Jump to content

New Ford 7.0 L....?


Recommended Posts

The 6.8 excels in low end torque, there's around 400 lb ft on tap from 2,000, that climbs to 457 lb ft at just over 3,000 rpm.

and still has near 400 lb ft at around 4,000 rpm. That's the kind of engine you need in a SD truck.

 

The issue with the current 6.2 filling that role is the real deficiency in torque delivery in crucial 2,000 to 4,000 area.

At 2,000 rpm the 6.2 V8 has around 100 lb ft less than the 6.8 V10 or around 60 lb ft less than where it should be..

 

 

There's an opportunity to correct that deficiency with a good 3-valve head and repositioning the park plug

into a more optimum position in the combustion chamber, eliminating the need for the second plug.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that makes sense to me! When the 429 came out, the base unit was rated at 360 hp with a 4 barrel carburetor. They had a 429CJ and 429SCJ rated at 370 that had larger runner cylinder heads with larger intake and exhaust valve diameters. Some people would take the 360hpp 429, install the CJ valves and the engine would outperform the 429CJ 0 to 60mph, assuming the same axle ratio and transmission. So i guess you can go too large on intake runners and valve diameters and compromise mid-range torque which is compensated for by utilizing a deeper axle ratio, say a 3.55 versus a 3.0.

 

I did not know the 460 cylinder head was reworked for EFI.

 

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were two EFI heads - the E7 (first appeared in 1988) and the F3 (1993). From what I've read, the F3 heads are really capable of some big numbers on a properly worked over engine.

 

Rumor also has it that the EFI 460 was originally supposed to be a 500 ft-lb trailer-eating monster but was intentionally hobbled via the camshaft to control output (260 hp, 400 ft-lbs in the final iteration) to allow the E4OD transmission to survive the warranty. Just a rumor but seems believable given that those were the days where the industry was still learning how to make overdrive automatics that would last.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've not seen mentioned in the 7.0L vs 6.8L, is the two extra power pulses that the V-10 has per rpm cycle. I own a 6.8 that I pull a car trailer with. I can attest that the 6.8L is one of the best gas truck engines out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I've currently got one in my Excursion. Even the 2v will really pull a trailer. It's ability to maintain cruise speed up hills with a heavy trailer is better than any other gas engine I've ever tried. Well other than the 3v version I guess.

 

That said, I haven't yet got my hands on an 8100 vortec. If anything will top the Ford 6.8, that'd be it. For some reason those things are impossible to come by though. My theory is that people were just afraid of that much displacement so they just didn't sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the chances that a year or two after the 7.0 enters production, we'll see a V10 version of the same motor, ...

ZERO PERCENT !

 

Like the Coyote, I am fairly certain order from above said, "Don't change the number of holes, bore spacing or deck height." All of those affect the block machining line which would be a huge expense !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously it'd be a capital investment in a new engine line. The question was more if Ford was interested and/or thought it worth investing in a bigger gas engine for the medium duty line. A 7.0 may be possible off the 6.2 architecture without changing bore spacing, deck height, or cylinder count, but I don't see any way to get to 8 - 9 liters displacement without doing at least one of those three things. My point was that adding cylinders appeared to the be the easiest/cheapest way to get there given Ford's design knowledge and manufacturing equipment associated with the 6.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best answer is just to look at the gas/diesel breakdown for sales of medium duty trucks lately. The latest emissions regs on diesels has pretty much caused the bottom to fall out of diesel sales on these trucks. The upfront cost and maintenance of the latest diesels has killed their advantage in a lot of vocations. It's so bad you've got Cummins converting their diesels engines to run on gasous fuels by switching the glow plug for a spark plug. There's a huge opportunity for a larger gas engine in the market currently. The 6.8 is cleaning up in apps where it's enough power but there is certainly a market for more.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="Sevensecondsuv" post="999148"

 

That said, I haven't yet got my hands on an 8100 vortec. If anything will top the Ford 6.8, that'd be it. For some reason those things are impossible to come by though. My theory is that people were just afraid of that much displacement so they just didn't sell.

 

Got a buddy with a 2003 GMC 2500 with a 8100. He bought a motor home with a 6.8 in an E-450. He says that he thinks the V-10 will out do his 8100. That was pretty tough for him to admit since we've had a running battle since'04 on 6.8 vs 8100.

Edited by 351cid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious where the break-even point is with diesels in MD/HD

 

I mean, there's got to be a point somewhere in the Class 7 use or weight at which diesels are more cost effective, because you don't see gasoline class 8s (or you don't see many? More info, please)

 

The next question is how big is the gap between that point and the point Ford can serve with the 7.0L?

 

Because to me, it's like, how big is the market for a gas engine over 7.0L, how much of that market can Ford capture, and will that pay?

 

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to justify, but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah obviously it'd be interesting to see the numbers used in the business case. I think it really depends on how big a player in the class 7 market Ford wants to be vs what return they think they can get on something else.

