It's not rocket science as to how Nissan gets more HP out of the Infiniti V6s. Besides requiring 91 octane, Nissan simply turns them at higher RPM, 6,800 for max HP on the 306 HP 3.5L vs 6,250 RPM for the D35. The 330 HP 3.7L Infiniti needs 7,000 RPM to make it's max HP.

In addition the Infinity V6s have VVT on both the intake and exhuast valves which get them a few more HP. (the D35 / D37 is intake only).

It costs more $$ to make an engine that turns higher RPM and has dual VVT. Ford could do the same with the D35/D37 if customers were willing to pay more.

Notice that for the Nissan brand, the 3.5 VQ in it's latest direct inject version that does not have VVT on the exhaust valves and can run on 87 octane only puts out 270 HP. That's a mere 5 HP more than the Ford D35 which doesn't yet have DI. If Ford puts DI on the normally aspirated D35 it will out perform a VQ with the same displacement and features.

 

I think the difference here is that Ford is simply choosing to go another route. The 3.7L VQ is a nice naturally aspirated piece, but the GTDi 3.5L should prove to be plenty nice in it's own right. I like the idea of strong low end torque, good hp, and great fuel economy......and I believe that combination of good mileage and V8 power will prove compelling to more than a few folks for obvious reasons.

 

I just think that Ford needs to go beyond what the competition is doing. Ford was 5 years late to match the competition. What's pathetic is that the 3.7L V6 in the MKS only produces 5hp/15lbs more than the 3.5 Duratec. The 3.7L Duratec should have been near 315ish hp to match the competition.

 

they can get there with the duratec 35; its just missing variable valve timing and direct injection right now. from wikipedia:

Official SAE certified engine output is 265 hp (198 kW) and 250 lb·ft (339 N·m) on 87 octane gas, but will exceed 300 hp (224 kW) once planned features such as gasoline direct injection (GDI), twin independent variable cam timing (TiVCT), and a variable geometry intake manifold are added. This is a substantial upgrade in power from the Duratec 30 and bested all comparable 87 octane rated V6 engines at the time of its launch. [3]. The recommended engine oil is 5W-20.

ford's on the right track

 

Ford has a 3.7L?? Last I knew they only had a 3.5L that made 265HP. I did a little math and using the same hp/L rate as the 3.5L engine, a 3.7L would make around 280HP. So there is a 50HP disparity between the 2 engines...if the Ford 3.7L existed.

If the Ford engine was purpose built to use premium with a higher compression ratio, it would make significantly more hp. My guess would be around 30-35HP more. Now we are only down to about a 15HP difference.

 

Probably better to compare ft-lbs/liter and specific fuel consumption rather than hp/liter. V10 makes a good point on HP and RPM.

Awhile back I posted torque/liter at peak power for
comparison from the lowly 3v 4.6 GT mill to the Z06 to the 599 GTB, the spread between the engines was a mere 11 foot pounds per liter despite bigger differences in hp/liter. .BSFC numbers are obviously harder to come by but would be the best method for determining who is more effcient than who.

 

The average consumer looks at HP. It doesn’t matter how it’s made or at what point. We (enthusiasts) are the small minority that pay attention to these details. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, Ford is a bit low on HP in my opinion.

 

Ford is finally catching up. These new GDI engines will be on par with the rest of the industry.
When I look at CAFE and Alternative fuel sources it makes me believe that Horse Power is going to peak soon and then plateau.

 

I'm not sure that we have the final HP & TQ ratings for the 3.7. Ford has a history of pre-announcing less HP than the engines have when released for production.

In any case, I agree that Lincoln should get special versions of the engines, the same thing that Nissan has done with the Infinity versions of the VQ. The Lincoln versions should have both higher displacement, dual VVT, higher red line, etc.

 

this is spot on....all thedecisions that were made regarding powertrains were before oil went to 100 dollars a barrel.....all bets are off for v8 power after the next generation of mustang...and that's only because it's too late to change the 2010 mustang.

it's important to remember that congress/bush signed into law an increase for epa fuel economy standards to 45!!!mpg in 2020.

there are things that could be done to make the v8 more economical to operate: variable displacement in both idle and touring modes...that's a biggy for around town fuel economy. another sytem that gm developed for their large trucks is a hydraulic launch assist that doesn't utilize the engine until maybe 15-20 mph is reached...these things can make a big increase in fuel economy.

you will definitely see turbo 4's and v6's after the 2010 mustang runs it course. welcome to 6.00/gallon gas.


jackg
06sts6

 

Uh..I don't think its a 45mpg average...

IIRC it was 35...

Big difference

 

So far variable displacement (cylinder deactivation) has no lived up to it's hype. Real world MPG improvements are minimal, just ask any 300C owner.

 

I like Mercedes instant on/off strategy they are working on. Occasionally I'll keep an eye on my mileage meter and idling certainly kills average mileage. While cylinder deactivation might not be very beneficial in and of itself, that combined with the instant on/off at a stop along with other improvements might net a useful gain over the entire operating spectrum. And while things like cylinder deactivation might not mean much to the individual consumer, leveraged across the entire US fleet it would probably lead to a meaningful reduction in fuel consumption (I'd hazard a guess it would beat out the fuel savings gained from using 5W20 in the domestic fleet).

Think I'll try that next time I'm in the mood to see how far I can stretch a gallon of gas. As long as I'm mid pack at the light I will have more than enough time to shut the engine down and start it back up without inconviencing anybody behind me and see how it works out.

 

Funny you mention that Bob, i've traveled to places like Africa and parts of Europe and at stop lights it is common for a person to turn off the car at a light. I guess they have been doing this for a while considering how much more they pay at the pump than us.

 

This is something that the auto manufacturers are looking at, vehicles that automatically turn off the engines when the car comes to a stop and then automatically re-starting the engine when the gas pedal is depressed.