2010-ford-4-4-liter-diesel-engine-scooped

[battyr]

...oldwiz, I'm with you, I decided to stop "debating" battyr the other day. When the term "flexible fuels" is used anyone who has worked with diesels knows that they are far more flexible as far as the fuel types that can be utilized. That was the only point I was trying to make originally.

 

As far as the 4.4 status, its on indefinite hold which in Ford terminology means dead. If its been killed for the F-150 then its dead for all the other vehicle platforms as the remaining volumes would not justify the investment. With the human and financial resource situation currently in North America the focus is a flawless launch of the Scorpion for SuperDuty and therefore I'm sure the 4.4 was viewed as a distraction.

 

Too bad since a diesel F-150 would definitely be a more useful option than an "ecoboost" F-150....

 

Hey. I am willing to admit that diesels are more flexible than I was first arguing. But you have to recognize that both gasoline and diesel engines have their advantages.

Edited April 17, 2009 by battyr

[battyr]

Truly sad news.

 

If you want a real truck to use for what trucks are designed for, you have the Super Duty with a diesel.

 

If you are a consumer who wants to dive your F-150 to the mall to get your new big screen tv, then let the consumer decide what is built.

[theoldwizard]

This is want I understand. When you raise the pressure on air, the gasoline will evapourate to dissolve into the air.

Sorry you are wrong. Liquid (such as water) "boils" (turns to a vapor) when the ambient air pressure is lowered (the equivalent of high altitude). Remember those old 1950s films of Air Force airmen opening containers of water at > 25,000 feet ? Instant boil.

 

Placing a liquid under pressure has almost no effect on it (one of the attributes of any liquid is that it is "incompressible"; which is why hydraulics work) until under large pressures and low temperature it turns into a solid.

[jon_the_limey]

The vaporisation of gasoline happens by the gasoline taking on the heat of it's surroundings. If the fuel is atomised then the droplets have a greater surface area to volume, which allows the heat from the surroundings to transfer more quickly. Also from the ideal gas law, when a gas is compressed the gas will increase in temperature.

 

In the case of GDI the fuel is injected at 150 Bar and is therefore a fine mist of atomised droplets. GDI (in current stoich applications) injects the fuel whilst the inlet valve is open, and as the air is rushing in the fuel vapourises. The vapourisation of the fuel takes on the heat of it's surroundings (the air) reducing the temperature of the air & fuel mixture (charge) in the cylinder, therefore reducing the pressure in the the cylinder. The reduced pressure in cylinder, if the the inlet valve is still open, allows even more air to flow in, which is why the BMEP is usually higher in GDI NA engines.

 

Ethanol has a very high latent heat of vapourisation, therefore when it vapourises it removes a lot of heat from it's surroundings and thus cools the charge considerably. This was the whole wonder of the Bobcat program!

 

Battyr, engineers do have to know something about Physics (Newtonian at least), they also have to have a decent knowledge of mathematics (to help do the physics) and a working knowledge of the science that surrounds the engineering application (in the case of combustion a bit of basic chemistry). It can be quite interesting sometimes!

[battyr]

Sorry you are wrong. Liquid (such as water) "boils" (turns to a vapor) when the ambient air pressure is lowered (the equivalent of high altitude). Remember those old 1950s films of Air Force airmen opening containers of water at > 25,000 feet ? Instant boil.

 

Placing a liquid under pressure has almost no effect on it (one of the attributes of any liquid is that it is "incompressible"; which is why hydraulics work) until under large pressures and low temperature it turns into a solid.

 

Oops, I thought I had discovered something deep. The difference is temperature.

 

At 25,000 feet, the temperature of the air and the water vapour within the plane should have become very cold from the drop in pressure. The airforce had added external heat to the air in the plane as the plane gained altitude. In the case of an engine, you are not artificially keeping the fuel and air to keep cool to keep it a liquid. Compression heats the mixture until until the fuel evapourates.

[twintornados]

Sorry you are wrong. Liquid (such as water) "boils" (turns to a vapor) when the ambient air pressure is lowered (the equivalent of high altitude). Remember those old 1950s films of Air Force airmen opening containers of water at > 25,000 feet ? Instant boil.

 

Placing a liquid under pressure has almost no effect on it (one of the attributes of any liquid is that it is "incompressible"; which is why hydraulics work) until under large pressures and low temperature it turns into a solid.

blah blah blah.....what?!? I can't hear you....I have a Twin I Beam from a 2009 E-150 stuck in my ear!!!

[twintornados]

By the way wizzer....I'll bet that in those 1950's Air Force films...the water was actually pablum.

[battyr]

Sorry you are wrong. Liquid (such as water) "boils" (turns to a vapor) when the ambient air pressure is lowered (the equivalent of high altitude). Remember those old 1950s films of Air Force airmen opening containers of water at > 25,000 feet ? Instant boil.

 

Placing a liquid under pressure has almost no effect on it (one of the attributes of any liquid is that it is "incompressible"; which is why hydraulics work) until under large pressures and low temperature it turns into a solid.

