Sevensecondsuv
-
Posts
1,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Sevensecondsuv
-
-
1 hour ago, twintornados said:
Jac Nasser was the one who deep-sixed the entire Ford Heavy Truck operations and along with it, all those then in-house diesels.
I knew Jac Nasser was CEO when the decision was made and executed, I've just always wondered why. Why walk away from the business the company spent decades cultivating and had become a major player in? I understand many of the decisions Nasser made were unpopular at the time and didn't age well either.
-
2
-
-
On 3/28/2021 at 8:57 AM, Joe771476 said:
Ford got into diesels way too late. They were a huge player in heavy trucks back in the 60's thru early 90's but refused for the most part to make their own diesel, instead throwing in Detroits, Cummins and Cat's. They're 60 years too late! By now they could have established Ford diesels as bullet proof.
Ford did have their own "bullet proof" diesels - the 401/6.6 and 474/7.8 engines were used in those trucks alongside Cat/Cummins/DD diesel power and FE/385 gassers. Those Ford diesels started in 1965 ag tractors and continued in various forms through about 2008 in New Holland stuff before emissions finally mandated a switch to the current Fiat-supplied motors. Anyways, the 6.6 and 7.8 in trucks seem to be regarded as slow (but what wasn't back in the days of 200 hp Class 7 trucks?) but very reliable.
I never understood why Ford just walked away from that business and that engine line specifically. Why was it the IH V8 diesel that went in pickups starting in the 80s instead of Ford's successful in-house 6.6L?
-
2
-
-
The OHC engines I've assembled all turned over very easily (no wrench needed) when it was just the rotating assembly and no head / timing components in place. The need for wrenches came once the valvetrain, cam(s) and timing set were installed.
-
On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, slemke said:
I did think about it. They have an even bigger V8. If big is good, bigger is better...so use a HO 7.3L. The 7.3L is narrower than a coyote, so width isn’t an issue. Length of the 6.8L isn’t any shorter than than the 7.3L, so not that either. That leaves height. Shouldn’t be an issue in Fseries, but maybe Mustang. Seems like a small market to me, especially considering buyers are already paying a premium for a supercharged predator. I also question the wisdom of thinking Ford will get a premium for this engine if it is a 6.8L pushrod making 500/500. It doesn’t scream premium, rather cost reduced/penny pinched. Ford has made enough questionable engine choices over my lifetime for me to be skeptical. Whatever they build I hope it works out for them as I am a stock holder. I could be completely wrong on the output of this engine and actual premium demand for it. I have no data and am just using my preferences. Time will tell. At this point, I’m not seeing the wisdom in the decision. I will reassess as more information is known about it and the applications for it. Getting ~700hp out of it would do it for me. The shorter stroke and deck height may be needed to achieve the high rpms needed to reach 700. A naturally aspirated high revving 700hp v8 would be unique enough to warrant the added development cost.
My thoughts on the 6.8 is that it will essentially be a 7.3 intended for mustang/f150 performance applications. My guess is the 6.8L will feature an aluminum block and the displacement is the result of shortening the stroke a little to get a 7000 rpm powerband and possibly tightening the bore a little to get combustion efficient enough to pass emissions muster in a passenger vehicle class.
Output of the 6.8 is going to be entirely dependent on heads/cam/intake. The 7.3 makes 435 hp with an inline valve head design and cam/intake designed for pulling stumps in a heavy truck. If they give the 6.8 a different head with splayed valves and a more aggressive cam and intake, then 600+ hp naturally aspirated is possible. I would think that'd be enough to stand out in the marketplace.
Then again maybe the 6.8 is going to be overhead cam after all. It could be the long lost performance variant of the 6.2. Can you imagine coyote-style 4v heads with a 105 mm bore? That would be capable of 700+ hp !!!
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, pictor said:
What I don’t understand is how a Grid the handles all that AC in the summer can’t handles the electric heat in Winter. I guess they just don’t insulate to keep the cold in during the summer
One major issue was the windmills were taken out by the ice storm. The second issue is texas has a LOT of natural gas fired generation. Those gas lines loose a lot of capacity when it gets cold. Compounding the issue, natural gas gets diverted to heating demand in the winter, especially when it's this cold. So there's a lot of natural gas generation offline in Texas on top of the windmills being down.
It used to be natural gas was only used for "peaker plants" that came online during demand peaks only, with nuclear and coal carrying the base load (i.e. they run 'round the clock). As a result of the fracking revolution over the last decade, natural gas has gotten so cheap it's actually displacing coal and nuclear as a baseload source. The only trouble is the fuel supply infrastructure isn't really optimal for baseload reliability.
-
Power generation is a real mess lately. Coal is under fire from all sides and plants are shutting down permanently left and right. Nuclear is having a hard time competing with natural gas plants on cost and are shutting down permanently despite being far better suited for baseload operation than gas is. Meanwhile the govt incentive money keeps flowing to wind and solar, even to the point of building it where it's not needed just to collect the incentive money. Then more nat gas plants are thrown up in the background, out of site and with no fanfare since they're not "clean", to make up for the gaps in wind/solar and to backfill the coal and nuke plants that have shut down.
