Bob Rosadini Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It's 11 years old! Don't know what happened to it, though I think Maxion ended up with the rights to the Navistar 7.3L.. I think Ford Power Products is defunct, and I think any relationship Ford had with Navistar is finished. I am around a lot of industrial engines, and I can't say I ever saw one of those. 7M-I can remembe looking at a Ford Power Products website not that long ago and it was fairly complete. But I think you are correct- a web search only shows a select number of engine suppliers who have some sort of access to V-10's and that's it. There is a site that refers to some engine operation as a unit of Ford but nothing like the one that previously existed. Looks like another lost market. I can recall not that long ago when 302 Fords were used in self contained air compressor applications-one bank the power, oe bank the compressor, when 460's were used in such varied applications as soil remediation-engine burned recovered hydrocarbons, etc. To say nothing of powering such things as chippers, boom lifts, etc. Seems like that should have been a good source of revenue to balance the demands of the pure auto market-guess the catch all phrase....."concentrate on core business" killed this business too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Re: EPA patent The EPA has been actively looking at EGR as a means of reducing NOx production, based on the theory that EGR minimizes NOx formation due to the reduction in free O2, not just the reduction in combustion temperature (if memory serves, the excess between the ~14% stoich. ratio for combustion and the ~21% atmospheric ratio of free O2 coupled with heat that breaks both N2 & O2 bonds leading to reformation of N2 & O2 as well as O3, N2O, NO, and NO2). AFAIK, the problem is that current EGR solutions aren't capable of the sort of fine adjustment needed to reduce NOx formation to manageable levels without cooling combustion temps so low as to make VOC & soot issues. Edited July 9, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Seems like that should have been a good source of revenue to balance the demands of the pure auto market-guess the catch all phrase....."concentrate on core business" killed this business too. There's not a lot of revenue there, and I think the emissions regs are finally being tightened in that sector as well. Seems to be a low volume/low margin business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Re: EPA patent The EPA has been actively looking at EGR as a means of reducing NOx production, based on the theory that EGR minimizes NOx formation due to the reduction in free O2, not just the reduction in combustion temperature (if memory serves, the excess between the ~14% stoich. ratio for combustion and the ~21% atmospheric ratio of free O2 coupled with heat that breaks both N2 & O2 bonds leading to reformation of N2 & O2 as well as O3, N2O, NO, and NO2). AFAIK, the problem is that current EGR solutions aren't capable of the sort of fine adjustment needed to reduce NOx formation to manageable levels without cooling combustion temps so low as to make VOC & soot issues. You got it. From what I understand, the EPA was originally not in favor of SCR/urea as they felt it would be too easy to defeat (picture some trucker taking a leak in the urea bottle, LOL!). EGR has been used on diesels for a number of years but due to the tightening of NOx standards, conventional EGR systems would no longer be sufficient by themselves after 2010. So Navistar tries to make the EPA happy, and look what happens. The 'writing on the wall' was there for everyone to see when Cat gave up on ACERT. If those guys couldn't get it to work, you knew the technology was flawed. SCR/urea is not without it's own faults but it does control NOx very well and as an aftertreatment doesn't effect engine performance and economy like EGR does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The bottom line is that a lot of this man-made global warming crap is just that.......crap! The population of the world and the USA has doubled in the past 50 years. With regard to CO2 emissions, the average human exhales 2.2 lbs of it every day! So let's do away with humanity! All the weed whackers, trucks, cars, jets etc. don't emit what human exhalation, rotting vegetation and volcanoes emit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 You got it. From what I understand, the EPA was originally not in favor of SCR/urea as they felt it would be too easy to defeat (picture some trucker taking a leak in the urea bottle, LOL!). EGR has been used on diesels for a number of years but due to the tightening of NOx standards, conventional EGR systems would no longer be sufficient by themselves after 2010. So Navistar tries to make the EPA happy, and look what happens. The 'writing on the wall' was there for everyone to see when Cat gave up on ACERT. If those guys couldn't get it to work, you knew the