Ford to release new 4.8L Dual Injection V8 for F-150?

[30 OTT 6]

 

I thought the difference between the 3.5 and 3.7 was stroke so it would be easy to adjust the stroke to get 3.6L but I see now that the difference is in the bore diameter.

Bore: 92.5 mm to 95.5 mm.

 

When the Cyclone V6 first came out it was reported the block could handle up to 4.0L of displacement.

[silvrsvt]

Well the dual injector rumor is true...not displacement, unless of course it shows up in the Mustang...

[jpd80]

Well the dual injector rumor is true...not displacement, unless of course it shows up in the Mustang...

Mustang with improved 5.0 and 10-speed auto, I'd imagine that the car's HP will now show through.

Give it the same 450 hp as GM's 6.2 and I bet the little 5.0 will now keep the Camaro very honest...

Edited January 11, 2017 by jpd80

[edselford]

jpd80,

 

What is a picture of a mercedes benz 4.0 liter turbo V8 engine doing here? It looks like they did a reverse flow cylinder head where the exhaust exits the valley where the turbo is and the intake is on the other sides of the V. Probably good for reducing turbo lag but more complicated if port fuel injection is to be used with Direct Injection.

 

This engine has some pretty high specific hp numbers, something like 556 hp or 138 hp per liter!

 

Ford 4.8 might be offered as naturally asperated engine and also ecoboost for limited high horsepower applications. If Ford utilizes that plasma wire arc process, they would have enough to put water completely around the cylinder bores, something they can't do today with the thin liners.

 

Edselford

[jpd80]

The discussion off topic in this thread back then (StrayKat?) was about reverse flow cylinder heads and the turbos nestled in the valley

[edselford]

Thanks jpd80.

 

I did not know about that thread. I think Mercedes will be using particulate traps on future engines and not dual fuel systems like Ford and Toyota!

 

The reverse flow similar to the 6.7 turbo diesel Ford V8 at least in concept!

 

I personally like the CGI block material used on the 2.7 liter V6 to eliminate cylinder liners. Don't know if Ford will make that much of a change to the new 4.8 liter V8 thought.

 

It would be great to have variable valve lift for the new V8 to a point of obtaining cylinder deactivation, like GM, Chrysler, Mercedes and Porsche.

 

Regards

 

Edselford

[jpd80]

PFDI might be the key to enabling "micro-stratified" injection charge in the engine - a way of running ultra lean without creating excessive NOX.

I know that Ford has been doing a lot of work on this strategy behinds the scenes to enable better efficiency without needing to push

EGR flow rates beyond about 15%.

 

So hopefully, this is a solution to a long standing impass with conventional "lean burn" being out of the question.

I'm sure we'll get the back story explained in depth once more is revealed.....

Edited January 19, 2017 by jpd80

[tbone]

I sure enjoy the technical engine info that many people post on this forum. Even if you don't know what your talking about, it sure sounds good and I'll never know the difference. Perhaps some day I'll have a full understanding of all the technical aspects of these engines if I keep learning from this forum, so keep it up.

[akirby]

I sure enjoy the technical engine info that many people post on this forum. Even if you don't know what your talking about, it sure sounds good and I'll never know the difference. Perhaps some day I'll have a full understanding of all the technical aspects of these engines if I keep learning from this forum, so keep it up.

 

[Lionel]

I sure enjoy the technical engine info that many people post on this forum. Even if you don't know what your talking about, it sure sounds good and I'll never know the difference. Perhaps some day I'll have a full understanding of all the technical aspects of these engines if I keep learning from this forum, so keep it up.

tbone, try this site- it's how I leaned everything I know about cars and the reason why I am now a journalist. http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/tech_index.html:-)

[tbone]

I at least know thst there are no muffler belts on any vehicles;)

 

I have basic knowledge of the four cycle engine, but I definitely don't fully understand all the new tech and its implications for the engines.

[RichardJensen]

I at least know thst there are no muffler belts on any vehicles;)

 

I have basic knowledge of the four cycle engine, but I definitely don't fully understand all the new tech and its implications for the engines.

 

The theory is still the same. Take, for instance, getting gasoline into the cylinder with the optimal fuel/air mixture.

 

Carburetor

advantage - requires no electronics

disadvantages - extremely imprecise, cannot easily match the amount of fuel delivered to the load on the engine. This is why high performance carbureted engines kick out so much stink when they're idling: You are smelling excess gasoline that is either unburned or only partially burned.

 

This combination of soot and 'volatile organics' (chemicals containing at least carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) is an extremely nasty pollutant (how nasty? look at the blue smoke pouring out of the unregulated chimney of a Burger King sometime, and imagine millions of vehicles doing something like that)

 

Throttle body fuel injection

advantages - requires minimal electronics, can be a plug-n-play replacement for a carburetor, provides better fuel metering; used extensively by GM in the 80s,

disadvantages - still very imprecise, fuel delivery cannot be timed precisely for optimum fuel/air mixture in the combustion chamber, still produces an unacceptable level of unburned/partially burned fuel because the fuel/air mix isn't well calibrated

 

Port fuel injection

advantages - allows for fairly precise management of the fuel air/mix

disadvantages - requires much more equipment: multiple injectors and fuel rail(s), for optimum effect, also requires a computer management program that specifies the fuel delivery & timing based on load and other input factors. PFI is *probably* sufficient to meet any forthcoming emissions regulations, but not might not be enough to meet fuel efficiency regs.

