edselford

Stray Kay, you are right on in what you have said! Good engineers can come up with very compromised designs when the basic assumptions are wrong or miscalculated. the Conentental fwd 4.6 V8 was not that good and volumes did not justify 100 mm bore centers for truck, mustang and crown Victoria. we started down the wrong road with GM switching basically everything to front wheel drive! Roger Smith thought everything should be fwd! Then we got fwd torque steer, throttle body injection and more!. Now everything is going electric but it may make more sense to use cars and trucks with IC engines to clean the air as they pass thru it!, something like a catalytic radiator? over the years, I have had vehicles with the following engines: 352fe 390fe 255, 351W, 231V6, 305, 2.6MMC, 318, 360chrysler, 2.4, 3.0V6, 360amc, 454, 350 Chevy, 364 Chevy, 4.6 doc Cadillac, 4.6doc Buick, 5.4 ford, 3.5 ford, 3.0 ford, 1.6ecboost, 1.5 ecoboost, 2.0 ecoboost and current 2.3 ecoboost. out of all these vehicles, the Galaxie 352fe , the suburban 454, the Seville 4.6 and the Explorer 2.3 ecoboost ran the best! I have learned over the last 45 years, have a backup! Maybe the 6.8 is part of the backup plan? edselford

There is a very simple strategy to get to the 6.8 liter windsorV8. pour the block out of CGI and machine it down the same line as the 7.3 liter by just changing the cutters.(weight pretty close to aluminum) Reduce bore to 103.4 mm and use the same stroke as the 7.3 maintaining the current 7.3 deck height. Engine would still have ability to rev to 6800 rpm and low end torque would be better than larger bore with shorter stroke. Greater cylinder wall thickness so it can be used on low volume supercharged vehicles without issues, possibly with full water jackets and ability for .040 over in rebuilt. High volume when it replaced the hybrid 3.5 ecoboost engine on F150 edselford

When I said Wayne assembly I mean the entire complex of Wayne and Michigan assembly plant. If you add up the production numbers for Ranger and Bronco after volumes stabilize, it won’t add up to 350,000 per year! To get to that number you need to add the Everest! edselford

I always thought the retool of the Wayne assembly plant would eventually include three vehicles, Ranger, Bronco and Everest! the way to make allot of money is to fully utilize the plant investment running three shifts or two ten hour shifts. Everest could easily take the place of the Edge and it would appeal to a larger group of people when oakville gets retooled to makeEV vehicles. ford needs a sure thing with ic engines and maybe hybrids and an Everest would fit perfectly in today’s market! I also prefer in line 6 cylinders but the 2.7 or 3.0 V6 would do just fine. Even the 2.3 ecoboost would be acceptable. edselford

I would like to know if the Explorer could be engineered to have a low range, say 2.64 to 1? Would there be a market for one? I think the current Explorer transfer case is a right hand drop design? Not too many right hand drop designs out there but I am sure a two speed low range could be engineered? edselford

I love those cylinder heads! Edselford

Well the 777 project was a 7.0 liter experimental engine. the 7.5 version was another different engine. I think ford was playing with the idea of utilizing the 7.5 on an off highway BaJa race ?? edselford

After the 6.2 was put into production at Romeo engine plant, Roush Engineering did a 460 cubic inch version as a development project. Same bore centers with a unique cylinder head design. It produced over 850 hp on the engine dyno naturally asperated! If the 6.8 is a performance engine, maybe it’s a derivation of this 460 development engine?There is a u tube video on this engine on the dyno. The valve covers look somewhat wider than a production 6.2 V8 SOC! edselford

Ya, it would be nice to have more info on the new 6.8 V8. I just wonder if it is designed to replace the current 6.2 in f250/350 and to be competitive with the new GM 6.6 V8. It might be that simple because this would transfer the manufacturing from Romeo MI to the Windsor facility! edselford

