J-150 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Fuel economy, that's the key in all this and why so many larger trucks head towards diesel. A karge gasoline truck engine would be a mistake, better to press on with diesel. It's telling that GM couldn't find a market for its large 8.0 liter V8, it was probably the best example of a large V8 anyone could ask for yet it could not survive, because not enough buyers wanted it. Fuel economy is not the only factor. Total operational cost, fixed and expected variable, over the life of the truck is what fleet buyers care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Fuel economy, that's the key in all this and why so many larger trucks head towards diesel. A large gasoline truck engine would be a mistake, better to press on with diesel. Fuel economy is not the only factor. Total operational cost, fixed and expected variable, over the life of the truck is what fleet buyers care about. I concur with J-150. While diesels still win, hands down, in the torque battle, necessary for hauling heavy loads, "total cost of ownership" for diesel medium duty trucks is way up from 10 years ago. For a fleet, if you don't need the extra torque, gas is the way to go. I know I would trade 12+ quart oil changes every 5,000 versus 6 quart oil changes and 10 new spark plugs every 50,000. An 8+L gasser would be close to diesel torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Fuel economy, that's the key in all this and why so many larger trucks head towards diesel. A karge gasoline truck engine would be a mistake, better to press on with diesel. It's telling that GM couldn't find a market for its large 8.0 liter V8, it was probably the best example of a large V8 anyone could ask for yet it could not survive, because not enough buyers wanted it. JP..From my earlier post....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. No doubt about class 8, but we are talking about class 6 and 7's. Best example I can think of is the maintenance type contractor who loads up his truck with all kinds of tools/supplies and perhaps is towing a welder or utility trailer carrying a skid steer, mini excavator whatever. He gets to jobsite and truck sits for 8 hours. Every night here in New England such trucks are like lightning bugs- they come out at 6PM, along with troopers siting in their PI's while they shut down lanes on the interstates doing crack repair, catch basin changes etc. etc. By 6AM they are gone. No way can a guy justify the first cost premium based on any fuel savings unless you run the numbers out probably beyond 5 years. A lot of these guys are trying to stay in business until next year! I concur with J-150. While diesels still win, hands down, in the torque battle, necessary for hauling heavy loads, "total cost of ownership" for diesel medium duty trucks is way up from 10 years ago. For a fleet, if you don't need the extra torque, gas is the way to go. I know I would trade 12+ quart oil changes every 5,000 versus 6 quart oil changes and 10 new spark plugs every 50,000. An 8+L gasser would be close to diesel torque. Now add this to equation. Gas, (spark) has a market for sure whenever all the factors are considered IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I'm seeing more gassers towing RV's now than in the past 10 years. I think the cost of diesel fuel plus the upfront cost including emissions is having an effect, not only on fleets, but personal use as well. While I love my diesel for towing, I don't tow enough to justify my next truck being a diesel unless I can get into a smaller diesel for less money or the cost of diesel fuel comes down, or fuel economy goes up. On a 340 mile round trip this past weekend, I only averaged a shad over 9 MPG running about 65 MPH towing our fiver. Granted, I'm driving the guzzler 6.4L, but still, I can buy a LOT of gas for the $8k upcharge to get into a PowerStroke on a new truck. I can't wait to see what Ford has in store for the '17 F250. If Ford can tune the EB to do well in the Super Duty, I think they will have a big winner on their hands and will steal lots of gasser sales from GM and Ram. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 So... For clarification, what would be a naturally-aspirated gas engine that could easily fit into vans, pickups and medium duty trucks and be fully adequate and 100% durable for the full duty cycles of all three (and can also be adequately cooled in all three), and also easily be capable of being converted to run on CNG and LPG? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I'm seeing more gassers towing RV's now than in the past 10 years. I think the cost of diesel fuel plus the upfront cost including emissions is having an effect, not only on fleets, but personal use as well. While I love my diesel for towing, I don't tow enough to justify my next truck being a diesel unless I can get into a smaller diesel for less money or the cost of diesel fuel comes down, or fuel economy goes up. On a 340 mile round trip this past weekend, I only averaged a shad over 9 MPG running about 65 MPH towing our fiver. Granted, I'm driving the guzzler 6.4L, but still, I can buy a LOT of gas for the $8k upcharge to get into a PowerStroke on a new truck. I can't wait to see what Ford has in store for the '17 F250. If Ford can tune the EB to do well in the Super Duty, I think they will have a big winner on their hands and will steal lots of gasser sales from GM and Ram.. For sure! And I'm sure when you bought your 6.4 the upcharge over gas was not as great as it is today. And back to Olwiz' comment on the oil changes- not only is it 12 qts vs 6, a qt today is 4 bucks unless you buy lowest store brand. And I know, an API rating is an API rating but when it comes to protecting your investment most people will pay the premium that the higher priced brands command. Its one thing to pass an API test. Its another to maintain quality on a consistent basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 For sure! And I'm sure when you bought your 6.4 the upcharge over gas was not as great as it is today. And back to Olwiz' comment on the oil changes- not only is it 12 qts vs 6, a qt today is 4 bucks unless you buy lowest store