New Bobcat Details

[Deanh]

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.

seperate tanks may become more prevent...for instance...diesels and Urea.....

[92merc]

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.

I think that brings up a good point. Application the buyer will be using the EBS for.

 

To me, it makes most sense in the high output area. Area's that are either heavy hauling or performance. That means Super Duties and maybe a SHO car. But a F150 with 3.5 V6 would also be a good spot. You can haul a load or haul ass.

 

But the technology could still be done say in a Focus/Fiesta RS with the 1.6 4 banger.

 

But in the end, EBS won't do any good to the average Joe just putzing around town. But I think it has value and should be pursued.

[battyr]

EBS sounds more like something that would be used in commercial trucks. I don't see the commercial end switching away from diesel soon.

[SVTCobra]

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.

 

EBS Commercialization Plan

 

•Collaborative R & D with Ford :

-- Early engine measurements at Ford have confirmed large increases in knock-free torque consistent with predictions of MIT computer model

-- Subcontractor to Ford on major DOE Cooperative Agreement for demonstration of technology

Edited June 9, 2009 by SVTCobra

[Harley Lover]

I happened across the article that mentioned the "canister" storage, it was in the June issue of Road & Track. It's also on their website (not much that hasn't been discussed here, other than the canister): http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...article_id=8048

Edited June 9, 2009 by Harley Lover

[fbmphil]

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.

 

You'll have to come to terms with it eventually. Audi and BMW diesels in the US already require urea refills at dealership service intervals. People will learn to maintain their vehicle in a hurry once they ignore it and are met with a no-start condition!

 

I'd expect to see warnings just like this: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4418608

Edited June 10, 2009 by fbmphil

[RichardJensen]

Apparently the system will run just fine with no E85---except for less power and worse mileage.

[jpd80]

Apparently the system will run just fine with no E85---except for less power and worse mileage.

Actually, I wonder how a really small Bobcat would work in something like a Fusion or a Taurus.

Assuming the 2.0 Ecoboost will produce 230 hp/230 lb ft, maybe a 1.6 Bobcat can do the same.....

 

 

Edit,

In the event of no E85,

If an 87 Reg bypass line was fitted, Bobcat could function as a standard Ecoboost.

Maybe this feature could be included when all the bugs are worked out.

A nice fail safe especially when electronic wastegates are fitted to the turbos.

Edited June 10, 2009 by jpd80

[Mark B. Morrow]

When you look at the HP and Torque numbers out of 5.0 l this engine would be an ideal replacement for the E-Series diesel for the ambulance market. I wonder if it could be shoehorned into the big Transit?

[RichardJensen]

Actually, I wonder how a really small Bobcat would work in something like a Fusion or a Taurus.

Assuming the 2.0 Ecoboost will produce 230 hp/230 lb ft, maybe a 1.6 Bobcat can do the same.....

 

 

Edit,

In the event of no E85,

If an 87 Reg bypass line was fitted, Bobcat could function as a standard Ecoboost.

Maybe this feature could be included when all the bugs are worked out.

A nice fail safe especially when electronic wastegates are fitted to the turbos.

Well, there doesn't really need to be a failsafe----it functions as a standard port-injected, turbo charged engine if the E85 tank is empty.

 

I don't see where you could safely start running 87 octane through the E85 injector without major complications--you'd need some sort of valve and cross-connect between the two fuel lines before the injector rails. And then you'd need special programming for gasoline and E85 timing, and you'd need to certify both conditions for emissions purposes. Then you'd have the 'edge' conditions where the 87 and E85 are intermingled.....

 

And all because you didn't want to stop by the Ford dealer (if nowhere else) in order to pick up some E85 for your engine......

[jpd80]

Port injection turbo sounds fine.....

Even with the 5.0 liters and turbos restricted there's probably still nearly 500 lb ft of torque.....

Edited June 10, 2009 by jpd80

[battyr]

I am assuming that EBS uses much higher than normal compression ratio. If this is the case, then when you run out of E-85 expect no turbo boost at all. Depending on the compression ratio, expect very little throttle at all.

 

Found an article:

 

http://www.ethanolboost.com/Technology%20a...pplications.htm

 

Moreover, if ethanol or methanol is not available, the vehicle can still be operated at approximately 50% of full power through the use of premium fuel in both tanks.

