Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

I think such an engine would be needlessly heavy and expensive.

Yep--the numbers I found put the 6.7 around 500lbs (one source said 580lbs) heavier than the 6.2, which seems like a lot of unnecessary overhead for a gasoline engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Bob Rosadini,

 

Hi Bob, nice note on the Ford super duty 534! I should of said Rod to Stroke Ratio, ie rod center to center length divided by the engine stroke which would be twice the crank throw. Has something to do with piston side loading/wear and some things to do with total rotating inertia.

 

I am old guy too and the rod to stroke ratios on V8 gasoline engines have been trending down, from 1.9 to 1.62 or in some cases 1.5. You sound like a retired Ford engine division employee?

 

Edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep--the numbers I found put the 6.7 around 500lbs (one source said 580lbs) heavier than the 6.2, which seems like a lot of unnecessary overhead for a gasoline engine.

 

But also you wouldn't need turbos and other things that are found on Diesel engines also? Thats at least 100 or so pounds...and I'm not sure how much of a difference CGI vs Alu block would be either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But also you wouldn't need turbos and other things that are found on Diesel engines also? Thats at least 100 or so pounds...and I'm not sure how much of a difference CGI vs Alu block would be either.

I doubt you're going to save anywhere close to 100lbs by ditching the turbos, but if we're generous and say you save 50-80lbs, you're still going to be around 500lbs heavier (most of the numbers I found put the difference in the 550-580lbs range). The figures I saw on the 6.7 put its weight around 1100lbs, which means it weighs about twice as much as the 6.2--so even if you could cut 100lbs, why would you start with an engine that's still almost twice the weight? You could do a lot of strengthening to the 6.2's iron block and still not come close to adding a quarter of a ton to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for feedback on the 6.7, obviously designed for heavy hard work with turbos.

I'd go for the 6.2 with larger bore and taller deck height as a 7.0 replacing the 6.8 V10,

mostly because of sheer pragmatism, you could even make it a pushrod engine.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Bob Rosadini,

 

Hi Bob, nice note on the Ford super duty 534! I should of said Rod to Stroke Ratio, ie rod center to center length divided by the engine stroke which would be twice the crank throw. Has something to do with piston side loading/wear and some things to do with total rotating inertia.

 

I am old guy too and the rod to stroke ratios on V8 gasoline engines have been trending down, from 1.9 to 1.62 or in some cases 1.5. You sound like a retired Ford engine division employee?

 

Edselford

Thx for the info Edsel. No, not an old Ford employee, just an old guy who spent 44 yrs in as best as I can describe it, distribution management-and a good portion of that time with a lot of time on the fleet side. By no means a "wrench" but reasonably familiar with specs. I worked my way through college in early -mid 60's so was very familiar with the Super Duty world when I would load out of pit/quarry and as a "Ford guy" would always get an opinion from a driver who was in a big Ford-vs an A-Car, Mack, Brockway etc. Typical comment..." Kid -it's a ball of fire!"

 

By the way-still keep busy with my 56 B-61X Mack- ENDT-675 powered with "2 sticks".

 

PS, All the comments on weights, guys should check out the aluminum 1100 cu. inch OHC V-8 Ford GAA from WW II. Often think if there are some lessons to be learned from that beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,

Interesting, since Mack was the first to figure out the benefits of small displacement highly boosted diesel engines. Basically the technology we now are using on the ecoboost engines!.

 

Your dual stick Mack is also interesting since Mack has been the only truck company in the US to manufacture its own manual transmissions then and now! The class 8 Macks have a triple countershaft design, with an aluminum case, versus the Eaton roadrangers that are twin countershaft designs.

 

I think that how it works is people get great ideas along the way that can't go anywhere until the technology is developed, many years later.

 

its about the time for the 2016 engine masters event.

 

 

Have a good day

 

Edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a 4.8 for the F-150 and something else for the Super Duty.

 

 

New 4.8 V8 rumor, bye bye 5.0 ???

Anyone else hear anything ?




Quote


Ford Motor Company and Canadian labor union Unifor just ratified a new 4-year contract over the weekend, securing a total of CA$713 million in investments to be split primarily between Canada’s Windsor and Essex Engine Plants, with some CA$100 million reserved for the Oakville Assembly Plant.

So what is Ford getting for its money? According to Reuters, it’s expected that the Essex Engine Plant, which currently produces the 5.0-liter Coyote V8, will be updated to produce a new 4.8-liter V8 engine for use in the Ford F-150. This is partly corroborated by a statement made by Unifor President Jerry Dias early in the month. He said: “This new engine will be the highest technology, will be the most fuel efficient, will have incredible torque, horsepower and will be put into Ford’s No. 1 selling vehicles throughout the North American chain.”

