Jump to content

Custom Search





Coming Up Next:
Lincoln Continental • Lincoln Aviator


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

What should replace the gas V10? Should it be another V10?


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   zipnzap

zipnzap

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined 08-May 08

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:58 PM

Would a V10 (for gas applications) still be needed?
 
And if so, would it be engineered for a 72 degree angle instead of 90 degrees again?








Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#2 OFFLINE   TBirdStangSkyliner

TBirdStangSkyliner

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 353 posts
  • Joined 18-November 10
  • Location:Montana

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:13 PM

Ecoboost V8 is the obvious answer for an alternative.

#3 OFFLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:31 PM

Just so that we can waste 2 or 3 pages arguing about history:

Bring back the 460!

No seriously - think about this for a minute. Think of what it would be with as a 24 or 32 valve with VVT and direct injection. Heck - convert it to OHC if need be. That huge bore size would allow airflow numbers the mod motor heads can only dream about.

#4 OFFLINE   twintornados

twintornados

    Ford fan for a long, long time.

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,062 posts
  • Joined 16-February 10
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:Central NY
  • Current Vehicle:2011 Lincoln MKX Elite

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:31 PM

At this point in the production run, the Triton V10 is still a viable entity in the top end of light duty into medium duty applications. It is a modern design that works well in the applications for what it is placed.....why replace it?


Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours....Gordon Lightfoot, "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ~ Gerald Ford - August 12, 1974

#5 OFFLINE   fordmantpw

fordmantpw

    akirby's stunt double

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Joined 30-January 06
  • Region:U.S. Mississippi Valley
  • Location:Mid Missouri
  • Current Vehicle:2017 F350 Crew Cab 4x4 PowerStroke Diesel

Posted 09 June 2015 - 10:10 PM

Just so that we can waste 2 or 3 pages arguing about history:

Bring back the 460!

No seriously - think about this for a minute. Think of what it would be with as a 24 or 32 valve with VVT and direct injection. Heck - convert it to OHC if need be. That huge bore size would allow airflow numbers the mod motor heads can only dream about.

 

460 would only be a displacement and not related to the 'original' 460, in the same way today's 5.0 isn't related to the 'original' 302.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg

 

Future Vehicles
2020 Ford Explorer/Lincoln Aviator

Current Vehicles
'17 F350 Super Duty Crew Cab, Lariat, 4x4, 6.7L Diesel

'10 Mercury Milan

'09 Ford Flex Limited (wife's)

Past Vehicles
'08 F250 Super Duty Crew Cab, Lariat, 4x4, 6.4L Diesel
'05 Ford F150 XLT SuperCrew 4x4 5.4 - sold @53k, not a single problem
'03 Ford Escape XLT
(wife's) Traded at 75k for '09 Flex
'99 Ford F150 XLT Regular Cab 4x4 5.4 - Sold @136k, then totaled by the new owner on the way to its new home :(
'96 Chevrolet Cavalier (wife's - she brought it into the marriage)
'86 Ford Bronco II XLT 4x4 5 Speed 2.9L - what a dog, and it cracked heads like no tomorrow. 150k+ on 4 engines


#6 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,229 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 09 June 2015 - 10:19 PM

That huge bore size would allow airflow numbers the mod motor heads can only dream about.

 

It also causes emissions problems. The 6.2 has two spark plugs not because it makes more power, but AFAIK, to reduce soot and partially burned hydrocarbons (e.g. formaldehyde)


Edited by RichardJensen, 09 June 2015 - 10:21 PM.

photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#7 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,244 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 09 June 2015 - 11:28 PM

The 6.8 V10 is here and now, a long lived engine with costs amortized long ago,

very hard to justify another engine but the short list would be a larger 6.2 Boss...



#8 OFFLINE   lfeg

lfeg

    Member?

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,584 posts
  • Joined 07-February 00
  • Location:Somwhere along Whetstone
  • Current Vehicle:Too Many

Posted 10 June 2015 - 05:57 AM

The 6.8 V10 was a planned extension of the Mod series of engines. Good engine, but kind of an orphan now. Not the most cost efficient engine to build due to being an orphan with a high parts count, but it does the job well in the mediums. I see no replacement on the horizon. Mostly because any replacement would be pretty much limited to F450 and up. And for that range forget EcoBoost - keep duty cycle in mind, with a typical medium duty duty cycle EcoBoost would be on boost most of the time - not that good for operating economy. With the relatively low annual sales of F450 and up (operative word relatively - compared to F250/F350 or F150) volumes really do not justify the expense of a new 7 liter class engine range.

