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

[jpd80]

 

 

What about rental fleets?

 

Companies like U-haul only rent out gas vehicles.

 

 

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?

 

For 2016 E450 cut away. both the 5.4 2v and 6.8 2V are available, so if the same plant is also producing the 6.8 3V for medium duty trucks,

then that's still a sizeable amount of engine production. Probably justifies the older Tritons staying around for a while...

 

maybe just enough sales to keep but not enough to replace with a new engine..

[zipnzap]

For 2016 E450 cut away. both the 5.4 2v and 6.8 2V are available, so if the same plant is also producing the 6.8 3V for medium duty trucks,

then that's still a sizeable amount of engine production. Probably justifies the older Tritons staying around for a while...

 

maybe just enough sales to keep but not enough to replace with a new engine..

 

But then what does Ford do at the end of the 6.8's lifespan, while still satisfying applications and markets that require the 6.8 currently?

How long does Ford plan on keeping the 6.8 around? Or better question, how long would it be feasible to keep it around, exactly?

Edited June 12, 2015 by zipnzap

[RichardJensen]

 

That's 2015. It's the outgoing model.

 

Engine's not changing. So I have questions about how the GVWR is going to change for the gas engine.

 

Also, note this from your PDF:

 

2016 F-750 With Gas Engine Power

The F-750 Ford Super Duty Diesel truck with a straight frame configuration offers ratings from 30,200 lbs

 

[zipnzap]

 

Engine's not changing. So I have questions about how the GVWR is going to change for the gas engine.

 

Also, note this from your PDF:

 

 

Typo? There's also this for the diesel:

 

http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/2016_F650-750%20Spec%20Sheets-5.pdf

 

Also, Ford has the wrong idea about going with the 6.8 for 750 usage? Maybe we're not taking into account the modifications made to the chassis itself (lighter weight, etc.)

Edited June 13, 2015 by zipnzap

[zipnzap]

Yeah, Ford has constantly been making big deal about gas when it comes to the 2016's, which includes mentioning both F-650 and F-750 for 6.8 usage:

http://www.automotive-fleet.com/news/story/2014/03/ford-offers-all-new-f-650-f-750-trucks.aspx

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/03/03/all-new-ford-f-650-f-750-medium-duty-trucks-are-tough-on-work--q.html

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Typo? There's also this for the diesel:

 

http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/2016_F650-750%20Spec%20Sheets-5.pdf

 

Also, Ford has the wrong idea about going with the 6.8 for 750 usage? Maybe we're not taking into account the modifications made to the chassis itself (lighter weight, etc.)

I don't think there is any indication that the new 650/750 will offer any weight savings over current Bluediamond trucks. These trucks will still have the SD steel cab

[zipnzap]

I don't think there is any indication that the new 650/750 will offer any weight savings over current Bluediamond trucks. These trucks will still have the SD steel cab

 

So, that's it? Full stop?

 

There's nothing done to make the 6.8 handle a class 7 weight rating? Chassis components? Anything? Makes me wonder why Ford feels comfortable going with it.

 

Are we 100% sure the 6.8 can't?

Edited June 13, 2015 by zipnzap

[Sevensecondsuv]

Could it be the availability of the 2-spd rear end in the lighter GVWR trucks that allows use of the 6.8? It might be just enough to allow the 6.8 to stay on top of that weight class trucks.

[theoldwizard]

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.

I disagree with that statement. 2 additional camshafts and cam phasers and 8 more intake and exhaust valves (over a 3 valve)adds significant cost. Medium Duty is a very cost sensitive market.

 

Adding direct injection would give Ford superb fuel management under full load.

Only if the emission standards have a higher NOx standard that than Class 3 through Class 5.

[theoldwizard]

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.

Ford has had "gaseous fuel" option on Class 2 through Class 5 trucks for many years. Basically it includes special hardened valve seats and, possibly, sodium filled exhaust valves.

 

When the US Transit launched, there was a :gaseous fuel" option available for the base 3.7L V6 engine. Ford decided to offer the same option in the F150 for 2015MY, a first for Ford. Switching the "gaseous fuel" option to the 5.0L is logical, because CNG looses about 10% torque.

 

 

Depending on the aftermarket company doing the conversion, the cost is between $10k-$15k, with most of the cost being associated with the high pressure tank. There are 100% composite tanks available, but the volume is so low there is very little cost savings.

 

I worked in that industry for awhile a few years ago, The industry has been hit hard by the drop in crude oil price.

