Kuzak on Twinforce Applications

[LSFan00]

1) Turbos do not necessarily equate to reliability nightmares (they've been used in severe service on heavy trucks for years); do not confuse poorly built domestic turbos of the 80s with the state of the art.

 

2) Turbos are still less expensive than diesels and 50 state legal. Expense for diesel manufacture is not limited to after-treatment bolt-ons; actual engine assembly is more expensive (you can read up on the clean-room environment at Ford Dagenham here)

 

3) Turbos can be tuned for low end torque delivery. In fact, combining turbos with DI engines provides much better low end torque

 

4) I believe the DSG setup is for higher torque engines. IIRC the JV transmission can't handle much past 300lb ft.

 

 

Thanks for the link, RJ. I respect everyone's points with respect to my post this afternoon, but just disagree.

 

In fact that article represented a great proof source of Ford underestimating diesel demand. And let's just face this fact; Dagenham is making money for Ford today, with the motors and platforms selling quite well. Much better than expected, really.

 

All this talk of 30% greater costs or what not for diesel is bogus. It is a little bit more robust in it's construction,due to the higher compression ratios, and yeah for 4-6 cylinders the exhaust system is probably an extra few hundred to a thousand dollars in cost, but that is it. It's fundamentally simpler, and more durable, and will be cheaper to maintain as a result. I know and appreciate that older-generation vane-type turbos are just not representative of the reliability/capability as exemplified in industrial truck turbo's today, but that also ain't what Ford will put in a Focus/Mondeo/Fusion type of product. Adding common-rail, twin-turbos, and hybrid systems into $13-25K cars and trucks with gas engines seems to me an extraordinary misdirection, to the simplified options available.

 

I just don't get it, but then again, I admit I am an outsider, so maybe my days as a generator mechanic in the Army repairing gas and diesel generators alike have just distorted my view. But from an outsider, uneducated, simpleton point of view; take projects that are waaay-more succesful than expected and use them elsewhere. Or, keep a huge team and multiple high-volume platforms and put a hybrid-twin-turbo-direct-injection-gasoline engine of varying architectures with multiple transmissions in most of your NA products. I know it's arrogant, but I think that plan is crazy.

[RichardJensen]

"Adding common-rail, twin-turbos, and hybrid systems into $13-25K cars and trucks with gas engines seems to me an extraordinary misdirection, to the simplified options available."

 

You underestimate the expense involved in maintaining the cleanroom environment required for diesel assembly that is not required with GDI; also you underestimate the cost (and complexity) of after treatments and EGR systems on diesels.

 

SULEV II and Tier 2 Bin 3 NOx standards are 10 times as restrictive as EURO IV when it comes to diesel NOx emissions (because EURO IV grants concessions to diesel engines).

 

Manufacturing diesels that meet those requirements is quite expensive, and (if you'll note) Honda is not planning a Civic diesel. They're planning an Accord diesel.

 

Honda can't even command the price premium on a Civic required to make a diesel profitable.

 

---

 

The tax and emissions regimes in Europe make diesels a far more acceptable proposition than in the U.S., and I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. Diesel gas is given tax breaks, diesel engines are given looser emissions standards, and therefore diesels are more popular.

 

You may as well argue that we adopt German as a second language, based on the fact that it's a very popular language in Europe. There are more factors at play here than I think you credit.

Edited July 2, 2007 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Besides. Most small diesels are also turbocharged.

[Ford-150]

how about using something along the line of the sequential turbos used on the 6.4L Powerstroke, or is that what the Twin Force might be?

[lfeg]

One thing that is generally overlooked when comparing the fuel economy of a diesel powered vehicle to a gasoline powered vehicle is that a gallon of No. 2 diesel contains a bit over 20% more energy than a gallon of gasoline. So that will cover about 20% of the difference right there. Also, in an internal combustion engine, either otto or diesel cycle, the effiency of energy conversion is related to the compression ratio - higher CR gives higher efficiency. These two items account for the majority of the so called economy superiority of the diesel engine. With increases in gasoline engine CR due to things such as direct gasoline injection, variable valve timing, and such, the overall energy efficiency (in BTU/mile or J/Km) between the two engine types will be close to the same.

 

Also, it takes more crude to make a gallon of diesel than it does to make a gallon of gasoline, so other than taxation abberations and supply and demand issues, the long term is that diesel will have a higher per gallon cost then gasoline (but will be about the same when measured by cents pre BTU).

