Top 10 Experimental Australian engines / abandoned programs

[DFB FGXR6]

Found this interesting article, most of which are probably known to many here.

Top 10 Experimental Australian engines / abandoned programs.

https://performancedrive.com.au/top-...98W-6puQfnUBok

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

Found this interesting article, most of which are probably known to many here.

Top 10 Experimental Australian engines / abandoned programs.

https://performancedrive.com.au/top-...98W-6puQfnUBok

Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is in early model Mazda CX9 I believe.

204KW/6250rpm 367NM/4250rpm - Ninety percent of torque from 2800rpm (330NM).

How does that compare to FG Barra?

Power: 195 kW (261 hp) @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 391 N⋅m (288 lb⋅ft) @ 3250 rpm

So basically Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is much more technologically advanced, but it sucks because it puts out less torque at 1000 RPM later than our home grown dinosaur

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

So basically Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is much more technologically advanced, but it sucks because it puts out less torque at 1000 RPM later than our home grown dinosaur

Engines built elsewhere in the world might be more interesting too if they hadnt been hamstrung by fuel economy, NVH and emissions. What would the 4.0 be like if it had been developed by BMW for the european market....

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is in early model Mazda CX9 I believe.

204KW/6250rpm 367NM/4250rpm - Ninety percent of torque from 2800rpm (330NM).

How does that compare to FG Barra?

Power: 195 kW (261 hp) @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 391 N⋅m (288 lb⋅ft) @ 3250 rpm

So basically Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is much more technologically advanced, but it sucks because it puts out less torque at 1000 RPM later than our home grown dinosaur

Torque performance of the cyclone would have been better if it were a 4.0 like the big bad Barra.
this was in 2008 which is when they should have introduced the diesel to the Falcon and territory for those after Torque and better economy. Instead it made its way 3 years later in only territory. some were calling it an old engine already.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Torque performance of the cyclone would have been better if it were a 4.0 like the big bad Barra.
this was in 2008 which is when they should have introduced the diesel to the Falcon and territory for those after Torque and better economy. Instead it made its way 3 years later in only territory. some were calling it an old engine already.

Wasn't the work for diesel Territory mostly done then Tom Gorman canned it? The reason the old clunker was revived later was continuing the work done previously?

How fitting - he's now the CEO of Sims Metal

https://www.simsmm.com/leadership/tom-gorman/

He knows how to destroy things

So many expensive qualifications but couldn't tell **** from clay.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is in early model Mazda CX9 I believe.

204KW/6250rpm 367NM/4250rpm - Ninety percent of torque from 2800rpm (330NM).

How does that compare to FG Barra?

Power: 195 kW (261 hp) @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 391 N⋅m (288 lb⋅ft) @ 3250 rpm

So basically Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is much more technologically advanced, but it sucks because it puts out less torque at 1000 RPM later than our home grown dinosaur

Just to add to your post, the Barra on premium would top the Cyclone V6 on power and smash it for torque.


https://www.fordforums.com.au/vbport...?articleid=432
"Additional performance and efficiency benefits can be obtained from using a higher octane, 95 RON unleaded fuel, liberating even more power and torque from the I6 engine, with peak power and torque outputs rising to 198 kW and 409 Nm respectively.

Courtesy of the engine's dual knock sensors and individual spark control, customers can obtain even further performance benefits from using 98 RON premium unleaded fuel."

I remember at the time a Ford engineer was quoted in the media stating that on 98 RON, power would be over 200 kW.

[DFB FGXR6]

One of my main motivations to buy a FG Falcon in 2008 was to make sure I got one with the Inline 6.

With the news of the Geelong engine plant to be closed, I did NOT want a Falcon with the imported V6. Now I'm sure there would have been incremental improvements afforded by vastly newer design, but a Falcon without a inline 6 wouldn't have been a Falcon. (I say that as the owner of a V8 Falcon but you know what I mean.)

Ford's news in November 2008 that the engine plant would remain open seemed like great news at the time. In my opinion, it was at this moment the fate of Ford's Australian factories was determined, we however found out about it in 2013.

https://www.fordforums.com.au/vbport...?articleid=938

All Hail the mighty BARRA!

[oldel]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

All Hail the mighty BARRA!

Yeah, even the dirty ones!

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is in early model Mazda CX9 I believe.

204KW/6250rpm 367NM/4250rpm - Ninety percent of torque from 2800rpm (330NM).

How does that compare to FG Barra?

Power: 195 kW (261 hp) @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 391 N⋅m (288 lb⋅ft) @ 3250 rpm

So basically Ford 3.7L Cyclone V6 is much more technologically advanced, but it sucks because it puts out less torque at 1000 RPM later than our home grown dinosaur

Guzzled petrol worse than the Barra as well.