 

I see the 6.2 being another orphan engine with its inherent limitations. It will soldier on in the F250, F350 until another engine based on one with a wider usage comes about.



#9 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 478 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 10 June 2015 - 07:05 AM

Can someone please list the 6.2's "inherent limitations ". Back in the day some of the toughest most prolific medium truck gas engines were the 330, 361, 391FT Ford engines. These were modified FE automobile engines. For all I know these FE/FT engines could have been built side by side in the same plant.

The 6.2 has ample room in it's architecture to increase material cross section. The crank is robust. Rods, pistons and numerous other small parts could be examined and improved if necessary.

Forgive my naievity but it doesn't seem like a huge leap to imagine a 7.0- 7.5 liter version possibly facilitated by doing a CGI block and heads. I'll bet you could shed that second spark plug for these medium truck applications.

#10 OFFLINE   Bob Rosadini

Bob Rosadini

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,382 posts
  • Joined 15-October 99

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:00 AM

I think one of 650/750's selling points will be the availability of a gas engine option-and by gas, while primarily "gasoline" I suppose you can extend that to propane, CNG and LPG variants to keep the "greens" happy.   With diesel at a premium over gasoline and with a significant cost advantage first cost over a PS, I would imagine there is a good case for a cost effective "spark" engine.

 

Ifeg's comment on the V-10 not being cost efficient from a production standpoint might mean there are benefits to doijng something with one of the V-8 options that do offer economies of scale from a component standpoint?? 

 

Anyone have a clue as to the current gas/diesel split in current 650/750 sales numbers?  If so keep in mind, gas not offered in 750 until new ones come out so tht number will be skewed in any case.



#11 OFFLINE   theoldwizard

theoldwizard

    Retired

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,118 posts
  • Joined 06-February 03
  • Location:SE MI
  • Current Vehicle:'98 E150

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:44 AM

Would a V10 (for gas applications) still be needed?

 

At this point in the production run, the Triton V10 is still a viable entity in the top end of light duty into medium duty applications. It is a modern design that works well in the applications for what it is placed.....why replace it?

Production facilities and material costs will ultimately kill the V10 and will NOT allow any new version !

First, Ford owns the only high volume V10 block and head machines equipment in the world ! It is now outdated. Updating it to accommodate a larger engine (which is sorely needed for Medium Duty Truck) would require a bigger bore, which would require a different bore spacing, which is cast in stone !

Also 4 (or 6) extra valves, springs, followers, etc., 2 extra rods, 2 extra pistons, 2 extra ring sets, special tooling for grinding cams and cranks make no sense, from a cost perspective.



"Back in the day", when the Hurricane got resurrected as the Boss, there was some debate about making a 3 valve version. You could locate the spark plug more centrally so that only one was required and intake flow speed could be controlled by an upstream butterfly.

The current Boss block can easily do 7L. The problem is for Medium Duty, they need more than 8L !


The quick and (IMHO) easy solution to extend the life of the 6.8L is electric-turbo charging and water injection. Electric-turbo charging similar to what they are doing in F1 and water injection (with ethanol to prevent freezing) from the aircraft industry back in the 1920-30s !

Edited by theoldwizard, 10 June 2015 - 08:44 AM.


#12 OFFLINE   theoldwizard

theoldwizard

    Retired

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,118 posts
  • Joined 06-February 03
  • Location:SE MI
  • Current Vehicle:'98 E150

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:46 AM

It also causes emissions problems. The 6.2 has two spark plugs not because it makes more power, but AFAIK, to reduce soot and partially burned hydrocarbons (e.g. formaldehyde)

The piston is so big and the 1 plug was so far to the side, they were getting poor combustion across the top of the piston.

#13 OFFLINE   theoldwizard

theoldwizard

    Retired

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,118 posts
  • Joined 06-February 03
  • Location:SE MI
  • Current Vehicle:'98 E150

Posted 10 June 2015 - 08:49 AM

I think one of 650/750's selling points will be the availability of a gas engine option-and by gas, while primarily "gasoline" I suppose you can extend that to propane, CNG and LPG variants to keep the "greens" happy.   With diesel at a premium over gasoline and with a significant cost advantage first cost over a PS, I would imagine there is a good case for a cost effective "spark" engine.

