CGI for the Next gen Ecoboost engines

[Biker16]

I was thinking about the current limitations of the Current EB engine, primarily the RPM limits and possible ECU restrictions on boost for Durability.

 

considering Ford WAS a leader in CGI technology and use it in it mega 6.8l TDI.

 

would it make sense in the future to look at replacing The alloy blocks in current EB engines with CGI engine to improve performance and Durability.

 

Ford has moved to an conventional iron block on the EB1.0 it would make sense to move to move at least the 1.6 and 2.0 to a CGI block to maintain weight and increase strength and durability to increase HP. You could keep the conventional engine aluminum, but leave the EB and posible performance engine made of CGI.

[jpd80]

Ford went to cast iron block in the 1.0 EB because they claim it warms up 50% quicker than Aluminum block.

Any move away from Aluminium will have to do with either this fact or cheaper supply of CGI blocks to Ford.

[mackinaw]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is CGI?

[jpd80]

Compacted Graphite iron, the castings can be mad as light as Aluminum but it's very hard on machine tooling.

The cast iron used in the the new 1.0 I-3 Ecoboost is regular cast iron, it's cheap and warms up quickly,

two attributes Ford wants in its smallest engine, I doubt an alloy block would have saved much weight.

Edited December 29, 2011 by jpd80

[2b2]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is CGI?

ditto...Pardon my ignorance, but

isn't the only durability/EB-limitation issue the transmissions?

not the engines themselves?

[Biker16]

ditto...Pardon my ignorance, but

isn't the only durability/EB-limitation issue the transmissions?

not the engines themselves?

 

maybe, maybe not. limitations max engine speed and boost.

 

if you want to downsize more than what we already have you will need to replace the block.

 

EB technology can use the ECU to reduce internal engine stress under certain conditions.

[jpd80]

maybe, maybe not. limitations max engine speed and boost.

 

if you want to downsize more than what we already have you will need to replace the block.

Why wouldn't you reduce the capacity and keep using the same architecture?

Ford Europe has the Ecoboost 2.0 running reliably at 380 hp, after that they say the reliability starts to really drop off..

 

Downsizing only works so far and then it actually uses more fuel, that limit appears to be 2200 lb per liter.

I suspect that Ford will find customer satisfaction drops off well before that point, I'm thinking around 1800 lb per liter.

Edited December 30, 2011 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Why wouldn't you reduce the capacity and keep using the same architecture?

Ford Europe has the Ecoboost 2.0 running reliably at 380 hp, after that they say the reliability starts to really drop off..

 

downsizing only works o far and then it actually uses more fuel, that limit appears to be 2200 lb per liter.

I suspect that Ford will find customer satisfaction drops off well before that point, I'm thinking around 1800 lb per liter.

 

380 hp why is it not in production? I know you don't think Ecoboost is stuck at 250 hp for no reason.

 

I don't see ANY limit to downsizing, believe it or not we have been downsizing engines for the last 40 years. The technology will contiue to improve, don't let the performance of the EB20 in the Explorer affect your opinion of the technology. Ecoboost is still very new, and its performance and economy will improve. There are design compromises that make the 2.0 in particular burn more fuel, a new head with an integrated exhaust manifold like the head on the EB1.0 can cool the exhaust by 180 degrees, greatly improving economy by using the heat to warm the motor faster as well. remember downsizing works becuase at Crusing speeds the Vehicle only need a fraction of the power it requires to accelerate. Ecoboost is akin to displacement on demand, it can be very efficient at cursing speeds while being powerful when needed to accelerate. even with the naoturally Aspirated enginesthe 1.9l engine in the 1990 Escort only made 88hp today the Engine in the focus makes160hp, although it doesn't help that the focus weighs about 800lbs more than the Escort did.

 

 

Moving to a more robust engine block could also improve power and increase economy. It would allow ford to move the power peak higher and develop more top end power than the current engine. by using a more robust block and head, higher boost could be maintained above the current peak horsepower at 5500 rpm. If we had a Ecoboost 2.0 that could produce a solid 300hp at 6500 Rpm while maintaining the 250-270ft/lbs at lower RPMs you would have the engine to replace the 3.5 and even the 3.7.