 

If you happen to already own your own home pumping system (from when crude was over $100) it is still cheaper than gasoline. LP can be cheaper than gas or diesel IF you have a large fleet, own your storage/filling facilities and can negotiate wholesale prices. (Frito Lay)

Edited June 15, 2015 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

There's nothing done to make the 6.8 handle a class 7 weight rating? Chassis components? Anything? Makes me wonder why Ford feels comfortable going with it.

The only thing Ford could "reasonable" do (IMHO) would be turbocharging. The problem with turbos is lack of low end torque and "turbo lag". These could be overcome be an electric-turbo (standard now in F1).

 

Are we 100% sure the 6.8 can't?

Did you mean to say 6.2L ? Yes, it failed Ford's internal durability testing.

[theoldwizard]

There's nothing done to make the 6.8 handle a class 7 weight rating? Chassis components? Anything? Makes me wonder why Ford feels comfortable going with it.

The only thing Ford could "reasonable" do (IMHO) would be turbocharging. The problem with turbos is lack of low end torque and "turbo lag". These could be overcome be an electric-turbo (standard now in F1).

 

Are we 100% sure the 6.8 can't?

Did you mean to say 6.2L ? Yes, it failed Ford's internal durability testing.

[theoldwizard]

For 2016 E450 cut away. both the 5.4 2v and 6.8 2V are available, so if the same plant is also producing the 6.8 3V for medium duty trucks,

then that's still a sizeable amount of engine production. Probably justifies the older Tritons staying around for a while...

 

maybe just enough sales to keep but not enough to replace with a new engine..

I CONCUR !

 

The 6.8L is "cheap" compared to tooling up a new engine.

[theoldwizard]

But then what does Ford do at the end of the 6.8's lifespan, while still satisfying applications and markets that require the 6.8 currently?

 

How long does Ford plan on keeping the 6.8 around? Or better question, how long would it be feasible to keep it around, exactly?

As of about 3 years ago, the 6.8L was scheduled to stay in production for as long as the charts forecasted back then.

[lfeg]

The commercial lifespan of an engine is based on commercial considerations and regulatory considerations. If it meets emissions and fuel economy requirements and can be produced at a cost that is supported by vehicle sales, it continues on. Sometimes other factors figure in, but those two are primary.

[zipnzap]

The only thing Ford could "reasonable" do (IMHO) would be turbocharging. The problem with turbos is lack of low end torque and "turbo lag". These could be overcome be an electric-turbo (standard now in F1).

 

Did you mean to say 6.2L ? Yes, it failed Ford's internal durability testing.

 

I'm referring to Ford offering the 6.8 in the F-750 for 2016.

 

http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/2016_F650-750%20Spec%20Sheets-8.pdf

http://www.automotive-fleet.com/news/story/2014/03/ford-offers-all-new-f-650-f-750-trucks.aspx

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/03/03/all-new-ford-f-650-f-750-medium-duty-trucks-are-tough-on-work--q.html

 

It's fine for Ford to offer it in a class 7 as it is, right?

Edited June 15, 2015 by zipnzap

[jpd80]

I CONCUR !

 

The 6.8L is "cheap" compared to tooling up a new engine.

 

 

As of about 3 years ago, the 6.8L was scheduled to stay in production for as long as the charts forecasted back then.

 

I wonder how much has been learned improving the Mod Motors in general, the 5.0 now effectively replaces the 5.4 3V

So I wonder if a 6.2 V10 developed off the iron block 5.0 could be used to replace both the current 6.2 V8 and 6.8 V10.

Perhaps the shorter throw engine would not have the crank and balance issues of the long stroke 6.8 V10.

 

A little history for those not up to speed with the 6.8:

Originally, the 6.8 was supposed to be a simple odd fire engine with shared crank throws but when this was found problematic

with cranks cracking, the rod journals were splayed to create even fire which then upset balance, necessitating the balance

shaft which now sits above the left hand bank.

 

A theoretical 6.2 V10 created off the 5.0 Coyote would have 25% more torque and horsepower - 480 hp & 480 lb ft

all with out Direct injection or turbocharging. While the Coyote V10 may look like yet another complicated engine,

the advantage for Ford would be the elimination of two engine plants which could mean huge savings before

even one engine is made and sold.

 

For MD Trucks, Ford could do an even larger 7.5 V12 that makes even more torque......