 

I don't know if you can use non-premium fuel. As regulators add ethanol to regular gas, e.g. E-10, E20, premium gas may endup being the standard.

[92merc]

I think Ford should put this out in the F150 ASAP. Call it the "Jack Daniels" Edition F150.

 

Chalk me up baby!

[battyr]

I am starting to think that EcoBoost is a better deal. As it sites now EBS has better mile/BTU but not MPG than diesel. I doubt that all EcoBoost technology has been fulling implemented into EBS. EBS might get an additional 10% to mpg. If that is the case, then EBS will become better than diesel at a much lower cost.

 

This would be a great Flex-Fuel engine. will run on economically on everything from maybe E-0 with E-85 to just straight E-85. I can see someone filling up with E20 or E30 and needed very little E-85.

 

This engine sounds very competative, but it's future will depend on the cost of ethanol V.S. the cost of gasoline and diesel. Ethanol is cheap now, but can we produce 2 to 4 times as much in 5 to 10 years without the price going crazy?

[theoldwizard]

As it sites now EBS has better mile/BTU but not MPG than diesel.

A gallon of diesel has about 138,700 BTUs. A gallon of gasoline (probably E0) has about 125,000 BTUs. (Wikipedia) How you burn it does not change these facts and only marginally changes how much of that energy is recovered. (At least until someone invents an adiabatic engine) Alcohol has less BTUs per gallon.

 

I doubt that all EcoBoost technology has been fulling implemented into EBS. EBS might get an additional 10% to mpg. If that is the case, then EBS will become better than diesel at a much lower cost.

Wild speculation ! No one knows what the costs of either of these engine are.

 

BTW, where I live, diesel is currently selling for about 20% less than E10.

 

 

This engine sounds very competative, but it's future will depend on the cost of ethanol V.S. the cost of gasoline and diesel. Ethanol is cheap now, but can we produce 2 to 4 times as much in 5 to 10 years without the price going crazy?

If ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, (Got any proof?) a lot of it has to do with government subsidies.

 

Perhaps you should take a class in Thermodynamics, after you have taken a class in Chemistry and Physics. Add in a class in Economics.

[theoldwizard]

As regulators add ethanol to regular gas, e.g. E-10, E20, premium gas may endup being the standard.

In most parts of the country E10 IS the "standard" for regular gasoline.

 

E20 is not allowed to be sold (at retail). Period.

 

Not likely to be sold any time soon as no automaker has ever (consciously) done any testing using this fuel and it would likely void all warranties, unless the car is certified for E85.

[jpd80]

Sigh,

Why is Ford doing all this work if EBS has no chance of being an economic alternative to diesel.

Edited June 11, 2009 by jpd80

[battyr]

A gallon of diesel has about 138,700 BTUs. A gallon of gasoline (probably E0) has about 125,000 BTUs. (Wikipedia) How you burn it does not change these facts and only marginally changes how much of that energy is recovered. (At least until someone invents an adiabatic engine) Alcohol has less BTUs per gallon.

 

I think you are agreeing with me, but I am not sure? I would think that both EBS and EB are more adiabatic than diesel through the process of down sizing. The smaller the engine the less heat loss. I am not an engineer, so you will have to correct me on this if I am wrong. If I am wrong about this, then you will have to explain what you know about Thermodynamics.

 

 

Wild speculation ! No one knows what the costs of either of these engine are.

 

BTW, where I live, diesel is currently selling for about 20% less than E10.

 

The articles clearly states that they have not investigated multi cylinder engines, turbo size optimization, etc... All optimization of these thing are all parts of EcoBoost success. If not then Mazda's MZR TGDI would be an EcoBoost.

 

I never said that ethanol is currently cheaper than gas, I said that ethanol was cheap. I said that the EBS (engine) would be cheaper than the Diesel (Engine).

 

If ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, (Got any proof?) a lot of it has to do with government subsidies.

 

Perhaps you should take a class in Thermodynamics, after you have taken a class in Chemistry and Physics. Add in a class in Economics.

 

I don't need proof, I never said that ethanol was cheaper than gasoline. You understand thermodynamics, chemistry physics and economics? Got proof?

Edited June 11, 2009 by battyr

[92merc]

In most parts of the country E10 IS the "standard" for regular gasoline.

