The Nano mills are expected to continue Ford’s efforts to shrink engine displacement while using turbocharging to boost power levels and return superior mileage. They are said to have displacements of approximately 2.6 or 2.7 liters and 3.0 liters and are expected to find their way into the next-gen Mustang as well as the F-150. Other Fordvehicles are likely to host these engines, as well.


http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011...p-powertrains/

 

I think V6s much over 3L tend to get a bit rough and coarse when flogged, even the best of them, so keeping those bent-sixes under 3L seems good to me.

 

What do you mean?

 

So with the EB3.0 expected to put out somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-315 hp, I imagine this wouldn't be the base engine. Too much power for the supposedly shrinking next gen, and would also be too expensive. Perhaps a midrange engine in between the 5.0 and an EB or N/A 4???

Personally I'd love to see the return of a 4 banger as the base engine in the Mustang. There were a lot of people that bought Foxes as a fun, sporty, and economical car that wasn't embarrasing to be seen in. It wouldn't be for me, but why not? A nice 200ish hp 4 in a 3200 lb car would be a fun option to the hatchback econoboxes that people are being forced towards with higher gas prices.

The EB3.0 would make a great midrange engine for people who still wanted some performance but weren't ready to make the sacrifices of a V8, and the 5.0 would still be there for us purists.

Sounds like a great line up to me!

 

Even well designed 60 degree V6s retain some inherent imbalances that typically aren't terribly noticeable or objectionable on smaller motors with lighter rotating and reciprocating masses. However, its been my observation that once they start getting too much over 3 liters, they invariably start getting rougher and rougher at higher loads and rpms. Soft motor mounts and lots of sound deadening can mask some of this, but not all and those expediencies have their own negatives -- weight, floppy motors on throttle changes, etc.

Four bangers are far worse in this regard with huge inherent second order imbalances that lead to their harsh, buzzy nature when revved hard. Balance shafts can quell much of this but add weight and complexity, ostensibly against the reason for sticking with just four cylinders in the first place. The buzzing cacophony can be tolerable up to about 2 liters or so, IMHO, but beyond that, best to start adding jugs.

Straight sixes, on the other hand, are perfectly balanced, better than even V8s, as evidenced by legendary ethereal smoothness of BMW straight sixes. However, they are longer and heavier (though simpler) than V6s and don't package nearly as easily, especially in FWD applications, hence their rarity these days.

Higher cylinder-count motors also generally have much smoother power-pulse delivery, basically the torsional pounding the pistons deliver to the crankshaft and rest of the drive train. Four bangers, sledgehammering only every 180 degrees of crank rotation with big negative torque excursions during parts of the crank rotation, a rather crude in this regard. At the other end of the spectrum, V12s puree their power pulses quite finely with a great deal of overlap of those individual power pulses, i.e., no negative torque excursions and a creamy smooth power delivery. This site, http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine...on_engines.htm, explains this quite well.

Here is a good Web site explaining engine configuration smoothness and balance in general: http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...ne/smooth1.htm

 

It is too bad that they aren't working on making a new, high-tech inline six. The F-150's engine bay would be long enough for one, but I don't know if one would fit in the next-gen Mustang. Or how about a horizontally opposed (flat) six?

 

A shame the two intrinsically best six- banger configurations (balance and smoothness) are about the least likely for various reasons (packaging mainly).

 

Hmmm...

NA V6 = base
Boosted V6= GT
NA V8 5L = Boss 302
Boosted V8 5L = GT500

Sounds like a good line up to me.

 

Correct. Case in point is GM's 3.6 litre which is course for a modern motor. This motor in the smaller 2.8 litre iteration used in alfas or saabs, can't remember, is a lot smoother.

The Falcon's I6, which may not survive after 2015/6 will be axed for (most likely) the 3.7 litre V6 under One-Ford. Anyhow, it has evolved into a gem of an engine and it will be sad to see it go after over 50 years in service.

 

Fixed, an extra 49 cubes does something wonderful to power under the curve especially when all the tech is equal.