If (when ?) the price of gas starts approaching $4/gallon, the demand for CNG will come back. Larger engines are required because CNG (at the pressure we store/use it at today) has less energy.

#14 OFFLINE   coupe3w

coupe3w

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined 06-October 99
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:MA
  • Current Vehicle:2012 Focus SE, 67 Mustang FB, 34 3 Window Coupe

Posted 10 June 2015 - 11:22 AM

 

It also causes emissions problems. The 6.2 has two spark plugs not because it makes more power, but AFAIK, to reduce soot and partially burned hydrocarbons (e.g. formaldehyde)

But yet GM does it with 1 cam and 1 spark plug / cyl.



#15 OFFLINE   7Mary3

7Mary3

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,940 posts
  • Joined 01-August 05

Posted 10 June 2015 - 11:38 AM

The GM LS engines use wedge combustion chambers which are more emission-friendly.  As 'theoldwizard' pointed out, the cylinder head design of the Ford 6.2L (and the Chrysler Hemi's as well) requires dual ignition to better manage flame front across the open combustion chamber and large bore piston.

 

 I think lfeg and the oldwizard nailed it.  The V-10 will continue at least for the time being because volumes do not justify a replacement.

 

Of course, Ford could rely an vendor-supplied gasoline/CNG/LNG engines, such as the PSI 8.8L.  But then again, imagine the horrors of a Ford truck powered by a Big Block Chevy derivative!  Can't have that. 

 

Forget any Ecoboost type engine.  As discussed around here at great length, there would likely be durability concerns, not to mention no gains in fuel economy due to the medium truck duty cycle.



#16 OFFLINE   lfeg

lfeg

    Member?

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,584 posts
  • Joined 07-February 00
  • Location:Somwhere along Whetstone
  • Current Vehicle:Too Many

Posted 10 June 2015 - 11:39 AM

Stray Kat, as to inherent limitations of the 6.2, there has been past discussion on cooling issues at typical medium duty duty cycles. To me, that is the main technical limitation. Commercial limitations might include the necessity of redesign to get the ability to increase displacement to over 7 liters.

 

You mention the FT engines. they had large water jacket volume between cylinders, something you need in high duty cycle operation. The 6.2 was designed in a different era for use in pickups where fast warmups enabled by low water jacket volume, and more compactness were desired traits. The FTs were durable and could be run flat out hours on end with great durability (as were the Lincoln Y 302 and 332). Low compression, large water jacket volume, generous space between cylinder walls helped improve cooling. The emissions penalties those bring to the table (low compression(combustion efficiency)), large water jacket (longer warmup/more cold start emissions)) are really not acceptable today. Then add the need for an 8 liter range spark ignition medium truck engine, and you need a new block design. The 6.2 is not a bad or insignificant engine, but it is not what the medium market really requires.  



#17 OFFLINE   zipnzap

zipnzap

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined 08-May 08

Posted 10 June 2015 - 02:03 PM

 

At this point in the production run, the Triton V10 is still a viable entity in the top end of light duty into medium duty applications. It is a modern design that works well in the applications for what it is placed.....why replace it?

 

I don't mean right now. I'm talking in terms of near the end of its lifespan.

 

I don't see neither the 2 valve or 3 valve v10, in its current form, being feasible, say, 10 years from now.

 

 
Production facilities and material costs will ultimately kill the V10 and will NOT allow any new version !

First, Ford owns the only high volume V10 block and head machines equipment in the world ! It is now outdated. Updating it to accommodate a larger engine (which is sorely needed for Medium Duty Truck) would require a bigger bore, which would require a different bore spacing, which is cast in stone !

Also 4 (or 6) extra valves, springs, followers, etc., 2 extra rods, 2 extra pistons, 2 extra ring sets, special tooling for grinding cams and cranks make no sense, from a cost perspective.



"Back in the day", when the Hurricane got resurrected as the Boss, there was some debate about making a 3 valve version. You could locate the spark plug more centrally so that only one was required and intake flow speed could be controlled by an upstream butterfly.

The current Boss block can easily do 7L. The problem is for Medium Duty, they need more than 8L !

 

So even a clean-sheet design is out of the question?

 

The quick and (IMHO) easy solution to extend the life of the 6.8L is electric-turbo charging and water injection. Electric-turbo charging similar to what they are doing in F1 and water injection (with ethanol to prevent freezing) from the aircraft industry back in the 1920-30s !

