Talk:Ford Cyclone engine

Is there a reliable source saying this will be used in Mustang?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.28.137 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2006

Since the Cologne will allegedly be killed after '07, the only two logical options are the Cyclone and Essex, and Ford's distaste for pushrods (and the fact that they dropped it from the Mustang already) suggests that it will not be the Essex. There's a chance it could be the 3.8L version of the Cyclone, if there is going to be one. --Sable232 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it'll be a 3.7 L Cyclone for Lincoln. Essex looks dead too... What happened to all of Ford's engines? --SFoskett 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization and consolidation of powertrain. TheBalance 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where are the 'rampant rumors' that the 3.7 will be used in the Mustang? Got a link? --72.85.10.218 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2008 and the Cologne engine is still in production and will be through at least 2009 for the Ranger and Explorer. https://www.fleet.ford.com/ShowWhatsNewItem.asp?id=470 Some reports says Cologne will be shut down in 2010. There is still no reliable source saying when it will go into the Mustang so I am editing that part. --72.85.34.24 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the TwinForce/EcoBoost section to make it more concise and remove some of the hyperbole and/or erroneous details and stuff that was cut and pasted wholesale directly from Ford. TwinForce/EcoBoost probably needs its own separate page. It's relevant to talk about the V6 versions here since they're based on the Duratec 35, but EcoBoost is eventually going to be applied to other engine architectures so to talk about them all here conflicts with the core subject of the article. To reflect this I removed the info on the four cylinder EcoBoost engine because its relationship to the EcoBoost V6 exists only in name. --MN12Fan (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new page for EcoBoost a few days ago, primarily for the non-Cyclone V6 based EcoBoost engines that will appear within the next year or so. Any further info on Cyclone V6-based EcoBoost engines can go here and in the EcoBoost page.--MN12Fan (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Cyclone engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716090619/http://media.ford.com:80/article_display.cfm?article_id=32160 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I have a few objections to the recent edits by 2607:fea8:3d1f:f69e:c14e:c630:2af7:814f

There are no citations given for any of the changes.
Most, if not all Cyclone engines were manufactured by Ford in a Ford factory. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that it is manufactured by Mazda. If the person wants to make the argument that it was designed, at least in part by Mazda, then maybe they should put in "Designer" underneath the Manufacturer, if they can find a suitable citation for that. If it can be proven that the engine was also manufactured by Mazda, in a Mazda factory, it should be "Manufacturer: Ford and Mazda".
The punctuation has been screwed up in the intro due to the poor edits.

If the person who made the edits cannot fix these issues, I propose that the article be reverted back. I will revert the changes in a few days if I receive no response in the talk section. The article already has enough issues, there's no point in adding more.

174.140.181.220 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I have been doing some research on Google for the Cyclone engine and the Duratec 3.0L V6. Interestingly, they actually have some information about their engine history right on their site, in PDF format. Here's what it says about the Cyclone V6:

"Code named “Cyclone” in development, this all-aluminum design uses a deep-skirt die-cast block with cast-in liners, six-bolt main bearing caps, forged steel crank, and mechanical bucket tappet heads. Launched from Lima Engine Plant for the 2007 Edge, it is now used in all of Ford’s North American mid/large-sized front-wheel drive vehicles, typically coupled to the new 6F transmission. Lincoln and Mazda applications increased bore size for 3.7L displacement, with Mazda engine manufacturing localized in Hiroshima.

Cleveland-built “EcoBoost” Gas (twin) turbo direct injected (GTDI) 3.5L versions premiered in 2010 for the All-Wheel-Drive Taurus SHO, Flex, plus Lincoln MKT and MKS. With 365 horsepower, this engine provides V8 performance without the associated fuel-economy or vehicle-packaging compromises. For 2013, Explorer Sport applications are added.

Twin-independent variable cam timing (Ti-VCT) was added for the first rear-wheel-drive usage, achieving 305 horsepower for the 2011 3.7L Mustang — more than three times base Mustang"

There's no mention of Mazda having anything to do with the design of the engine. There's also info provided for many of the engines Ford makes/uses, including the 2.0L/2.3L/2.5L DOHC engines, which clearly states that they were initally designed by Mazda. If the Cyclone was designed by Mazda, it would probably have been included in the info for the Cyclone V6. Also, it states that Mazda did actually build Cyclone engines in their Hiroshima plant, so they did technically manufacture them.

Here's a link to the pdf document from Ford: https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/pdfs/EngineHistory.pdf I would say that it should count as a reference, seeing as it's directly from Ford. 174.140.181.220 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Cyclone engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]