42 replies to this topic

[Stray Kat]

Anyone care to speculate or to inform us as to why the 6.7 has the SAE? bellhousing bolt pattern on the bell flange? Or at least it looks to me like it does. Will this beast see duty in bigger trucks like the big Mediums ? Or maybe it can be utilized as a marine engine. Seems like Ford has plans for this engine. What do you think?

Edited by Stray Kat, 02 January 2010 - 12:38 AM.

[RichardJensen]

Ford may also intend to use the 6R140 in the medium duty market.

[CGIron]

Super Duty Job1 is January 18, 2010
Super Duty "OK to buy" is March 8, 2010 1st day for dealer to sell.


The wait is soon over. One month earlier than they said before.

[theoldwizard]

This would make one heck of a nice boat engine for a single screw cruiser up to about 35'. The aluminum heads would require a closed cooling system with heat exchanger so packaging would be an issue.

Most other "non transportation" applications don't need this much power, or they already have engines that are all cast iron and have a proven durability record of millions of hours of operations.

[Stray Kat]

I would love it if Ford revitalized their Power Products division and became an engine vendor again. In my experience that was the absolute cheapest way to purchase new Ford engines. There are a few early Ford vehicles around these parts, running with those old 302 and 351 "Marine Boss" to prove it.

I think the point about the fresh water exchanger is well taken but I do believe those are used more often than not in the salt water. If you love your engine it's crazy not to run one cast iron or not. There may be a huge market for th 6.7 since the big block Chevy is no longer in production. I read that Mercury Marine has to hand assemble those things from component parts now to keep their big inch powerplant business going. That sounds expensive. Is there a shot Ford could take that business back? This lightweight, compact diesel would be a killer choice all things considered.

[200MPHCOBRA]

The sport boat market has been dabbling with diesels recently. The ones I have seen used the chevy diesel and made it to about 70mph, with far superior fuel usage as compared to it gas counterpart. One problem is rpm range, 100 mph is the entry point of what is considered a "hot boat" but I can see a time when a transmission equipped diesel powered sport boat could hold its own and then some against the gas burners.

As for the closed cooling, it is becoming much more common in the hi perf segment, as many are fuel injected and almost all have aluminum intakes/heads. For instance Ilmor makes a hell of a compact marinized dodge viper v10 engine.

http://www.ilmor.com...ne-engines.html

[White99GT]

This engine should should eliminate the headgasket problems of the 6.0 family with 6 head bolts per cylinder.

The 6.7 is going to be a beast.

Edited by White99GT, 02 January 2010 - 12:44 PM.

[atvman]

This engine should should eliminate the headgasket problems of the 6.0 family with 6 head bolts per cylinder.

The 6.7 is going to be a beast.

I'm an engineer, so new tech is highly interesting to me. I've been reading up on a lot of the newer Ford engines and transmissions, and I really like what I see with the 6.7L and the new SD trans. It appears Ford is very serious about this combo. Ford bencharked the Allison trans in GM HD trucks, which is a good thing. Ford claims their new transmission is both more durable and ligher than the Allison trans. Ford also benchmarked the 6.0L PSD, the 6.4L PSD, and the GM Duramax diesel engines in the design of the engine. The 6.0L was problematic, but so far the 6.4L seems reliable and the Duramax is quite proven. I have every reason to believe this new 6.7L will be at least as reliable as the 6.4L and Duramax. Also, the CGI block and reverse heads are both very promising.

There is one thing I question though, why did they go with Al heads? I understand they are lighter than CGI heads would have been, but does the driver of an 8,000lb truck towing a 15,000lb trailer really care about a hundred pounds or so of weight savings? Now, if Ford wants to build a scaled down Scorpion for half tons in a few years, then lighter heads make a lot of sense. Otherwise, the strength and heat characteristics of CGI would have probably been a better choice.

Overall, I like what I see and I think Ford will have a lot of success here.

[White99GT]

Lighter block, lighter heads, and less plumbing should lead to the 6.7 being substantially lighter than the 6.0/6.4. Not a bad thing, aluminum heads haven't proven to be a problem with the Duramax or the European diesels. While iron heads may give some piece of mind, I think we'll find that aluminum heads on the 6.7 will only be a boon, especially with 6 bolts per cylinder.

[fbmphil]

Aluminum heads are easier to machine.

[atvman]

Aluminum heads are easier to machine.

Not necessarily. The graphite in CGI will act as a built in lubricant while machining, allowing extended tool life.

[jpd80]

Not necessarily. The graphite in CGI will act as a built in lubricant while machining, allowing extended tool life.

A little knowledge can be dangerous, CGI is difficult to machine.
Sulphur is the lubricant in cast Irons but it's not present in CGI.
Here's a link

CGI has graphite that resembles coral; the form of the graphite structures, as is the case with nodular iron, is fundamentally controlled by the amount of magnesium in the mix. The microstructure of the CGI material is such that there aren’t the stress risers and fault lines associated with gray iron, nor are there the thermal requirements characteristic of machining nodular iron. So because CGI is in the middle of the easy-to-machine and the highly abrasive, one might appropriately imagine that machining should be a fairly straightforward thing.

