igor Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 So the 3.7 won't be a Lincoln exclusive engine? Guess it will be replacing the 4L in all of Ford's trucks I believe the NA 3.7l will be Lincoln Only .. Twin Fordwill be all over the place (plus TF is 3.5l based IIRC) NA V6 in US trucks will be 4.0l (at least that was the plan) Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theVengineguy Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 (edited) Well I say let the F-150 cut into superduty sales. Ford would be stupid not to allow you to make an F-150 into a texas cadilac: Diesel, King Ranch, Quad Cab etc. I'm sorry, but the SD is way overkill for the common truck buyer. Sweeping generalization, there are some people that tow 20,000 lb, but for the average joe that has a 5000 lb boat a super duty is overkill. Problem i see though is it's gonna be pretty damn expensive, and the emissions controls are gonna be mind boggling, just look at the 6.4L. Different tier, so Ford would have to throw alot of money at it to pass, especially with the next reduction comming in 2011. In my IC engines class, we actually went through and tracked the decrease in diesel fuel economy with all the current, and added propossed emissions standards. There will be a point where the bsfc's will cross for diesel and gasoline. All the added EGR crap, fuel dosiers for the after treatment, throttling a diesel to retain egr, urea crap, etc. is gonna kill FE, especially come 2011. Also looking at the cost, heavy duty blocks, heads, fuel systems, etc. are making a diesel less attractive with each new EPA regulation. I am a strong supporter of GTDI, and i have a feeling this is the best technology ford sould leverage. They have the capacity to keep it in house, my only fear being that they would slap this onto pre-exisiting engines. That is piss poor engineering, if your upping the cylinder pressures with the forced induction, and don't change the bottom end, beef up the cylinder head sealing, it will be a bodagot. There is no way in hell a 3.5L could handel these conditions considering it was designed for NA. Something tells me they have a lot more work ahead of them. Edited March 4, 2007 by theVengineguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Well I say let the F-150 cut into superduty sales. Ford would be stupid not to allow you to make an F-150 into a texas cadilac: Diesel, King Ranch, Quad Cab etc. I'm sorry, but the SD is way overkill for the common truck buyer. Sweeping generalization, there are some people that tow 20,000 lb, but for the average joe that has a 5000 lb boat a super duty is overkill. Problem i see though is it's gonna be pretty damn expensive, and the emissions controls are gonna be mind boggling, just look at the 6.4L. Different tier, so Ford would have to throw alot of money at it to pass, especially with the next reduction comming in 2011. In my IC engines class, we actually went through and tracked the decrease in diesel fuel economy with all the current, and added propossed emissions standards. There will be a point where the bsfc's will cross for diesel and gasoline. All the added EGR crap, fuel dosiers for the after treatment, throttling a diesel to retain egr, urea crap, etc. is gonna kill FE, especially come 2011. Also looking at the cost, heavy duty blocks, heads, fuel systems, etc. are making a diesel less attractive with each new EPA regulation. I am a strong supporter of GTDI, and i have a feeling this is the best technology ford sould leverage. They have the capacity to keep it in house, my only fear being that they would slap this onto pre-exisiting engines. That is piss poor engineering, if your upping the cylinder pressures with the forced induction, and don't change the bottom end, beef up the cylinder head sealing, it will be a bodagot. There is no way in hell a 3.5L could handel these conditions considering it was designed for NA. Something tells me they have a lot more work ahead of them. This is one other reason Ford will build a GTDI 6.2 Boss. Some customers will want it over the diesel. At 600 ft lbs of torque it will do quite well as a PSD alternative in the Super Duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I am a strong supporter of GTDI, and i have a feeling this is the best technology ford sould leverage. They have the capacity to keep it in house, my only fear being that they would slap this onto pre-exisiting engines. That is piss poor engineering, if your upping the cylinder pressures with the forced induction, and don't change the bottom end, beef up the cylinder head sealing, it will be a bodagot. There is no way in hell a 3.5L could handel these conditions considering it was designed for NA. Something tells me they have a lot more work ahead of them. 3.5L is already designed for Direct Injection and Turbo applications: http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-cyclone-engine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 This is one other reason Ford will build a GTDI 6.2 Boss. Some customers will want it over the diesel. At 600 ft lbs of torque it will do quite well as a PSD alternative in the Super Duty. damn hate to see the MPG on that beast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theVengineguy Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 3.5L is already designed for Direct Injection and Turbo applications: http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-cyclone-engine Wiki is meaningless, it's all specualtion. The truth about GTDI is it's one difficult technology to leverage. Take for instance the first Toyota GDI engine. It had 12 injectors, 6 were direct, 6 were port fuel. The port fuel ones were for premixing at idle. It takes a lot of calibrating