brand. And I know, an API rating is an API rating but when it comes to protecting your investment most people will pay the premium that the higher priced brands command. Its one thing to pass an API test. Its another to maintain quality on a consistent basis. Actually, I bought mine used, but yes, the upcharge was less then as well. And diesel spec oil is usually more expensive than gasser spec. Don't forget $100 for fuel filters every 15k miles too. I only drive about 7500 miles/year, so the maintenance cost isn't that big of a deal for me, but it is for many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I drove a couple of 26 ft Uhaul Topkicks recently. One had the 8.1 and one older with a 7.4. The 8.1 accelerated quite well, even fully loaded with household items. Much better than I was expecting. Empty it would even squeal the tires from a stop (yeah, I drove it like a rental). I felt like the engine, from a power point of view, was acceptable. It probably could have taken some more weight without being overwhelmed. However, I don't know how much more the juice brakes could handle as loaded I had to really stand on them for typical stops. Of course that could just be a Uhaul thing. On the other hand, the 7.4 felt like it was really struggling. I felt like my foot was to the floor a lot without much happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 How about if Ford was to design an all new V10 72 degree block using the same bore spacing as the current 6.8L (to utilize current tooling), but incorporate a longer stroke for more torque to allow a displacement around 7.5L or so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 How about if Ford was to design an all new V10 72 degree block using the same bore spacing as the current 6.8L (to utilize current tooling), but incorporate a longer stroke for more torque to allow a displacement around 7.5L or so? The bore space dimension in the Modular family is the single biggest limiting factor of that design. If the bore spacing were the same as the SBF for example you could put some cubes in those engines by being over square rather than under square as they are. That would allow for shorter connecting rods and lower engine profiles overall. Plus I thought we had to get more water between the cylinders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Fuel economy is not the only factor. Total operational cost, fixed and expected variable, over the life of the truck is what fleet buyers care about. Gas versus diesel - what's the biggest change in total operating costs....answer fuel. Yes servicing a diesel is more expensive but in rest of the world where fuel is way more expensive, you don't see large gasoline trucks, that's because total operating costs of a gasoline truck soar with increasing weight, the diminishing returns are just not worth it for so many fleets. Gas prices are low now but no one expects them to stay that way in the long term so who wants develop a large gas truck when that could all change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 What's really needed in medium duty is not an 8.0L+ gasoline engine, but an 8.0L+ spark-ignition engine that can run on gasoline, CNG, or LNG. Gasoline is only a small part of it. I know some very talented people in the commercial vehicle business that are trying hard to develop gaseous fueled engines that are more durable, less complex, and offer lower life cycle costs (including fuel) than traditional diesels. CNG/LNG will always be less expensive than diesel, that will not change. And with every new emission tier diesels have to meet, they become less efficient and less reliable. I have not seen a diesel transit bus in years, most trash trucks are CNG, diesels are not allowed to work within the Port of Los Angeles (diesel trucks are allowed to pick up and deliver to/from the port, but the drayage rigs (work within the port) are CNG or LNG. I don't expect diesel to go away completely (long haul for one) but I would not be surprised if CNG/LNG eventually becomes the prevalent fuel for medium and heavy trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So why couldn't Ford do that with the 6.7 turbo engine, drop the compression and add spark plugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) The best thing that could be done for the Boss 6.2 would be to apply a Coyote type cylinder head, centralizing the spark plug and getting rid of those ridiculous sewer pipe ports would make a huge difference to low end torque. I concur with 1 exception. For the design to be cost effective, it has to remain SOHC. 3 valve for sure. This design was long proven in the Modular engines. It amazes me what the engineers have done with basically the same SOHC 4.8L block from the 1970s to the Coyote of the new 5.2L. The Coyote cylinder heads are so much better than previous 4 vale designs (Lincoln InTech and '96 SVT Cobra). Fluid Dynamics models has let them try tens of thousands of "virtual" engines. Put the same team on the 6.2L. EDIT: From Wikipedia The 6.2 L V8 went into production in early 2010 and debuted in the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor as a late-availability option. A limited edition version of the Raptor from Ford Racing called the Raptor XT features a high output version of the 6.2 L V8 with approximately 500 horsepower (370 kW) So what magic did they do to the Ford Racing Raptor XT version ? Edited June 12, 2015 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Converting a diesel engine to spark ignition has been done. Look at the Westports. You often end up with an expensive, overweight engine. The major issue today and going out into the future is cost to clean up the exhaust to meet government mandates. Another is the ability to use an economical fuel. In North America we have large quantities of natural gas at prices lower than any crude derived fuel (the exception might be high sulfur number 6 fuel oil). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 To zipnzap, I think an engine to cover class 3 thru 7 is asking a bit much. The fuel economy standards for pickups and vans (typically topping at class 3) make this impractical. Class 4 and into class 5 could use different versions of an engine suited for pickups and vans, but for class 6 and 7 you will need something more robust with larger displacement. Now, an engine family that could have different variants for the different applications would be a more economical way to go. It can be done such as with the FE/FT family of engines, but is there a commercial and economic justification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) In North America we have large quantities of natural gas at prices lower than any crude derived fuel (the exception might be high sulfur number 6 fuel oil).Crude will have to be back in the > $85/barrel range for CNG to be cost effective. I have a CNG pumping station literally around the block. A few months ago CNG cost more than gasoline. The other thing holding back CNG is cost of the tank. 3M (?) has a new all composite tank design, but it is not set up for high volume production, so the cost is still high. Edited June 15, 2015 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I concur with 1 exception. For the design to be cost effective, it has to remain SOHC. 3 valve for sure. This design was long proven in the Modular engines. It amazes me what the engineers have done with basically the same SOHC 4.8L block from the 1970s to the Coyote of the new 5.2L. The Coyote cylinder heads are so much better than previous 4 vale designs (Lincoln InTech and '96 SVT Cobra). Fluid Dynamics models has let them try tens of thousands of "virtual" engines. Put the same team on the 6.2L. EDIT: From Wikipedia The 6.2 L V8 went into production in early 2010 and debuted in the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor as a late-availability option. A limited edition version of the Raptor from Ford Racing called the Raptor XT features a high output version of the 6.2 L V8 with approximately 500 horsepower (370 kW) So what magic did they do to the Ford Racing Raptor XT version ? Set up for racing included larger throttle body, bigger cams, racing headers and exhausts as well as manual trans. It wasn't required to meet emissions as off road only. Ford now has 4 valve heads across virtually every engine these days, i think it makes little difference to their costs on the 6.2 either way. A proper 4V configuration would allow full iVCT for even better torque management. and similar to adding two more cylinders to a 5.0 V8. 480 hp and 485 lb ft. is strong enough to replace the V10. Adding direct injection would give Ford superb fuel management under full load. Edited June 12, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Gas versus diesel - what's the biggest change in total operating costs....answer fuel. Yes servicing a diesel is more expensive but in rest of the world where fuel is way more expensive, you don't see large gasoline trucks, that's because total operating costs of a gasoline truck soar with increasing weight, the diminishing returns are just not worth it for so many fleets. Gas prices are low now but no one expects them to stay that way in the long term so who wants develop a large gas truck when that could all change. What about rental fleets? Companies like U-haul only rent out gas vehicles. To zipnzap, I think an engine to cover class 3 thru 7 is asking a bit much. The fuel economy standards for pickups and vans (typically topping at class 3) make this impractical. Class 4 and into class 5 could use different versions of an engine suited for pickups and vans, but for class 6 and 7 you will need something more robust with larger displacement. Now, an engine family that could have different variants for the different applications would be a more economical way to go. It can be done such as with the FE/FT family of engines, but is there a commercial and economic justification? As of right now, different versions of the 6.8l V10 are shared between the E-350 through the F-750. You mean a similar sharing arrangement with the E-Series replacement up through the F-750 won't be feasible or cost effective? Or does this go back to the 6.8 possibly being inadequate for medium duty usage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Crude will have to be back in the > $85/barrel range for CMG to be cost effective. I have a CNG pumping station literally around the block. A few months ago CNG cost more than gasoline. The other thing holding back CNG is cost of the tank. 3M (?) has a new all composite tank design, but it is not set up for high volume production, so the cost is still high. Saw a post on Alpha earlier in the week announcing the availability of a factory "gaseous" pkg for 150. Inexpensive- I think it was under $500. then proceeded to say you had to take vehicle to authorized up fitter for the complete conversion- the tank, blah blah. Punch line..."It would be a payout at about 229,000 miles". No numbers given to verify that number but if that is in fact remotely accurate, seems like this is a package for corporate accounts who have to satisfy some "green initiative" to satisfy some government bid requirement or some corporate PR objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 As of right now, different versions of the 6.8l V10 are shared between the E-350 through the F-750 I don't think you can get the V10 in the 750. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (the exception might be high sulfur number 6 fuel oil). Oil's answer to bituminous coal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I don't think you can get the V10 in the 750. Meant recently. Available in new model 750's at least: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/2016_F650-750%20Spec%20Sheets-8.pdf Edited June 12, 2015 by zipnzap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Be nice if someone could explain why this only shows a diesel option w/the F750: http://www.fleet.ford.com/fleet-specifications/?sg=commercial-trucks&category=chassis&yr=2015&md=F-650-750&brand=Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Be nice if someone could explain why this only shows a diesel option w/the F750: http://www.fleet.ford.com/fleet-specifications/?sg=commercial-trucks&category=chassis&yr=2015&md=F-650-750&brand=Ford That's 2015. It's the outgoing model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.