Improving All Aspects.
Not so. Roger Cope, Lamb Technicon’s vice president of Business Development, observes, “Many people think that they can just slow their machines down and machine CGI. But it destroys inserts.” For one thing, unlike gray iron, CGI is a very low sulfur iron. What sulfur does in an iron is form, in effect, a lubricating layer (of manganese sulfide) that facilitates machining. CGI doesn’t have it. Cope cites studies that indicate that compared with machining gray iron, tool life for milling and drilling operations in CGI are half and tool life in CGI boring operations is just one-tenth. So there are lots of considerations related to setting up the machine, the tooling, and the fixturing to handle cutting.

For one thing, the machine tool power requirements for CGI are higher—on the order of from 10 to 30%. Appropriate machinery for handling CGI is equipped with large spindle motors, stiff spindles, and rigid fixturing. So it is not just a matter of lowering the speed and increasing the speed. And there is also the need to get production rates higher, so it is necessary to have optimized parameters. Tomlinson notes that no one can simply expect to take an existing block line and then running CGI castings down it. “You have to consider all aspects of the line,” he says.

Among the specific recommendations are to have larger spindle motors; higher torque spindle drives; larger spindles; increased feed unit and feed drive stiffness and load capability; stiffer tool holding; increased damping; and finite element analysis of fixtures. Roughing machines must certainly be setup to take the rigors of machining CGI, otherwise, production is likely to be down rather quickly.

All that said, however, CGI still looks promising for diesels. Not only is there a projected increase in the use of the material for blocks, but cylinder heads will also be moving to the material.

Edited by jpd80, 02 January 2010 - 02:56 PM.

[theoldwizard]

In addition to what jpd80 said, there are only a couple of companies that make production tooling for machining CGI. I suspect that some of the compound curves in the heads might not be achievable in CGI.

Additionally CGI, costs a lot more than plain iron. The heads likely do not require the strength of either CGI or iron.

Add it, up the weight saved in the AL head and the easy of machining are probably the reason why the material is used.

Oh yeah, AL is easily recycled.

Edited by theoldwizard, 02 January 2010 - 06:34 PM.

[RichardJensen]

And it's cheaper.

[Bob Rosadini]

Back to the original issue, with the HP and torque numbers this engine puts out, it certainly should be safe for use in the 650 (max GVW 26,000) and even the 750 (33,000 /37,000). Forty years ago, a "big bore" diesel used in a class 8 often didn't have the HP and torque numbers this thing has. As for the transmission, time will tell.

One thing is for sure, Ford can't afford to lay an egg with this engine or the transmission after the last PowerStroke disaster. One thing to be concerned about is misapplication- often times when new engines came out with impressive torque /HP numbers, they were put in situations they should not have been in.

Let's hope that is not the case here

[Moosetang]

I'm wondering if someone at Ford is thinking possible military sales with Scorpion. While its being built in Mexico could be problematic for US Military sales (if someone bitches), its got power and efficiency for M-ATV style vehicles for other countries (Plasan Sand Cat 2?) or even Humvee-replacements.

Edited by Moosetang, 02 January 2010 - 11:40 PM.

[theoldwizard]

I'm wondering if someone at Ford is thinking possible military sales with Scorpion.

Possibly. But Navistar just got a huge contract with the Army so it will be several years before there is a chance of Ford getting in their foot in the door.

[Moosetang]

Possibly. But Navistar just got a huge contract with the Army so it will be several years before there is a chance of Ford getting in their foot in the door.

I disagree. There's alot of uncertainty after the M-ATV in the light/medium vehicle arena and most of the competitors for contracts these days are based on teams. Ford could hop on a team fairly easily if Scorpion is more appealing than their current engine choices. That said, the foreign/export sales could still be enticing in the nearer-term even if they're out of US DoD programs for the near future.

[jpd80]

How common is the SAE bolt flange, could it help Ford gain sales from buyers repowering older equipment?
Making multiple suppliers use a common flange would surely help end users get better deals too...

Edited by jpd80, 03 January 2010 - 12:50 AM.

[7Mary3]

I am sure Ford would like to sell the 6.7L to other OEM's at this point, because from what I understand there is little likelyhood it will meet the sales targets Ford planed for during the 6.7L's development. This isn't because of the engine itself, it is due to the collapse of the 'personal' light truck market and the shift away from diesel, due in a large part to substantially increased fuel and diesel engine purchase prices. That however might be a difficult objective even if the 6.7L is a stellar engine. The medium and heavy commercial truck market is becoming vertically integrated, and no more are you seeing a wide selection of vendor supplied diesels offered in these vehicles. More and more, each manufacturer is either emphasising proprietary (in-house) engines or in closely aligning with only one engine supplier. For instance, the Daimler Truck N.A. Companies are using their own Mercedes and Detroit Diesel engines, Navistar is using their own medium duty diesels along with proprietary M.A.N. and Caterpillar engines, Volvo and Mack are of course using Volvo, and PACCAR is going with Cummins exclusively. I would imagine Ford will want to see the 6.7L in the 650 and 750, but from what I hear it will be International's decision whether to offer it or not. My question is what bell housing bolt pattern will the 6.2L 'Boss' engine have? I think Ford might have a better shot at selling that engine to other OEM's than the 6.7L diesel, particularly it gaseous fueled versions are available.