The 5.0-liter Coyote V8, currently found in both the Ford F-150 and Mustang GT, is the latest evolution of the automaker’s Modular engine family. It’s the first Ford V8 to feature Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (Ti-VCT), which allows the timing of the intake and exhaust valves to be changed independent of one another. While a breakthrough in terms of delivering decent power efficiently, there are gains to be made possibly through the use of direct injection and a higher compression ratio.

In addition to the Ford F-150’s alleged forthcoming 4.8-liter, Reuters reports that some of Ford’s investment will go toward a new, fuel-efficient large engine for the Super Duty. It is also expected that Ford’s Windsor Engine Plant will continue to produce the 6.8-liter V10 throughout the duration of Unifor’s new contract.
--------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did say that the V-10 will continue and the new engine that would supposedly replace it would not be due out until 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we're speculating, perhaps the 4.8L is the long anticipated EcoBoost V-8? Smaller bores = thicker cylinder walls, stronger block and greater ability to withstand high boost pressures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 7.0 reports in one article now become a 4.8 liter in another...

 

Looking at this a different way, what if the 5.0 is again upgraded to have

both cylinder deactivation tech as well as direct injection, that would give

a significant increase in power, torque and fuel efficiency.

 

The Coyote currently used in F150 uses a cast iron block, I wonder if that becomes

becomes aluminum to increase production volume of alloy engines.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that from previous intel that this new engine is planned for Ford's most popular vehicles,

that has to be F150 and possibly shared with either SD or the Expedition/Navigator and Transit.

I would love to think it the V6 diesel and that combined production volume would be enough

to justify building the engine in North America. Maybe two capacities, a 3.0 and a 3.8 liter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 7.0 reports in one article now become a 4.8 liter in another...

 

Looking at this a different way, what if the 5.0 is again upgraded to have

both cylinder deactivation tech as well as direct injection, that would give

a significant increase in power, torque and fuel efficiency.

 

The Coyote currently used in F150 uses a cast iron block, I wonder if that becomes

becomes aluminum to increase production volume of alloy engines.

All 5.0L Coyote engine blocks are aluminum. There are no cast iron versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've ever read about the F150 Coyote says it has an aluminum block. The only iron block in a F150 is the 2.7.

 

Would this mystery 7.0 be a (d)ohc engine? I know for commercial use simplicity is valued, but a dohc head with ti-vct could be tuned to have a really broad powerband that could compete well against some larger displacement engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see DI for a gas engine for class 4-7 trucks. DI leads to high particulate emissions and diesels already have to use particulate traps. There are regs just over the horizon that would apply the particulate limits to gas engines also, so adding DI would also require you to add a particulate trap - another added expense and maintenance issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does PTWA have a place in any of this? I know Ford outsourced it on the 5.8L GT500 engine and is currently doing it in-house at Essex on the 5.2L GT350 engine. Anywhere else? For something that has been touted so highly it sure has taken its time making it to high volume production engines.

 

http://wardsauto.com/technology/real-secret-behind-ford-s-gt350-mustang-engine

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've ever read about the F150 Coyote says it has an aluminum block.

FWIW, I changed the oil in my truck this morning, and its 5.0 definitely has a 'loomnum block,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does PTWA have a place in any of this?

PTWA and even DOHC are highly UNLIKELY in a Medium Duty engine. Strictly because of $$$$. 3 valve is a good compromise.

 

Watch that video. They sort of implied it, but that block goes through 2 machining processes (plus non-automated handling !). The first machining process is probably on the original engine block machine line. All machine surfaces are brought to finish specs, except for the cylinder bore. They do not receive their liners of their finish hone. PTWA is applied and then the finish honing is done. $$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.2FPC for the GT350 is built in Romeo, not Canada.

The video doesn't say and neither did I that the 5.2 is "built" at Essex, but the PTWA process is done there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some new rumors about a 7.0L V8.

 

Reuters: Ford to announce Ontario engine program in boost to Canada automaking: sources

 

 

 

Brian Maxim, a vice president at AutoForecast Solutions, said in a telephone interview that the 7.0-litre, V8 engine would have more torque and be more fuel efficient than the 6.8-litre V10 engine now built in Windsor and used in Ford's super- duty trucks, such as its F-250s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that piece as well and didn't like the way it was worded. I believe the V10 has been gone from the F-250 for many years and highly doubt the 7X is F-250 bound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that piece as well and didn't like the way it was worded. I believe the V10 has been gone from the F-250 for many years and highly doubt the 7X is F-250 bound.

I agree. I doubt it will be available in anything other than cab/chassis & cutaways. Hopefully it'll be in the F53 motorhome chassis too.

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

×