[oldel]

Originally Posted by b0son

What would the 4.0 be like if it had been developed by BMW for the european market....

Have you heard of the BMW s38? The S38B38 (3.8L) was 250 kW (335 hp) at 6,900 rpm and torque was 400 N⋅m (295 lb⋅ft) at 4,750 rpm.*

That was back in 1991, so before variable valve timing etc. I'll give ford one thing, at least they didn't put vanos on the barra. What ford have with their VCT, barra etc is a lot more reliable than what BMW have done since with regards to vanos, fuel and timing chains/guides.

*But they build them for top end power, not torque, they usually run twin pipes (inc twin cats and twin resonators) all the way to the rear muffler. E: 1,2,3 on one pipe, 4,5,6 on the other.

e: Anyway, BMW dropped the large i6 and went back to v8s after and it wasn't just for euro reasons, the new king was the s62 4.9L v8 with 294 kW (394 hp) at 6600 rpm and 500 N⋅m

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by oldel

Have you heard of the BMW s38? The S38B38 (3.8L) was 250 kW (335 hp) at 6,900 rpm and torque was 400 N⋅m (295 lb⋅ft) at 4,750 rpm.*

That was back in 1991, so before variable valve timing etc. I'll give ford one thing, at least they didn't put vanos on the barra. What ford have with their VCT, barra etc is a lot more reliable than what BMW have done since with regards to vanos, fuel and timing chains/guides.

*But they build them for top end power, not torque, they usually run twin pipes (inc twin cats and twin resonators) all the way to the rear muffler. E: 1,2,3 on one pipe, 4,5,6 on the other.

e: Anyway, BMW dropped the large i6 and went back to v8s after and it wasn't just for euro reasons, the new king was the s62 4.9L v8 with 294 kW (394 hp) at 6600 rpm and 500 N⋅m

I think if I was going to buy another BMW I'd like either an E32 750iL or E34 M5

https://www.whichcar.com.au/features...30-years-later

E34 M5 has the S38 3.8L 250KW I6

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by oldel

That was back in 1991, so before variable valve timing etc. I'll give ford one thing, at least they didn't put vanos on the barra. What ford have with their VCT, barra etc is a lot more reliable than what BMW have done since with regards to vanos, fuel and timing chains/guides.

Isn't Vanos just VCT by another name.

Dr Terry

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Isn't Vanos just VCT by another name.

Dr Terry

VANOS/VTEC/VVTI/VCT are all variable valve timing with different names and various methods of implementation is all

[oldel]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Isn't Vanos just VCT by another name.

Dr Terry

They're not the same parts every manufacturer bolts on. There's different ways of doing it and only BMWs vanos has a reputation for death rattle when the thrust washer (or the surface it sits against) wears out.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by oldel

They're not the same parts every manufacturer bolts on. There's different ways of doing it and only BMWs vanos has a reputation for death rattle when the thrust washer (or the surface it sits against) wears out.

i realise that, I work on this stuff.

My point was that Vanos was just BMW's version of VCT, it did nothing different or better. It was just a crappy design.

Dr Terry

[oldel]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

BMW's version of VCT...was just a crappy design.

Dr Terry

Yeah that was my point. Unless you're assuming I know nothing about variable valve timing technology how could you read it any other way?
I know what it is and I said what ford did was better than BMWs "vanos" system (E: along with better timing chains and guides and not using HPFP) That's the high pressure fuel pump in case you didn't know (I'm kidding) - also a common headache for modern BMW owners.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by oldel

Have you heard of the BMW s38? The S38B38 (3.8L) was 250 kW (335 hp) at 6,900 rpm and torque was 400 N⋅m (295 lb⋅ft) at 4,750 rpm.*

That was back in 1991, so before variable valve timing etc. I'll give ford one thing, at least they didn't put vanos on the barra. What ford have with their VCT, barra etc is a lot more reliable than what BMW have done since with regards to vanos, fuel and timing chains/guides.

*But they build them for top end power, not torque, they usually run twin pipes (inc twin cats and twin resonators) all the way to the rear muffler. E: 1,2,3 on one pipe, 4,5,6 on the other.

e: Anyway, BMW dropped the large i6 and went back to v8s after and it wasn't just for euro reasons, the new king was the s62 4.9L v8 with 294 kW (394 hp) at 6600 rpm and 500 N⋅m

BMW have a pretty good 3.0 diesel IL6 for those after Torque which it has loads of, and doesn't sound like a Massy Ferguson.

as you say the Petrol I6s are built for top end power, not torque.

[Peuty]

Disappointing the prototype BA V10 GTHO test program wasn't included in this list

If you know, you know....