 

After Reading the review of the Ecoboost Edge, brings home the point that the engine is stronger on the low end than the 3.5 V6 but Weak on high end because peak Horsepower comes on sooner than the 3.5, combine the lack of top end power and the Tall final drive ratio and you will have some performance issue. In the Explorer its worse because the Transmission is downshifting for more HPs but the engine lacks the power to reward the down shift.

 

If the engine block, and bottom end were stronger you could produce more power by increasing boost at higher RPM. This problem is most acute with the 2.0 because it's less robust than the 3.5 or the 1.6.

 

1.6

hp 175@ 5700 RPM

Torque 177ft/lbs @ 1600-5000 rpm.

Compression Ratio 10.0:1

 

2.0

Horsepower (SAE net @ rpm) 240 @ 5,500 Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 270 @ 3,000 Compression ratio 9.3:1

3.5

horsepower 365 @ 5550 rpm Torque (lb.-ft. SAE net @ rpm) 350 @ 1500-5250 rpm

In the future if ford wanted to Use HCCI [/url ] on future Ecoboost engines or even Throttleless engines, they may need Stronger engine blocks.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Biker16

[jpd80]

380 hp why is it not in production? I know you don't think Ecoboost is stuck at 250 hp for no reason.

Forward testing of Focus RS, I'm merely point out that Ford engineers

are on record as saying the 2.0 EB is quite reliable al the way up to 380 hp.

I don't see ANY limit to downsizing, believe it or not we have been downsizing engines for the last 40 years.

Barb Z gave an interview about a year ago where she talked about a lower limit for downsizing engine capacity for

a given vehicle weight and that past a certain point, Ford had discovered smaller engines actually use more fuel.

The trick is to reduce vehicle weight at the same time which as we know is the second part to Ford's strategy.

Edited December 30, 2011 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Forward testing of Focus RS, I'm merely point out that Ford engineers

are on record as saying the 2.0 EB is quite reliable al the way up to 380 hp.

 

I would love to see the RS with 380hp. I would also like to See an edge and Escape with a 380hp engine too.

 

Barb Z gave an interview about a year ago where she talked about a lower limit for downsizing engine capacity for

a given vehicle weight and that past a certain point, Ford had discovered smaller engines actually use more fuel.

The trick is to reduce vehicle weight at the same time which as we know is the second part to Ford's strategy.

 

you also have to consider hybrid drives as an extension of downsizing. that is what is next after Ecoboost. In general ecoboost engines burn more fuel than similar displacement non turbo engines. The EB 1.6 in the focus burns as much fuel as the 2.0 in the Focus. there is a lot of work to be done to improve the BSFC of the Turbo Engine. the Atkinson cycle mode on the ecoboost and Focus GDi

 

GOod find From the DOE about Ecoboost

http://www1.eere.ene...vich_2011_o.pdf

 

 

Mid & long term EcoBoost technologies



Advanced dilute combustion w/ cooled exhaust gas recycling & advanced ignition



Advanced lean combustion w/ direct fuel injection & advanced ignition



Advanced boosting systems w/ active & compounding components



Advanced cooling & aftertreatment systems

 

interesting on page 24, Torque is listed as a bad thing?

 

DYK that Honda's 1.8l iVTEC motor in the civic has been using an integrated exhaust manifold head since at least 2006.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsZEmjCSTI

[jpd80]

I would love to see the RS with 380hp. I would also like to See an edge and Escape with a 380hp engine too.

Yeah me too...

 

 

you also have to consider hybrid drives as an extension of downsizing. that is what is next after Ecoboost. In general ecoboost engines burn more fuel than similar displacement non turbo engines. The EB 1.6 in the focus burns as much fuel as the 2.0 in the Focus.

Only as far as highway/extra urban tests are concerned, I.6 EB shows about a 20% improvement over 2.0 DI in city/Urban test cycle .

I can't wait to see how the 1.0 EB goes as a 1.6 NA replacement....

 

 

there is a lot of work to be done to improve the BSFC of the Turbo Engine. the Atkinson cycle mode on the ecoboost and Focus GDi

ecoboost will be using increased Boost combined with increased cooled EGR to suppress detonation.

