zipnzap
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by zipnzap
-
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing the 3.7 with the 2.3 or 2.7, just an additional option for those that may want it
2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating.
But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom.
Would this require some sort of weight reduction on the chassis itself, probably for the sake of engine longevity?
3.5 EB replaced the V10... not the 5.4 V8.
I would be shocked if 2.7 EB doesn't show up at some point because the output is a better fit for what Ford wants to accomplish (i.e. 5.4 V8 replacement) than the 3.5 EB. But 2.7 EB didn't make it in Transit at launch... probably because Ford wanted to prioritize 2.7 EB for F-150.
3.7 V6 (275hp / 260 lb-ft) ==> replaced 4.6 V8 (225hp / 286 lb-ft)
2.7 EB (325hp / 375 lb-ft in F-150) ==> would replace 5.4 V8 (255hp / 323 lb-ft) - in Transit, the 2.7 EB would be detuned to around ~ 300hp / 325 lb-ft similar to the 3.5 EB detune from F-150 to Transit
3.5 EB (310hp / 400 lb-ft) ==> technically replaced the 6.8 V10 (305hp / 420 lb-ft) - if 2.7 EB shows up, Ford will probably up-rate the 3.5 EB a bit and increase the GVWR for the T-350 and T-350 HD to close the gap with E-350, which can be gracefully retired at that point.
The problem is that Ford isn't even using the Ecoboost in the cutaways, for whatever reason.
The replacement would probably have to be naturally aspirated.
-
I'm not sure the 2.7 or 2.3 EB would be a good idea.Doesn't the 2.7 work for the F-150 because of the lighter weight aluminum body (which still has a steel frame)?Also, I'm not sure it would be a good replacement for the 3.7. They need a naturally aspirated engine for CNG and LPG conversions, don't they?
-
@Biker...different colors so you feel like youre getting anew car every month?.....lol...I will come right out and say it...my impression of the diesel is its old tech and ancient, behind the times power and torque wise...my guess is theres a more modern replacement in the mix....which could quite possibly see usage in the F-150, F250 and expedition.....
You're probably right.Apparently, the new Duramax 2.8 puts out 181 hp and 369 lb-ft.Though, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to tweak the 3.2's numbers. -
See, that's what I don't get.
Why do this?
Engineering and pre-production plans have already been set for years. They fully know this is going to come back and bite them.
-
1
-
-
One on the GM Commercial Fleet channel:Another on the Chevrolet channel:
A separate, different ad, from the ones above (this one, being the one in the article). Most likely targeted towards the retail market/for television:
A slightly different version for the Latino/Spanish-speaking market:
And yet, another ad:They're pretty much going to have to end up doing the same thing, aren't they? Aren't they just going to end up eating their words?
-
So GM is looking to form a Blue Diamond-style partnership with Navistar.
-
There are actually 2 reasons for the change. The previous transmission is now out of production...
The 5R110 is still being used on the 5.4L.
-
Also, someone else mentioned the 2016 Econoline cutaway info on the Ford commercial site. I always like to play around with the Build & Price function of all Ford cars because of how fun it is to basically see what it would look like to get a Ford of my own custom choosing. Well I do it a lot with the Econoline and Transit. Well here is something I was surprised to find: as of 2016, the Econoline cutaway's V10 engine is now offered with a 6-speed TorqShift auto!! I didn't know they upgraded it to the same auto of the PowerStroke? I know the 5.4L V8 is mated to the 5-speed auto while the Econoline van and wagon was still a 4-speed auto. But as of 2016, the V10 was upgraded to standard 6-speed auto, which surprised me because I didn't hear of any changes. If someone else has already mentioned that earlier, then forgive me. I also noticed that Vermillion Red has been dropped and replaced with Race Red. I like that choice better because Race Red is much brighter shade of red, which I like. I then looked at the Stripped Chassis and the info for the F53, F59, and Econoline Cutaway show V10 mated with 6-speed auto. Surprised again at this quiet upgrade. I'm sure the fleet is thrilled of this although I wonder what advantages this bring in terms of power and fuel economy?
I checked and you're right. Nice catch.
http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/eseries-cutaway/specifications/
It also seems like they're using the 6R140 (which is basically the 6-speed TorqShift).
http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/Prelim_FL16RVTTgde_Mar25.pdf
-
2
-
-
The only thing Ford could "reasonable" do (IMHO) would be turbocharging. The problem with turbos is lack of low end torque and "turbo lag". These could be overcome be an electric-turbo (standard now in F1).
Did you mean to say 6.2L ? Yes, it failed Ford's internal durability testing.
I'm referring to Ford offering the 6.8 in the F-750 for 2016.
It's fine for Ford to offer it in a class 7 as it is, right?
-
Speaking of stripped chassis, would it be possible to do what Mercedes has done with the Sprinter for the Class A RV industry and produce a Transit 250 and Transit 350 stripped chassis?
BTW, photos of a finished product:
-
Speaking of stripped chassis, would it be possible to do what Mercedes has done with the Sprinter for the Class A RV industry and produce a Transit 250 and Transit 350 stripped chassis?
-
Not a bus, but there's also this:
-
I have a question, arising from the V10 thread.So one of the changes provided by the redesign is the option of the 6.8 in the F-750:Is this the way to go?There's questions on whether the 6.8 can actually support the GVWR (I actually thought this was the case).
