Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Joe771476

New light & medium duty news

Recommended Posts

I have seen other pictures of the valve springs, they look straight on the sides.  I figure the intake ports are indeed near vertical, but I have not seen good pictures of the intake ports.  They may not be all that large to keep velocity high.  I see a lot of inertia in that valve train.  I figure it was designed around a very strict set of parameters, optimized for large truck use.  It will be good for what it was designed for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

I'm not sure what the price of the truck has to do with the cooling capacity of the radiator. My Coyote has the "expensive" radiator, despite being significantly less expensive than other Coyote-powered trucks that got the "cheap" radiator. (I'd also note that "cheap" is your description; I neither expressed not implied that.)

My point is that the engineers decided that the 6.2 needed the bigger radiator regardless of the truck's configuration, unlike the other engines in the F-150, which only got the bigger radiator with the Tow or Max Tow packages. That means they thought it needed more cooling, regardless of what it would be doing.

  1. The F-150 from 2011+ came STANDARD with the 535/Trailer Tow Package in all trims above XLT. WITH ALL AVAILABLE ENGINES.
  2. 525 Trailer Tow and 60C Max Trailer Tow Packages both list "Upgraded Radiator" as a feature. I put it in quotes because only the 3.5L actually has a different radiator listed for with and without trailer tow in the parts catalog, and the configurations that came without would have a very low take rate with that engine.
  3. The Raptor lists the TT package as standard.
  4. The Platinum/Limited/HD lists its features as "All Lariat features plus" meaning that they came standard with the 535 Trailer Tow Package.
  5. You can verify this from the Ordering Guides. The link them is up above in the header.

 

The 6.2L only came in configurations with one of the TT packages. Are you really going to try to claim that this is because of a cooling system defect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression the issue (or rather, the components that needed modification) keeping the 6.2L (or any planned derivative) out of medium duty trucks were the heads and exhaust manifolds.  Exhaust gas temperatures were too hot at medium duty truck duty cycles.  It wasn't a cooling system issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

I was under the impression the issue (or rather, the components that needed modification) keeping the 6.2L (or any planned derivative) out of medium duty trucks were the heads and exhaust manifolds.  Exhaust gas temperatures were too hot at medium duty truck duty cycles.  It wasn't a cooling system issue. 

Well it is and isn't a cooling issue, more one of heat rejection.  The key is exhaust gas temperature and the sustained higher flow rates of those gasses in Medium Duty truck application.

Bottom line is that Ford didn't proceed with a MD V8 but instead reused the existing  6.8 V10 albeit at a much later date.

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The later 6.8 v10 3V puts out 369 HP @ 4750, not the 2V's 320 HP. The current 6.2 puts out 385 HP at 5750 thanks to its VCT giving it more top end. The glory of the 6.8 V10 3v is that it has 400 lb ft at 1600, rising to 457 lb ft at 3250 and even at its lowish 4750 peak power, it still has 400 lb ft. which then leads me to your next piece.

jpd, I just quoted that little snippet to keep the post at a reasonable length, but I'll address more than just that section.

 

Your 6.8L power numbers are no longer current, in the E-Series, the 2V is rated at 305hp@4250 RPM and 420 ft-lb@3250 RPM. In the F-450/550, the 3V is rated at 288hp@4000 RPM and 424 ft-lb@3000.

 

Talking about the "glory" of the 6.8L is somewhat like me trying to rationally discuss the how a 4.0L Falcon would drive relative to a 5.0L one. I could surmise based on charts, magazines and internet forums but it's not available here so I can't actually experience the difference. I owned 6.2L and 6.8L vehicles, at the same time. I can tell you, from experience, that the 6.2L is better than you think it is and the 6.8L is not as impressive as you make it out to be.

 

Most 6.8L trucks (mine included) came with  the 5R110W "5-speed" transmission with a 3:1 1st gear compared to the 6.2L which came with 6-speeds with 1st gears around 4:1. So the actual torque at the tire on launch wasn't all that different as the 6.2L had about a third deeper gearing. Also remember from physics class that you can increase torque at the tire using gearing, but you can't increase power this way. Also recall that the speed you can maintain for a given weight is based on power (rate of doing work) not torque (force). Newer 6.8L's were finally available with the 6R, but my 2013 was too old to get that trans and no pickups ever came with it. 