 

Yes warm water would boil at 25,000? You know, you can find both water vapour and ice in the vacuum of space. It is all a matter of temperature.

 

I don't think it is a matter of boiling gasoline, It that was a case, you would not need to carbarator. I am talking about a fine mist of gasoline evaporating into a non-saturated air. The boiling point of water is 212 degrees F. Yet water still evaporates when it is cooler than 212 F. The finer the mist and the hotter the temperature the faster the evaporation.

[crs2572]

That is false. Diesel requires fractional distillation just like gasoline. They both start as crude oil and go through the same process. The only difference is that diesel requires to be heated to 300 degrees c. to be distilled. Gasoline only needs to be heated to 150 degrees c. As well gasoline is both lighter and thinner. It can be transported and pipelined easier. It is imposible to produce diesel from crude oil without producing gasoline first. You better have a use for the gasoline.

 

While diesel engines can burn everything from bunker sea oil to kerosene, I would not try to burn them all in the same engine. Different engines require a fuel with different flash points. Don't try to burn gasoline in a diesel engine. Don't just burn straight vegetable oil as bio-diesel. It must be process with Alcohol to remove the glycerol from the fuel. So much for reduced refining.

 

It is much more difficult to remove sulfur from diesel than form gasolne. I don't know why. It has something to do with the higher boiling temperature of diesel.

 

All diesel engines are required to have a water filter. They are much more vulnerable to dirty and wet contaminants than gas engines.

 

 

Ford would be making a big mistake if they do not offer a diesel in the F-150. The Rentech process "converts synthesis gas from biomass and fossil resources into hydrocarbons that are subsequently processed and upgraded into ultra-clean synthetic fuels and specialty waxes and chemicals. All fuels produced by the Rentech Process can be distributed and used in existing infrastructure including pipelines and engines and are cleaner burning than traditional petroleum-derived fuels." One of those synthetic fuels will be ultra low-sulfur diesel with a sulfur content below 1 ppm. The website is: http://www.rentechinc.com/rentechProcess.php

Edited April 22, 2009 by crs2572

[theoldwizard]

That is false. Diesel requires fractional distillation just like gasoline. They both start as crude oil and go through the same process. The only difference is that diesel requires to be heated to 300 degrees c. to be distilled. Gasoline only needs to be heated to 150 degrees c. As well gasoline is both lighter and thinner. It can be transported and pipelined easier. It is imposible to produce diesel from crude oil without producing gasoline first. You better have a use for the gasoline.

 

 

From How Oil Refining Works

 

While gasoline comes off at a lower temperature (higher in the column after the heat energy has been spent), you have to "remove" the lower distillates first. If you did not heat the whole batch to 600C first, you would have massive amounts of "residual" and miss the potential profit of all of those "middle" distillates.

 

The percentages of different products that can be produced from a barrel of oil can be "tweaked" but only to a limited amount.

[battyr]

 

From How Oil Refining Works

 

While gasoline comes off at a lower temperature (higher in the column after the heat energy has been spent), you have to "remove" the lower distillates first. If you did not heat the whole batch to 600C first, you would have massive amounts of "residual" and miss the potential profit of all of those "middle" distillates.

 

The percentages of different products that can be produced from a barrel of oil can be "tweaked" but only to a limited amount.

 

This would be correct. What I said about refining gasoline was missleading.

 

All of crude oil must be heated to thermally crack it into different products.

 

What is true is that you can not make diesel without making gasoline too. You can not make gasoline without making diese tool. It takes no more effort to make gasoline as it does diesel and vice versa.

[blksn8k2]

This could give Ford a useful breathing space in which to bolster its position in the North America market, and re-establish leadership in the classic pick-up truck market.

 

I wasn't aware they had lost it.

[theoldwizard]

Mortimer doesn´t give up his hope and predictions of the 4.4-litre.

Well I haven't either.

 

But I am a realist. The only thing that would get that "train on the tracks" is the price of diesel in the US dropping to 20% below gasoline and the worldwide "supply and demand" to be in a situation that would keep it there for some a couple of years.

 

This a possibility, but not likely happen this year.

[Hemiman]

Sorry if has been asked already. Why doesn't Ford market the NA F-150 world-wide? Seems, like it would be a winner in markets outside of NA. This would also justify and offset the costs of a diesel version.

[theoldwizard]

Sorry if has been asked already. Why doesn't Ford market the NA F-150 world-wide? Seems, like it would be a winner in markets outside of NA. This would also justify and offset the costs of a diesel version.

Wild Guess. Too expensive. Or to say it another way, they don't have a model that is "stripped down" enough. For example, no 6 cylinder or manual transmission.

 

Besides, the Global Ranger seems to do quite well in most other parts of the world. Sized and priced more "appropriately".

[twintornados]

Wild Guess. Too expensive. Or to say it another way, they don't have a model that is "stripped down" enough. For example, no 6 cylinder or manual transmission.