[bolita]

3) Turbos can be tuned for low end torque delivery. In fact, combining turbos with DI engines provides much better low end torque

 

I think that turbos are not de-tuned for low end torque delivery. The way it works (IIRC Subaru had a domestic Legacy biturbo set up this way) is that the 2 turbos are different. One is a low rev turbo that works from 1.200 RPM up to 3.000 RPM giving you the "added torque" right from idle up to mid range. The the other high rev turbo kicks in under 3.000 RPM up to red line. In essence when you drive with a twin turbo set up like this, you don't experience the usual low end lag and simply feel the thrust from pretty much idle up to red line.

 

The beauty of turbo is that you can deliver larger displacement performance with lower displacement engines which ends up with two mains benefits: a) lower emissions and B) lower fuel consumption

[Misteredog]

Regarding modern diesel costs Johan de Nysschen of Audi of America estimated a premium based on just the cost of the engine and associated emission equipment of "four and a half thousand dollars, just to break even".

source:Autoline Detroit, Johann de Nysschen interview.

[LSFan00]

Regarding modern diesel costs Johan de Nysschen of Audi of America estimated a premium based on just the cost of the engine and associated emission equipment of "four and a half thousand dollars, just to break even".

source:Autoline Detroit, Johann de Nysschen interview.

 

This was pure, unadulterated garbage. I'd note that Ford doesn't pay that much for powerstrokes, and that maybe navistar should investigate the idea of a clean room (KIDDING!)

 

Seriously, Audi wants about 40K for their "premium" optioned cars, and any option package (paint, wheels, door locks) winds up costing about that much.

[silvrsvt]

Besides. Most small diesels are also turbocharged.

 

 

I'd say that the vast majority of Diesel engines are Turbocharged.

 

Anyways, the biggest problem with Diesels is that they will never meet CARB regulations in automotive applications (not sure how fullsize trucks are handled), and two of the largest states (population wise) use CARB for their emmission standards, if you develop a Diesel for only 45 states, your prob losing about 20% of your total sales because you cant sell it in Cali or NY State.

[RichardJensen]

This was pure, unadulterated garbage.

Perhaps. Of course, VW charged over a $4k premium for the diesel Jetta.

 

Face it LSFan00, diesels ain't cheap, and it ain't just Ford saying so. Toyota is not pursuing passenger car diesels in the U.S. either.

 

I mean, the entire industry could be off base (except Honda which is planning a SINGLE 4-cylinder diesel option for the ACCORD and ODYSSEY, hardly an overwhelming commitment), OR you could be working from faulty assumptions.

[LSFan00]

I mean, the entire industry could be off base (except Honda which is planning a SINGLE 4-cylinder diesel option for the ACCORD and ODYSSEY, hardly an overwhelming commitment), OR you could be working from faulty assumptions.

 

Right, it's just me. Thank you almighty great one for the correction. No other manufacturers are moving faster than Ford in that direction, except for BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW, Honda, Chrysler and even GM (yes, I count them as faster since they'll have the diesel silverado out first). Meanwhile, there is this link. But, you can just slam me for having an unfounded opinion supported by faulty assumptions no one else in the industry would agree with.

 

It sounds like it is really about Ford's marriage-in-hell to ethanol bi-fueled vehicles. (Full disclosure: Ethanol is a crap fuel IMHO). So, rather than trying to increase the effective energy efficiency, Ford will be putting crappier fuel into car engine designs to make them "environmentally friendly." But, cautious Ford seems to have a backup plan in spite of my many faulty assumptions (from above link to autobloggreen);

 

However with the global platforms Ford is using for new vehicles they are prepared to bring small clean diesels to the US market if it looks like the demand is there. So it appears that Ford will be watching the acceptance of all the upcoming diesel models from Volkswagen and Chrysler before making a US diesel commitment.

 

If I had to guess, for free on an internet forum, I would say that the twin-turbo mantra is more marketing/playing the regulations game (will ford get credit for better mileage on bi-fuel/ethanol cars than on gasoline after congress get's done playing cafe games over the next 2 years?), than "clean room" economics. There is a middle ground between navistar-quality and Dagenham-level of investments.

 

Ford doesn't need to wait until both Toyota and Honda have a business plan to change completely all of their powertrains to make a decision. Toyota doesn't do ethanol-powered cars do they? Well, what the hell is Ford doing with bi-fueled cars since neither Toyota nor Honda do? OMG, it's the end of the world! Seriously, Honda has all of what, 3 basic engines for sale in the US? I'm guessing if the Accord diesel sells the motor will be found in other applications over time.

[bolita]

\ Toyota doesn't do ethanol-powered cars do they? Well, what the hell is Ford doing with bi-fueled cars since neither Toyota nor Honda do?