 

Direct injection

advantages - allows for the most precise management of combustion chamber fuel/air mix

disadvantages - requires more expensive equipment: Injectors must be fed by a high pressure fuel rail, requires computer management. At its most efficient configurations it burns quite lean (very low ratio of gasoline to air).

 

Why is a really lean mixture a disadvantage?

 

Because air is about 21% oxygen. When the fuel/air mixture burns the ideal outcome is that the hydrogen & carbon in the gasoline combine only with the oxygen in the combustion chamber, producing CO2 and H2O as the by products. What happens when the combustion chamber is too hot, and there is too much oxygen, is that the N2 nitrogen molecules (which are very stable & require a lot of energy to break apart) break, leaving a mix of excess oxygen and free nitrogen that combine into NO and NO2 (usually referred to as NOx). NO is as poisonous as carbon monoxide and both NO and NO2 are nasty pollutants (they're positively associated with a variety of health problems).

 

NOx is a problem because it's very difficult to break apart. The best available technology at the moment is "SCR" selective catalytic reduction, which uses ammonia (stored in the vehicle as urea, which is less volatile), which in the presence of heat, will break apart and combine with the NOx to form O2, N2 and H2O

 

If there is less oxygen in the combustion chamber, then the nitrogen molecules break apart, but then recombine because there is less free oxygen to combine with. If the combustion temperature is lower, then the nitrogen molecules stay intact.

 

That's why JPD mentioned exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Exhaust gas recirculation does two things:

1- it reduces the temperature of combustion because the air in the combustion chamber has less free O2 (there is less O2 in the exhaust because it's combined with the fuel to make H2O and CO2); lower temps means that more N2 molecules will stay intact.

2- because there is less free oxygen in the combustion chamber, the N2 molecules that break apart have less O2 to combine with to form NO & NO2

 

The hope seems to be that direct injection + port injection will allow for a combustion mix that is more efficient (as in a lean burn), but with less NOx creation.

Edited January 19, 2017 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

This is where Ford was in 2014......LINK

 

It's a good overview of the developments to what we see today with the 2.3 EB

or at least before the EBs went DI and PFI....

 

Ford's emphasis seems to be on leaning out the part throttle boost, most likely to get the

Ecoboost engines to behave more like larger NA engines at part throttle rather than trying

to (wasting time) get ultra lean light throttle cruise mixtures to play nice with emission limits.

 

(Edit, link now added)

Edited January 20, 2017 by jpd80

[tbone]

Thanks for the Post Richard. Very informative.

[RichardJensen]

Thanks for the Post Richard. Very informative.

 

Happy to help.

[akirby]

I hope the video I posted was just as enlightening.....

[White99GT]

Unless Ford builds a 6.XL they will never out HP / TQ the GM engines.

GM has yet to match what Ford produced with sub-6.0 displacement in 2013. Let me know when a stock LS/LT finally cracks 650 HP or 600 rwhp stock like the 2013 5.8 did.

[jpd80]

I think that GM missed and confused the market with its Camaro engine choices and pricing poliicy, fewer sales

and a mountain of unsold inventory tells us that GM is not listening to the market and in particular, Camaro buyers.

 

The 2018 Mustang will answer a lot of criticisms and make an already good car even better, dropping the V6,

more power to the 2.3 EB and V8, new 10-speed gearbox and better suspension options will go a long way

towards narrowing any perceived gaps with Camaro. The 10-speed auto and more powerful engines should

give Mustang buyers plenty of enjoyment.

 

Ford has taken 18 months to look at the Camaro SS and work out what the Mustang GT needs to compete,

More power, higher revs and more gears will allow the Coyote to be more than a match for the GM 6.2.

 

I think Camaro is on a hiding to nothing here, especially if the 2.3 EB beats the V6 Camaro over the 1/4 mile

and doubly so if the 5.0 Mustang GT auto beats the 6.2 powered SS...

Edited January 24, 2017 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

GM has yet to match what Ford produced with sub-6.0 displacement in 2013. Let me know when a stock LS/LT finally cracks 650 HP or 600 rwhp stock like the 2013 5.8 did.

 

uh...they "cheated" by adding a supercharger to it.

[jpd80]

And of course, it's only cheating when Ford wins......or uses a TTV6 or an 8,000 rpm V8..?

Edited January 24, 2017 by jpd80

[tbone]

I hope the video I posted was just as enlightening.....

Nice one akirby, I forgot to comment on your very informative video.

 

Btw, the government probably would buy that, lol

Edited January 25, 2017 by tbone

[White99GT]

 

uh...they "cheated" by adding a supercharger to it.

Uh...GM "cheated" when they put superchargers on the 6.2L LSA/LS9/LT4s then also...Which all came up short.

[White99GT]

Also, the 5.2L Voodoo makes 526 HP, more than any N/A 6.2-7.0L LS/LT that has been delivered from the factory by GM. The 4V Fords have proven superior to the GM Gen III-up small blocks with boost or naturally aspirated.

Edited February 2, 2017 by White99GT