 

 

GOod find From the DOE about Ecoboost

http://www1.eere.ene...vich_2011_o.pdf

 

 

 

interesting on page 24, Torque is listed as a bad thing?

 

DYK that Honda's 1.8l iVTEC motor in the civic has been using an integrated exhaust manifold head since at least 2006.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsZEmjCSTI

 

Thanks for the link, I think your perception of "excess torque" as derrogatory is out of context

with the discussion paper, Ford is referring to required torque for 80% of operation,...

Edited December 30, 2011 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Compacted Graphite iron, the castings can be made as light as Aluminum but it's very hard on machine tooling.

Really ? Got a reference ?

 

Last I heard there was only 1 company in the whole world that had automated machining tools that would work on CGI. Also machining has to be done at slower speeds than aluminum. Time = Money !

Edited December 31, 2011 by theoldwizard

[Biker16]

Only as far as highway/extra urban tests are concerned, I.6 EB shows about a 20% improvement over 2.0 DI in city/Urban test cycle .

I can't wait to see how the 1.0 EB goes as a 1.6 NA replacement....

 

I think the 1.6 is only available with start/stop, so there would be an additional improvement in economy due to that.

 

ecoboost will be using increased Boost combined with increased cooled EGR to suppress detonation.

 

That's a start. I still believe that a Stronger bottom end will free up alot more power.

 

Thanks for the link, I think your perception of "excess torque" as derrogatory is out of context

with the discussion paper, Ford is referring to required torque for 80% of operation,...

 

It can be a waste to have that much torque, when most of it will be neutered by the Traction control system. espcially in the case of FWD cars like the fusion, focus and Fiesta.

[Edstock]

That's a start. I still believe that a Stronger bottom end will free up alot more power.

You may be right. However, the block may not really be the problem. Higher boost pressures create problems for the block/cylinder head join, lubrication/cooling loads become critical, plus the added mechanical stress on the reciprocating parts, plus thermal stress on the piston/ring assembly itself, as well as the cylinder head exhaust port.

 

The bottom end of the block could be a problem, but if the main bearing webs are decent, the 2.0 block should be OK to 500 hp, if there are no sealing/thermal problems.

 

 

Consider that in the first year or so of the F-1 turbo era, tuners were getting around 900 hp out of an iron-block 1,600 cc BMW 4-cylinder.

 

 

[jpd80]

Really ? Got a reference ?

Link

COMPACTED GRAPHITE ENGINE BLOCKS These blocks offer greater strength and stability, but be aware of the machining concerns. by Mike Mavrigian CGI engine blocks offer greater strength and superior stability with no weight penalty. In theory, a CGI block can be produced at near-aluminum-weight while maintaining needed strength.

Last I heard there was only 1 company in the whole world that had automated machining tools that would work on CGI. Also machining has to be done at slower speeds than aluminum. Time = Money !

A lot of companies in Europe and America are now using CGI castings for engines,

time moves on and I think you'll find a lot more machine shops are setting up to get work,

when places like India and China stard doing more of the work with vast lines of machines..

[theoldwizard]

A lot of companies in Europe and America are now using CGI castings for engines,

Boy, I'm going to challenge that statement !

 

Ford and others actually have their blocks cast outside of the US.

 

While in theory, "lightweight" CGI is possible, I have never heard of any applications.

Edited January 1, 2012 by theoldwizard

[jpd80]

Boy, I'm going to challenge that statement !

 

Ford and others actually have their blocks cast outside of the US.

 

While in theory, "lightweight" CGI is possible, I have never heard of any applications.

The article never said, "light weight" it said near Aluminum weight engines..

The PSA 2.7 V6 uses a CGI block, the engine weighs 202 Kg or about 440 lbs which is comparatively light for a diesel..

 

LINK

 

Audi is an early user of CGI material in its power production. All Audi 2.7L, 3.0 V6 and 4.0 V8 diesel engine blocks are now being made of CGI. The V8 main bearing caps are also cast in place, laser etched and then fractured for an absolutely perfect fit after bearing sizing.

 

The BMW series 7 V8 engine was also cast in CGI. Hyundai, currently the number seven automobile company in the world and growing, has V6 CGI blocks scheduled for full series production during 2006. Its World Rally Championship car (1997-99) also had a CGI engine block.

