Comments on: The DL on Ford’s lack of DI http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html Car news, reviews, and specs for the auto-industry Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: idrinorbarsaku http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515807 idrinorbarsaku Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:04:25 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515807 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! 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!

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515777 rarson Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:12:00 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515777 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). 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).

]]> By: ResponseGenie http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515652 ResponseGenie Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:42:35 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515652 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! 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!

]]> By: ResponseGenie http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515651 ResponseGenie Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:28:05 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515651 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 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

]]> By: Lexuslvr http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515622 Lexuslvr Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:34:54 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515622 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. 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.

]]> By: psiclone http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515590 psiclone Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:22:01 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515590 rarson, my dumba$$ managed to lose everything I typed in response and I just don't have the time to type it all again but I appreciate the exhachange and have a few questions. I will retype tomorrow. rarson, my dumba$$ 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.

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515528 rarson Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:00:40 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515528 "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. “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.

]]> By: psiclone http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515468 psiclone Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:12:44 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515468 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. 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.

]]> By: MrTreize http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515411 MrTreize Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:19:03 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515411 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). 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).

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515397 AFSOCSARGE Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:45:59 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515397 The Mustang is nearly 400 lbs lighter which would relate to the gas millage difference. -Sarge The Mustang is nearly 400 lbs lighter which would relate to the gas millage difference.

-Sarge

]]> By: The Realist http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515366 The Realist Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:33:33 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515366 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.. 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..

]]> By: idrinorbarsaku http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515363 idrinorbarsaku Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:28:14 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515363 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!! 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!!

]]> By: idrinorbarsaku http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515358 idrinorbarsaku Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:23:52 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515358 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! 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!

]]> By: tonkatoytruck http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515300 tonkatoytruck Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:23:55 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515300 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. 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.

]]> By: tonkatoytruck http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515297 tonkatoytruck Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:17:25 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515297 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. 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.

]]> By: idrinorbarsaku http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515291 idrinorbarsaku Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:48:24 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515291 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! 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!

]]> By: psiclone http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515256 psiclone Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:28:57 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515256 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 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

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515251 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:56:48 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515251 @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 @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

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515249 rarson Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:38:03 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515249 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. 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.

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515248 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:35:57 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515248 @rarson You are welcome and we need more rational and informed people such as yourself -Sarge @rarson

You are welcome and we need more rational and informed people such as yourself

-Sarge

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515247 rarson Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:35:31 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515247 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. 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.

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515246 rarson Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:27:18 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515246 Thanks for your kind words! Thanks for your kind words!

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515245 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:23:14 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515245 @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 @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

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515244 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:16:15 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515244 @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 @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

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515243 rarson Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:08:43 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515243 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. 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.

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515241 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:00:10 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515241 @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 @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

]]> By: Bankruptcy2009 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515240 Bankruptcy2009 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:48:14 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515240 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. ! 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. !

]]> By: rarson http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515232 rarson Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:57:10 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515232 "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 fuckall 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 shitload 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! “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 fuckall 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 shitload 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!

]]> By: caramelcutie92962 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515223 caramelcutie92962 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:02:54 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515223 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 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

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515222 AFSOCSARGE Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:55:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515222 @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 @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

]]> By: leftwingagenda http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515210 leftwingagenda Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:20:28 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515210 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! ;) 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! ;)

]]> By: leftwingagenda http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515208 leftwingagenda Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:13:45 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515208 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... 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…

]]> By: 441Zuke http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515175 441Zuke Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:49:22 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515175 .... 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. …. 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.

]]> By: 441Zuke http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515174 441Zuke Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:49:15 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515174 .... 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. …. 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.

]]> By: e46Ne90 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515158 e46Ne90 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:07:10 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515158 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? 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?

]]> By: fubar http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515151 fubar Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:07:28 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515151 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 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

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515150 AFSOCSARGE Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:58:22 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515150 @caramelcutie92962 Anytime, some people take a 100% true statement take it totally the wrong way and get "Their Panties" all twisted up ! -Sarge @caramelcutie92962
Anytime, some people take a 100% true statement take it totally the wrong way and get “Their Panties” all twisted up !

-Sarge

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515149 AFSOCSARGE Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:51:04 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515149 @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 @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

]]> By: caramelcutie92962 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515147 caramelcutie92962 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:39:18 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515147 Thanks Sarge ;) Thanks Sarge ;)

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515146 AFSOCSARGE Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:36:53 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515146 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 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

]]> By: Madcapp http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515143 Madcapp Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:27:29 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515143 Sounds like the money would be better spent implementing dual clutch transmissions across the lineup. Sounds like the money would be better spent implementing dual clutch transmissions across the lineup.

]]> By: caramelcutie92962 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515142 caramelcutie92962 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:24:39 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515142 @ 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. @ 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.

]]> By: leftwingagenda http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515139 leftwingagenda Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:20:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515139 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... 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…

]]> By: caramelcutie92962 http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515136 caramelcutie92962 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:53:41 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515136 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 ? 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 ?

]]> By: AFSOCSARGE http://www.leftlanenews.com/the-dl-on-fords-lack-of-di.html#comment-515131 AFSOCSARGE Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:26:18 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/?p=24830#comment-515131 @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 @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

]]>