New Ford engine discussion thread.

[92merc]

Hyundia/Kia NA engines with DI have the same issues of soot on the tail pipe. So it's not just a EB issue. It's DI.

[silvrsvt]

If that's normal for these things, I predict a massive scandal in about 5-10 years where Ford is accused of taking advantage of a loop hole in the emissions law in order to line their pockets selling trucks that are turning the earth black. It won't be pretty.

 

Or yours is just an isolated incident.

 

 

My SHO (and pretty much any other 3.5L Ecoboost I've seen) has always a black build up on the tail pipes...its "just" carbon

[akirby]

 

 

My SHO (and pretty much any other 3.5L Ecoboost I've seen) has always a black build up on the tail pipes...its "just" carbon

 

And it's due to running rich for better cooling.

[akirby]

If that's normal for these things, I predict a massive scandal in about 5-10 years where Ford is accused of taking advantage of a loop hole in the emissions law in order to line their pockets selling trucks that are turning the earth black. It won't be pretty.

 

Or yours is just an isolated incident.

 

 

If theoldwizard is correct and DI generates a lot of particulates outside of official test loops,

then it would be prudent for Ford and others to move away from that before law makers

catch up and start scrutinizing particulate emissions...

 

I suspect this is why Ford has moved to PFDI and transferred most of the fuel flow back to port injection,

we were never really told that much about how the Ecoboost engines operate under full load.

 

I never said Ford US was using it that way ! Ford EU and likely any other manufacturer using DI in EU IS !

 

I was working in Ford Engine Engineering when Bosch came to Dearborn and "sold" EcoBoost to the Ford US management. Yes, the first 3.5L EcoBoost was mostly a Bosch design with pretty much all Bosch components. The interesting back story is that Ford engineers could not reproduce the numbers that Bosch used to sell the program to Ford management. After over 1 year, Bosch sent some engineers to Dearborn to review Ford's test procedures.

 

Bottom line, Bosch deceived Ford US management by presenting data based on the then EU standards, which were (are?) MUCH LOOSER on HC at highway operation/outside of the testing region. This accounted for several MPG highway.

 

He never said Ford was doing this in the US. He said they had to sacrifice several highway MPG in the US compared to what Bosch predicted because Bosch was doing it in EU. There is no loophole or anything else here.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The fact of the matter is that these are running rich to the point of people having to wipe black grime off the paint behind the tail pipe. I understand turbo engines will be tuned to run rich under boost. That's gasoline forced induction 101 - stoich may be 14.7:1 for gasoline but 11.5:1 makes more power and provides critical margin to the catastrophic failure that could happen if it were to detonate under boost.

 

But the fact that such particulate emissions are legal in this day and age is a loop hole as far as the average consumer will understand the issue. For that reason this will probably be a scandal - our wonderful media won't understand it (their degree is journalism, not engineering or chemistry) and all that will be reported is that Ford took advantage of a loop hole to sell millions of trucks that belched black stuff while their competition stuck to naturally aspirated engines that didn't belch [as much] black stuff.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[blksn8k2]

But the fact that such particulate emissions are legal in this day and age is a loop hole as far as the average consumer will understand the issue. For that reason this will probably be a scandal - our wonderful media won't understand it (their degree is journalism, not engineering or chemistry) and all that will be reported is that Ford took advantage of a loop hole to sell millions of trucks that belched black stuff while their competition stuck to naturally aspirated engines that didn't belch [as much] black stuff.

 

 

Don't give GM any ideas. That will be their next truck commercial.

[theoldwizard]

If theoldwizard is correct and DI generates a lot of particulates outside of official test loops,

then it would be prudent for Ford and others to move away from that before law makers

catch up and start scrutinizing particulate emissions...

That is not what I was trying to say !

 

• GDI generates particulate emissions, PERIOD. At all operating conditions. CARB/EPA have proposed limits.