Many years ago, ford did a research project that took a 4.7 version of the modular V8, boosted it with turbos and utilized a dual fuel system, port and direct injection to achieve a very high MEP and torque output from 4.7 liters. One fuel system was used to control engine knock, probably E85 and the other regular unleaded 87. I just wonder if this strategy will be used with a version of the upcoming 6.8 V8??? edselford

Joe, This is an interesting situation which the people in Washington DC should take responsibility for! Almost 30 years ago, I traveled throughout China looking for possible manufacturing partners to make 4WD transfer cases for the Chinese Market! At that time, a good year making cars in China was about 1.3 million units! The leader was VW/Audi. Everywhere I traveled to about one dozen very large cities, we would have dinners with the top people and reps from the communist central government. The Mayors were the most powerful people and all were very gracious. Each dinner I would get the same questions, ”why does the US government want to buy everything from China? What are your people going to do for jobs? You are going to have massive unemployment/underemployment! Well this was 30 years ago and nobody in China thought there would be new jobs in the US to replace the old jobs now done in China. They were right and it appears the US government was wrong. China did not ask us to make things for the US, we asked them to! You can put all the spin on the chip problem that you want like cnn/fox/msnbc. Etc but people have short memories Flint was a vibrant city. Now it’s a burned out hulk because gm shut down Buick City and decided to get engines and cars from Mexico and now China. Fair Trade is different than Washington’s free trade! We always have to have a villain. This time the villain is us! edselford

Bob- the LN series would look good today! Your time frame is right on! Early 80’s was a very good time in the auto industry. The original Ford Explorer was introduced and a few years later the GM Blazer. Mid range trucks were doing well, basically the suppliers were trying to improve quality and make higher production volumes by running all out.(difficult to do) Now everyone working on Electric vehicles weather SUV’s or commercial vehicles. Probably need new type of battery to succeed in commercial class 4 thru 7. current tech has issues with battery range reductions due to temperature, using heater or a/c and changes in Vehicle load! edselford

Bob thank you for that wonderful picture! It brings back very nice memories of visiting KTP and watching the class8 trucks being built! At that time late 70’s early 80’s ford built all midrange and class 8’s there. I sold manual transmissions to ford manufactured by Clark Equipment for class 5,6,7.first made in Rockingham NC and later made in Valinos Brazil. The DSO engineering was done at the plant, not in Dearborn. If you really think about KTP today, ford might need to keep mid range truck there because just Navigator and Expedition volumes would not be enough to keep the massive plant open! AGAIN, great picture edselford

Before the Boss 429 was developed, there was an experimental 427 that had two cams in block. It was called “Calliope” The bore was 4.34” and stroke of 3.62” I don’t think it was an FE but probably based off of the 4.90” bore center. I think it ran but with no development, produced 630 hp. Mary, thank you for a very interesting article on the gm experimental V8 edselford

How much technology do you think will be on the 6.8 liter V8? Anything like variable lift and dynamic fuel management? Also many, many years ago ford had an experimental V8 that had two cams in block, one cam intake and the other cam the exhaust Does anyone think we will see something like that? edselford

Are particulate emissions increased across the board or only on cold starts with DI??? Also, what are the advantages of DI on a gas engine, cooling effect in the cylinders thereby allowing higher compression and more ignition advance???? It seems like allot of added cost if ford uses DI for WOT? edselford

No need to reduce deck height on 6.8! At 9.65” the rod to stroke ratio would be around 1.68, somewhat better than the 7.3 at around 1.62 edselford

This is a very interesting thought! Direct injection versus port injection could pick up from 5 to 8% on hp and torque. If we adjust for the 6.8 versus 7.3 on torque, we are at 442 lbs-ft. Going to direct injection, we are back to a 475lbs-ft kind of number for a direct injected 6.8 V8! Again, Superduty would be a stable volume for the Ford Windsor/Essex Engine Plant! edselford