 

Might this interfere with with CNG and LPG conversions, and how would it affect downtime/maintenance costs?



#18 OFFLINE   7Mary3

7Mary3

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,940 posts
  • Joined 01-August 05

Posted 10 June 2015 - 07:39 PM

Story time:  When Navistar was considering buying GM's medium duty truck operation, many in Navistar thought the 'cherry' in that deal was exclusive access to GM's 8.1L gas V-8.  However, certain executives in Navistar at the time were 'anti' gasoline engine.  Their thinking was the International VT-365 (that's right, 6.4L Powerstroke) was a superior alternative to any gasoline engine, and therefore the 8.1L was 'worthless'.  These were the same executives that thought advanced EGR with no SCR NOX reduction was such a great idea.  Needless to say after nearly destroying the corporation said executives are gone, and the proponents of aquiring the 8.1L are left lamenting what could have been.  While GM no longer manufactures the 8.1L, they do make components and firms such as PSI and Powertrain Integration build improved versions of the old Big Block Chevy and offer them to OEM's.  What could have been an exclusive gasoline/CNG/LNG engine in International vehicles will soon be available in many medium duty trucks and school buses.  Navistar for one is offereing a propane fueled PSI 8.8L in their school bus line, claiming superior economy and durability over Blue Bird's Roush V-10.  The PSI 8.8L operates at a significantly lower r.p.m. than the 6.8L and delivers more torque.  Both the PSI and Powertrain Integration V-8's have the potential for displacements over 10L. 

 

I heard this second hand from some individuals who should know something about it, but as such I won't make any claims about it's accuracy! 

 

I am not sure what, if any, rights GM may still have to the BBC design.  It may be a case of GM supplies parts and licenses the manufacture of these engines (new 'crate' engines are also supplied back to GM SPO).  GM also supplies both PSI and Powertrain Integration with complete 6.0L V-8's which they market to both automotive and industrial OEM's.  Considering the limitations on the Ford 6.2L, I find it odd the Freightliner has no problem offering the GM 6.0L in a 20,000 GVW UPS chassis. 

 

In any event, I for one don't think the gaseous fuel converted diesels have much potential.  Too heavy and just not optomized for spark-ignition.  Reengineered gasoline engines are much closer to ideal in this application.  Ford's 6.8L is certainly a contender in the class 4/5/6 medium market, but I think there will be a call for 8L+ dedicated gaseous fueled engines in the future.   


Edited by 7Mary3, 10 June 2015 - 07:40 PM.


#19 OFFLINE   twintornados

twintornados

    Ford fan for a long, long time.

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,062 posts
  • Joined 16-February 10
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:Central NY
  • Current Vehicle:2011 Lincoln MKX Elite

Posted 10 June 2015 - 09:18 PM

I am not sure what, if any, rights GM may still have to the BBC design.

 

196892.jpg


  • J-150 and akirby like this
Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours....Gordon Lightfoot, "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ~ Gerald Ford - August 12, 1974

#20 OFFLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 478 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 10 June 2015 - 10:16 PM

Ok, thank you Ifeg for that detailed explanation.

I do however think that Ford could relatively easily do a "pillow block" version of the 6.2 block in CGI. Now I guess the big stumbling block is water jackets get all around the cylinders. The aforementioned pillow style block takes care of the coolant volume problem and adds a great deal more strength to the sides of the block. Currently the 6.2 enjoys a 4.015" bore in a block that has a 4.53" bore centerline spacing. If my math is correct that leaves over a 1/2" between the cylinders bores. I assume these blocks are semi- siamesed for strength. I'm still having trouble with the concept that Ford can't get water between those cylinders. At the current bore size there is plenty of room. In fact the bore could grow significantly and still have room for water. In addition starting in 1986 Ford began ovalizing the OD of the cylinders in engines like the 5.0. This provided more material where it is most needed on the thrust sides of the cylinders while maintaining full water jacketing between the cylinders. This would facilitate larger bores easily.

Ok so for conversation's sake lets just stick with the smallish 4.015" bore. If you stuck a 4.25" arm in there you're at 430" or 7+ liters. Moving further you could go with a 4.5" stroke and end up around 454" or 7.4 liters.

If Ford did this I believe they could surpass and replace the V10 and approach the 8.1 brand x performance if not surpass it as well.

My final point is these new 6.2s have everything we've always wanted and yet it's treated like a red headed step child. It may need some tweaking and development, but it's there in my humble opinion.








Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·