It all works well enough that consumers (voters) don't notice until a good cold spell hits deep into the midwest. Then the windmills freeze and all the gas is diverted to heating needs. Next thing you know it's rolling brownouts, people freezing, and entire industries shutting down due to lack of natural gas or electricty.
But yeah, let's just throw a bunch of EV load in too. I'm sure it'll all work out great.
-
5
-
-
Maybe they're testing the rumored 6.8L ? The camo could be for a new/extra bump in the hood or revised air intake for the big V8....
-
Yep, EVs aren't ready for prime time (and that's more due to society/infrastructure than the actual EV products) but it appears that's the direction we're headed like it or not come 2025 and the Obama CAFE changes. This is pretty much exactly what it looks like when the govt tries to "fix problems".
The main problems/unanswered questions with EVs in terms of mass adoption:
1) Where is all the electricity going to come from? Oil currently provides about as much energy as all of our current electricity generation does...
2) How are we going to charge them? Retrofit every home with one or more 240v chargers? What about non-residential charging?
3) Are people just going to be expected to accept that it takes a half hour to charge vs 3 minutes to fill an ICE car with gasoline?
4) What about the terrible heavy metal pollution involved in making EV batteries?
5) So far EVs have downright abysmal resale/residual value. Are consumers just supposed to eat that cost?
I know I'll be stocking up on ICEs before we hit the 2025 cliff.....
-
18 hours ago, slemke said:
Good point. I hadn’t thought of the planned obsolescence route for manufacturers to be pushing for electric cars. Looking at lithium ion cells, they are rated for 250-500 cycles. That can be extended by not fully charging or discharging them. Based on 12000 miles per year and a 300 mile range, that puts the life expectancy in the 5-10 year range. Factor in the obsolete hardware and software updates and your 8-10 year life cycle seems like a pretty good bet.
average age of a car in the US is approaching 12 years with 25% over 16 years old. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiahZHn6L3uAhVWAZ0JHfsFAJkQFjAJegQIGxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2020%2F07%2F28%2F25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-at-least-sixteen-years-old----record-high.html&usg=AOvVaw0a7PKd0EAh0Xqq3ftuaBHe
I only hope we don't end up disposing of electric cars like we do consumer electronics - namely paying to ship them to "developing" southeast asia nations where they have no fancies about environmental responsibility and are happy to either burn them in huge piles or dump them in the ocean. At least with traditional automobiles the typical disposal process is stripping for core parts at a junkyard and then recycling the raw material here at home.
-
1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:
True, but I don't think BEV's will have to reach purchase price parity with ICE vehicles. BEV's will be cheaper to operate, require substantially less maintenance and repair, and last longer. Resale value should be much better too. Overall cost-of-ownership will likely be much less than an ICE vehicle. Also, keep in mind that going forward there may be 'environmental impact' taxes placed on ICE vehicles and fossil fuels. I completely disagree with those types of taxes, but don't think for a minute they are not being seen as a significant source of increased government revenue.
I agree with that except for the bit about resale value. How much resale value does a 3-year old laptop have? I think electric cars will fare more like consumer electronics than traditional automobiles because they're built and marketed more like consumer electronics than traditional automobiles. Once the manufacturer stops supporting the software and subscription and the batteries go weak, an electric car will be worth pretty close to zero, just like an old laptop. And I don't foresee the timeline being much different than other consumer electronics either, 8-10 years tops.
Meanwhile traditional automobiles built 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago can still have substantial residual value depending on condition.
-
1
-
-
No experience with 3v motors but I've had excellent service from several 2v motors in pickups, vans, and an excursion. The two problems are blowing out spark plugs (not applicable to 3V motors) and broken exhaust manifold studs. Other than that they'll just go. In my experience they run better at 300-400k miles than any other gas truck engine out there.
I did read something about rocker arm failure in some of the 2011+ 3v motors.
-
Well if they're going to come out with a bunch more bronco models, I'd like to see an expedition/suburban-length bronco with seating for 7 and space behind the 3rd row seat. Shouldn't be too hard to extend the wheelbase and add more rear overhang. The hard part would be more engine for what would obviously be a bigger, heavier vehicle. Call it the Bronco Max?
-
I'm hoping for a six cylinder option in the US. I know the 2.3 turbo competes favorably in it's segment, but a V6 would really round out the offering.
I also tend to think Ford has bigger plans for the 7-spd manual they spent good money developing than simply 10-20% of Bronco production. We'll see though.....
-
1
-
-
This thing is for when a crown vic isn't "built Ford tough" enough for you lol !!!