 

Besides, the Global Ranger seems to do quite well in most other parts of the world. Sized and priced more "appropriately".

Twin I Beam :hysterical:

[battyr]

Wild Guess. Too expensive. Or to say it another way, they don't have a model that is "stripped down" enough. For example, no 6 cylinder or manual transmission.

 

Besides, the Global Ranger seems to do quite well in most other parts of the world. Sized and priced more "appropriately".

 

I would agree with you. While the F-150 is good for towing heavy trailers, the rest of the world does not need this function. As for carrying normal cargo, the Ranger with a 4 cylinder diesel is nearly as good and much more economical. You would not want to use a Ranger to carry gravel, nor would you want to use an F-150. But for normal things, the Ranger works just fine.

 

For the rest of the world, if you need to carry more than 2 people, they just sit in the back. The extra width of the F-150 would be a disadvantage in the narrow trails of the rest of the world.

[Tribunius]

Why doesn't Ford market the NA F-150 world-wide?

 

Well its too big without offering any practical advantage over other products on the market to start with.

The build quality is not good enough for the price they would need for it.

It is over powered for the tasks it could be used for.

Also there is no demand. This obsession with pickups is a north american thing. Trades people use vans not pickups which in my opinion are far more practical for most tasks than a pickup.

[silvrsvt]

This obsession with pickups is a north american thing. Trades people use vans not pickups which in my opinion are far more practical for most tasks than a pickup.

 

I'd have to agree with you, my friend had a F-250/350 then went to a Diesel E-250 for his work vehicle since was just easier to have the van and lock everything in it then worry about the F-350 and having material/tools get screwed up due to the weather.

[Fords#1Fan]

PSA: Diesel fuel now cheaper than regular-grade gasoline

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/14/psa-die...grade-gasoline/

[theoldwizard]

PSA: Diesel fuel now cheaper than regular-grade gasoline

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/14/psa-die...grade-gasoline/

Interesting.

 

It will have to stay this way for several months before Ford will even start thinking about putting the 4.4L back on the front burner.

[Blacksheep]

Interesting.

 

It will have to stay this way for several months before Ford will even start thinking about putting the 4.4L back on the front burner.

I heard an interesting rumor from my dealer this weekend, he said that one of the reasons that the 4.4 was delayed was that ford was making a deal with another company (I think he said Isuzu but do not quote me on that) for a small diesel engine. He also said that GM had been in the process of making the same deal but it fell through with GM lacking the $$$ to make the deal. Like I said it is a rumor but it is definately an intersting one, maybe there is still hope....

[Critic]

I heard an interesting rumor from my dealer this weekend, he said that one of the reasons that the 4.4 was delayed was that ford was making a deal with another company (I think he said Isuzu but do not quote me on that) for a small diesel engine. He also said that GM had been in the process of making the same deal but it fell through with GM lacking the $$$ to make the deal. Like I said it is a rumor but it is definately an intersting one, maybe there is still hope....

 

2 undated articles, but from around the beginning of March.

http://www.ridelust.com/gm-cancels-develop...-diesel-engine/

Obviously circling the wagons in anticipation of yet another attack by marauding bands of debtors, GM announced today that an “indefinite hold” would be placed on further development of their 4.5L V8 Duramax Diesel engine. Originally intended to debut as a fuel-efficient engine option beneath the hood of the 2010 Chevy Silverado, GM claims the worsening economic climate has forced them to cancel the project. Expected to offer a much-needed alternative to GM’s current heavy duty 6.6L V8 diesel, the 4.5L diesel would have provided a more cost-effective version of the 6.6L’s power and fuel-efficiency to the light duty truck market. Similar in theory to Ford’s EcoBoost engine, GM’s 4.5L V8 used patented technology to eliminate the need for exhaust and intake manifolds, using an in-house developed 2-mode hybrid system to boost fuel efficiency a rumored 40%.

 

Fortunately, GM assures that the 4.5L V8 has not been cancelled entirely and, if they can manage to get their act together, could debut on the Chevy Silverado during a later model year. Until GM regains their footing, however, the project will remain paused.

 

March 15 http://alltherides.com/news/auto-industry-...-diesel-engine/

[fordmantpw]

I heard an interesting rumor from my dealer this weekend, he said that one of the reasons that the 4.4 was delayed was that ford was making a deal with another company (I think he said Isuzu but do not quote me on that) for a small diesel engine. He also said that GM had been in the process of making the same deal but it fell through with GM lacking the $$$ to make the deal. Like I said it is a rumor but it is definately an intersting one, maybe there is still hope....

 

I seriously doubt Ford would go this route. I bet they are through using a third party supplier for diesel engines after the Navistar fiasco.

[7Mary3]

It is looking like the new CAFE/CO2 emissions regulations will effectively prohibit diesels in any U.S. vehicle under 8,600# GVW.. I have not seen this in writing yet, but that is what I am hearing at this point.