Yes, I don’t know why I forgot to mention the 2700? Might be my age! This model utilized two main metering rods, one for each bore opening. The idea was to meter fuel across a constant delta pressure! From what I understand, there was a third metering rod used for cold start enrichment. Years later, I had a 1979 Ford LTD that had a 351W with one of these carburetors, In subsequent years, It was also modified to compensate for altitude because engines needed a richer mixture at altitude but the fuel systems that were open loop went too rich at altitude! edselford

Ya back in the early 1970’s, ford engine engineering had allot going on! I was a carburetor engineer and supplied various 2150 and 4300 , 4300D units to various engine groups. The last high performance efforts were the boss 351 followed by the 351 cobra jet engines based off of the 351cleveland design. The Proco was an attempt to meet future EPA requirements without going to catalytic converters.when all was said and done, adding catalysts was cheaper and lower risk. Basically, high performance ended to allow all resources to focus on meeting the upcoming standards with low lead and no lead gasoline. There was a time where 390/428, 429/460, 351W/351C were produced at the same time. I do remember the 351W being chosen and the 351C being dropped as more and more volume shifted to smaller engines. However, someone did not project the right volumes and we were going to run short on 351W ‘s so their was a proposal to build a 351 out of the 400 and that became the 351M! carburators were cheap to make but caused allot of variability unit to unit. A few years later, ford started to work with electric port fuel injection based on the original Bendix patents! With electronic fuel injection, flow rates could be matched cylinder to cylinder because every injector was individually flowed and calibrated! edselford

I suggested ford look at I6 in the Explorer thread some time ago. It could be a six cylinder version of the 2.0/2.3 I4. This could provide cost reduction opportunities for ford on all longitudinal vehicle platforms/rear wheel drive based platforms. I understand that Mazda is coming out with a six cylinder I6 for a new CX9 which will be rear wheel drive based. In the past, ford and Mazda cooperated in the design of the 2.0, 3.5V6 engines and there is sufficient reason to cooperate on a 3.0/3.X version of an I6 in today’s environment. Comparing the 3.5 , 2.7/3.0 ecoboost to a new in line six ecoboost over Explorer/F150 volumes, a major cost savings opportunity may exist. Remember, ford prices for the added costs of ecoboost but the market determines what they are actually going to get! edselford

No, hybrid with 6.8 is an educated guess based on statements made by Canadian union president “Windsor will have stable volumes” with the 6.8 I sort of agree that it could include a cast iron block for F250/F350 and an aluminum block for F150, Mustang, Navigator and Expedition. Yes I do remember ford making 4.6/5.4 with both at the same time! Yes, allot we don’t know but it’s fun to speculate. edselford

To get the kind of volume ford needs to justify this new 6.8 V8, ford is probably going to replace the 3.5 ecoboost V6 on all hybrids on the F150! This also means that the future hybrids on Navigator and Expedition hybrids will also get the 6.8 V8. Maybe utilizing the atkenson cycle combustion to increase efficiency. The supercharged versions for the Mustang and Raptor F150 would not utilize the atkenson cycle. edselford

Transverse engine FWD based vehicles provide efficient space utilization but all seem to have more issues when turning them into all wheel drive because the space available for packaging a ptu (instead of a transfer case) is very limited. this drives many compromises especially the amount of lube that the units can hold. All these on demand systems transfer some torque all the time which works the lube excessively. When driven on highway, most customers will not have issues 95 percentile! I have found that most of the time, people do not select the driving mode at all. That is in normal default! If you go off road, especially sand, the system will overheat and the coupling will open until temps go into normal range. Proper training is key to making these systems work as intended! Driver intervention to choose the right 4WD operating mode is questionable for most people. In conventional RWD 4WD designs, in low range the front and rear axles were always locked so the inter axle coupling was never at risk! maybe, if you want to go off road, you need the Bronco, Ranger, F150 ! edselford

International Harvester experimented with a mechanism on their DT466 that used hydraulics to move the valves open. I do not know what ever happened to that engineering project on their medium duty truck??? edselford