technology was flawed. SCR/urea is not without it's own faults but it does control NOx very well and as an aftertreatment doesn't effect engine performance and economy like EGR does. Technology, eventually, should enable EGR management of free O2 in the chamber, but it clearly is not there yet. I don't like SCR, in part because its acronym is an outright lie. It's not at all catalytic. It's a volatile reactant that is consumed over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Technology, eventually, should enable EGR management of free O2 in the chamber, but it clearly is not there yet. I don't like SCR, in part because its acronym is an outright lie. It's not at all catalytic. It's a volatile reactant that is consumed over time. There is a catalytic component to SCR, but I hear you. And I agree that SCR will probably not be around too long as other technologies are developed to manage NOx. Edited July 10, 2012 by 7Mary3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 The bottom line is that a lot of this man-made global warming crap is just that.......crap! The population of the world and the USA has doubled in the past 50 years. With regard to CO2 emissions, the average human exhales 2.2 lbs of it every day! So let's do away with humanity! All the weed whackers, trucks, cars, jets etc. don't emit what human exhalation, rotting vegetation and volcanoes emit! This isn't about CO2 emissions, it's about NOx emissions. 2 different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I know 7mary; I was just making a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 I know 7mary; I was just making a point. O.K., I just wasn't sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Here's something interesting: http://beta.fool.com/tc118/2012/07/11/focusing-blue-oval/6719/?ticker=F&source=eogyholnk0000001 The article talks of a 20% decline in Ford 'heavy' truck sales. I assume they are talking about class 6 and 7 sales. I wonder if the 'Blue Diamond' operation has started to wind down, which could accout for the decline. In any event, I am still rather surprised that Ford is staying in class 6 and 7 with a new product, given that their numbers are getting so small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Here's something interesting: http://beta.fool.com...ogyholnk0000001 The article talks of a 20% decline in Ford 'heavy' truck sales. I assume they are talking about class 6 and 7 sales. I wonder if the 'Blue Diamond' operation has started to wind down, which could accout for the decline. In any event, I am still rather surprised that Ford is staying in class 6 and 7 with a new product, given that their numbers are getting so small. Duh!! the writer of that piece is out to lunch. Chrysler owned by Cerebus?? I looked to see if the dateline was 2010? Then the comment using the present tense in describing the phasing down of CV. And the demise of Ranger makes the..."platform available"????? And as for the comment on heavy trucks, putting Ford in the same mix as Paccar and Navistar indicates to me this writer is clueless as to what the term "Heavy Truck" means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Then the comment using the present tense in describing the phasing down of CV. And the demise of Ranger makes the..."platform available"????? She said the Crown Victoria is in the final phases of being phased out which is technically true, as selling out the remaining inventory is a phase of being phased out. As for the Ranger comment, she said We see a similar phasing out of the Ranger whose platform capacity can be used for certain of the more profitable sport utilities. which looks to me like she's saying that they can use the manufacturing capacity that the Ranger was occupying to build something else. I'm not sure what that might be, given that the Explorer is now on a car platform, but she's still talking about repurposing the manufacturing capacity, not the platform itself. At least I hope that's what she meant, but after that Cerberus comment, maybe I'm giving her too much credit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 'platform capacity' is an odd, odd thing to say. Especially when talking about an orphaned vehicle that was built in a now-defunct plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 'platform capacity' is an odd, odd thing to say. Especially when talking about an orphaned vehicle that was built in a now-defunct plant. Yeah, it is. That article reads like someone who's writing out of her depth; some of it sounds logical, but there are too many mis-statements. One could forgive the odd phrases like "platform capacity," but someone reporting for a financial operation should be able to figure out the ownership of a company. Hell, if you Google "Chrysler ownership," one of the first hits is a news piece from earlier this year about Fiat increasing its stake in Chrysler to 58%... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Richard, LS, Bottom line another example of the need to take everything with a grain of salt. There are many frequent posters on this site who could have written a more factual article. As a long time reader of the WSJ, I would refer to stories as.."well I read in the WSJ". Then again, even the Journal would occasionally do a story on an issue that I had a good knowledge of and I would say.."bullshit"! I guess the editor assigns someone to do a story and all too often, the person doesn't have the knowledge/experience to properly cover the issue-then again, where was the "Editor" in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 There is a catalytic component to SCR, but I hear you. And I agree that SCR will probably not be around too long as other technologies are developed to manage NOx. Thanks for the clarification. I had thought the heat of the exhaust gas was sufficient to break down & reform those compounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I just saw an article in School Bus magazine about the Roush Ford propane engines in Bluebird School Bus' Vision conventionals. Bob R, does Boston use a lot of those? I saw about 5 Bluebird Visions heading back to Boston on I-84 east here in CT. Also in a construction mag: on an island in Casco Maine, a new Cat 660 tri-axle vocational was awarded to LPA Marine in a contest. They ferried it on a barge with a big hoopla event! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I just saw an article in School Bus magazine about the Roush Ford propane engines in Bluebird School Bus' Vision conventionals. Bob R, does Boston use a lot of those? I saw about 5 Bluebird Visions heading back to Boston on I-84 east here in CT. Also in a construction mag: on an island in Casco Maine, a new Cat 660 tri-axle vocational was awarded to LPA Marine in a contest. They ferried it on a barge with a big hoopla event! Joe, Can't say that I've seen any-not sure iof I would recognize. seems like everything is either f'liner or Navistars. as for the big Cat truck, I have yet to see one on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Bob, the Bluebird Visions have an extremely sloping hood with of course the Bluebird logo in the grille. If it doesn't look like an International or Freight, it's a Bluebird Vision, since of course there are no longer any new Fords or GM's being used! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Here's a very interesting -- and thorough I might add -- article about the Bluebird Vision/Ford connection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Bird_Vision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 I have not seen any of the propane fueled Bluebirds yet, but I hear they are coming. Thomas is working on a propane Saf-T-Liner which will use the new Powertrain Integration 8.0L V-8, and that engine will also be available in the M2 Business Class medium truck by the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I have not seen any of the propane fueled Bluebirds yet, but I hear they are coming. Thomas is working on a propane Saf-T-Liner which will use the new Powertrain Integration 8.0L V-8, and that engine will also be available in the M2 Business Class medium truck by the end of the year. Joe/7M3-good info- actually with that slopping hood I wondered if those buses did not have Deutz air cools. Remember the Osterlund Giant? (Diamond Reo cab with a Deutz) Not good news for Foird that F'liner will be offering the GM- V-8. No substitue for cubes in a truck application. Others have posted about the 6.2 V-8 having pottential to grtow but I don't think it has the potential to go to 8 liters. any thoughts on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 If Ford really expects to be in the medium size CNG buisness they need a biiger engine ! We know that the "Boss" can go to 7.0L, but I have heard it has cooling problems (medium duty durability tests require the engine to run at near full throttle for extended periods), which is why it is curretly not available in any of the medium duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packardbob Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Joe/7M3-good info- actually with that slopping hood I wondered if those buses did not have Deutz air cools. Remember the Osterlund Giant? (Diamond Reo cab with a Deutz) Not good news for Foird that F'liner will be offering the GM- V-8. No substitue for cubes in a truck application. Others have posted about the 6.2 V-8 having pottential to grtow but I don't think it has the potential to go to 8 liters. any thoughts on that? I thought that the GM Big Block went out of production. Is this 8.0L based on a different GM engine? As for the Ford/Blue Bird Vision connection, I remember seeing pictures of the two buses that were made with Ford badges on the front. I tried looking and will post them when I find them. It's too bad Ford couldn't have been supplier for the Visions, those things are everywhere. 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.