Swizco Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06/sneak...uel-engine.html Check it out! Swizco UPDATE: Thanks! Edited June 8, 2009 by Swizco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Sweet! They even mention testing of the same technology with the 3.5 V6. They mentioned the block not being strong enough on the current 3.5. I would guess that probably means CGI material for a production block. Slap a 3.5 Bobcat with a decent transmission in my next F150 and I'd be a happy camper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVTCobra Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Wow, nice write-up! I really like the new ways that Ford is looking to power their vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Wow! No money from the government AND leading in new fuel efficiency technology. Toyota and the anti-Ford news media can officially felate Mulally with this news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 "100 miles at 6% with a fully loaded trailer" - that's 6 miles of vertical climb, a number that seems outside the realm of possibility in the real world.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 "100 miles at 6% with a fully loaded trailer" - that's 6 miles of vertical climb, a number that seems outside the realm of possibility in the real world.... Bobcat is real. Some doubted my posts from last year though. The 6.2 BC is on par with current F-550 Deisels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Just like a diesel but with a lot more torque and power. Looks like all the torque is at low rpms like a diesel. Does not rev for power like a gas engine. New technology is double the cost of EcoBoost to only give 10% more fuel efficiency. More complicated fueling. Only a small increase in maximum HP. It is worth doing research into, but my bet is on EcoBoost and Clean Diesel. Edited June 8, 2009 by battyr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 "100 miles at 6% with a fully loaded trailer" - that's 6 miles of vertical climb, a number that seems outside the realm of possibility in the real world.... However, an extreme towing scenario with the 5.0-liter V-8 pulling a fully-loaded trailer up a constant 6 percent grade could mean refilling the E85 tank as often as every 100 miles. That's why they said it was an "extreme scenario" or in this case, a worst case scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 "100 miles at 6% with a fully loaded trailer" - that's 6 miles of vertical climb, a number that seems outside the realm of possibility in the real world.... Pike's Peak Highway is only 19 miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Just like a diesel but with a lot more torque and power. Looks like all the torque is at low rpms like a diesel. Does not rev for power like a gas engine. New technology is double the cost of EcoBoost to only give 10% more fuel efficiency. More complicated fueling. Only a small increase in maximum HP. It is worth doing research into, but my bet is on EcoBoost and Clean Diesel. I think this is the important part: The efficiency gain and torque are comparable to current turbodiesel engines, like Ford’s 350-hp/650 lbs.-ft. 6.4-liter Power Stroke, but at about a third of the cost and with the advantage of cleaner emissions without expensive exhaust aftertreatment hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Wow. Two different fuel sources, two different injectors, AND turbocharging? Can they make it any more complicated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Wow. Two different fuel sources, two different injectors, AND turbocharging? Can they make it any more complicated? Yeah...you could have to treat the exhaust with a DPF and SCR to clean it up. Really, the only additional piece (compared to a diesel of EB) is one additional fuel source. And when compared to a diesel and it's SCR (urea - which could be considered a fuel), it has fewer components since it has no DPF. Doesn't sound any more complex than a diesel...probably even less-so. Plus much less expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 The new "mileage standard" is not a gasoline or diesel mile per gallon standard, it is a CO2 emissions per mile standard. Diesel fuel has a lot more carbon in it than gasoline or ethanol, and hence about 20% greater CO2 emissions per mile. Clean diesel is not a reduction in CO2, but rather HC, NOX, and CO. A careful read of the article says that although it is more expensive than a gasoline engine, it is much less expensive than a diesel of comparable torque and HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It sounds like user pays replacement for diesel. If you need to haul heavy loads then be prepared to fill the little E85 tank regularly. If you normally drive your truck light then fuel economy will be excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizco Posted June 8, 2009 Author Share Posted June 8, 2009 Wow. Two different fuel sources, two different injectors, AND turbocharging? Can they make it any more complicated? You forgot about the flux capacitor. Swizco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Will the 'average consumer' be able to handle the task of fueling up on the two different fuels? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Will the 'average consumer' be able to handle the task of fueling up on the two different fuels? If not, then they won't be able to handle a diesel with SCR either. And really, if said person can't fuel up with two different fuels, then he/she shouldn't be pulling a trailer and wouldn't need EBS. On second thought, they shouldn't even be driving if they can't manage such simple tasks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 With EBS, the oil refineries will have to use expensive and energy wasteful processes to convert the surplus diesel fuel into gasoline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It is an interesting question, as E85 comes out of exactly the same kind of nozzle as regular gas (although, it's usually a separate nozzle on the pump).... --- One wonders what the E85 lobby will make of this, as the engine won't take E85 as regular fuel meaning less demand for E85..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Will the 'average consumer' be able to handle the task of fueling up on the two different fuels? I used to ride oil injected two-stroke motorcycles like the Kawasaki H2 750. You really didn't want to run out of oil.... Never a big problem back then, and we had to add oil more often than Bobcat would require ethanol in normal use. Not to mention how often we had to change our shorts... No brakes to speak of, handled poorly, but none of that matters when your ears touch behind your head as you do a wheelie all the way through third gear. Bonus: no mosquitoes. Edited June 8, 2009 by xr7g428 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Really, the only additional piece (compared to a diesel of EB) is one additional fuel source. One more fuel source, one more set of injectors, one more fuel pump, and possibly more sensors than normal to measure how much of which more fuel to use at any given time. Not to mention the complicated software that will have to be written to manage it all. You make it sound overly simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It is an interesting question, as E85 comes out of exactly the same kind of nozzle as regular gas (although, it's usually a separate nozzle on the pump).... --- One wonders what the E85 lobby will make of this, as the engine won't take E85 as regular fuel meaning less demand for E85..... Or maybe more demand as people switch from large capacity diesels? In this instance E85 is being used as a power adder with the biproduct of less emissions and CO2 than a similar sized diesel. Maybe it the way the solution is viewed............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 It is an interesting question, as E85 comes out of exactly the same kind of nozzle as regular gas (although, it's usually a separate nozzle on the pump).... --- One wonders what the E85 lobby will make of this, as the engine won't take E85 as regular fuel meaning less demand for E85..... Won't it? I understand that it could, but with poorer fuel consumption. In any case, if you use mandated E-5 or E-10 plus and additional 15% or 20% of E-85 for the DI, then it sounds like an increased demand for ethanol. Any use of more than that much ethanol on a wide scale, it would not be sustainable. Next step, use 2 DI injectors in each cylinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Any use of more than that much ethanol on a wide scale, it would not be sustainable. With today's tech. Wait 3 years. There are massive efforts under way using different approaches; one or more of 'em ill probably solve the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) Ethanol is a step down the road in removing carbon from fuel. With a total fleet of about 280 million vehicles in the USA, if all diesel and gasoline vehicles were to run on as little as 5% Ethanol mix, that would be the equivalent of 16.5 million vehicles continuously running on E85. What would be the harm in doing that to base load Ethanol production levels before rolling out even more E85 gas pumps? Ultimately, it may be far more advantageous to convert 87 regular to E22 and reap real reductions in CO2 without waiting for the trickle down effect of new vehicles that may or may not be running on E85, by doing E22 fuel you assure compliance. Edited June 8, 2009 by jpd80 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.