Jump to content

How about a 4L Ecoboost V8, now that the 6.2L is dead in the F150


Recommended Posts

Please. I'm pretty sure that Ford's powertrain engineers are capable of observing the gigantic radiators on big trucks and deducing that cooling is an important part of durability under sustained load.

FYI, IIRC, engine durability and emission testing for medium duty is done on an engine dyno.

 

If it is your contention that the 6.2 was not designed for medium duty use, that's very different from contending that Ford's engineers are incapable of designing an engine for medium duty use.

That is YOUR INTERPRETATION ! I only said it did not pass durability testing.

 

I have said multiple time, the 6.2 is less expensive and gets beter fuel economy than the 6.8L. Why wouldn't Ford use it if they could ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when Ford saw the need to offer a gasoline engine in MD, it had to use the 6.8, an engine it was intending to retire form SD use.

Sounds like the development was a rapid response to a change in buyer attitude and one clearly not covered by the Boss development brief.

 

I think that's the key here, Ford got itself slightly snookered, thinking that only SD engine applications needed to be replaced

when in Fact, MD buyers began asking for a gasoline/CNG engine option for their trucks...

 

Had Ford envisioned the additional need, the Boss development program would have been significantly different

and possibly we would have seen two engines available, most likely with as much shared machining as possible.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medium and Heavy Duty Truck sales for December 2013:

 

Class 4 .......................... 1,678
Class 5 .......................... 3,860
Class 6 .......................... 1,728
Class 7 .......................... 324
Class 8 .......................... 32

Ford ........................ 7,622

 

So when we're discussing the use of 6.8 in MD we're only talking about a thousand or so engines a month at best..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6.8 is also the only engine in the F53 motorhome chassis. Don't know how many of those they build a month.

In January KTP produced 1,693 stripped chassis but that was a mix of F59, F53 (Both 6.8) while E350 and E450 stripped chassis seem to have 5.4...

 

With regards F250-550, KTP produced 26,387 in January. whilst Dearborn truck and KCAP produced 67,961 F150s...

Keep in mind that some of that production is for Canada and Mexico as well as the USA.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when Ford saw the need to offer a gasoline engine in MD, it had to use the 6.8, an engine it was intending to retire form SD use.

Sounds like the development was a rapid response to a change in buyer attitude and one clearly not covered by the Boss development brief.

 

I think that's the key here, Ford got itself slightly snookered, thinking that only SD engine applications needed to be replaced

when in Fact, MD buyers began asking for a gasoline/CNG engine option for their trucks...

 

Had Ford envisioned the additional need, the Boss development program would have been significantly different

and possibly we would have seen two engines available, most likely with as much shared machining as possible.

I would not say snookered. The market shifted as the economy shifted. And Ford responded very quickly, as they just had to keep the V10 in production instead of withdrawing it. And so far the market has accepted it at the price point Ford is offering it at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not say snookered. The market shifted as the economy shifted. And Ford responded very quickly, as they just had to keep the V10 in production instead of withdrawing it. And so far the market has accepted it at the price point Ford is offering it at.

It was fortunate that Ford was able to respond with a suitable engine, just unfortunate that it couldn't use a newer V8 engine series..

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The market shifted as the economy shifted. And Ford responded very quickly, as they just had to keep the V10 in production instead of withdrawing it.

 

It was fortunate that Ford was able to respond with a suitable engine, just unfortunate that it couldn't use a newer V8 engine series.

Respond ? Quickly ? Easy, non-decision as far as I'm concerned.

 

I have said it before, if Ford really wants to be a "player" in Class 5-7, they need a bigger engine. Although CNG has still not made a large foothold in that market space, it could, very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Respond ? Quickly ? Easy, non-decision as far as I'm concerned.

Funny since you keep raising internal concerns over the cost of the V10.......that engine in F450/550 is money for jam.

but I wonder how it performs in the 650 and 750 as a, 7.5-8.0 liters is pretty much expected in bigger trucks.

Larger capacity would come in handy if buyers were looking to fit CNG...

 

By the look of it, Ford seems to be focusing on improving classes 4-5-6 which is one class lower than your 5-6-7.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a stupid question, so please don't flame me too badly...

If the V-10 6.8L is based off of a truly modular architecture, could it reasonably be expanded to be a V-12?

If evverything remained the same with respect to volumetric efficiency, and they only made adjustments related to balancing issues, the engine would be a 7.75 L V-12 making about 545 ft/lb of torque and 430 HP or so. That's retaining the 3V heads and making no further efficiency enhancements to the engine. Since it will be a V-12 at that point, they can spend some development money working on other aspects like the inherent better balance characteristics of a V-12 allowing the removal of the balance shaft and that allowing them to use 4V heads like the Coyote has with TiVCT.

 

And, yes, I realize that the engine would be VERY long and tough to fit in a regular superduty engine bay. I was thinking that medium duty engine bays might be a bit bigger...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, I don't know how much 'modular' there is left in the modular architecture, seeing how the 5.4 & 4.6 are kaput.

 

Also, the V10 uses offset crank pins to maintain a 72 degree firing pattern. I don't know if you could do 30 degree offset pins to have a 60 degree firing pattern with a 90 degree V in an engine that's going to see heavy loads.

 

Conversely, the use of many small cylinders vs. half as many large ones is that you have better control over emissions. AFAIK, narrower cylinder bores result in more complete combustion, all other factors being the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, I don't know how much 'modular' there is left in the modular architecture, seeing how the 5.4 & 4.6 are kaput.

