Filed under: Etc., Green, Ford, Military
Ford Fusion engine may flying high in unmanned aerial vehicle
In the mid-size sedan segment, there are few more benign engines than those that power the otherwise terrific Ford Fusion. That assessment may not be entirely true after Boeing has developed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) powered by an internal combustion engine of the Ford variety. While the article doesn't specify which Fusion engine is being used, we'd guess it's the 2.3L Duratec four-cylinder. Ford's Research and Advanced Engineering created the UAV's means of propulsion, which utilizes a multi-stage turbo unit powered by hydrogen fuel. A car engine was used because it has more modern materials than older aircraft engine designs, and they tend to perform well at high altitudes where turbocharging is involved. The Boeing concept performed well during three days of testing at a simulated 65,000 feet, and the ultimate goal is for the UAV to perform for seven days at a time. It seems Ford CEO Alan Mulally still hasn't scratched his aircraft itch after 37 years on the job at Boeing.
Thanks for the tip, Bill!
[Source: Defense Tech]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
V 5:19PM (11/06/2007)
Your headlines are may no sense.
Reply
Willem B 7:59AM (11/07/2007)
and your comment does?
V 12:51PM (11/07/2007)
Ever heard of sarcasm? You know, using a bit of Autoblog's error in my own sentence in order to make the point...
Here's a rephrasing for Willem: That headline sucked, guys.
sw 5:24PM (11/06/2007)
Wasn't the 2.3 a mazda thing and the 3.0 and 3.5 ford?
Reply
Hank 5:39PM (11/06/2007)
indeed the 2.3L 'Duratec' is derived from the Mazda-designed 2.3L inline 4 (MZR in Mazda-speak) that's in the Mazda3/5/6.
so in a way, go Mazda!
Leaf 6:13PM (11/06/2007)
That Space-Ford graphic is inspiring.
Reply
paul34 6:20PM (11/06/2007)
The UAV just hit some of dat boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooost!
sorry.
Reply
daddyphatsax 6:24PM (11/06/2007)
I dont understand why but ok. As a proud owner of a 4 cylinder fusion se, I can say that the v6 is a much better option. But then again, what do I know...
Reply
sw 6:56PM (11/06/2007)
My guess is that the 2.3 already has a turbocharger that works with it and turbocharged engines perform much better than N/A engines in higher altitudes. I don't know this for sure but weight might've also been a consideration.
J 7:29PM (11/06/2007)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/boeing-tests-ha.html
Reply
Kurt B 9:12PM (11/06/2007)
Benign? I guess you haven't driven the Mazdaspeed 3 or 6...
Reply
That One Person 9:26PM (11/06/2007)
Should have put a twin turbo 572 GM Big Block into that thing :)
The sound of that engine with open headers would just scare all the potential attackers away...no reason to spy on them!
Reply
sw 7:50PM (11/12/2007)
Except it'd never make it to a useful distance because of the high fuel consumption and added failure points by having more pistons. Not to mention the block may be too big to stuff in there.
500 10:18PM (11/06/2007)
Wow, who would have guessed Mulally at the helm of Ford would result in Boeing aircraft using Ford engines?
Here's to hoping the sharing goes the other way too. I'll take my Shelby Mustang with a 15,000 hp Boeing 747 engine, thank you. ;-)
Reply
1337 11:22PM (11/06/2007)
Please, no more awful photoshop images.
Reply