Sevensecondsuv
-
Posts
1,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Sevensecondsuv
-
-
1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:
What about regenerative power generation with a clutch? That is how a hybrid can partly recharge itself-it uses regenerative braking (aka engine braking) to generate power. That is bit complicated by using a clutch.
Not if the motor is between the clutch and the trans. That way the clutch doesn't disengage the motor from the input shaft. Of course it would still be disengaged if the driver takes the trans out of gear while braking. It'd certainly be a bit of a learning curve driving one.
-
1 hour ago, SoonerLS said:
Now you’re just being mean. A 7.3 with a man transmission would be just the ticket...
I'm actually currently on the hunt for a 96/97 7.5L gasser ZF-5 truck. I love those OBS trucks, but it's getting real hard to find nice clean examples at this point, especially here in the rust belt. Maybe I should wait a year and see what Ford has up their sleeve. Aluminum would be nice.
-
And hybrid is simple. Just put the electric assist motor between the clutch and trans. Also a fly-by-wire clutch pedal opens up some truly fascinating possibilities for manual transmissions.
-
1
-
-
The torque rating is enough for any gasoline engine Ford currently produces. The ~9000 lb gvwr / 29,000 lb gcwr is enough for pretty much all gas versions of F150/250/350. The 7.15:1 first gear is ideal for a HD gas pickup as it facilitates getting a big trailer started up a grade without slipping the clutch. For reference, The ZF-5/6, T-18, NP-435, and NV-5600 all have first gear ratios between 5.5 and 7.0.
Makes you wonder just how many applications Ford has planned. Obviously more is better to help amortize development costs.
If Ford makes an F-250 available with a 7.3L gas V8 and manual trans in 2021 I'll take back anything negative I've ever said about their product decisions lol!
-
You know, it would be just like Ford to design a new engine or transmission for super duty and then realize it doesn't fit in E series, aka 2V vs 3V 5.4/6.8 and diesels after the 6.0. So I wouldn't be surprised if Ford is still building the 6R140 specifically for E series 10 years from now....
-
And again, who exactly is going to buy all these EVs? Obviously you can't ignore the segment, but EV sales history to date does not give me confidence that I should bet the company's future on EVs. They've been "the future that's going to take over next year" for the last 10 years. Yes invest in them enough that you're not caught flat footed if they do eventually take off, but by all means keep pumping resources and talent into ICE programs because that's what's going to pay the bills and dividends for the next several CEO cycles.
-
5
-
-
On 1/26/2020 at 9:44 AM, Bob Rosadini said:
7 ET, IMO your first paragraph says it all. I know I'm a broken record on this subject but those 429's you referred to, 25 years ago in an F-700 could be built with a 37,600 lb GVW rating and a 60,000lb GCW rating. The 7.3 far exceeds the HP/torque figures for the old Super Duty 477 and I think come close to beating the 534, never mind the 429. One big difference is the old SD's had low end torque-like 2000 RPM. And when the SD's came out in 1958, they would go up against a 220 Cummins or a turboed Mack at 225 and hold their own.
I think everyone today is conditioned to ridiculous HP and Torque numbers in 3/4 ton pick ups! Does the SAE have a different rating system than it did 25 years ago? Time will tell but when we see the 7.3 show up in 650/750 my bet is it will be adequate for most users-in particular when their wallets are fatter by 8 or 10 grand? And trust me, I understand if a guy runs max weights and does 30,000 miles a year the 7.3 will not be the engine for him.
What I want to know is why the mediums got the 429 and not the 460. They're literally the same engine aside from the rotating assembly. Seems like the 460 delivering the same powerband at a lower RPM would have been more ideal for the big trucks.
-
What makes a person think a gasser will only last 100k in commercial service? That's nonsense. Even 30-40 years ago that wasn't true. I see tons of old medium Ford with 361FT, 370 and 429 gassers with 200k+ never been rebuilt run just fine. Lots and lots of V10s running around still in active fleet service with 300k+ on them.
At the same time, modern pickup truck diesels (Duramax, PSD, etc) aren't built to the same "lbs of cast iron per hp" ratio the old mechanical diesels were. They run a lot more boost and EGTs. Not to mention the extremely complicated fuel systems running at insane pressures. And the emissions systems that create a lot of extra heat.
If you ask me, gas longevity has stayed the same vs 30 years ago and diesel longevity has decreased. Today there's only one reason to buy a diesel: you get the rated hp at approximately half the rpm. That makes for much more comfortable towing of big loads long distances.
