Jump to content

New Light & Medium Duty News


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The cost of a secondary injection system is not high, most of those components are already in use on PFDI 

that’s on the EB V6 and 5.0 Coyote, the only thing lacking is the separate E85 fuel tank.

 

The real reason that Ford is not using Ethanol boost is because of the falling out with MIT,

that single fuel PFDI system was changed enough to exclude royalties going back to MIT

 

The E85 situation is all about whether you give subsidies that directly support underperforming

farmers or create an industry that creates a need for those crops and actually does some good

for the environment. It’s a contentious political argument but with a commitment to keep it, that

would give manufacturers a reason to persist with E85 as a way of moving away from diesels.


With regards to buyer pushback on using two fuels, diesel  operators now have diesel an Adblue 

at fill ups, so filling up with 87 and then topping up a small E85 tank is hardly likely to upset those

informed users……

JP-I  had the same thought on a DEF tank on a current diesel.  Big question is  just how much E-85 would  be required under heavy load conditions.  And if that low end power would result in less time in lower gear ranges, would  that translate into better  MPG that would allow use of smaller gasoline tanks as an offset?  A fine line trade off I'm sure, but when the Ecoboost concept became a reality, wasn't one of the talking points that this would make gasoline power more competitive with diesels?

 

And I  do recall the flap with MIT.  Might make sense to strike a deal with MIT.  Also as I understand the Piezo diesel injector technology, it is so sophisticated today that they can actually vary the injection rate during the compression stroke, how difficult would it be to come up with a suitable  injection system????

 

As for E-85, I think we have lost site of what gave rise to the entire ethanol situation.  Namely we were allegedly being held hostage by the oil states (OPEC) and this was going to be one avenue toward energy independence.  I remember telling my friends..."buy John Deere stock"-wish I had!  Well we all know just how well we have done in terms of our own crude production-at least up  until November. 

 

Other than the current movement to ban all fossil fuels, and the strength of the farm lobby, ethanol  use should probably  never go beyond  E-15.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

Other than the current movement to ban all fossil fuels, and the strength of the farm lobby, ethanol  use should probably  never go beyond  E-15.

The higher ethanol blended fuels like E-30, E-50, and E-85 are great for performance, particularly on direct injection applications.  The added cooling they provide when injected directly mimics higher octane than what they are rated for.  Many of the highest power ecoboost tunes rely on higher ethanol content fuels.  Cheap way to get higher octane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

JP-I  had the same thought on a DEF tank on a current diesel.  Big question is  just how much E-85 would  be required under heavy load conditions.  And if that low end power would result in less time in lower gear ranges, would  that translate into better  MPG that would allow use of smaller gasoline tanks as an offset?  A fine line trade off I'm sure, but when the Ecoboost concept became a reality, wasn't one of the talking points that this would make gasoline power more competitive with diesels?

 

And I  do recall the flap with MIT.  Might make sense to strike a deal with MIT.  Also as I understand the Piezo diesel injector technology, it is so sophisticated today that they can actually vary the injection rate during the compression stroke, how difficult would it be to come up with a suitable  injection system????

 

As for E-85, I think we have lost site of what gave rise to the entire ethanol situation.  Namely we were allegedly being held hostage by the oil states (OPEC) and this was going to be one avenue toward energy independence.  I remember telling my friends..."buy John Deere stock"-wish I had!  Well we all know just how well we have done in terms of our own crude production-at least up  until November. 

 

Other than the current movement to ban all fossil fuels, and the strength of the farm lobby, ethanol  use should probably  never go beyond  E-15.

From memory, the amount of E85 required for suppression via Direct Injectors was roughly 5%, so not much.

E85 significantly lowers the amount of CO2 produced, I’d consider its use over diesel as a transitional fuel

until full electrification of heavy vehicles and fast charging becomes reality.

 

From memory, Brazil had E25 which had enough ethanol to give it good detonation resistance

in HC engines and forced induction.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jpd80 said:

From memory, the amount of E85 required for suppression via Direct Injectors was roughly 5%, so not much.

