the advent and championing of DI from companies such as VW to push automakers to make better engines (looking at you ford).
  
  Reply
65. psiclone192 days ago
  0 0
  
  My question/comment has still not been addressed by anyone. The story presents Ford’s case for not investing in DI on a mass scale as being unnecesary and for having an unproportional cost to benefit advantage. That may be so but then I’m curious what they did different on the normally aspirated DI 2012 Focus that made Ford believe the opposite was true in that case? If better knock control was the only real advantage of imploying costly DI, why would they waste the budget putting it on the Focus, in addition to advertising it as an advantage of the motor? Ford’s reported reasoning doesn’t make sense when compared to their actions. Smells fishy to me.
  
  I’m all for continually improving old technology, if there is still life left in it, but don’t talk down to consumers to justify saving a buck. If you’re being frugal Ford, admit it and come clean as such. Don’t tell us it’s not a good or necessary technology for economy yet herald it on a different one of your cars as being so great.
  
  Reply
66. rarson192 days ago
  0 0
  
  “Higher timing and higher compression are added benefits for power and fuel economy.”
  
  Higher timing is not a benefit, higher timing is a band-aid for detonation-prone engines. Advancing the timing initiates the spark even earlier, which in non-DI engines today is already occurring BEFORE TDC. What you want is the LEAST possible timing advance with the least occurrence of detonation.
  
  Timing and compression have little to do with power and fuel economy. The real factors at play are air/fuel ratio and completeness of burn, which is why engine manufacturers adjust things like timing, compression, swirl, quench, etc. The exact same thing goes for emissions: other than the natural byproducts of burning hydrocarbons, some cars emit more emissions than others because they simply don’t burn all the gasoline that is injected into them.
  
  “TBI are all poor solutions”
  
  TBI most certainly IS a poor solution… what planet are you from?
  
  “The bottom line is, the Chevorlet engines get better gas mileage with DI and you get to pay the difference at the pump with your Ford.”
  
  That’s like saying that ithe $6000 price premium of a Prius, not to mention the increase in repair costs and potential cost of battery replacement, is worth the 21 cents you save every time you fill up (especially considering that you could just buy a 93 Honda Civic, do a couple mods, and get 10 mpg better than a Prius for less than a 1/4 of the cost).
  
  “I know the ‘DL’
  
  Ford is run by a bunch of cheap, bean counting, knuckle dragging apes. The reskinned crap to come out of FMC the last couple of years prove that. Cheap appliances. Ford is America’s Toyota.”
  
  Interesting comment. Let’s consider the facts:
  1. Ford is currently doing the best out of the three American car makers that received government bailtout money.
  2. GM took a stunning plunge from being the world’s #1 car manufacturer to being bankrupt by giving us bad interiors and cars that nobody wanted (SSR, anyone?).
  3. GM kills off or sells over half of its brands so that it can continue pouring money into things that it doesn’t need to pour money into to sell cars, like technology that doesn’t significantly benefit naturally-aspirated engines (DI).
  4. Ford, instead, is focusing on smaller-displacement engines utilizing turbochargers in many of their cars to provide both performance and economy, which car buys DO want (EcoBoost).
  
  So in summary, yeah, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. I’m sure I’ll have to spell this out very slowly that the previous sentence is sarcasm.
  
  “The story presents Ford’s case for not investing in DI on a mass scale as being unnecesary and for having an unproportional cost to benefit advantage”
  
  The story doesn’t mention anything but Mustang engines. My guess is that the 2012 Focus is designed to appease people that don’t know any better who create arbitrary rules that they think will help reduce emissions instead of simply increasing the price of products built in our own country and thus help continue ruining our economy (ie “politicians”), since, you know, producing parts for engines that have only 4 cylinders costs less than producing parts for engines with 8. Notice that politicians ARE specifically mentioned in the article you referenced.
  
  Reply
67. psiclone192 days ago
  0 0
  
  rarson, my dumba$$ managed to lose everything I typed in response and I just don’t have the time to type it all again but I appreciate the exhachange and have a few questions. I will retype tomorrow.
  
  Reply
68. Lexuslvr192 days ago
  0 0
  
  Oh my god the comments on here are beyond retarded. I look on this site about once a week but reading these comments I had to make an account. I’ll start with the V6s. First off I am more of a GM fan but like all cars that are GOOD.Yes GMs V6 has DI and Fords doesn’t. GM engine is a 3.6L V6 and Fords is a 3.7. Now as far as advancement is concerned, if an engine makes more horsepower, more torque, and is more fuel efficient, who the hell cares if its technology is more or less advanced than the weaker engine? Ford doesn’t have DI on their revised 3.7 V6, however they have a very sophisticated variable valve timing system called Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (TiVCT). With this system the 3.7 V6 makes 305 hp @ 6500 rpm and 280 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm. Compared to GMs DI 3.6 V6 which makes 304 hp @ 6400 rpm and 273 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm. So the 3.7 V6 is more powerful making 1 hp and 7 lb-ft more than the 3.6 V6 as well as 1 more mpg, but by no means is the 3.6 a slouch. Both are hoghly competitive engines taking on those found in luxury marks including the 306 hp/277 lb-ft 3.5 V6 in the Lexus IS350, the 305 hp/275 lb-ft 3.7 V6 in the Acura TL Type-S, the 330 hp/270 lb-ft 3.7 V6 in the Infiniti G37, and the 300 hp/300 lb-ft 3.0 twin-turbo I6 in the BMW 335i. GM uses continuously-variable cam phasing on both intake and exhaust valves and electronic throttle control. When you take into consideration the Camaro weighs alot more than the Mustang, 1 mpg more isn’t hard to accomplishe.
  