All that said, even 7.3 gas is barely adequate in the heavier end of class 6. And by the time you're in Class 7, something in the range of a gas 9.0L would be most welcome.
-
No thanks on the center console. Leave that for XLT and above for people that actually want it and will pay the extra for it. Nothing kills interior space for throwing tools, straps, etc like a giant hunk of plastic bolted between the seats. Not to mention eliminating seat belt capacity for one extra passenger.
-
2
-
-
That iron block is a pretty big deal. The loomnum coyote block is reliable to about 800ish HP whereas the old iron 5.4 blocks (and 4.6 to a lesser extent) were good to 1200+ and is a big reason the very fastest mod motor powered cars and still running 5.4 derivatives. Block availability and hp capacity is currently one parameter the LSx has it all over the coyote so it's good to see Ford addressing the issue.
Hopefully Ford can find a use for the iron block in some trucks. If for no other reason than I can find them in a junk yard in ten years ?
-
5 hours ago, jpd80 said:
I think that’s why the 6.2 will go and no one will miss it.
I don't see Ford making the 7.3 the base offering any time soon. The smaller gas engine has always outsold the big one in 250/350 for every year Ford offered both for the last several decades. 5.8 always outsold the 7.5 and the 5.4 always outsold the 6.8. I see two reasons for this: 1) a significant portion of retail 250 buyers still tend to be concerned with fuel economy and, right or wrong, believe the smaller engine will be more efficient, and 2) there's an awful lot of fleet 250/350 sold for nothing more than moving a bed full of shovels from jobsite to jobsite, plowing snow at a fixed location like a factory or power plant, or just transportation for a supervisor, none of which require really anything more than an atmo V6.
So I think the 7.3 will remain optional on 250/350 for the foreseeable future. Whether the 6.2 stays as the base engine or gets replaced by a de-bored / de-stroked / de-cylinder'd godzilla, the coyote, or even a hybrid 3.3 v6 remains to be seen.
Also there's E Series that need engines. I don't see Ford just giving away 7.3s to van buyers that tend to really not care what's under the hood - hence the huge popularity of 4.9 and 4.2 in E-250/350s for all those decades
-
6 hours ago, twintornados said:
Then it wouldn't really be a variant now would it....
I'd be willing to call it a variant..... Same pistons, rods, valves, etc. Crank, heads, camshaft would be different from the V8 in the same way V6 versions would be: length and firing angle. One could make the argument that an inline block is more of a departure from a V8 than a V6 block, however my understanding of block machining lines are that bore spacing and deck height are the two major attributes, and those would be the same for V8, V6, or I6 versions. Basically an inline could be machined on one of the two planes the V8 Iine is already set up for. It would require 1.5x times the operations at each station vs a V6 running both planes at 0.75x the operations at each station. The operation for machining the cam bores would also be a different location than a V8/V6. So I guess the V6 would have an advantage in block machining efficiency.
Honestly the biggest impediment to a straight-six I can see is fitting it in the engine bay. However I gotta think the super duty bay could accommodate one if Ford wanted it to. It's not a small engine bay.
-
12 hours ago, twintornados said:
A V6 variant of the 7.3 with no bore or stroke changes would yield a engine size of just under 5.5 liters in size but the question would lead to if the architecture could handle the vibrations a V6 has that would call for a counter balance shaft to cancel out. Cost savings of dropping down to a V6 could be lost when attenuating the issues that would crop up as a result of lopping off 2 cylinders.
Just put those six cylinders in a row. Problem solved!
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/22/2019 at 4:56 PM, jpd80 said:
Will GM redesign Colorado/Canyon to accept the 3.0 I-6 diesel or is it orphaned to the Silverado/Sierra and full sized SUVs?
The main draw back with using an I-6 configuration is that engine length prevents its use in an I-4/V6 engine bay, RWD or Transverse. I know that with the ending of D3, Ford will never need a FWD/AWD V6 diesel but it had that option with the V6 Powerstroke and there's always Ranger and Transit to consider as well....
Meh. Ford managed to fit the old 300/4.9 with it's 4.48" bore spacing in E Series. Where there's a will, there's a way. Plus I doubt any clean sheet straight six of 3.0L displacement has anywhere near 4" bores.
-
11 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
Haven't GM/GMC truck buyers been fed up since 1998?
Yes, just like Ford truck buyers since 1997.
-
3
-
-
Demand they hand over the keys. If they won't give them to you, threaten to call the police. Leave with the truck, stop at the nearest gas station to fill the radiator, and then hobble it to the nearest parts store. A radiator should be less than $200 and be in stock. Eat the cost and install it in their parking lot. It's an easy job. Save all your receipts and document as much of this as possible and then when you get home have your lawyer send them a bill for the parts and your time with the threat of a lawsuit if they don't pay up.