 

That said, there is definitely a market. With the duty cycles these trucks are designed/warrantied for, power limit is about 50 HP/liter. That's why the 6.8 is downgraded to only 320 hp in the mediums. Fancy heads, ti-vct, overhead cams, etc only get you so far when the biggest concern is not melting the exhaust valves. For that reason, displacement is the only real way to increase output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else I just thought of. If Ford was looking for the cheapest/easiest way to make a 7.0L with increased output over the 6.8, it would have been to just apply the 92.2mm bore tech and heads with Ti-VCT from the coyote to the existing 6.8. Sure they would have had to move the balance shaft to the crankcase (or elsewhere), but overall it would have been a very cheap/easy way to build a 7.1L with huge increases in output over the existing 6.8. Obviously bore spacing, deck height, # of cylinders, and even stroke stays the same. Heck, even the crank and rods would stay other than a drive gear for the balance shaft being added to the crank.

 

But for whatever reason, Ford chose to do this new 7.0 on a V8 platform. It will be interesting to see the details.

 

We did hear it will be a V8, right? Not just a "new 7.0L engine"....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did hear it will be a V8, right? Not just a "new 7.0L engine"....?

 

I think the Unifor official let it slip that the engine was 7.0 V8....

 

Something else I just thought of. If Ford was looking for the cheapest/easiest way to make a 7.0L with increased output over the 6.8, it would have been to just apply the 92.2mm bore tech and heads with Ti-VCT from the coyote to the existing 6.8. Sure they would have had to move the balance shaft to the crankcase (or elsewhere), but overall it would have been a very cheap/easy way to build a 7.1L with huge increases in output over the existing 6.8. Obviously bore spacing, deck height, # of cylinders, and even stroke stays the same. Heck, even the crank and rods would stay other than a drive gear for the balance shaft being added to the crank.

 

Yes, you could correct all the mistakes in the 6.8 V10 but instead,

it's just easier to grab the existing 6.2 and increase it to 7.0 liters.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious where the break-even point is with diesels in MD/HD

 

I mean, there's got to be a point somewhere in the Class 7 use or weight at which diesels are more cost effective, because you don't see gasoline class 8s (or you don't see many? More info, please)

 

The next question is how big is the gap between that point and the point Ford can serve with the 7.0L?

 

Because to me, it's like, how big is the market for a gas engine over 7.0L, how much of that market can Ford capture, and will that pay?

 

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to justify, but I could be wrong.

I think it all hinges on gas prices - current low gasoline prices may be enticing but maybe the risks outweigh the returns.

Definitely wrapped up in cost of ownership - diesel you pay $8K up front for recurring savings over the gasoline engine

and for freight companies doing lots of miles each year, those costs quickly add up or in the case of diesel amortize.

 

The majority of 6.8 V10 sales are in F650, I'm betting they are large vehicles that are not loaded to the max and

possibly do relatively low annual mileage so they last longer and use less fuel........

 

Part of the issue seems to be that the 6.8 is jsut not big enough to be considered for F750 loadings in any case.

A fleet owner could probably tell us where the actual tipping points for diesel are in respect to load and annual mileage.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you could correct all the mistakes in the 6.8 V10 but instead, it's just easier to grab the existing 6.2 and increase it to 7.0 liters.

Are we sure that's all they're doing? I'm thinking it's going to have a taller deck or larger bore spacing or both. They could probably just stroke the existing 6.2 but that engine already has a cooling issue that prevents it from doing medium duty service. More stroke and displacement is only going to aggravate the issue.

 

I'm envisioning something with a revised block that corrects the 6.2's cooling issue, is probably CGI, and with a taller deck height, about like the 5.4/6.8.

 

Now the only way I see this making sense vs just giving the 6.8 the coyote treatment is if Ford is planning on selling quite a few of these new engines in Mustang and F250 pickups where the reduced weight and packaging is worth the extra investment of a new block and revised tooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we sure that's all they're doing? I'm thinking it's going to have a taller deck or larger bore spacing or both. They could probably just stroke the existing 6.2 but that engine already has a cooling issue that prevents it from doing medium duty service. More stroke and displacement is only going to aggravate the issue.

 

I'm envisioning something with a revised block that corrects the 6.2's cooling issue, is probably CGI, and with a taller deck height, about like the 5.4/6.8.

When I said take an existing 6.2 - I meant change that architecture to make the new V8 in the ways you described.

Remembering that if this is an extension of an existing design, that may be easier to finance than a cleansheet design.

 

To my knowledge, the 6.2 doesn't have cooling issues, the original word was from TOW who heard that it failed the durability test,

that could simply mean that the 6.2 just wasn't big enough or didn't have enough torque for sustained hauling or towing in Medium Duty.

 

Now the only way I see this making sense vs just giving the 6.8 the coyote treatment is if Ford is planning on selling quite a few of these new engines in Mustang and F250 pickups where the reduced weight and packaging is worth the extra investment of a new block and revised tooling.

I think you'll find that Ford made a bunch of money by reusing the 6.8 V10 in the MDs

and that now goes towards paying for the 7.0 V8 up front.

 

Once the design is done and paid for, it's down to Ford selling enough to cover costs

for the intended product cycle.

 

Now that castings are sourced externally, a CGI casting would make sense but would also

necessitate new tooling to machine those blocks and If the new engine was a tall deck boss,

the cylinder heads and valve train could be shared between both.....

