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

[jpd80]

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%.

Is it feasible to convert the 6.7 Diesel into either CNG engine or gasoline burner?

[silvrsvt]

I dunno about you guys, but Diesel is now the price of Regular gas in Maryland. It used to cost more then Super did this time last year. I'd like to know what fuck is going on with gas prices...crude is around $60 a barrel, but regular gas is around $2.75 a gallon and Super is back over 3.20 a gallon. 5-6 months ago I was paying less then $2.50 a gallon for Super.

 

Last time Super cost this much, crude was around 80-100 a barrel!

[fordmantpw]

Here, diesel is still 20 cents above regular, and a nickel above super.

 

But hey, diesel is still only $2.69, and considering I was paying near $4.00 not that long ago, I'm not going to complain.

[SoonerLS]

Here, diesel is still 20 cents above regular, and a nickel above super.

We have a local station that has diesel priced below regular, but all of the other stations I checked have diesel around $0.20 higher than regular unleaded (which still seems like an oxymoron...).

[J-150]

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!

Keep towing skid steers and that 6.0 will need a rebuild at 50k

[7Mary3]

"Keep towing skid steers and that 6.0 will need a rebuild at 50K."

 

Doubt it. Guess what's in many UPS trucks now, and guess how long they drive them? And they are 20,000 lbs. GVW, more than a Ford 6.2L can handle. Won't get there fast at that weight, but it will get there.

 

That having been said, I won't let my guys tow skid steers with an F-550. Just not enough brake, and it is real spooky if the truck is lightly loaded. No one goes out of the yard towing a skid steer with less than a F-650/FL60/6500.

[Sevensecondsuv]

On occasion, I've had a 10,000 lb tractor behind my 4.9L F250. A GM 6.0 would have been a huge upgrade! Then again maybe the 4.9L is safer because you can't really get it going more than 40 mph.

[7Mary3]

I used to drive a 1977 Dodge D-600. It had a GVW of 21,000#'s and a 150 h.p. 318. 4 speed transmission and a 2 speed rear axle. It got the job done! Sometimes just barely...

[Sevensecondsuv]

I've got experience with old F600 dump truck with a 332 FT and Alison auto trans with single speed axle. That one is underpowered even by old standards. 45 mph tops when empty and about 20 mph

fully loaded. Just barely faster than a tractor hauling the same load.

 

And yet we have to listen to these young punks (I am one by birthdate only) complain about how a 350 hp V8 is underpowered!

Edited June 18, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[lfeg]

You haven't driven unless you have had to use every gear available to you to get a load moving and keep it moving. The Ford 300 six in a pickup dragging a gravity box full of shell corn (20 k pounds at the scales) was once common.

[Biker16]

My suggestion would be a for a V8 version of the All-new 3.5 l Ecoboost V6 to replace the V-10 in light medium and heavy duty trucks.

 

The new V8 would have a 60 degree angle and displace 4.7liters.

 

CGI engine Block and with greater coolant capacity in the heads.

 

The new engine would have both port-injection and Direct-injection and unlike the typical Eco-boost Engine with 120hp per liter would only Develop 80hp per liter in heavy duty cycle.

 

For a output would be Variable dependent on Application

Light Duty - 400hp/500ft/lbs

Medium Duty - 375hp/450ft/lbs and transient over-boost of 500ft/lbs

Heavy Duty - 360hp/450ft/lbs and transient over-boost of 500ft/lbs

 

The Software for different variants Would be optimized for the different operating conditions of each applications.

 

By controlling boost and Port vs direct injection, Valve overlap, and Coolant flow, keep the engine operating within the Temp, and Durability and load envelope.