 

I know you are talking about the US, but in Brazil, Fiat, VW, GM, Ford Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda among others all have flex fuel (ethanol - gasoline and Natural gas) cars. It shoudn't cost much to implement the technology elsewhere. BTW, Brazil has Euro III emission levels today.

 

IMHO, this whole twinforce deal is more a European Emissions issues as well as a US fuel consumption issue.

 

Going a bit off topic, I firmly believe in both Ethanol and BioDiesel as future fuels...

[inteller]

1) Turbos do not necessarily equate to reliability nightmares (they've been used in severe service on heavy trucks for years); do not confuse poorly built domestic turbos of the 80s with the state of the art.

 

tell this to Volvo XC90 T6 owners. Dealers around here won't even take those in on trade because of the horrible reliability issues with the twin turbo setup.

[inteller]

Going a bit off topic, I firmly believe in both Ethanol and BioDiesel as future fuels...

 

 

i believe in biodiesel...but ethanol is short sighted and really doesn't solve our fuel economy problems. I'd be more interested in figuring out CNG/propane applications than ethanol.

[bolita]

i believe in biodiesel...but ethanol is short sighted and really doesn't solve our fuel economy problems. I'd be more interested in figuring out CNG/propane applications than ethanol.

 

Let me rephrase - I believe in any renewable fuel source. Wasn't there a technology years ago of propane/methane generated from trash? I really don't remember but seemed an interesting source of fuel in any case.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Look, the whole point of the twinforce project is increasing the thermodynamic efficiency of their gasoline engines today. They know that they can meet the emissions targets for gasoline engines easily enough. That's been Ford's biggest problem for years. They bet decades ago that emissions regs would tighten faster than fuel economy regs. That's a bet that they lost, badly. However, now, they have fairly clear emissions leadership, but lag behind in the performance game.

 

Twinforce allows them to offer gasoline engines that, in the EPA tests, will achieve diesel like fuel efficiency numbers. In the cruising state, the inherently smaller engines will allow them to cruise along using less fuel then their competition. The twin-scroll turbo charger setups will allow them to generate the power that's needed when its needed. The weight difference between the smaller engine and the larger engine it replaces should be small, so that won't be an efficency advantage. But, the overall packaging will be more flexible due to the nature of turbo plumbing. So, Ford gains a more flexible packaged powerplant that's performance competitive with the rest of the market and is efficient in coparisson as well.

 

I don't see where this is a problem. In fact, I see it as an advantage for them. As the FAD that is E85 takes off and gains market penetration, the Twinforce engines can be tuned to take full advantage of the higher octane of the E85 fuel while not requiring any appreciable change to the powerplant as a whole.

 

As for Diesels, Ford has them in abundance. Trouble is, they're all overseas. Trust me, if they saw a way to produce one here for a profit, they would love to. Judging by the waiting lists for the VW diesels, there's definite interest for them.

[RichardJensen]

Right, it's just me. Thank you almighty great one for the correction.

Your irrational contempt for me has blinded you to some rather obvious facts:

 

Diesel					Twin Force Gas
* Twin Turbo				* Twin Turbo
* Direct Injection		  * Direct Injection
* Add'l exhaust			 * No add'l exhaust
 treatment required		  treatment required
* Requires waiver for	   * Does not require waiver
 50 state emissions
 certification
* Requires cleanroom		* Can be manufactured in
 manufacturing			   existing facilities

 

The assertion that diesel engines are 'simpler' than Ford's TF setup is wrong.

 

In reality the after-treatment and exhaust system makes them MORE complicated. AND manufacturing is to MUCH tighter tolerances.

 

 

 

But go ahead, let your contempt for me shape all your opinions.

Edited July 2, 2007 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

Why does a diesel need to be built in a clean room environment? doesnt make much sense...

[RichardJensen]

Why does a diesel need to be built in a clean room environment? doesnt make much sense...

The block doesn't need to be assembled in a clean room, but any work with the injectors & related plumbing needs to be done in a very clean environment.

[theoldwizard]

The block doesn't need to be assembled in a clean room, but any work with the injectors & related plumbing needs to be done in a very clean environment.

And what makes you think that the high pressure pump and injectors of a gasoline DI system don't require "clean room" environment. Tolerances on these items have to be similar or better than their diesel equivalents !

[jon_the_limey]

Aftertreatment for gasoline direct injection is only the inexpensive conventional 3-way catalyst IF it runs with a homogenous charge and is running stoichiometrically. Great for power and cheap emissions control but limited for fuel efficiency improvements.

