Car Advice

Ford to build three-cylinder engine

By George Skentzos |

Following a second quarter net loss of USD$8.7 billion in 2008, Ford Europe’s union boss Dieter Hinkelmann has warned many employees at Ford’s engine plant in Germany could lose their jobs if changes aren’t promptly implemented.

Ford to build three-cylinder engine

Hinkelmann is calling for Ford to start building its new fuel-efficient three-cylinder engine at the Cologne plant as an investment in the future to combat tough new fuel-economy and emissions regulations.

Currently the plant is responsible for the manufacture of over 200,000 V6 engines each year along with a smaller number of V8 and V12 engines destined for the Aston Martin stable.

However with a growing focus toward smaller, more fuel efficient transport, these figures hardly push the boundaries of the plants 560,000 annual build capacity.

Unfortunately for employees at the Cologne plant, Ford’s European boss John Fleming has suggested that a new engine plant in Craiova, Romania – a former Daewoo site – will likely be used to build the engine instead.

The new three-cylinder unit is likely to find its way into the Ford Ka in overseas markets in reponse to similar models being developed by Volkswagen, Peugeot and Citroen.

This predicament may be solved for both parties, with Ford CEO Allan Mulally announcing a new priority toward smaller cars and doubling its four-cylinder engine production as a result.

Sales of the compact Focus were up 53.2 percent in the US during May, with sales of the larger Navigator and Expedition models plummeting.


 
  • Casey

    We actually had a Ford tractor that was 3 cylinder. Wonder if it’ll have as much pull as that :)

  • Reckless1

    Ford must think that you only need 3/4 of the workforce to build 3cyl rather than 4………..

    Why not get hold of the Daihatsu moulds – they had a 3 cyl that you could turbo the hell out of and it wouldn’t break.

  • TP

    Hmmm interesting… not sure about it, we’ve seen from the Accord project that having less cylinders doesnt mean more fuel efficiency (worker harder with less rather than easier with more)

  • http://integra Ute Tray

    Tp……yes thats right…….just like the Camry which is 4 cyl and uses more fuel than an FG Falcon which is 6 cyl…….it has to rev and work harder……..

  • PoisonEagle

    O
    M
    G… thats priceless. Keep going, TP your almost at the vinegar stroke.

  • Lazybones

    “just like the Camry which is 4 cyl and uses more fuel than an FG Falcon which is 6 cyl”

    Nice idea, but not quite…

    According to Ford the 6 spd XT uses 10.1, 5 spd XT uses 10.5
    According to Toyota the 5 spd Camary uses 9.9, Even the Borion, i mean Aurion uses 9.9 with a 6spd.

  • Tomas79

    “second quarter net loss of USD$8.7 billion” Is that a seperate Loss for FORD Europe? OR the Loss for FORD USA??

  • No Name

    Come on Reckless – The article highlights a problem in the in the industry with the like of Ford not being forward enough in their thinking. Other (GM and VW) have had 3 cyl engines for years and running great little economic cars. Now they finally getting kicked in the arse and starting to move.

    The other thing the article subjectively points out is the cheaper Eastern European factories effectively stealing jobs from the other Euro members under the orders of The Brussels Beaurocrats. They are so stupid they let it go on, slowly killing the their own economies.

  • http://. Naughtyius Maxiumus

    TP…..interesting yes and penny drops late with FORD to can the V6 and V8′s and bad fuel efficient motors. This is one reason why Toyota are were they are as others (like Ford) read market slow and way too late!

  • http://. Naughtyius Maxiumus

    Mind you the new Falcon delivers on fuel economy….chat to a Aurion owner and real world economy is not game changing but rather shyte!

  • MrGriffon

    if a 4.0L motor with 2 more cylinders and an automatic gearbox gets better economy nearly on par with a manual four cylinder. id say thats pretty impressive, or a very bad 4cyl. what do u have to say to that?

  • http://integra Ute Tray

    Lazybones………i am talking real world economy in all conditions………FG is better than VE, Camry Aurion……

  • Carl

    Yes Lazybones, Real world figures not Toyota made up figures…..Toyota consistently lies about the fuel consumption in their cars!!!!!