[Dingo]

The Sarich Orbital engine, did Ford put this engine in a WB Festiva at one stage for testing I recall there may have been 30 prototypes.........

[5thFordWA]

Originally Posted by Dingo

The Sarich Orbital engine, did Ford put this engine in a WB Festiva at one stage for testing I recall there may have been 30 prototypes.........

I recall similar memories of the Festiva with Orbital.

But for the benefit of anyone interested, to my knowledge there was never a genuine road car development program with the original "orbital" Orbital engine. They put it in the "too hard basket" after a few years, and went on to develop reciprocating engine designs incorporating their clever fuel injection and emission control systems they had designed in conjunction with the original "orbital" engine, retaining the Orbital company name.

Note from the article referred to in post#1 of this thread - "Perhaps the most interesting application of this was the aXcess Australia concept of 1998. It featured a 2.0-litre, supercharged Orbital two-stroke inline-six with 120kW and 250Nm."

I found it to be a bit misleading, personally, but they made lots of money.
Cheers.

[oldel]

Yeah the kia/festiva used some inlet/injection technology (which apparently was very good and could clean up a 2 stroke piston engine), but did not use the "orbital" engine at all.

Sarich did make a lot of money off it, put it into real estate and made a hell of a lot more.

[whynot]

A diesel Barra would have been very interesting. Taxi drivers would have fallen over themselves to buy one. So too would have government departments in the period 2000 to 2015.

With 650Nm of torque it would have been a great tow vehicle in either the Falcon or the Territory.

Alas, not to be. Too busy focusing limited development dollars on squeezing a turbo into the Territory. Oh well, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by whynot

A diesel Barra would have been very interesting. Taxi drivers would have fallen over themselves to buy one. So too would have government departments in the period 2000 to 2015.

With 650Nm of torque it would have been a great tow vehicle in either the Falcon or the Territory.

Alas, not to be. Too busy focusing limited development dollars on squeezing a turbo into the Territory. Oh well, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

650Nm.. dangerous cab driver drags.
diffs in bits

[Bossxr8]

The Barra still had plenty of life left in it. The DI engines could pass Euro 5 and 6. Actually I think they could pass Euro 5 with port injection as well. Just needed development to get them to be able to pass the tests over the 160,000km service life the tests require the emissions to pass for. Which involves a lot of work with oils, and certain additives like zinc they put in them. Zinc is good for part protection, but bad for cat convertors. So it was all a balancing act.

There was also the time they tried machining alloy barra blocks in the engine plant. The soft alloy wasn't good for the tooling. Clogged it up. Would have needed a lot of tooling changes for it to work. Can't use tooling for hard cast iron to machine aluminium.

There was also the prototype LPI Turbo ute that went like sheet off a shovel. Never got off the ground though. Just wouldn't have been enough demand for it.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The Barra still had plenty of life left in it. The DI engines could pass Euro 5 and 6. Actually I think they could pass Euro 5 with port injection as well. Just needed development to get them to be able to pass the tests over the 160,000km service life the tests require the emissions to pass for. Which involves a lot of work with oils, and certain additives like zinc they put in them. Zinc is good for part protection, but bad for cat convertors. So it was all a balancing act.

There was also the time they tried machining alloy barra blocks in the engine plant. The soft alloy wasn't good for the tooling. Clogged it up. Would have needed a lot of tooling changes for it to work. Can't use tooling for hard cast iron to machine aluminium.

There was also the prototype LPI Turbo ute that went like sheet off a shovel. Never got off the ground though. Just wouldn't have been enough demand for it.

Zinc is an interesting one, no oils has high zinc content anymore except for a few specialist applications for oldskool cars.

A lot of VN-VS 5L with rounded hydraulic flat tappet cam lobes

[ivorya]

I quite like the OHC Holden V8.
I remember reading about it. very hush hush, only a hand full of people knew about it, good aussie engineering to get it to work properly and blew everyone away with how well it ran!
A shame the bean counters ruin everything!!!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by ivorya

I quite like the OHC Holden V8.
I remember reading about it. very hush hush, only a hand full of people knew about it, good aussie engineering to get it to work properly and blew everyone away with how well it ran!
A shame the bean counters ruin everything!!!

LS1 was around the corner I guess

[blue sleeper]

Originally Posted by ivorya

I quite like the OHC Holden V8.
I remember reading about it. very hush hush, only a hand full of people knew about it, good aussie engineering to get it to work properly and blew everyone away with how well it ran!
A shame the bean counters ruin everything!!!

Was that the 3 valve one they never made?

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by blue sleeper

Was that the 3 valve one they never made?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/176z...-2C0-TZtM/view

[hayseed]

A Diesel 186 & a Powerglide Auto would've ben the Drivetrain of Choice for every Taxi in the country throughout the '70s & '80s..