[lfeg]

Question, how do you do direct injection of a gaseous fuel? Remember, long term there will be a need for a spark ignition gaseous fueled engine. Another thing to keep in mind, in the next few years the limits on PM will be tightening on gasoline fueled engines, and direct injection under some common load and transient conditions can generate relatively high levels of PM, enough that automakers are looking at particulate traps to meet upcoming standards. And this is for cars and light trucks. GDI is notorious for making PM at highly loaded conditions (common in the medium duty duty cycle). One advantage of a spark ignition engine in medium is lower cost and simpler maintenance. Now, add turbocharging, direct injection, more complex exhaust aftertreatment to collect PM and you start to loose any advantage spark ignition has.

[jpd80]

There is Multi point Liquid Injection LP Gas systems out that improve the power and efficiency of using gas,

I would expect that a similar system for CNG is possible.

 

Particle filters and replacement schedules will probably become standard fare with tightening emissions.

Edited June 19, 2015 by jpd80

[GT-Keith]

I didn't know you could do PFI and DI all at once, but looking at a few schematics, it doesn't look overly convoluted. It just looks redundant. I wonder what the benefit is of having both?

 

To add to this. Why not a bored out 6.2L to about 7.0L and adopt VCT, DOHC from the 5L and maybe add DI. 400hp/500tq and 30%+ better fuel than the V10. The Ecoboost V8 sounds nice as I've suggested one before, just not for medium duty applications.

[jpd80]

I didn't know you could do PFI and DI all at once, but looking at a few schematics, it doesn't look overly convoluted. It just looks redundant. I wonder what the benefit is of having both?

 

To add to this. Why not a bored out 6.2L to about 7.0L and adopt VCT, DOHC from the 5L and maybe add DI. 400hp/500tq and 30%+ better fuel than the V10. The Ecoboost V8 sounds nice as I've suggested one before, just not for medium duty applications.

1. It may be a case of enabling Ford to run smaller injectors for precise fuel control in a 600 hp engine. Also, this was at the heart of ethanol boosting research a few years ago where MIT and Ford developed a system where E85 was used through the DI system as a detonation suppressant while regular 87 was fed through PFI. It was touted as a replacement for diesel but the reality was that the massive torque produced required a diesel like bottom end, not to mention the cost of two separate.fuel systems

 

2. logical thought provided that the engines can pass durability testing for medium Duty trucks.

 

 

 

I still think my idea of expanding the 5.0 to a 6.2 V10 and closing down two other engine plants is way in front.

Even before Ford makes one new V10, it books a large recurring saving

[Biker16]

I didn't know you could do PFI and DI all at once, but looking at a few schematics, it doesn't look overly convoluted. It just looks redundant. I wonder what the benefit is of having both?

 

To add to this. Why not a bored out 6.2L to about 7.0L and adopt VCT, DOHC from the 5L and maybe add DI. 400hp/500tq and 30%+ better fuel than the V10. The Ecoboost V8 sounds nice as I've suggested one before, just not for medium duty applications.

 

there are different Swirl patterns when port fuel injection is used, at lower boost and lower RPM.

 

when DI is used it sprays at a particular point in the combustion chamber.

 

I guess a simpler explanation is DI is optimized to work best under Certain conditions and Port injection works better under other conditions. DI is Still helpful in reducing combustion temperatures, from running the Turbo and high compression ratios.

 

benefits of this is it requires fewer but more Expensive parts, but is based on a high volume engine.

 

16 vs 10 injectors

32 vs 40 valves

8 vs 10 cylinders

 

Etc.

 

other benefits would be weight, Fuel economy and size.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Why not a bored out 6.2L to about 7.0L and adopt VCT, DOHC from the 5L and maybe add DI. 400hp/500tq and 30%+ better fuel than the V10.

30%? That seems rather generous considering the current 6.2 struggles to do any better than the previous 6.8 in gas mileage. Case in point my '00 Excursion, 6.8L 2-valve PI motor, 4R100 trans, 4.30 rear end averages about 13 mpg. My brothers '12 F250, 6.2L, 6R140, 4.10 rear end barely averages 14. I think the gas mileage would be the same if both trucks had the same trans. It makes sense both motors produce the roughly the same output to move roughly equivalent trucks.