E85 significantly lowers the amount of CO2 produced, I’d consider its use over diesel as a transitional fuel

until full electrification of heavy vehicles and fast charging becomes reality.

 

From memory, Brazil had E25 which had enough ethanol to give it good detonation resistance

in HC engines and forced induction.

Thx-so that says for every 100 gallons of gas you would need 5 of E85 or a lesser amount of neat ethanol-not an unrealistic combination assuming say a medium duty F-750 in vocational use might get say 8-10 mpg.  Using the worst case of 8, that would mean a range of 800 miles-something that very few class 7 vocational trucks might see in a week, never mind in a shift.  Make it 5 mpg-a 500 mile range is still a lot for a class 7 vocational truck.

I  recognize that you and other very technically savy people have offered reasons why an Ecoboost 7.3 would not be practical but I continue to focus on the high cost of a 6.7 Power Stroke from a first cost basis as well as a maintenance CPM given DEF issues, oil changes etc.

 

Something must be motivating Ford to look at a "boosted" 7.3.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, does everyone recognize the logistics associated with ethanol?  While gasoline and diesel typical gets into the downstream distribution system via pipelines, you can't ship ethanol in a pipeline.  It moves inland via  railcar or truck  to the distribution terminal-or via barge/ship to a marine terminal.  At the distribution terminal it is stored in a separate tankage/piping system and is pumped to the tank truck loading rack where it is additized on line through an automated blending system that mixes the proper ratio of ethanol to gasoline.

 

So when you think about E15 or E85 blends, don't lose sight of the logistics cost to get that ethanol  blend to the consumer.

 

For what its  worth?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

At least you live in a country with fuel lines, we have to make do with road or rail transport from costal terminal, so guess what happens to fuel prices +10 or 15 cents per litre on top.

Ouch-never realized that-so you for sure understand the logistics issue.  And is ethanol used as it is in US with 10,15 and 85 blends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Ouch-never realized that-so you for sure understand the logistics issue.  And is ethanol used as it is in US with 10,15 and 85 blends?

 

6 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Ouch-never realized that-so you for sure understand the logistics issue.  And is ethanol used as it is in US with 10,15 and 85 blends?

Yes, we have E10 and E85, thanks to our sugar cane industry in the state of Queensland.

While E10 blended fuel is widespread, E85 is a much more limited product at selected 

gas stations, primarily because we are a much smaller market and no real government 

support for E85 after the demise of GM’s local brand, Holden.

 

Our situation is different to the US and I get that scaling up the comparatively small

amounts of road transport versus a place like the US is exactly why road and rail

transport of E85 is problematic / nightmare.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethanol is much more prevalent in the upper Midwest than on the East coast.  Part of it is transportation, another is the subsidies local governments added to put the ethanol plants close to the farms and advertising.
 Sheetz is the only place I’ve reliably been able to get E15 around RTP. It is about 4 cents per gallon cheaper than regular. There are a few other places around with E85, but the price isn’t nearly as low as it is in ND or MN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, slemke said:

Ethanol is much more prevalent in the upper Midwest than on the East coast.  Part of it is transportation, another is the subsidies local governments added to put the ethanol plants close to the farms and advertising.

MI is right next to the "corn belt".  Why does E85 sell for a higher price than regular grade gasoline ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theoldwizard1 said:

MI is right next to the "corn belt".  Why does E85 sell for a higher price than regular grade gasoline ?

Where are you getting your data from?  E85prices.com lists E85 in MI as 23% cheaper than E10.  $2.23 vs $2.84.  In reality it really needs to be compared to premium and not regular.  I could see some circumstances where gas prices fall below $2 a gallon where it would flip.  That’s not the case right now, though.  I checked Minneapolis, MN area and there were several stations selling E85 for under $2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, theoldwizard1 said:

Data comes from driving by stations.  None by my house are reporting their price but most a charging a premium for E85.