 

Also, the V10 uses offset crank pins to maintain a 72 degree firing pattern. I don't know if you could do 30 degree offset pins to have a 60 degree firing pattern with a 90 degree V in an engine that's going to see heavy loads.

5.4 & 4.6 Mods are alive and well in the 2014 E-Series. Besides, the term "Modular" has more to do with the engine plant tooling than the engines themselves.

 

From what I've read about V12 engines, you can use virtually any "V" angle because each bank is a perfectly balanced straight 6 configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the V-10 6.8L is based off of a truly modular architecture, could it reasonably be expanded to be a V-12?

The only "modular" part is the piston/pin/rod assembly. The 2v combustion chambers are similar as are the 3V combustion chamber.

 

A V12 is highly unlikely to happen because the block and head machining lines can not handle a longer block/head and more than 5 holes per bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny since you keep raising internal concerns over the cost of the V10.......that engine in F450/550 is money for jam.

but I wonder how it performs in the 650 and 750 as a, 7.5-8.0 liters is pretty much expected in bigger trucks.

Larger capacity would come in handy if buyers were looking to fit CNG...

There are development costs (typically called "fixed costs") and then there are production costs (typically called "variable costs"). Then there is timing. Recall that at the time the 6.2L was being developed, we were in the depths of the recession. The budget for that engine was spent and the people working on it needed to move on to "other" projects. The additional variable costs would have to be made up in the price of the product.

 

By the look of it, Ford seems to be focusing on improving classes 4-5-6 which is one class lower than your 5-6-7.

I don't think Ford cares about ANY of the commercial vehicles, certainly not enough to put a lot of money in to them. If they can continue to build what they have with the minimum amount of effort and sell them at a profit, then they will continue doing it.

 

IMHO, I think Ford would have walked away from the F650/750 and bus/RV chassis business but they needed to build something in OAP based on previous commitments to the UAW.

Edited by theoldwizard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, I think Ford would have walked away from the F650/750 and bus/RV chassis business but they needed to build something in OAP based on previous commitments to the UAW.

Thanks for responding,

I look at the stripped chassis vehicles offered and wonder about the relatively low cost,

I know they don't have bodies but it just looks like filler production to me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of trivia: 'Modular' as it refers to the 4.6/5.4/6.8 Ford engines was not in reference to the design of the engines. It had to do with the assembly line, which allowed the same line to manufacture the various engines in the family with simplified 'modular' tooling changes.

 

Nonetheless, all the engines did share many components. Now it's kind of fractured, the E series still soldiers on with 2 valve Mods, and all the 3 valve Mods are gone except for the V-10's in the Super Duty.

Edited by 7Mary3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of trivia: 'Modular' as it refers to the 4.6/5.4/6.8 Ford engines was not in reference to the design of the engines. It had to do with the assembly line, which allowed the same line to manufacture the various engines in the family with simplified 'modular' tooling changes.

 

Nonetheless, all the engines did share many components. Now it's kind of fractured, the E series still soldiers on with 2 valve Mods, and all the 3 valve Mods are gone except for the V-10's in the Super Duty.

And Once Transit arrives, i recon we'll see a major refresh of E250 & 350 with more efficient engines and 6-speed gearboxes used.

 

Edit,

 

I just noticed this under New Transit Capabilities:

 

The new 2015 Transit has a wide GVWR range from 8,600 to 10,360 pounds, which means

excellent payload capacity. Here’s where Ford Transit capability really pays off.

 

That max GVWR exceeds the current GVWR of all E150 to E350 Vans, but I can't find the tow ratings...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a stupid question, so please don't flame me too badly...

 

If the V-10 6.8L is based off of a truly modular architecture, could it reasonably be expanded to be a V-12?

If evverything remained the same with respect to volumetric efficiency, and they only made adjustments related to balancing issues, the engine would be a 7.75 L V-12 making about 545 ft/lb of torque and 430 HP or so. That's retaining the 3V heads and making no further efficiency enhancements to the engine. Since it will be a V-12 at that point, they can spend some development money working on other aspects like the inherent better balance characteristics of a V-12 allowing the removal of the balance shaft and that allowing them to use 4V heads like the Coyote has with TiVCT.

 

And, yes, I realize that the engine would be VERY long and tough to fit in a regular superduty engine bay. I was thinking that medium duty engine bays might be a bit bigger...

Length is an issue,but the biggest issue is internal friction. More cylinders + more bearings + more valves, etc. = more internal friction. Something that everyone is trying to reduce today. And 4 valve heads may not be an advantage in lower rpm useage. to work best with the other components in the MDT drivetrain you want an engine that puts it's power down in the range where the diesels do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Once Transit arrives, i recon we'll see a major refresh of E250 & 350 with more efficient engines and 6-speed gearboxes used.

 

Edit,

 

I just noticed this under New Transit Capabilities:

 

That max GVWR exceeds the current GVWR of all E150 to E350 Vans, but I can't find the tow ratings...

No refresh on the E250 and E350. All E vans are going away. That is why there is the "half on half off" program starting for the workers at Avon Lake later this year. As the E vans go away, fewer workers are needed, and tha alternative was a large layoff. The guessing game right now is how much of a labor force will be required for the mediums and cutaways. E350 and E450 cutaways will continue on as legacy products for awhile. Transit is the future, E Series the past. And take note, the highest GVWRs of the transit line offer DRW, something never offered on an E van, offered on cutaways only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...