Why doesn't Ford offer the premium package on V6?

[TheDivaDanielle]

that feel when people realize that the Mustang is sold in over 100 markets and it's only sold with a v6 in two of those markets. The US and Canada are it.

Get over your v6 soon because it's going away entirely in a minute.

Sponsored

 

[gotboost?]

And yet they drop a 325 HP twin-turbo V6 into the Fusion for 2017 (Fusion Sport) or offer a Fusion Platinum for 37K? They could take both that engine and interior and drop into V6 Mustang. I wanted the V6 and the upgraded interior. They make you choose one or the other. Ford, if you are reading, this - You suck on this one.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-sho...a27866/2017-ford-fusion-sport-debuts-detroit/

 

[Bullitt]

And yet they drop a 325 HP twin-turbo V6 into the Fusion for 2017 (Fusion Sport) or offer a Fusion Platinum for 37K? They could take both that engine and interior and drop into V6 Mustang. I wanted the V6 and the upgraded interior. They make you choose one or the other. Ford, if you are reading, this - You suck on this one.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-sho...a27866/2017-ford-fusion-sport-debuts-detroit/

Ford is all about the turbos now. I heard the 3.5 V6 Ecoboost is going in the 7th gen Mustang for MY2021. I agree with the OP, it's a shame Ford is offering the current V6 in such a way that forces those looking for a cheaper Mustang into the EcoBoost. A premium V6 would be great. And like someone else said, who knows how these EcoBoosts will be at 100k miles. I highly doubt they'll hold up as well as the simpler V6 and V8 does. One of my relatives this weekend just told me the turbo in her Ford Escape is shot after 80k miles. I suspect there's gonna be a lot of angry ecoboost owners in a few years once these cars get higher miles on them.

 

[Maggneto]

Ford is all about the turbos now. I heard the 3.5 V6 Ecoboost is going in the 7th gen Mustang for MY2021. I agree with the OP, it's a shame Ford is offering the current V6 in such a way that forces those looking for a cheaper Mustang into the EcoBoost. A premium V6 would be great. And like someone else said, who knows how these EcoBoosts will be at 100k miles. I highly doubt they'll hold up as well as the simpler V6 and V8 does. One of my relatives this weekend just told me the turbo in her Ford Escape is shot after 80k miles. I suspect there's gonna be a lot of angry ecoboost owners in a few years once these cars get higher miles on them.

The Ecoboost engine has been around since 2009 and there are millions driving around every day. Are you suggesting that no Ecoboost engine has or will hit 100k miles since 2009? That is absurd.

 

[Bullitt]

The Ecoboost engine has been around since 2009 and there are millions driving around every day. Are you suggesting that no Ecoboost engine has or will hit 100k miles since 2009? That is absurd.

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that it will take a lot more maintenance and repairs to get them past that mark than it would for the NA V6 and V8.

 

[Jon|3.7]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that it will take a lot more maintenance and repairs to get them past that mark than it would for the NA V6 and V8.

Might be why they are getting rid of the v6 to get more money in from voiding warranties and doing repairs :O just a thought lol

 

[Armen]

Very short minded.... All they had to do, is bump up the power a bit on the V6, but no... GM has it right, by placing the 4 cylinder engine below the V6 AND increasing it's power.

I agree. Either that or do the 2.7L Ecoboost as the mid-level option (with say, 340hp or so), instead of the 2.3.

 

[Bullitt]

Might be why they are getting rid of the v6 to get more money in from voiding warranties and doing repairs :O just a thought lol

Haha well the CAFE standards I think are mostly to blame but you're right, Ford selling new turbos, doing walnut blasting on all these gunked up direct injection engines and other repairs are definitely an upside for Ford Service.

 

[Maggneto]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that it will take a lot more maintenance and repairs to get them past that mark than it would for the NA V6 and V8.

You can't possibly make that assumption until you have gone 100k in an Ecoboost. What data shows that the Ecoboost engine requires more repairs?

Ford is building over 1 million Ecoboost engines a year and putting them in everything from a F-150 to the Ford GT so I am pretty sure Ford Engineers have this one figured out.

 

[Bullitt]

You can't possibly make that assumption until you have gone 100k in an Ecoboost. What data shows that the Ecoboost engine requires more repairs?

Ford is building over 1 million Ecoboost engines a year and putting them in everything from a F-150 to the Ford GT so I am pretty sure Ford Engineers have this one figured out.

See my post above. Simply more moving parts. Direct injection de-gunking for one, additional complications due to the turbos, and a generally higher stressed engine due to forced induction. Ford doesn't have to worry as much because most other manufacturers are going to turbos too, so they won't be the only ones with issues.