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey gang if this thing has already been leaked I would think it is pretty far along in its development cycle.

 

I doubt Ford is just bouncing ideas around at this point. I think a major manufacturer like Ford would have a big engine in their cache of engine experiments.

 

A heavy truck engine doesn't seem like rocket science compared to a 3.5 V6 that can put a 6.2 Gm engine on the trailer.

 

Now as far as this pushrod business goes, I hope it's just a rumor. Ford is an OHC company now. It's an advantage they hold and it's a superior way of moving valves.

 

In 1942 Ford built a V8 tank engine with bevel drive DOHC 4- valve cylinder heads. It turned relatively low rpm's.

 

It was all aluminum, 500hp and 1100 cubic inches. It was considered the best American tank engine of all during WWII.

 

I don't see any reason not to build the best damn engine in the category. Ford has done it and can certainly do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey gang if this thing has already been leaked I would think it is pretty far along in its development cycle.

 

I doubt Ford is just bouncing ideas around at this point. I think a major manufacturer like Ford would have a big engine in their cache of engine experiments.

 

A heavy truck engine doesn't seem like rocket science compared to a 3.5 V6 that can put a 6.2 Gm engine on the trailer.

 

Now as far as this pushrod business goes, I hope it's just a rumor. Ford is an OHC company now. It's an advantage they hold and it's a superior way of moving valves.

 

In 1942 Ford built a V8 tank engine with bevel drive DOHC 4- valve cylinder heads. It turned relatively low rpm's.

 

It was all aluminum, 500hp and 1100 cubic inches. It was considered the best American tank engine of all during WWII.

 

I don't see any reason not to build the best damn engine in the category. Ford has done it and can certainly do it again.

Google Ford GAA for all kinds of info on the V-8 tank engine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it all hinges on gas prices - current low gasoline prices may be enticing but maybe the risks outweigh the returns.

Definitely wrapped up in cost of ownership - diesel you pay $8K up front for recurring savings over the gasoline engine

and for freight companies doing lots of miles each year, those costs quickly add up or in the case of diesel amortize.

 

The majority of 6.8 V10 sales are in F650, I'm betting they are large vehicles that are not loaded to the max and

possibly do relatively low annual mileage so they last longer and use less fuel........

 

Part of the issue seems to be that the 6.8 is jsut not big enough to be considered for F750 loadings in any case.

A fleet owner could probably tell us where the actual tipping points for diesel are in respect to load and annual mileage.

Amen

- Gasoline vs. Diesel fuel price one piece of equation

 

-first cost of diesel option vs gas option -this might also include need for heavier trans/powertrain (universals, drive shafts etc)-in particular when you get into class 7/8

 

-routine maintenance cost of diesel-more lube oil typically, bigger filters, DEF fluid vs gas (did oil change in my old Mack yesterday-2 oil filters, 2 fuel filters, coolant filter and 32 qts 15-40 SD-ah but no DEF tank :)

 

-MPG diesel vs. gas. this is the biggest issue IMO and is typically what swings the decision. High annual miles, the pendulum swings in favor of diesel

 

-realistic NEED for diesel power/torque. In particular in class 4, 5, contractor usually pulling trailer with skid steer etc, can get by with gas, but the power advantage is a big factor here.

 

Bottom line, IMO all of these factors figure into the decision. And as I and others have said, you can't rule gas out even in class 8. Today you cant get a class 8 with a gas engine, but years ago the Ford Super Duty V-8s were very popular as were the International V-8's and the GMC V-6's (and the V-12) In fact all the heavy truck builders offered gas well into the late 60's.

 

Also, back to the question of a tandem "850", 33,000 lbs just might not satisfy a customers legal requirements. He needs the GVW provided by a tandem-and he does not run the annual mileage to justify the diesel first cost- and he can get by without max power- "so I take the next hill one or two gears lower"--a decent gas engine makes sense to this guy.

 

Probably the biggest thing that killed gasoline was all of the emission crap that killed them as viable power plants. I think a lot of you regulars on this thread have identified that big and efficient gasoline power is possible with today's new technology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be surprised if this engine is not OHC, but 2 valve pushrod OHV might not be a bad choice for a large displacement relatively slow turning medium duty truck engine.

 

The GAA was an interesting engine. It came from an unsuccessful V-12 aircraft engine Ford was working on during WWII that design-wise borrowed a bit from the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Worked very well in tanks, better than air-cooled radials and that 30 cylinder monstrosity Chrysler came up with. The GAA's only fault was that is was a gasoline engine, which made the Sherman somewhat vulnerable. The United States Marine Corps preferred diesel engined tanks, and their Sherman's used twin 6-71 Detroit Diesels. Not quite as powerful as the GAA, but very reliable and safer for the crews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re diesel vs. gasoline: I figure these days if the truck goes over 25,000 miles/year diesel might pay off, provided you do not experience any catastrophic engine failures. All other things being equal (as in the gasoline option has enough power for the application). We are trying to figure out where CNG pays off now! Either way, we are looking to eventually eliminate diesel from the fleet. Even that could change depending on developments in bio-fuel.

  • Like 2
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...