 

E20 is not allowed to be sold (at retail). Period.

 

Not likely to be sold any time soon as no automaker has ever (consciously) done any testing using this fuel and it would likely void all warranties, unless the car is certified for E85.

Well, E30 could and should be sold. I've even thought about splash blending myself some E30 in my Montego to see if I can get similar results. A buddy of mine has done splash testing on his Saab. Most of the cars from the mid-90's on will handle E30 with no issues.

 

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Opt...ive_summary.pdf

[theoldwizard]

I think you are agreeing with me, but I am not sure? I would think that both EBS and EB are more adiabatic than diesel through the process of down sizing. The smaller the engine the less heat loss. I am not an engineer, so you will have to correct me on this if I am wrong. If I am wrong about this, then you will have to explain what you know about Thermodynamics.

It will only have less heat (energy) loss if there is less energy (fuel) in.

 

I know you can read, so try reading a bit about the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The colloquial definitions are, when it comes to energy conversion (combustion), 1) you can not win and 2) you can not break even.

 

I never said that ethanol is currently cheaper than gas, I said that ethanol was cheap. I said that the EBS (engine) would be cheaper than the Diesel (Engine).

And I called that statement wild speculation.

 

I don't need proof, I never said that ethanol was cheaper than gasoline. You understand thermodynamics, chemistry physics and economics? Got proof?

As a matter of fact I do.

 

It is a Bachelors Degree from the School of Engineering and a transcript that says I passed Thermodynamics class.

[jpd80]

I think we're getting confused here, the EBS' primary fuel is 87 gasoline not the E85.

The E85 is used at about 5% ratio to increasing the 87 regular's octane to about 150.

By suppressing detonation the engine can run at higher compression and boost pressures.

 

It sounds like Ford were looking at an outcrop of the Ecoboost system that could run much

higher mean effective pressures and get better brake specific fuel consumption numbers.

 

It's the same argument they used for Ecoboost Vs regular large capacity gasoline engines but

this time EBS is being developed as an alternative to diesel engines and their NOX emission problem.

 

The big question is whether the cost of developing and using EBS engines is less than pursuing

an emission compliant diesel, what if Ford discover a cheap NOX catalyst for diesel engines?

 

Interesting times ahead for sure.

[battyr]

It will only have less heat (energy) loss if there is less energy (fuel) in.

 

I know you can read, so try reading a bit about the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The colloquial definitions are, when it comes to energy conversion (combustion), 1) you can not win and 2) you can not break even.

 

 

And I called that statement wild speculation.

 

 

As a matter of fact I do.

 

It is a Bachelors Degree from the School of Engineering and a transcript that says I passed Thermodynamics class.

 

I need someone with something better than a Bachelors Degree in Engineering to explain to Us how Law 1 and 2 of Thermodynamics does not make adiabatic engine impossible. How an EcoBoost engine could possible get better fuel efficiency than a big block V-8. Why a gas turbine gets better efficiency than a Diesel engine when they both burn essentially the same fuel.

[OX1]

I think we're getting confused here, the EBS' primary fuel is 87 gasoline not the E85.

The E85 is used at about 5% ratio to increasing the 87 regular's octane to about 150.

By suppressing detonation the engine can run at higher compression and boost pressures.

 

It sounds like Ford were looking at an outcrop of the Ecoboost system that could run much

higher mean effective pressures and get better brake specific fuel consumption numbers.

 

It's the same argument they used for Ecoboost Vs regular large capacity gasoline engines but

this time EBS is being developed as an alternative to diesel engines and their NOX emission problem.

 

The big question is whether the cost of developing and using EBS engines is less than pursuing

an emission compliant diesel, what if Ford discover a cheap NOX catalyst for diesel engines?

 

Interesting times ahead for sure.

 

Pure ethonal has a max octane of about 120 with E-85 about 105. Not sure where they are getting 150 from.

[battyr]

Pure ethonal has a max octane of about 120 with E-85 about 105. Not sure where they are getting 150 from.

 

150 is not the actual chemical octane rating. By cooling the hot spot near the spark plug, it make the gasoline behave as if it had an octane of 150. In otherward, you could put up the compression and turbo boost and not have pre-ignition.

[jpd80]

It's a bit like drag/Indy racers discovered, you can over boost alcohol much more than gasoline because of the cooling effect.