 

The new 2005 Jaguar 2.7 liter Ford/PSA V6 diesel is made of CGI. At 445 pounds fully assembled, it is lighter than a comparable aluminum diesel. Even the new James Bond will soon be driving a diesel powered Jaguar R-D6.

 

Other CGI Users

To the best of our knowledge, all NASCAR teams are running CGI engine blocks, or blocks with CGI liners. These liners are usually plated with a hard-surface coating. It has been reported that some NASCAR teams are able to run a whole season without having to re-bore the blocks.

 

The Toyota Racing Development (TRD) campaign has the #12 Craftsman pick-up truck. This 5.8L V8 CGI engine block weighs 89 kg (195 pounds), has a 3 mm (0.118 inch) cylinder wall thickness and produces 650 hp (83.5 kW/liter). For comparison purposes, standard CGI diesel engines will soon be producing 66kW/liter.

 

General Motors' Opel subsidiary has used CGI for the engine block of its 2.5-liter V6 DTM racing engine. Theoretically a CGI engine block can be fabricated lighter than an aluminum block for equal power densities.

 

A recent 500cc Suzuki Grand Prix motorcycle engine had a crankcase fabricated from CGI. Nothing is put on these racing machines that would pose any kind of a weight penalty, and this is an extreme example showing the real potential of CGI applications.

 

Edited January 1, 2012 by jpd80

[Edstock]

A lot of companies in Europe and America are now using CGI castings for engines,

time moves on and I think you'll find a lot more machine shops are setting up to get work,

when places like India and China stard doing more of the work with vast lines of machines..

That would be TUPY, in Brazil, IIRC. There are probably other CGI foundries.

[jpd80]

That would be TUPY, in Brazil, IIRC. There are probably other CGI foundries.

Quick search shows India is up and running, Im sure the Chinese will be next..

DCM Engineering Foundry starts producing CGI cylinder blocks- 2009

New Delhi: During a two week trial that ended last week DCM Engineering Limited, located near Ropar in Punjab, produced Compacted Graphite Iron (CGI) castings, making it the first Indian foundry to produce it.

 

The SinterCast-CGI cylinder blocks, made using the Swedish SinterCast process control technology, have been delivered to passenger vehicle and commercial vehicle OEMs in the domestic Indian market. DCM is now in talks with foreign OEMs for the export of these Compacted Graphite Iron castings. "The positive experience from this initial trial confirms the CGI series production capability of the DCM Engineering foundry and provides confidence to our OEM customers, both in India and abroad, as they develop CGI solutions for their passenger vehicle and commercial vehicle engines," said Mr. J K Menon, Managing Director of DCM Engineering.

 

The TS 16949 certified foundry has an annual capacity of 72,000 tonnes of grey iron castings. It's main products are cylinder blocks and heads, delivered to many of India's leading automotive companies including Ashok Leyland, Eicher Motors, Mahindra, TATA and others.

 

This article from 2010 regarding third generation CGI process mentions China and Mexico:

SinterCast Introduces New CGI Process Control Package-2010

 

“Third generation” offers options for high-volume and niche production

 

SinterCast introduced a suite of new technologies it calls the third generation of its process control for compacted graphite iron (CGI) production. System 3000 includes updated internal hardware components, a new operating system, new process control software, and extended measurement capability of core thermal analysis sampling technology.

 

The first commercial license for System 3000 has been reached with China’s FAW Foundry Co. Ltd. It will install the research-scale version of the new package, SinterCast Mini-System 3000, at its R&D center in Changchun, China, in support of product development across the manufacturing group.

 

FAW Foundry is an operating subsidiary of the China FAW Group Corp. China FAW Group manufactures passenger and commercial vehicles, and collaborates in vehicle development, production, and sales with various global automakers, including Audi, Ford, Hyundai, Mazda, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

 

The FAW Foundry Co. Ltd. research foundry, in Changchun, China, will install the research-scale version of the new package, SinterCast Mini-System 3000, at in support of product development across the manufacturing group.