Seems there's also this:
http://mbcbus.com/product/ct-series/
-
1
-
-
I don't think there is any indication that the new 650/750 will offer any weight savings over current Bluediamond trucks. These trucks will still have the SD steel cab
So, that's it? Full stop?
There's nothing done to make the 6.8 handle a class 7 weight rating? Chassis components? Anything? Makes me wonder why Ford feels comfortable going with it.
Are we 100% sure the 6.8 can't?
-
Yeah, Ford has constantly been making big deal about gas when it comes to the 2016's, which includes mentioning both F-650 and F-750 for 6.8 usage:
-
Engine's not changing. So I have questions about how the GVWR is going to change for the gas engine.
Also, note this from your PDF:
Typo? There's also this for the diesel:
Also, Ford has the wrong idea about going with the 6.8 for 750 usage? Maybe we're not taking into account the modifications made to the chassis itself (lighter weight, etc.)
-
For 2016 E450 cut away. both the 5.4 2v and 6.8 2V are available, so if the same plant is also producing the 6.8 3V for medium duty trucks,
then that's still a sizeable amount of engine production. Probably justifies the older Tritons staying around for a while...
maybe just enough sales to keep but not enough to replace with a new engine..
But then what does Ford do at the end of the 6.8's lifespan, while still satisfying applications and markets that require the 6.8 currently?How long does Ford plan on keeping the 6.8 around? Or better question, how long would it be feasible to keep it around, exactly? -
Be nice if someone could explain why this only shows a diesel option w/the F750:
That's 2015. It's the outgoing model.
-
I don't think you can get the V10 in the 750.
Meant recently. Available in new model 750's at least:
-
Gas versus diesel - what's the biggest change in total operating costs....answer fuel.
Yes servicing a diesel is more expensive but in rest of the world where fuel is way more expensive, you don't see large gasoline trucks,
that's because total operating costs of a gasoline truck soar with increasing weight, the diminishing returns are just not worth it for so many fleets.
Gas prices are low now but no one expects them to stay that way in the long term so who wants develop a large gas truck when that could all change.
What about rental fleets?
Companies like U-haul only rent out gas vehicles.
To zipnzap, I think an engine to cover class 3 thru 7 is asking a bit much. The fuel economy standards for pickups and vans (typically topping at class 3) make this impractical. Class 4 and into class 5 could use different versions of an engine suited for pickups and vans, but for class 6 and 7 you will need something more robust with larger displacement. Now, an engine family that could have different variants for the different applications would be a more economical way to go. It can be done such as with the FE/FT family of engines, but is there a commercial and economic justification?
As of right now, different versions of the 6.8l V10 are shared between the E-350 through the F-750.You mean a similar sharing arrangement with the E-Series replacement up through the F-750 won't be feasible or cost effective? Or does this go back to the 6.8 possibly being inadequate for medium duty usage? -
So...For clarification, what would be a naturally-aspirated gas engine that could easily fit into vans, pickups and medium duty trucks and be fully adequate and 100% durable for the full duty cycles of all three (and can also be adequately cooled in all three), and also easily be capable of being converted to run on CNG and LPG?
-
At this point in the production run, the Triton V10 is still a viable entity in the top end of light duty into medium duty applications. It is a modern design that works well in the applications for what it is placed.....why replace it?
I don't mean right now. I'm talking in terms of near the end of its lifespan.
I don't see neither the 2 valve or 3 valve v10, in its current form, being feasible, say, 10 years from now.
Production facilities and material costs will ultimately kill the V10 and will NOT allow any new version !
First, Ford owns the only high volume V10 block and head machines equipment in the world ! It is now outdated. Updating it to accommodate a larger engine (which is sorely needed for Medium Duty Truck) would require a bigger bore, which would require a different bore spacing, which is cast in stone !
Also 4 (or 6) extra valves, springs, followers, etc., 2 extra rods, 2 extra pistons, 2 extra ring sets, special tooling for grinding cams and cranks make no sense, from a cost perspective.
"Back in the day", when the Hurricane got resurrected as the Boss, there was some debate about making a 3 valve version. You could locate the spark plug more centrally so that only one was required and intake flow speed could be controlled by an upstream butterfly.
The current Boss block can easily do 7L. The problem is for Medium Duty, they need more than 8L !So even a clean-sheet design is out of the question?
The quick and (IMHO) easy solution to extend the life of the 6.8L is electric-turbo charging and water injection. Electric-turbo charging similar to what they are doing in F1 and water injection (with ethanol to prevent freezing) from the aircraft industry back in the 1920-30s !
Might this interfere with with CNG and LPG conversions, and how would it affect downtime/maintenance costs?
-
Would a V10 (for gas applications) still be needed?And if so, would it be engineered for a 72 degree angle instead of 90 degrees again?
-
SAIC owns the MG Motor marque; MG cars are sold in the U.K. in addition to China.
And that's enough to put them over Nissan, much less most of the other automakers on that list?
And IICR, isn't MG Rover dead for the most part, with Rover dead completely and Land Rover and Mini having been sold off to BMW?
Avon Lake Medium Duty
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by zipnzap