-
19 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
The Ford orange coolant is Dexcool, according to Prestone and other coolant manufacturers. Dexcool got a bad rap early on because it was eating intake manifold gaskets and water pump seals on certain GM V6 and V8 engines, but it was and still is about the best coolant for aluminum protection. True, Dexcool didn't mix well with certain other coolants but I never saw it turn to 'mud' unless the cooling system in question was full of Bar's Leak or had oil leaking into it. The new coolant Ford is using looks an awful lot like the new Prestone universal coolant, but I have not checked to see if it is.
In any event, the Ecoboost problem had nothing to do with the coolant.
Besides the truck I lost to it, I've seen more than a few others where orange mixed with regular old green ethylene glycol made a mud/sludge mixture. This was a more common problem on GMs 20 years ago when orange first came out and people would top off their GM system with the standard green ethylene glycol that was 98% of what was available on auto parts store shelves at the time.
-
On 12/30/2020 at 4:26 PM, YT90SC said:
Premium Green and Gold are NOT safe to mix with Orange or Yellow. Technically, Gold should not be mixed with Premium Green either. It does last longer, but it is NOT an OAT like "Specialty Green", Orange or Yellow.
This is outdated, but correct until the time Ford said Yellow directly replaces Specialty Green and Orange.
https://parts.ford.com/content/dam/ford-parts/resources/motorcraftpdf/Coolants_Brochure.pdf
That's a good resource. Thanks for posting that.
-
All the Fords I've ever had came with green (old Fords) or yellow/gold (Fords since early 2000s) coolant. Orange was the death liquid GM made famous starting in the late 90s. I personally lost an engine due to the previous owner pouring that orange GM crap into a Ford radiator that had green in it. Turned the entire system to mud, could never get it out, and the engine suffered a slow death of running hot.
I was happy when Ford changed to yellow/gold about 20 years ago since it's long-life, safe to mix with any other color, and doesn't eat gaskets and aluminium like the GM orange does. Hopefully whatever orange Ford was using for a few years wasn't the same GM crap.
-
1 hour ago, Stray Kat said:
What it it’s a DOHC 4V V8 based on the 6.2 Raptor engine? Can you imagine??
That ☝️would be the “doomsday” engine Ford could use to send a message heard ‘round the world.
The only thing better would be some sort of 4v V10 or V12 (with a proper 72 or 60 degree block, none of that split pin or odd-fire nonsense to fit it in a 90 degree block). Ford has had the engineering 80% complete and the various pieces laying around thanks to the mod program for 25 years now. Please Ford please give us one last pinnacle ICE!
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:
The bottom end doesn't scare me. The bore spacing and block deck surface do, however.
I have my reservations too about the cuts between cylinder bores. But then I had a John Deere 466 apart the other day. The deck looked very similar to the 7.3's, complete with tight bore spacing and the cuts. Those 466s are highly regarded. You never hear of them having head gasket issues, even running big boost. Apples to oranges, I know, but I found it interesting how similar the decks were.
-
I bet the factory crank is good for well into the four figure hp range. Going back to the 5.4 mod cranks (themselves good for 1200-1500 hp with nothing more than some polishing and radiusing) ford has been doing forged steel cranks in all the truck motors. Even with huge boost and nitrous no one is breaking ford truck cranks these days.
-
Testing the new 6.8L ?
?
-
1
-
-
I bet there's more to than that. From the sound of it, the issue is the head gasket fire ring is not sealing correctly. It gets complicated on these because the bore vs bore center relationship leaves little space for the fire ring to seat and then there is either a groove cut or holes drilled (depending on model) in the deck surface between the adjacent fire rings to provide cooling to the fire rings due to the high specific output of these engines and ensuing high combustion chamber temperature. The open-deck design doesn't help either as it allows the cylinder cores to move (however slightly) during operation.
To me, it sounds like a head gasket seal design that is operating at its limits. A different head gasket might help, as might modifications to the deck surface. But the best fix would be 1) an increase in the bore spacing to provide more sealing surface and rigidity and 2) a reduction of the pressure/temperature in the combustion chamber.
-
I just wonder about the technical issue. Sounds like the same/similar head gasket issue the Focus RS was having a couple years ago. Gotta wonder if it's a design issue common to all the 4-cyl duratec-based Ecoboost motors. If that's the case, it wouldn't be surprising to see this rear it's ugly head in ranger/mustang/bronco with the 2.3....
-
3 minutes ago, akirby said:
I should have acknowledged the 5.0 is faster once you get it wound up, but I guarantee the 2.7L is faster off the line with more low rpm torque.Replace "2.7L" with "4.9L" and you've replicated the forum banter from 20 years ago concerning the 80s/90s F150s lol.
-
1
-
Potential Future F-150 Engine Development?
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
No reason to put all the eggs in one basket. Also there's millions of ICE trucks to sell for many, many years before EV (and that's still a big IF) completely replaces ICE. So it makes sense to continue investing in ICE tech that has the potential to be a game changer.
I am glad to hear it's an inline. No reason for V6 any more now that they aren't using six cylinders in FWD platforms. Inline is smoother and easier packaging turbos.