  • Joober

    My Aurion, does 10.5 to 11 as daily drive, thats on stop start 60kmh suburban driving, it all depends on how you drive, fuel you put in… the ECU adjust itself to how the driver drives, you go granny and it will set granny for you, shytty thing is that throttle is managed as well but poorly, lags when you change your drive style (as it adapts) resulting in 1 to 2 second throttle response times… its smart but way needs of refinement!

    Ute, it depends what you real world conditions are. it could be 95% work commute through traffic jams = less revving and heaps of idling which a 4cyl should outdo any V6, but when it comes to hauling with speed a 6cyl can manage better with its torque etc so you don’t need to rev it so hard.

  • o

    tp is right our camry usdes 10.4 in nrmal driving

  • Genie

    tomas thats ford combined loss. Ford Europe made $US528 million profit, ford pacific made $40 mil or something in that vicinity. Of that $US 8.7billion loss, over $US7 billion is in re-evaluations of asset and trademark worth as a result of high fuel prices affecting the perceived market worth of some of ford’s trademarks and assets. Its like buying a house for $1mil and a year later it being valued at $500k, technically you’ve lost $500k in a year, but the loss isn’t realised until you sell the house or try to borrow using the equity.

    Still, its massive, and it’d be a tragedy if ford USA’s overall shitness brought down ford europe, as ford europes a great division producing quality cars that people want. Ford USA must realise when looking at ford europe’s profit that they may have a better strategy.

    As for 3 cylinder engines, theoretically they will be more efficient than the same capacity 4 cylinder engine, as less more parts reduce frictional losses in the engine, but like any engineer knows, the difference between theoretical and actual can be pretty huge.

  • Stevo the Devo

    Sounds like a great engine for a golf buggy.

  • John

    Where in the article does it say Ford is actually going to build 3-cyl engines? I disagree with your headline, though 10 points for attracting my interest to read the article (only to be annoyed that there was no truth to it)

  • Adam (aka Mada)

    I agree

  • Joober

    John,

    “Hinkelmann is calling for Ford to start building its new fuel-efficient three-cylinder engine at the Cologne plant as an investment in the future to combat tough new fuel-economy and emissions regulations.”

    Its rather URGED TO rather than ACTUALLY…

  • realcars

    Better off building a small displacement 4cyl which is inherently smoother and more balanced than a 3cyl can ever be.

  • realcars

    Geez TP no wonder u drive a Toyota!

    Accord cylinder deactivation running on 3cyls was never meant to be as economical as a dedicated 3cyl engine.

    With cyl deactivation u still have all the other bits going around and up and down i.e same internal friction losses as a v6 only the valves are open/closed and 3 of the six aren’t firing.

  • Capri_XR2

    top gear proved a prius going flat out uses more fuel than a M3 V8 following it.
    Maybe car advice could test a XR4 2.0 verses a 1.6 focus in all conditions hard driving to granny driving real world stuff to see if a big motor in a small car or a small motor in a small car is more “efficent”.
    Normally when buying a second hand car the first things to change are K&N air filter,Top quality leads and plugs and coil, headers plus a correct size exhaust for the size of the motor, not to just look for performance but “Efficiency”

  • Lazybones

    “Lazybones………i am talking real world economy in all conditions………FG is better than VE, Camry Aurion……”

    Unfortunately unless you have some real world data to share with us then ADR is the closest thing you can compare. You can’t just put your finger in the air and claim better economy. The problem I have with ADR is not the fact the figures are supplied by the manufacturer, so there is no independant body to back them up.

    In a true real world test I doubt an FG Falcon would beat a 4 cyl camry on fuel consumption. I’d be surprised if it could beat the Aurion.

    Maybe car advice could give us some help here since they have just extensively tested some large cars (except the Camry).

  • Adam (aka Mada)

    Difn’t you read the fuel consumption figures obtained by car advice??
    Falcon was the most fuel efficient, beating the aurion which weighs over 150klg less…

    I’ve driven the new camry/aurion and can easily say the aurion is just as much as a guzzler as falcon and commodore, the new accord is also…yes real world figures.

    It’s time to finally acknowledge that ford and holden aren’t the only ones selling ‘gar guzzlers’ as family cars.
    It would appear the FG is one of the best LARGE RWD vehicles for fuel consumption, beating and matching FWD vehicles.

    Why is it so hard to admit that???