• When GDI is operated in lean conditions ("lean cruise" which IS legal in EU), like any gasoline engine, it produces more than legal HC (by both US and EU standards).

[lfeg]

 

That is not what I was trying to say !

 

• GDI generates particulate emissions, PERIOD. At all operating conditions. CARB/EPA have proposed limits.

• When GDI is operated in lean conditions ("lean cruise" which IS legal in EU), like any gasoline engine, it produces more than legal HC (by both US and EU standards).

 

Question - which operating condition does GDI generate the most particulate in, light load high speed, moderate load moderate speed, or heavy loading, any speed?

Also an observation - there is no current "loophole" that allows GDI engines to emit greater particulates, because there are no current limits on particulate emissions of spark ignition engines. Future regs may mirror the diesel particulate regs.

[jpd80]

 

That is not what I was trying to say !

 

• GDI generates particulate emissions, PERIOD. At all operating conditions. CARB/EPA have proposed limits.

• When GDI is operated in lean conditions ("lean cruise" which IS legal in EU), like any gasoline engine, it produces more than legal HC (by both US and EU standards).

And what I'm saying is that Ford has deliberately stepped away form dedicated GDIT and in the new Ecoboost engines

90% of the fuel is now delivered via the port injection system.The DI simply does not add enough to constitute an issue.

So even if it produced significant particulates, Ford has now reduced that side of it by 90%. compared to the the 2017 Engines. ....

 

On its new engines using PDFI, Ford is using DI in a completely different way than before and that will have

a profound difference when it comes to those particulate emission rules. Look for GM and other to do similar.

 

Mike Drop.

Edited October 6, 2017 by jpd80

[akirby]

90% of the fuel is now delivered via the port injection system

 

That's only at idle.

[theoldwizard]

Question - which operating condition does GDI generate the most particulate in, light load high speed, moderate load moderate speed, or heavy loading, any speed?

 

According to another engine retiree I bumped into last month (who is still working part time at Roush), GDI, both turbo and non-turbo emit more particulates than PFI under all operating conditions. His theory was that soot was caused strictly by having liquid gasoline particle inside the combustion chamber.

 

Also an observation - there is no current "loophole" that allows GDI engines to emit greater particulates, because there are no current limits on particulate emissions of spark ignition engines. Future regs may mirror the diesel particulate regs.

 

Remember, one of the supposed "big wins" for GDI was improved fuel economy. A particulate trap and the associated re-generation cycle would kill that for sure.

[theoldwizard]

And what I'm saying is that Ford has deliberately stepped away form dedicated GDIT and in the new Ecoboost engines

90% of the fuel is now delivered via the port injection system.

 

So I have to question the cost effectiveness of GTDI ! 6 extra injectors, high pressure fuel pump and regulator. That is a lot of extra "stuff" !

[White99GT]

 

So I have to question the cost effectiveness of GTDI ! 6 extra injectors, high pressure fuel pump and regulator. That is a lot of extra "stuff" !

Much like DOHC 4V engines, the business case clearly pans out as numerous manufacturers are moving to this setup, not just Ford.

 

Toyota has been running split port/direct injection since around 2011.

 

As a consumer, I'm willing to pay for it. You get the added knock resistance of GDI (along with higher compression ratio) without the carbon build up issues of traditional GDI.

Edited October 6, 2017 by White99GT

[jpd80]

 

So I have to question the cost effectiveness of GTDI ! 6 extra injectors, high pressure fuel pump and regulator. That is a lot of extra "stuff" !

 

You're missing the point, Ford has gone beyond straight GDIT for the very reason mentioned earlier, particulate emissions.

They now use the DI function to obtain specific charge type and detonation suppression throughout the range.

 

Ford is now deeply infatuated with micro-stratified charge as a way of making engines perform they way they want

IMO, it's the very reason why you're seeing such complexity on the injection side so don't discount ethanol boosting

on future models, that is now only a short step away.