  Now for the V8s. Everyone on here it seems has just about ZERO clue as to what GMs LS series V8s are about. The 6.2 V8 in the Camaro SS is dimensionally smaller than many DOHC V8 on the market today including the 5.0 V8 in the Mustang. The 6.2 V8 also weighs LESS than most V8s on the market. The 6.2 V8 is also just as FUEL EFFICIENT because it features Variable valve timing and Active Fuel Management. The old 315 hp 4.6 V8 in the 2010 Mustang only got 23 mpg hwy compared to 24 mpg hwy for the 426 hp V8 Camaro SS. So the 6.2L LS3 V8 is actually smaller and lighter than the older 4.6 V8 and the new 5.0 V8 from ford. Now Ford’s new 5.0 V8 is very powerful for its displacment. Without using Direct Injection Ford was able to outdo Jaguar’s 5.0 DI V8 by a considerable amount. Jaguar’s 5.0 DI V8 makes 385 hp @ 6500 rpm and 380 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm. Now the Ford 5.0 V8 also uses the TiVCT on this engine giving it 412 hp and 390 lb-ft. So now both the Camaro and Mustang have very powerful V6s and V8s. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. One may be more advance than the other but not by as much as most of you think. The 6.2 OHV LS3 V8 is modern, light, powerful, fuel efficient, extremly small for its displacement, simple, cheap and very much refined. All are very powerful engines.
  
  Please people stop posting BS.
  
  Reply
69. ResponseGenie191 days ago
  0 0
  
  A lot of stroking going on in here, well here’s my stroke…You all will be sad to hear that Ford is developing a DI “global” engine for several markets including over half lineup by 2012. Right now the attitude is if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it, but when EPA finally says “time to quit smoking” DI is in place. GM jumped to DI because of the efficiencies on paper to garnish much needed cash from EVERYONE and joint ventures that forced them to invest. Ford wouldn’t invest because they saw no immediate gains and would not have shown a profit as they had on the draft books. So in the end based on arguments from the “know it alls” DI wins…now I don’t care which engines in said argument is better…I know when the rich get richer someone’s going to pay for it. The stroking here was sickening as is some of your comments with all your acronyms and #’s just to prove what’s better? If Ford is developing it even before this article/everyones comments then wouldn’t there be something said about DI?. …..”and the band sang hail to the chief…” be an enthusiast not snuffboxes
  
  Reply
70. ResponseGenie191 days ago
  0 0
  
  The powertrain integration manager & co had to be a viable source of being the solution to “more for less” but Ford’s contract program lifespan ends 2012 plus service parts production-so the ace of spades will be dealt and everyone will benefit from Ford’s new DI…no plan is in the works from the current team helping Ford but admits that would be the next logical step. Enough Said!
  
  Reply
71. rarson191 days ago
  0 0
  
  Lexuslvr, I agree with a lot of what you said. The LS engine is great for being compact and lightweight. I do think a lot of that fuel economy comes from gearing, though. The LS does make a ton of low-end torque, much earlier than any Ford DOHC V8, which helps alleviate the need to rev the piss out of them.
  
  Most DOHC V8s are pretty large engines, especially for their (typically smaller) displacements: Toyota, Nissan, Ford… all their V8s are significantly larger than the LS.
  
  Personally, I’m not a huge fan of the super-huge low-end grunt of the LS engines… I prefer a smoother powerband that extends high into the rev range, like a Renesis.
  
  Regarding DI, I personally think its main advantage is in forced-induction scenarios, thanks to the increased resistance to detonation. Even then though, I’m still not convinced that combustion chamber design couldn’t eventually overcome any potential advantage DI might currently have. What’s likely to happen is that all cars will be forced to use DI in the future thanks to a nanny government that feels it’s not doing its job unless it is continually rolling out new legislation, policing the environment, and forcing people to invest in technology which they themselves don’t even understand (kind of like how they banned incandescents to increase the mercury content of our landfills).
  
  Reply
72. idrinorbarsaku191 days ago
  0 0
  
  rarson,
  “(kind of like how they banned incandescents to increase the mercury content of our landfills).
  
  OMG, don’t even start with that! LOL! I’m still pissed at that! It’s got to be be one of the dumbest movies imo!
  
  Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.