 

Basically what I'm saying is don't expect a similar displacement naturally aspirated truck motor to get significantly better gas mileage simply because it has 2 less cylinders.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[Fgts]

 

 

 

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......

The way to go would be a v10 based off the 6.2 as in the 6.2 is a big-block and should handle MD cycles.

 

Also a 6.2 based v10 should share parts to keep the 6.2 in production as a Coyote base v10 probably won't handle the stress nor wouldn't be cost efficient.

[jpd80]

The way to go would be a v10 based off the 6.2 as in the 6.2 is a big-block and should handle MD cycles.

 

Also a 6.2 based v10 should share parts to keep the 6.2 in production as a Coyote base v10 probably won't handle the stress nor wouldn't be cost efficient.

The V10 off the 6.2 has merit and would produce massive torque, the issue is cost as it's another new engine

but it could justify closing the Triton V8 and V10 plant but both the 6.2 and the new V10 would need to be

reworked to meet MD durability tests, something the 6.2 failed early on and why the 6.8 was reused.

 

If Ford went with a Coyote V10, it could close down two other engine plants, I'd call that pretty cost effective.

 

Also, the Coyote is a tough engine platform designed with forced induction in mind, its shorter throw crank is arguably much

stronger than the long stroke 6.8 with splayed rod journals. The whole point behind limiting engine capacity is to provide

a gasoline alternative in Medium Duty trucks that does not challenge the diesel engine option - make that gas engine

too big and I guarantee, it will begin to draw sales from the diesel... we can't have that.

Edited June 23, 2015 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

The V10 off the 6.2 has merit and would produce massive torque, the issue is cost as it's another new engine

but it could justify closing the Triton V8 and V10 plant but both the 6.2 and the new V10 would need to be

reworked to meet MD durability tests, something the 6.2 failed early on and why the 6.8 was reused.

 

If Ford went with a Coyote V10, it could close down two other engine plants, I'd call that pretty cost effective.

 

Also, the Coyote is a tough engine platform designed with forced induction in mind, its shorter throw crank is arguably much

stronger than the long stroke 6.8 with splayed rod journals. The whole point behind limiting engine capacity is to provide

a gasoline alternative in Medium Duty trucks that does not challenge the diesel engine option - make that gas engine

too big and I guarantee, it will begin to draw sales from the diesel... we can't have that.

Well your last sentence MIGHT have some merit but the way I would look at that, is there would also be a LOT of new business coming from Navistar, Hino, F'liner, Paccar etc. This would far outweigh the lost 6.7 production in Mexico.

 

Build a better gas engine and you will have a lot of converts IMO for all the economic reasons that have been listed on this thread.

[7Mary3]

Don't know about PACCAR, but I hear that Freightliner and Navistar have plans for gasoline engines.

 

Sorry, I am not seeing a V-10 Coyote for medium duty applications.

[RichardJensen]

Is Volvo's heavy truck business in the US anything significant?

[jpvbs]

Since we are making unicorn wishes, why not a V10 version of the 6.2. A V10 with 6.2 specs would be 7.8l. Since the 6.2 is supposedly scaleable to 7.0l, a large bore V10 would be 8.8l. This theoretically could make around 600ft/lbs with gasoline and still have enough for gaseous fuel applications.

[SoonerLS]

Since we are making unicorn wishes, why not a V10 version of the 6.2. A V10 with 6.2 specs would be 7.8l. Since the 6.2 is supposedly scaleable to 7.0l, a large bore V10 would be 8.8l. This theoretically could make around 600ft/lbs with gasoline and still have enough for gaseous fuel applications.

Haven't we already established that the 6.2 has cooling problems when it comes to the MD cycle? Somehow, I don't think that would be alleviated by adding two more cylinders...

[jpvbs]

Haven't we already established that the 6.2 has cooling problems when it comes to the MD cycle? Somehow, I don't think that would be alleviated by adding two more cylinders...

 

 

People keep saying that, but I don't think it is really an established fact.