 

Go for GDI lean stratified charge for fuel economy, then it will produce unreducible (within it's own exhaust gases anyway) NOx and have problems with soot formation, through pyrolysis of the heterogenous charge, just like a diesel! Diesels will produce NOx and soot in greater quantities so potentially force the need for ammonia based selective catalytic reduction equipment and a particulate filter, whereas a stratified GDI might just get away with a normal oxidation catalyst and a substrate lean NOx trap.

 

"Clean-room" assembly is a hard thing to quantify, but controlled atmospheric conditions are required for the handling of high precision fuel injection equipment. This will apply to both diesel and GDI fuel injection equipment (FIE). Diesel fuel pumps have to deal with extremely injection pressures of ~2000Bar, GDI even with the latest spray guided injectors are only dealing with upto ~200Bar. It would be easy to assume that because of this diesel FIE has a harder time, but gasoline fuel has poorer lubricity than diesel so neither are having it easy!

 

The forecast in europe for Euro 5 and beyond (with the convergence of diesel and gasoline emission standards) is a retreat from diesels into GDI turbo for smaller less expensive cars due to aftertreatment expense, but diesels will still rule in larger cars and commercial vehicles. Even longer term there is potential for convergence of gasoline and diesel combustion philosophies into HCCI, but thats a while off yet!

Edited July 3, 2007 by jon_the_limey

[RichardJensen]

And what makes you think that the high pressure pump and injectors of a gasoline DI system don't require "clean room" environment. Tolerances on these items have to be similar or better than their diesel equivalents !

Neither Ford nor Mazda have built clean rooms for their GDI engines. Just the diesels.

 

I'd say there's enough difference between tolerances between the two, given the differences between gasoline and diesel, that either 1) Diesel requires far more advanced injectors, or 2) Diesel injectors performing the same task require more delicate handling.

 

---

 

Also, Jon, I think Ford's intending to use the effective 'variable displacement' achieved with the twin turbos for fuel efficiency; instead of going with a very lean charge (which, I would assume, would require more sophisticated injectors, and possibly a clean room assembly environment).

 

All things being equal turbo charged GDI seems to be a better solution for less expensive cars--and with your EURO V, or our CARB and Tier 2 systems, all emissions are equal.

[lfeg]

There is another dimension to this whole topic - Which engine (diesel or gasoline) is more appropriate for alternate fuels? Not just ethanol, but methanol, other biomass derived alcohols, hybrid alcohol/synthetic hydrocarbon/ petroleum fuels, and gaseous fuels. Given the regulatory environment and proposed/ yet unheard of government mandates I think the direction that Ford is going in is wise. Petroleum demand in China is more than a wild card, it will be the game changer. Add India to the mix, and we will be seeing demand for diesel fuel easily outstripping supply. Biodiesel is one option, but a limited one. A gasoline engine is more flexible when it comes to the range of fuels it can use.

[MERKURXR4Ti]

Here's an odd idea, and correct me if I'm wrong but, wouln't it be possible to take a TF setup and create some kind of clutch on the rod connecting the turbo's compressor and turbine to allow it to only work when needed, or even better and easier yet: program the computer to open the wastegate at much lower pressures unless dictated by the driver/situation...so like a variable boost turbo that would allow the FE of a 3.5L most of the time and the power of a GTTDI3.5 the other times. Because something that most people don't take into account is that turbos DO impact fuel economy, and a lot more than one would think; all that compressed air jammed into the engine needs more fuel to ignite (though I'm sure its still better than a v8)....

[igor]

Here's an odd idea, and correct me if I'm wrong but, wouln't it be possible to take a TF setup and create some kind of clutch on the rod connecting the turbo's compressor and turbine to allow it to only work when needed, or even better and easier yet: program the computer to open the wastegate at much lower pressures unless dictated by the driver/situation...so like a variable boost turbo that would allow the FE of a 3.5L most of the time and the power of a GTTDI3.5 the other times. Because something that most people don't take into account is that turbos DO impact fuel economy, and a lot more than one would think; all that compressed air jammed into the engine needs more fuel to ignite (though I'm sure its still better than a v8)....

yes this is possible, but Automakers have not been open to such ideas yet.. it would be a great addition though.

 

For example the new 08 Highlander has EV and Eco buttons .. EV shits off the ICE and has you drive on EV only (limits the speed to 30mph and range to 20 miles or so) .. Eco is much more useful, as it to a degree ignores the stimuli from gas and brake pedal and makes the car's speed more constant and acceleration more gradual etc .. improving fuel efficiency.

 

Finally, it has been suggested that GM and DCX should add a button to their VDS V8 engines that would have the engine run as V4 for extended periods of time - even if it robs some performance .. customers have been demanding it, but it has not been implemented yet.

 

Igor