-
The 2.3L in my 2011 Ranger (same basic architecture as the current 2.0, 2.3 / ecoboost and previous 2.5L engines) has that distictive 4 cyl buzz which is due to the unavoidable secondary imbalance you get with an inline 4. It's especially noticeable at idle. The Rangers I've had with the cologn (4.0L) V6 were definitely smoother. I've been in a few a Cyclone V6 products (but never owned one) which seemed very ordinary in terms of engine smoothness. The old 4.2 V6 F-150s (had two of them myself) did get really coarse above 3000 rpm, which I blame on the 90 degree block.
None of the 4s or V6s is anywhere near as smooth as the 4.6 modulars (or pretty much any other V8 I've tried) though. Also the 300 six in my old F250 is quite smooth despite the howling ps pump and lifter tick. Smoothness is definitely the best attribute of the straight six design.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Ford already has the numbers for the higher end Explorers-Most of them are leased, which results in a cheaper car payment. Which helped drive the decision making process of why they went to more premium packaging and it helped the Lincoln version. Also keep in mind the average cost of a new car is $37,577 as of December last year. The base model Explorer starts just under that.
The Explorer has ALWAYS had expensive models-Heck almost 20 years ago they came out with the Limited over the Eddie Bauer model because the market was asking for it and it sold.
No argument with any of that. My point was that Ford also needs to have a solid entry in the meat and potatoes range of the segment. That's where I see a problem. The current explorer starts at $30ish and can be nicely optioned by $40k. The new one starts at $36500 with no options, goes over $40k as soon as you select awd, hits $45k by adding a few things, and doesn't have an optional powertrain available until $53k.
Sure they'll move some of the higher end models on lease deals but I don't see the XLT as being priced right to be the volume trim it needs to be.
-
The difference is the base trim is gone. XLT is now the base trim. 2019 and prior had an "explorer" trim under XLT.
-
3 hours ago, Trader 10 said:
You're right. Looks like it starts at $53,375. Yikes!
That's a problem. $50k+ is well beyond the the range of the average family cruiser. Ford's not going to sell a whole bunch of hybrids at that price. Heck, even the base xlt with no options starts at $36k and close to $40k if you want AWD. That's a huge jump from 2019 base model pricing and quite high relative to the competition. I hope Ford is prepared to sacrifice some market share in the interest of delivering a premium (i.e. rwd) product. This thing is priced on the high side of it's segment.
Also, fuel economy numbers are generally tied or 1 mpg better than the V6 Traverse, which is its primary competition. That's a good sign I guess, although a 2-3 mpg advantage would make the ecoboost sales pitch a little easier to make. Also the Traverse is a little bigger I think.
-
9 hours ago, twintornados said:
I still believe the only "derivative" to the new 7.3L gas Windsor motor would be a V6 version which would work out to 5.475 liters in size. Round it up to 5.5 liters and pair it with a hybrid 10 speed automatic and put it in as an option for Super Duty. I believe it would be a winning combo for fleet use.
That would make a great base engine for F250/350 and E Series as well. It could/would/should replace the orphaned 6.2.
My only wish is that it's an inline six instead of a V, keeping the same bore/stroke, bore spacing, deck height, etc. An inline really isn't any more work since the block, heads and crank have to be re-engineered going from a V8 to V6 anyways. It's mostly a legacy of the old 300 and the Cummins BT6, but truck people have a lot more respect for straight sixes than vee sixes.
-
Get the $5 O2 sensor "extensions" off eBay. Problem solved.
-
I'm interested to see how they plan to offer IFS and SFA on the same platform. Those two suspension designs require very different hard points on the chassis. It'll be interesting to see how they accommodate both designs without totally compromising the engine bay and front of the passenger cabin. Even the front driveshaft will be different and may even require a different transfer case arrangement.
-
I wonder how well that electronic sway bar disconnect will work after a few winters worth of road salt.......
Ford files to trademark Excursion name
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
I have to think the business case is there. It's just parts bin engineering using the 6.7/7.3 and a bunch of existing super duty stuff and some expefition body bits and pieces. Then sell them for $75k each. Doesn't take much volume at all to make that work.
My guess is it's more an issue of factory capacity and bigger fish to fry.
FWIW my 2000 Limited w/ the V10 is a forever vehicle for us. There's just nothing else like it available then or now.