fordmantpw Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 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. Not overly simple...just not that much more complex than diesels. They each have different problems to solve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizco Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Not overly simple...just not that much more complex than diesels. They each have different problems to solve. I would say that with all the EGR plumbing on the 6.4, this might still be less expensive and less complex. The 6.4 looks like a ball of pipes when it's on a stand. Swizco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Ford Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 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. I'll believe it when I see it. Using wing warping as a substitute for flaps and ailerons had been a "few years away" for several decades now, and that tech doesn't have a political lobby dealing promises in exchange for subsidies. The bobcat... damn, it sounds more impressive every time I hear about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) "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. Not sure you quite understood what I was getting at (that seems to happen a lot) - I meant to say the 6 miles of vertical climb was probably far more than most will ever encounter (that's to the top of Everest and back) - it seems far enough beyond the range of experiences for most drivers as to not be a number worth noting - I'd rather see a figure with real-world comparisons, like driving across the Rockies. Edited June 9, 2009 by Noah Harbinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Yeah, but I can see some GM nut or some "I live in the mountains" nut going on about 'such and such a hill may not be 100 miles at 6%, but it's close' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizco Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 Bobcat is real. Some doubted my posts from last year though. The 6.2 BC is on par with current F-550 Deisels. Not sure you quite understood what I was getting at (that seems to happen a lot) - I meant to say the 6 miles of vertical climb was probably far more than most will ever encounter (that's to the top of Everest and back) - it seems far enough beyond the range of experiences for most drivers as to not be a number worth noting - I'd rather see a figure with real-world comparisons, like driving across the Rockies. Additionally, a lot of Ford's durability testing standards are so high because many owners load to 2x capacity, then slap a chip in them to pull the extra. If it breaks, they'll complain that it wasn't as tough as their last one. Bottom line: these standards aren't necessarily supposed to simulate real-world conditions, but more to illustrate a standard Ford truck owners have come to expect. 'Built Ford Tough' isn't just a cute tag line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) Doesn't sound any more complex than a diesel...probably even less-so. Plus much less expensive. I challenge that statement ! Sure particulate traps aren't cheap, but neither is 2 entire fuel systems. Plus don't forget the licensing fee that Ford will have to pay Ethanol Boosting Systems for every unit that is built. The 100 mile range on a 6% grade may seem to be an unrealistic test. A better question to ask is for a given engine size, how big would the E85 tank have to be to achieve the same "miles to empty" as the primary tank, when the vehicle is loaded to its max GCWR and then driven over some real world hilly terrain! On a F550 with a 6.2L would this be 5 gallons or maybe even 10 gallons ? BTW, has any one noticed that the price of diesel fuel is "back where it should be"; about 20% less than E10 ! Edited June 9, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 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. At least there is on voice of reason around here ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Next step, use 2 DI injectors in each cylinder. Yeah, sure. We'll just make the valves smaller. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) (Regarding ethanol production)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. 3 years and we will have a "different" ethanol production system doing mass production from something other than corn, sugar beets or sugar cane ? I'll thake that bet and give you 2 to 1 odds ! Edited June 9, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) "But it worked in the computer simulation !" Ford will try out its theories outside of computer simulations and the laboratory before the end of the year Sigh. I think I'll just move to Missouri, then you can "Show Me !" or as an old engineering friend always used to say "In God we trust, all other please bring data !" Edited June 9, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I tend to go with oldwizard on this one. Sure the technology is interesting (as interesting as the methanol fuel and methanol boost systems I was involved in over 30 years ago), but is it really needed? Do not forget that with 2 fuel systems you also have a more complex evaporative emissions control system, need more plumbing, and more space. I also question the need for such high hp levels, other than for bragging rights and to satisfy the boy racer types. For a light truck you do not need more than 300 hp, and 250 is sufficient. In medium trucks, I will go with the same numbers. Do we really need to hitch a 12,000 pound trailer to a light truck and blast up a 6% incline at 75 mph? And the issue of availability of E85 is a big issue. In many places you cannot get it. And without the current hefty subsidies it receives it is a rather high priced fuel. And yes, I do drive these types of vehicles. Unloaded and overloaded. On flat and up hills. In real life, 250 hp will do what needs to be done, as I have already done it with less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I like the idea of a mid range V6 Bobcat as a diesel replacement -350 hp and 550 lbft sounds great. An engine like that would be in direct competition with the 4.4 V8 turbo diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 3 years and we will have a "different" ethanol production system doing mass production from something other than corn, sugar beets or sugar cane ? I'll that that bet and give you 2 to 1 odds ! If the spark plug is on top, you have an injector on one side, what are you going to do with the open space on the opposite side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If the spark plug is on top, you have an injector on one side, what are you going to do with the open space on the opposite side? That's where the hot exhaust pipe runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 3 years and we will have a "different" ethanol production system