 

Mustang and F150 has seen PFDI introduced on 2.3 EB, 2.7EB, 3.5EB, 5.0 V8 and even the new 3.3 TiVCT.

I'm betting that PFDI will spread out across other new products as they arrive, they will throw every amount

of new tech at ICEs to deliberately make them complex to finally underscore the simplicity of switching to EVs.

 

Mark my words, this added tech will be the reason Ford uses to justify going to Electric vehicles, they become

simpler and cheaper to make than continuing with the overly complex ICE...

 

 

Here's confirmation of changes in PM regulations that began this year:

 

 

 

Attacking GDI engine particulate emissions

23-Dec-2014 10:40 EST......LINK

 

 

Unhealthy soot

Confirmation of the hazard comes via a recent study conducted by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s

(ORNL) Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center who found that sample GDI engines emit five to 10 times

more particulate matter than their PFI counterparts.

 

“The tradeoff for fuel economy is higher particulate matter emissions,” said ORNL senior R&D team leader John Storey.

“The particulate size ranges from 5 to 5000 nm in diameter and they can include very heavy, low volatility hydrocarbons

and tars.”

 

These carbon-based agglomerates can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, contributing to respiratory and cardiovascular

illnesses and even premature death especially among the vulnerable: children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions.

 

The particles that are released by GDI engines are smaller and more varied in size than diesel particles, Storey noted.

And since these ultrafine particles (UFPs) are just on the heavy end of smoke size-wise, they can penetrate deeper into

lungs, thus posing greater health risks. Public health authorities are growing concerned about UFP risks in urban areas

and near busy highways and major roads.

 

The California ARB LEV-3 limits and U.S. EPA Tier 3 standard for particulate mass (PM) emissions start this year,

said Cary Henry, principal engineer for aftertreatment technology at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio.

For cars, that means PMs must go from releasing less than 10 mg/mi to 3 mg/mi during a 2017-to-2021 phase-in

period, and then down to 1 mg/mi beginning in 2025—a 90% reduction. Engine emissions tend to change with

internal wear, so the goal is to maintain these levels over a vehicle’s 150,000-mi (93,200-km) lifetime.

 

In Europe, a 5 mg/km (3.1 mg/mi) PM emission limit for GDI engines took effect in 2009 with the Euro 5 standard.

The first restrictions for particulate number (PN) emissions—considered more difficult to achieve than PM targets

come into effect this year with Euro 6, Henry explained. The latter initially limits PN totals to 6 × 10¹² number/km,

and then in late 2017 falls an order of magnitude to 6 × 10¹¹ number/km. In the U.S., adopting PN standards is

under debate.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

 

You're missing the point, Ford has gone beyond straight GDIT for the very reason mentioned earlier, particulate emissions.

They now use the DI function to obtain specific charge type and detonation suppression throughout the range.

 

Ford is now deeply infatuated with micro-stratified charge as a way of making engines perform they way they want

IMO, it's the very reason why you're seeing such complexity on the injection side so don't discount ethanol boosting

on future models, that is now only a short step away.

 

Mustang and F150 has seen PFDI introduced on 2.3 EB, 2.7EB, 3.5EB, 5.0 V8 and even the new 3.3 TiVCT.

I'm betting that PFDI will spread out across other new products as they arrive, they will throw every amount

of new tech at ICEs to deliberately make them complex to finally underscore the simplicity of switching to EVs.

 

Mark my words, this added tech will be the reason Ford uses to justify going to Electric vehicles, they become

simpler and cheaper to make than continuing with the overly complex ICE...

 

 

So important that Ford has a patent on it

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US20150198081

[jpd80]

Are we likely to see any more improvement with the 6.2 or could the10-speed auto be a better upgrade?

[twintornados]

Not sure if this was already suggested or postulated but remember back when Ford punched out the 3.8L Essex V6 to 4.2L for use in light trucks and vans? What could the 3.5L Ecoboost be punched out to to increase power for truck/van use? 4.0L Ecoboost in an F250 or E350 cutaway??