 

SinterCast also reported that the Cifunsa, the Mexican automotive foundry, upgraded its SinterCast System 2000 to System 3000 as a result of “intensified product development activity and anticipated increases in the overall market demand for CGI engine castings.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For now, FAW will serve as test site for the new control suite. “As the largest vehicle manufacturer in China, FAW has taken the initiative to become the first Chinese OEM to adopt the SinterCast technology as part of its overall strategy to develop and produce state-of-the-art engines that meet the stringent Euro-style emissions legislation that has been adopted in China, and to satisfy consumer demand for improved performance, refinement and fuel efficiency,” summarized Dawson.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

The article never said, "light weight" it said near Aluminum weight engines..

The PSA 2.7 V6 uses a CGI block, the engine weighs 202 Kg or about 440 lbs which is comparatively light for a diesel..

440 lbs is not "near" the weight of an aluminum block V6 !

[Biker16]

440 lbs is not "near" the weight of an aluminum block V6 !

 

IT may be for a Diesel engine it may be.

[jpd80]

440 lbs is not "near" the weight of an aluminum block V6 !

It's an example thrown up by the article, I think they are talking "dressed weight."

 

In contrast, the "dry weight" of a Duratec 37 long engine with no accessories is 365 lbs..

Edited January 2, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

I could see a CGI block being available as the most high performance models, greater than 130hp per liter, and heavy duty applications (trucks,Etc) and a basic alloy block for less stringent applications like hybrids, Non turbo applications, and less than 130hp per liter turbo variants.

 

I could also see more short stroke engines being used to reduce the stress on the bottom end, to increase peak HP.

[2b2]

I could see a CGI block being available as the most high performance models, greater than 130hp per liter, and heavy duty applications (trucks,Etc) and a basic alloy block for less stringent applications like hybrids, Non turbo applications, and less than 130hp per liter turbo variants...

are CGI/alu twins really feasible?

could Lincoln eventually get all CGI engines?

[Biker16]

are CGI/alu twins really feasible?

could Lincoln eventually get all CGI engines?

 

I see no reason why they could make a CGI and ALloy block for an engine family. if you remember the modular engine had an Iron block of Truck use and an alloy block for the mustang. the reaosn they did this was to save weight and for durability. as it happened the Iron block was a good bit tougher than the Alloy block was.

 

I see no reason why they couldn't use it for a lincoln I just could see a reaosn to use it exclusively for a lincoln, that is the thing about Using turbos, an engine is only as special as it's programing. add 30 horsepower and run it on premium, call it a day.

 

I could see a new engine family ranging from 1.6 -2.2 liters using both CGI and Aluminum blocks with a common head design.

 

It would have higher pressure Direct injection with vertical injectors, exhaust manifold integrated into the aluminum head, Reverse flow cooling, Cooled EGR, Plasma

Transferred Wire Arc (PTWA) cylinder liner coating.

 

I would offer a 1.6 I3 which would be a 2.2l engine minus one cylinder.

 

2.0 engine a Short stroke version of the 2.2 using the same block but different crankshaft.

 

It would be possible to increase the deck height to increase displacement above 2.2 liters.

 

I would use a aluminum blocks for all Non Turbo uses, and turbo application up to 125hp per liter in light-duty vehicles . I would use the CGI block engine on Turbo'd and possibly high RPM N.A. Applications up to greater than 125hp per liter or heavy-Duty applications, up to 150-160 Hp per liter in performance applications.

 

This would mean an 2.2 liter truck engine for the F-series that could develop 300ft/lbs of torque and 275hp and maintain Fuel economy under load.

the 2.2 in performance applications would yield the same 300ft/lbs of torque, but yield 330hp at a lofty 6500 rpm.

 

The 2.0 could put out 270ftlbs. and 320hp at a loftier 6700rpm due to it's CGI reinforced bottom end.

 

the 1.6 would 180ft/lbs / 240hp

 

NA power numbers

 

Aluminum block

1.6 145hp 6500rpm

2.0 180hp 6500rpm

2.2 200hp 6500 Rpm

 

CGI block

 

1.6 180hp @7400rpm

2.0 240hp @7800 rpm

2.2 250hp @7400 rpm

Of course this is just a dream.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Biker16