doing mass production from something other than corn, sugar beets or sugar cane ? I'll that that bet and give you 2 to 1 odds ! Yeah you have the experience to know. Things like this will happen, but it will take 20 years. Mean while ethanol production does become more efficient every year. The environmental question really is, how do you increase agricultural output without needing to use more ferilizer? I think in the future the feed stock (corn?, algae? water?) might or might not be grown. But it will not be fermented, it will be refined or manufactured. The fuel will more likely be more like butanol (an alcohol that is more like gasoline), depend on the complexity to produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If the spark plug is on top, you have an injector on one side, what are you going to do with the open space on the opposite side? You haven't seen the heads from a Boss. I have ! The valves are so big, the plug had to be pushed way over to the side. The bore was big enough that a second plug had to be added (on the opposite side of course) to prevent pre-ignition from lighting off part of the mixture at the wrong time, or at least get combustion to complete before peak pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 And the issue of availability of E85 is a big issue. In many places you cannot get it. And without the current hefty subsidies it receives it is a rather high priced fuel. I was wondering about that also. I know E85 still has limited availability in the major metropolitan area that I live in, and I'm in the midwest ! I wonder if E85 is available in places like Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Salt Lake City or Portland, OR where ethanol would have to be shipped in from many mile away to make the blend. Of course, Bobcat could always uses a couple of fifths from the local liquor store ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I challenge that statement ! Sure particulate traps aren't cheap, but neither is 2 entire fuel systems. Plus don't forget the licensing fee that Ford will have to pay Ethanol Boosting Systems for every unit that is built. The 100 mile range on a 6% grade may seem to be an unrealistic test. A better question to ask is for a given engine size, how big would the E85 tank have to be to achieve the same "miles to empty" as the primary tank, when the vehicle is loaded to its max GCWR and then driven over some real world hilly terrain! On a F550 with a 6.2L would this be 5 gallons or maybe even 10 gallons ? BTW, has any one noticed that the price of diesel fuel is "back where it should be"; about 20% less than E10 ! Not saying it is cheap or easy, but new diesels are very complex and expensive. Does that extra cost of another fuel system plus the turbos plus licensing, etc. come up to the 6-7k cost difference of a diesel? I don't know, but I'm thinking not. And diesel here is about 5-10% less than gas. I love diesels in trucks, but it is good to see Ford trying something different. Will it work? Will it be worth it? We don't know. Ford seems to think it MIGHT, that's why they're putting the time and money to figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itguy09 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Of course, Bobcat could always uses a couple of fifths from the local liquor store ! Honestly officer, that case of Everclear empties in the backseat is for the truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Honestly officer, that case of Everclear empties in the backseat is for the truck. You've been following me for 20 miles now officer, inhaling the exhaust fumes...let's see you walk heel to toe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 You haven't seen the heads from a Boss. I have ! The valves are so big, the plug had to be pushed way over to the side. The bore was big enough that a second plug had to be added (on the opposite side of course) to prevent pre-ignition from lighting off part of the mixture at the wrong time, or at least get combustion to complete before peak pressure. When you add turbos, you don't need such large valves. An EBS Boss would have too much power anyway. An EBS V6 should be plenty. I see the market for the V6. They are just using the V8 for testing. In anycase, the block from a gasoline engine can't handle the pressure from an EBS to produce the maximum torque, power and efficiency. An all new engine would need to be designed. The use of 2 DI injectors is not EBS, rather something that might get developed in the far future. It might be a way to get around the EBS patents that you are worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Here is the value of EBS. It works only if E-85 become much cheaper in the future. You would be able to burn E-85 in an EBS engine and still get as good fuel efficiency as regular gasoline. If you find it hard to get E-85 for the main fuel tank, then you just need enough for the DI tank and get the same mileage as a diesel. If you can't get E-85 at all, then the engine will still run, but with very little power. If E-85 becomes the popular and cheap fuel in 10 years, then this is the engine you want to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I was wondering about that also. I know E85 still has limited availability in the major metropolitan area that I live in, and I'm in the midwest ! I wonder if E85 is available in places like Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Salt Lake City or Portland, OR where ethanol would have to be shipped in from many mile away to make the blend. I live in Denver, CO, and there are plenty of stations around town with E85. My F150 5.4L is FFV and I did use E85 when it was cost effective, like last summer when gasoline/diesel were $3.50+ and E85 was still selling from $1.99-$2.50. Drove the wife crazy since it cost less to fill my 30 galloin tank than it did her 15-16 gallon Altima. Can't speak for the other cities you mentioned, but most the E85 fuel Denver and Colorado receives actually comes from Colorado, not shipped in from out of state. I'm familiar with roughly 5-6 facilities in the state that produce ethonal, and they are building more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) I'm still struggling with the concept of relying on the 'average consumer' to understand the two different fuels, and then fill up correctly. We're talking about people who think the oil light means it's time to change the oil. Could it be possible that Ford has primarily commercial truck fleets in mind, where the refueling is centralized in some cases, and in most cases is handled by someone who presumably knows what to do? I love the idea of this engine, but I have no faith in it being correctly maintained by the average Joe. Edited June 9, 2009 by Harley Lover 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.