[sullynd]

Cyclone is supposedly capable of going to 4.0, but I'm not sure you'd want to do EB on a "bored out" engine - notice there's no 3.7 EB.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Also if I remember correctly, the 4.2 had a taller deck than the 3.8. it was kind of like the 351 to the 302.

[twintornados]

Also if I remember correctly, the 4.2 had a taller deck than the 3.8. it was kind of like the 351 to the 302.

.

Uhh, no...the stroke on the 3.8L was 3.390 in. (86.1mm) and the 4.2L was 3.74 in (95.0mm) ...a taller deck was unneeded for the less than 10mm increase in stroke. Bore was the same for both engines.

[Stray Kat]

The 4.2 in my F150. At 159,000 miles it's still a great engine with a very adequate amount of power for its size.

[jpd80]

.

Uhh, no...the stroke on the 3.8L was 3.390 in. (86.1mm) and the 4.2L was 3.74 in (95.0mm) ...a taller deck was unneeded for the less than 10mm increase in stroke. Bore was the same for both engines.

The deck height, 9.232" is pretty close to Cleveland (9.206") as are the rod journals, 2.311" and rocker ratio 1.73:1.

 

Not implying that it is Cleveland based, it's more like bits from here and there to make a unique engine.

Edited October 16, 2017 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Not sure if this was already suggested or postulated but remember back when Ford punched out the 3.8L Essex V6 to 4.2L for use in light trucks and vans?

Sure. Made a bad engine even worse !

 

The Essex block was never intended to have an aluminum head. Consequently, there was insufficient clamping force to prevent the aluminum head from "walking" and ultimately causing head gasket leaks.

 

Put the AX4S or AX4N behind one of those engines and there were likely hundreds of customers with BOTH a blown engine AND a dead transmission !

 

(Regarding the blown engine statement. I had a friend who did MANY head gasket jobs on 3.8L/4.2L engine back then. He claimed that about 50% of them lost the main of rid bearing within 2 years, likely because they ran long enough on oil diluted with coolant.)

 

The second gen 3.5L EcoBoost block likely can not be enlargened. Remember, it is the basis for the 3.3L.

 

I wonder how long Ford will keep the old 3.5L/3.7L around. It has that pesky problem of leaking coolant onto the crankcase when the water pump starts to fail.

[Sevensecondsuv]

.

Uhh, no...the stroke on the 3.8L was 3.390 in. (86.1mm) and the 4.2L was 3.74 in (95.0mm) ...a taller deck was unneeded for the less than 10mm increase in stroke. Bore was the same for both engines.

Yep, you're right. Deck height is 9.232 on both engines. I should have looked before I posted. What I'm remembering is the time I was investigating putting a 4.2 in a ranger (hey, it may only be six cylinders, but 210 hp, nearly free at the junkyard, and a windsor bellhousing are nothing to laugh at) and learned that the deck height is actually closer to a 351w than a 302, which killed a lot of hope for my ranger project at that point.

 

It's true, the 3.8L family was a head gasket eating turd, but I've got a small level of respect for the 4.2. Other than the first year issues in 1997, it proved to be a pretty reliable base engine in the f150. I've seen plenty with 300k+ on the clock. Back in '98 my dad bought one new (an XLT 2wd, supercab, 8' bed, manual trans oddball truck) and we all thought it was a rocket truck because 210 hp was a lot at the time. Thing would roast 'em in 1st and chirp going into 3rd if you tried hard enough. It never did completely fill the hole left from the big 300 six that was available until 1996 in f150 and 1997 in 250/350. Even trying to compare the two engines is futile; completely different worlds at that point.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[blksn8k2]

Granted, the supercharged version of the 3.8L was a little different animal but I had a 1989 Thunderbird SC that I bought new and kept until 2012. The car had around 86k miles on it by then and the engine never gave me an ounce of trouble. Believe me, it was not babied either.