Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


zipnzap

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

196892.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

large bores have issues with emissions and early flame quench, it's the reason GM's 8.0 V8 is dead and buried.

 

An 8.0 liter gasoline engine is not needed in Medium Duty, Ford wants the gas engine limited

so that people will continue to realize the value in buying the diesel with an $8,000 premium.

 

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. A pillow block mod as described above would overcome any remaining

thermal reliability issues.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the GM 8.1L was dropped from pickup trucks in 2006 due to a take rate of something like 7%. The engine had no issues of meeting emission regulations in the vehicles it was offered in at the time. It was lack of sales that caused it do be dropped from the light truck line. The 8.1L continued in medium trucks until 2009 when GM exited that market.

 

Does a gasoline engine of that size make sense today? It does for a few medium duty truck operators. However, a 8.0L+ spark-ignition gaseous fuel engine potentially has broad application as a diesel replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the GM 8.1L was dropped from pickup trucks in 2006 due to a take rate of something like 7%. The engine had no issues of meeting emission regulations in the vehicles it was offered in at the time. It was lack of sales that caused it do be dropped from the light truck line. The 8.1L continued in medium trucks until 2009 when GM exited that market.

 

Does a gasoline engine of that size make sense today? It does for a few medium duty truck operators. However, a 8.0L+ spark-ignition gaseous fuel engine potentially has broad application as a diesel replacement.

 

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.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The 8.0 mainly died because GM got out the medium-duty market during the BK years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the possibilities of changing the design of the 6.2 block - technically feasible, yes. Commercially feasible? Probably not. The 6.2 as it is is perfectly acceptable for the F250/F350. For mediums up to class 7, do the potential volumes justify the expense?

 

Also, the versions of the GM 8.1 made by other engine suppliers pretty much match the requirements of the intended market - conservative design, good torque at lower RPMs and enough HP to do the job. Keeping the BMEP reasonable increases longevity of an engine in typical medium duty duty cycles. And keep in mind the major advantages of a spark ignition engine over diesel (compression ignition) in the current and future regulatory environment - first cost and maintenance costs (mostly related to exhaust aftertreatment) and the ability to easily use gaseous fuels. And also, 8 liter range seems to be a sweet spot for the market, especially with gaseous fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×