I wouldn’t post the price either if I was charging a premium for it.  Might be a local anomaly.  Around here they don’t post the price for premium and then charge 0.60 or even $0.70 per gallon more in some instances.  Not too bad when gas was over $4, but that’s a steep premium when gas is $2 something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
7 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Not exactly a medium but for you "believers" I figure you would appreciate this, given the steady dose of "commercial trucks" we see featuring Transits?

Photo 6.jpg

Photo 5 (1).jpg

Where is that? The phone numbers on the truck's door indicates that it's the Northern Marianas Islands and southern Illinois...

Edited by SoonerLS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

Where is that? The phone numbers on the truck's door indicates that it's the Northern Marianas Islands and southern Illinois...

 

The phone numbers on the truck are actually 9 digits. :)

 

Grupo Almerisan is a commercial truck and industrial & construction machinery dealership network based in Spain. The truck in the picture is a Ford Otosan 4142M. Tech specs attached. 

ford_4142m_eng_euro6-Ao4f2NYd.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

The phone numbers on the truck are actually 9 digits. :)

 

Grupo Almerisan is a commercial truck and industrial & construction machinery dealership network based in Spain. The truck in the picture is a Ford Otosan 4142M. Tech specs attached. 

ford_4142m_eng_euro6-Ao4f2NYd.pdf

Check out those weight ratings...GVW 92,000lbs!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The whole thing is on another level 420metric HP, 1590 lb ft, 18 speed ZF manual, 12 speed ZF automatic 

For sure.  I laugh when many say Ford can't justify the "engineering cost" to offer another diesel/trans option to the Powerstroke/Torque shift combo.  And I  totally get it  about the profitability of the inhouse combo.  But my broken record speech is many buyers would be willing to pay the premium plus  the increased sales would just lower fixed unit cost numbers for the rest of the 650/750 production.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

For sure.  I laugh when many say Ford can't justify the "engineering cost" to offer another diesel/trans option to the Powerstroke/Torque shift combo.  And I  totally get it  about the profitability of the inhouse combo.  But my broken record speech is many buyers would be willing to pay the premium plus  the increased sales would just lower fixed unit cost numbers for the rest of the 650/750 production.

The way transport has grown in the last decade, Ford should be looking at it, railroads are doubling train lengths to increase efficiency but they’re fast approaching the limits of “track space”. That means road transportation must surely increase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The way transport has grown in the last decade, Ford should be looking at it, railroads are doubling train lengths to increase efficiency but they’re fast approaching the limits of “track space”. That means road transportation must surely increase.

Well JP to add to this thought, I  have to believe that the bridge constraints that precluded use of double stack rail container cars is probably being close to being eliminated.  This is going to make regional hauls (less than 500 miles) more of a factor.  And to do  that you are not going to need a 600 HP extended roof sleeper.  I always felt while Ford  up until the end tried to get a lot of that long haul sleeper market, had they not done that but concentrated on the short haul and vocational market they  would have survived in class  8.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well JP to add to this thought, I  have to believe that the bridge constraints that precluded use of double stack rail container cars is probably being close to being eliminated.  This is going to make regional hauls (less than 500 miles) more of a factor.  And to do  that you are not going to need a 600 HP extended roof sleeper.  I always felt while Ford  up until the end tried to get a lot of that long haul sleeper market, had they not done that but concentrated on the short haul and vocational market they  would have survived in class  8.

I get this feeling that road transport is going through an evolution like aviation did 

in that the types of trucks we now have is going to change more to location hubs

and as you say, those 500 mile haulers will probably play an increasing role……….

 

On a point to point delivery, that opens the possibility of BEV  opening the door to

things like big trucks with removable battery packs to avoid long charge layovers…

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me guys, but I just can't help myself. I made this riddle up; well somebody has to be the first to come up with a joke or riddle, right?  There's a new model SUV coming out. It's a cross between an Escalade and a Navigator. Wanna guess the name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...