Edited June 16, 2015 by jpd80

[lfeg]

Making a V10 off of the existing 5.0 V8 is easier said than done. The expense for machining lines to handle a V10 block is one issue. And the block angle, firing order, and balance issues will not go away with a shorter stroke. Final question - will the durability on a class 6 or 7 duty cycle be there? Then there is packaging. A straight six might be long but it is narrow. A V10 or V12 gives you the length of the six with the width of the V8.

[jpd80]

Making a V10 off of the existing 5.0 V8 is easier said than done. The expense for machining lines to handle a V10 block is one issue. And the block angle, firing order, and balance issues will not go away with a shorter stroke.

Yes it does, the balance problem came about because Ford had a cracking issue with the longer stroke = the odd fore wasn't the issue.

Making the engine even fire sorted the cracking issue but created a balance issue which needed a balance shaft to correct,

A shorter throw crank is stronger and neatly avoids the whole issue and also allows the use of 4 valve and full VCT.

Like the previous 5.4 and 6.8 Switchable machining, a coyote plant can be set up the same.

 

Final question - will the durability on a class 6 or 7 duty cycle be there? Then there is packaging. A straight six might be long but it is narrow. A V10 or V12 gives you the length of the six with the width of the V8.

A Coyote V10 is a smaller but more efficient version of what already is, it's a much improved Mod Motor and that goes to the issue mentioned

that may concern. The shorter stroke makes the crank stronger and will most likely eliminate the need for spit crank journals and balance shaft

 

If you've ever seen the size of the 6.7 diesel, the V10 is not an issue, the V12 may or may not have issues with length.

 

 

Not saying this is the only way to go but knowing Ford, if it were to replace the 6.8, it would want more than the benefit

of a new, more efficient engine, the closure of two engine plants would be worth so more than simply making the new V10

Edited June 16, 2015 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

Of course if your 6.2 V10 were to happen, we'd have to also get a 6.5L flat-plane crank version.... Naturally aspirated 650 hp / 525 tq anyone?

[RichardJensen]

A Coyote V10 is a smaller but more efficient version of what already is

 

The thing is, what's Ford's incentive to replace the 6.8?

[30 OTT 6]

Use the time and resources to fix the Boss block problems instead of developing a new V10.

[jpd80]

 

The thing is, what's Ford's incentive to replace the 6.8?

 

On its own, there's no incentive to replace the 6.8 V10 but if the replacement could be made

in an existing plant that builds the 5.0 V8, then two other engine plants could be closed...

 

Consider the 5.0 Coyote and 6.2 V10 the engine equivalent of D3 products effectivly

replacing BOF Panther and BOF Explorer, those two plants were able to be closed down

netting Ford a significant and recurring reduction in costs.

 

A successful 6.2 V10 would be able to replace two engines making those plants redundant.

Edited June 17, 2015 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

The thing is, what's Ford's incentive to replace the 6.8?

There IS some demand fir a higher hp/torque gas engine in Medium Duty application,

 

If (when) gasoline goes back to $4/gallon or more, there will be a bigger demand for CNG, which drops hp/torque by 10%.

[Bob Rosadini]

There IS some demand fir a higher hp/torque gas engine in Medium Duty application,

 

If (when) gasoline goes back to $4/gallon or more, there will be a bigger demand for CNG, which drops hp/torque by 10%.

I do believe that IS the issue.....as long as whatever that new spark engine is still provides the upfront cost savings over the PS option and as long as the gasoline to diesel price spread stays as high as it is.

 

I'm at a friend's shop the other night (small civil contractor) and his guys are bitching about the two one tons he has- GMC gas V-8's (6.0) one a dump, the other utility body with fuel back pack, welder and a lot of tools. Both frequently pull trailers with skid steers, mini excavators etc. Complaints about how powerless these trucks are in particular when they are towing.

 

I proceed to give them truck "economics 101"-first cost differential, routine PM cost, fuel economy vs annual mileage, blah blah. Do those GM's do the job? Yes, does the 6.8 do the job?-yes. Would a Duramax or PS do a better job? Yes- its all about what ALL the final numbers say. And by the way, I was on my soapbox using a diesel premium of over a buck a gallon. Paid attention to pump postings the next day and the dif has narrowed by quite a bit. A moving target for sure

 

And as you say-as have many others- if it comes to a CNG/LNG engine, you need bigger cubes. Even if gasoline gets to 4 bucks, those conversion numbers for CNG/LNG in my mind still say you have to have a lot of miles to get a payout from that option.

 

The product planners have a tough job!