 

[perfweld]

I was after a V6 as my dragster has a V6 in it. I ended up going the ecoboost route and like it a lot. The main reason was no premium with the V6 , stupid as you all say. Then later I see that you can buy at least the leather seat skins on Ebay all the time, thats what my hold up was, I at least wanted the leather seats. So if any of you want leather seats, search Ebay, the skins are on there. Just a FYI

 

[Maggneto]

See my post above. Simply more moving parts. Direct injection de-gunking for one, additional complications due to the turbos, and a generally higher stressed engine due to forced induction. Ford doesn't have to worry as much because most other manufacturers are going to turbos too, so they won't be the only ones with issues.

Your opinion vs. Ford Engineering.....Hmmmm, this is a tough one. I mean Ford has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and there are literally millions of Eco's on the road as we speak. Do you have any proof that Eco's have more problems that NA Ford engines? Any carbon deposits widely reported? Again, there are millions of Eco's on the road since 2009 so where are the facts to back up your assumptions?

 

[rvlyssup]

I love our ECOBoost, even though it's just a lowly v6. :cheers:

As for EB failure rate, I read AND researched a lot of data before making the purchase. Obviously, none of them swayed me. We pretty much keep our rides for long time racking up miles...so we shall see.

 

[Glenn G]

See my post above. Simply more moving parts. Direct injection de-gunking for one, additional complications due to the turbos, and a generally higher stressed engine due to forced induction. Ford doesn't have to worry as much because most other manufacturers are going to turbos too, so they won't be the only ones with issues.

Ecoboost has Less moving parts than any V engine, Quite literally half the cams, timing chains, timing chain tensioners timing gears and head gaskets, It has 1/3 less pistons, rods, valves, piston rings injectors, etc.

The turbo is a very simple journal bearing unit, turbine and compressor bolted to a shaft, literally one moving part.

There is almost no evidence of the HPFP or DI system having any sort of endemic weakness or flaw in any of the previous ecoboost motors and the 2.3 Unit is a more robust 4 lobe design compared to the 3 lobe used in the smaller EB motors

The only thing you may have a point on is oil coaking on the intake valves, a problem all DI engines have, NA or Turbo.

It is really a myth that turbo engines require more maintenance than an NA engine, the real issue is they are less tolerant of neglect than an NA engine due to the turbos needing a clean oil supply with a good additive package to avoid thermal breakdown in the higher temperatures the turbo sees. Old oil is damaging your much larger rod, crank and cam bearings that are turning 7000 rpm at redline at 180-200 Degrees F. It will annihilate a turbo bearing doing 200,000 rpm at 250 degrees.

TLDR, if your idea of excessive maintenance is following the manufacturer recommendations, Stick to NA and your engine might see 100k, it won't see 200, If like most people who care about their cars, the thought of doing 10k on oil makes you cringe no matter what they say, both engines will live a nice long time.

 

[BmacIL]

Ecoboost has Less moving parts than any V engine, Quite literally half the cams, timing chains, timing chain tensioners timing gears and head gaskets, It has 1/3 less pistons, rods, valves, piston rings injectors, etc.

The turbo is a very simple journal bearing unit, turbine and compressor bolted to a shaft, literally one moving part.

There is almost no evidence of the HPFP or DI system having any sort of endemic weakness or flaw in any of the previous ecoboost motors and the 2.3 Unit is a more robust 4 lobe design compared to the 3 lobe used in the smaller EB motors

The only thing you may have a point on is oil coaking on the intake valves, a problem all DI engines have, NA or Turbo.

It is really a myth that turbo engines require more maintenance than an NA engine, the real issue is they are less tolerant of neglect than an NA engine due to the turbos needing a clean oil supply with a good additive package to avoid thermal breakdown in the higher temperatures the turbo sees. Old oil is damaging your much larger rod, crank and cam bearings that are turning 7000 rpm at redline at 180-200 Degrees F. It will annihilate a turbo bearing doing 200,000 rpm at 250 degrees.

TLDR, if your idea of excessive maintenance is following the manufacturer recommendations, Stick to NA and your engine might see 100k, it won't see 200, If like most people who care about their cars, the thought of doing 10k on oil makes you cringe no matter what they say, both engines will live a nice long time.

All of this is true.

The coking on the valves (most of it is actually fuel) will be fixed once PFI+DI systems start becoming more common, as the detergents in fuel passing over the valves will keep them clean. The Ford EB engines suffer from this with much less severity than a lot of the other early DI adopters (BMW, VW etc.). That is mostly due to calibration.

Sponsored