  • Lazybones

    “Difn’t you read the fuel consumption figures obtained by car advice??
    Falcon was the most fuel efficient, beating the aurion which weighs over 150klg less”

    Cool, show me a link to the article so we can put this one to bed. Remember the original argument was the 4 cyl Camry would be less efficient than the FG falcon.

    But yes I would find it hard to believe that a 4ltr RWD weighing 150kgs more would beat the Aurion, especially considering the Borions new Dual VVTi Engine.

  • Adam (aka Mada)

    have you even driven an aurion? a camry? an FG? or even a BF11 falcon?
    I have.

    The fact remains that both the accord and camry use large V6 engines, VE is only a 3.6l.
    The new camry 4cyl struggles with the extra weight, like the new mondeo 4cyl does.

    Just because you have a bigger capacity engine, doesn’t mean you have higher fuel consumption, vehicle turning, weight, gearing all come into play also.

    this is from the one of the guys who did the comparison test.

    Paul Maric Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
    MH:

    The article was delayed due to formatting issues with the final product. It finally went online at 2AM that following morning when they were resolved.

    We do have fuel consumption figures and will post them in the near future – again it was due to formatting issues that they were omitted.

    In the interim though, here they are:

    Ford Falcon G6E: 9.8L/100km
    Holden Commodore Calais V6: 10.9L/100km
    Toyota Aurion Presara: 10.5L/100km
    Honda Accord V6 Luxury: 10.6L/100km

    The fuel consumption figures included highway, city and performance driving.

    Is that enough?

    Wheels did a comparison also which showed the Fg to be 0.1 of litre behind aurion, that would suggest that real world driving shows aurion and it appears accord also, to be just as thirsty as the heavier, bigger RWD vehicles
    period.

  • Adam (aka Mada)

    I now understand why the general public is ‘clueless’

    drive these cars back to back for the truth.

  • Adam (aka Mada)

    FG also uses a ‘dual VVTI engine! and?

    If we are going to debate, you need to know what you’re talking about.

  • Lazybones

    “have you even driven an aurion? a camry? an FG? or even a BF11 falcon?
    I have.”

    Oh yes, i love it when people take the well used approach of if you haven’t driven it you can’t comment on it. But here we are on a Ford Fiesta blog, 30 comments in. And how many of us own or have driven one. I personally use to own a Fiesta XR2. But comments in my opinion are for all. I will confess to driving a Camry for a few weeks, but lets keep that one quite!

    “Just because you have a bigger capacity engine, doesn’t mean you have higher fuel consumption, vehicle turning, weight, gearing all come into play also.”

    Maybe, but i’d suggest a bigger factor is the driver and the way the car is driven. Yes take a V8, drive it like a priest and voila you’ll get better consumption. But then ask yourself why do i own a V8.

    “If we are going to debate, you need to know what you’re talking about.”

    And your also going to have to learn how to read. Because you conveniently miss the argument. Which was “would a 4cyl Camry use more fuel than an FG Falcon” as posted by TP.

    But since you’ve taken the time to provide some information, (which is more than I can say for some people) lets have a look. The Car Advice fuel figures, which i would personally accept as good real world figures show a fuel efficienty gain of 7% over the Aurion. As I said before, this does surprise me. The FG carries more weight, RWD, and has larger displacement. I’m not familiar with Fords DIVCT so i’ll take your word for it that its the same as Toyotas Dual VVTi. So this stands out as an impressive achievement by Ford, and makes me wonder why they wouldn’t brag more about such an achievement, since Drive also found the FG to be a good fuel performer. Maybe its just a sore point given whats going to happen to the I6.

    But the question still remains, if 9.8/100km would be better than a Camry. The Camry is only offered with the 5spd auto. I own a Rav 4 which uses the same crappy engine as the Camry and carries nearly 100kg more weight. But 9.8 would be at the top end of my fuel consumption. Admittedly this is a not a valid comparison. But if your a regular user of an FG maybe we could arrange our own comparison.

  • http://www.bushplane.com Jack Lalonde

    I have bought a 1990 Pontiac Firefly and a Chev GEO both had
    1. litre engines from Suzuki. Excellent cars and 40 Mpg in
    the city, 55Mpg on the Highway. Excellent 2 people cars. Both did over 200 K before work needed. Smart thing is buy the engine you know that works, why reinvent the wheel. Maybe a steel frame with impact body parts. Minimize rust in our salty enviornments.
    How about a front wheel drive mini pickup? I’d buy one