to get a GDI engine to run properly, the premixing is not as much as a typical SI so the spark and flame front is a lot different. Thus running into rich and lean zones in the combustion chamber which lead to poor emissions and idle quality. The multiple injection strategy is difficult, not to mention syncing that to the spark, and the actual correct degree in the engine cycle. Very detailed engine position tracing has to be there, which in turn requires faster processing times, more pips on the wheels, etc. I know the 2.3L only does one shot, but the truth is the multiple injections with a high swirl combustion chamber is what needs to be refined. Basically grafting the modern diesel injection and mixing to an SI engine is what needs to take place. Diesel has it's bennefit cause its much easier to control vs. a GDI set up. Many people forget, but probably the best head ever designed (well at least the concept) was the SPI on the 2.0/3.8/4.2L It was a dual runner design, one long and narrow, the other wide and short. Durring low rpms 500-2500, the short narrow runner would be open. The long narow runner also is where the injector was located. This charge was fed into a swirl combustion chamber. The long narrow runner increased the flow velocity, which gave good voleff and low end torque. At the higher RPMs 2500 and up, the short wide runner would open, increasing the voleff, and thus the torque at the high end to give better hp. These engines ran clean as well, it's just a shame they never went any further with SPI, it would of made one heck of a 5.0L or 5.8L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Wiki is meaningless, Ford's press releases aren't: "Engine designed with the future in mind – capable of super-clean PZEV emissions, hybrid capabilities, direct-injection and turbocharging" http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=24675 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theVengineguy Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) Ford's press releases aren't: "Engine designed with the future in mind – capable of super-clean PZEV emissions, hybrid capabilities, direct-injection and turbocharging" http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=24675 Press releases are a joke. Call me a doubting Thomas, but i will believe it when I see GTDI in production, meeting emissions, running great, getting good fuel economy, and making happy customers. I could say the 4.6L is GTDI ready, depends on how you quantify ready: 2, 5, or 10 years? And just because they integrated another boss in the head of a 3.5L for an injector don't mean much. Just means they got realestate for an injector. Remember when this 3.5L was supposed to be ready by what 2004/5, what happened to that date? There is a lot of work behind making this GTDI work properly, meeting druability, and most importantly customer expectations. Not a thing you just wanna pull outta yer ass, and throw on the customer's lap. Ford has tried that before, and consequently i can see why market share isn't what it use to be. Edited March 5, 2007 by theVengineguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Press releases are a joke. Call me a doubting Thomas, but i will believe it when I see GTDI in production, meeting emissions, running great, getting good fuel economy, and making happy customers. Yeah. The appearance of a twin turbo GDI engine less than six months after that press release is more smoke and mirrors, right? Oh, and depending on your dates for the cyclone launch it looks like it slipped all of ONE year. Gee, talk about screwing things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Although I'm very much inclined to believe Blue II with regards to the F-150 engine program. I too recall that Ford stated that the 3.7L was going to be Lincoln exclusive and aluding to a larger displacement above that for the cyclone. Like 3.9L or so. I think that 3.7L would just be a bit to light in the torque department to make a good base engine for a half ton truck, unless it had DGI, in which case, it could be reasonably expected to be capable of making around 290 lbs of torque on the high end of its regular fuel tuning spread. With premium, a DGI N/A 3.7L v6 can make 300 lbs of torque with a proper tune. The 3.5L DGI n/a in the Lexus IS 350 comes quite close to that number, and the cyclone has technically an ever so slight edge in the Ve department from what I've been able to find. A 3.9L or 4.0L NA non dgi cyclone could make about 280 to 290 lbs of torque. That would make for a stellar base v6. But, it would make for a really hot performing Ranger too. They wouldn't do it, but, replacing the 4.0L cologne in the ranger with that setup would make for a mean street machine and an suspension and payload limited towing machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Ford's press releases aren't: "Engine designed with the future in mind – capable of super-clean PZEV emissions, hybrid capabilities, direct-injection and turbocharging" http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=24675 Thats what I was looking for, but couldnt find the damn thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff355 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 All I know is if the F150 gets a diesel- I will get that truck. To be BOLD-- lets do it first before the GMs and Dodges do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford1 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Man, this sounds like a great start towards another Lightning. Less weight, big engine choice....it has to be on the horizon! Yeah that sounds awsome!! Just put a supercharger on the 6.2 and look out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.