 

My relative "dislike" of the 6.8L comes from how it feels up at highway speeds. It would need to downshift to maintain speeds over highway overpasses, at sea level. At those engine speeds the 6.8L has lots of vibration, does not sound good, and consumes a ton of fuel.  The 6.2L has less vibration, lower levels of noise at cruise speeds, and sounds much better when operated at the top end of the RPM range. On grades and at similar weights they both require about the same RPM, but the 6.2L sounds and feels better operating there and feels like it has more ability to accelerate (due to greater available power and about 1000 RPM wider powerband per gear).

 

Things will get a lot better with the new 7.3L. From what the CPE said in the TFL video, it will put down enough power at reasonable cruising speeds to eliminate the need for a lot of the downshifting that always seems to be the big complaint with the gassers. The NVH that it does have will most likely be similar to the 6.2L, so it'll sound MUCH better and be smoother when being worked hard than the 6.8L. It will have 10 speeds so it will be easier to select a gear that produces the needed level of hp without needing to run up to the power peak. With significantly more available power and lower 1st gear in the transmission, vehicles like the E-450 will no longer need deep 4.56:1 final drives. This will result in being able cruise on the highway at lower RPM, leading to even better NVH.  The lower engine speeds plus its ability to run at 14.7:1 AFR more often will bring much better fuel economy. Finally, given the increased power it should get closer to the GCWR's that are available with the PowerStroke, without the higher up-front cost, maintenance expense or the worry that a bad tank of fuel will cause $10K+ of fuel system damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I was under the impression the issue (or rather, the components that needed modification) keeping the 6.2L (or any planned derivative) out of medium duty trucks were the heads and exhaust manifolds.  Exhaust gas temperatures were too hot at medium duty truck duty cycles.  It wasn't a cooling system issue. 

 

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Well it is and isn't a cooling issue, more one of heat rejection.  The key is exhaust gas temperature and the sustained higher flow rates of those gasses in Medium Duty truck application.

Per the BOSS engine CPE, in the link I mentioned above, he said that the 6.2L would require upgraded exhaust valves and exhaust manifolds to pass the MD dyno cert test. He specifically mentioned that the 6.8L required those upgrades as well, so the 6.8L pickup engines would fail the test. If you go back and watch the TFL video on the new 7.3L gas you will see that the 7.3L CPE mentions that the MD variants of that engine get an upgraded valve and a cast stainless exhaust manifold that the pickup variants don't need in order to meet the MD duty cycle requirements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RPF, thanks for your lengthy and detailed response, it appears that time and perhaps emissions are catching up with the 6.8 although the F650/F750 super gas dumper I just looked on the Ford website at was rated at 320 HP and 460 lb ft..but I digress from wanting to keep this post short...

Clearly by your real world experience, the smaller more efficient 6.2 can be more than a match for the 6.8 with the right gearing and the engine in its higher torque zone. I get that and it seems to echo what Ford achieved with the 5.0 coyote  engine  in F150, an engine smaller than the okder 5.4 but more than a match.

The thing that intrigues me is that Ford retains the existing 6.2 V8 and 6AT but also take that a step further with the 6.2 V8 and 10R140 - those byres are getting more of what they liked in the past....and that's before we even begin to talk about game changer 7.3 V8 and 10R140.....Brilliant

Quote

Per the BOSS engine CPE, in the link I mentioned above, he said that the 6.2L would require upgraded exhaust valves and exhaust manifolds to pass the MD dyno cert test. He specifically mentioned that the 6.8L required those upgrades as well, so the 6.8L pickup engines would fail the test.

I misused  "heat rejection" (cooling system)  when I meant Heat resistant  (hot side parts)

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the 6.2L being a lot more refined than the 6.8L.  The 6.8L does have noticeable NVH when working hard (and un unpleasant exhaust note!), being a V-10 this isn't a surprise.  The 'band-aid' balance shaft helps somewhat I am sure (and at least it keeps the bottom end from blowing apart).  That balance shaft may have been the 6.8's saving grace as it prevented the engine from ever getting VVT, and we all know how well that worked out on the 3 valve 5.4.  In any event, the 6.2 has proved to be far superior to the 5.4, and I expect the 7.3 to be far superior to the 6.8.

Personally, I am just happy the 7.3 has cam bearings!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RPF said:

The 6.2L only came in configurations with one of the TT packages. Are you really going to try to claim that this is because of a cooling system defect?

I'm claiming no such thing. All I'm saying is that the 6.2 got the biggest radiator available, regardless of configuration. That means they expected it to run as hot as a max tow EB35 and hotter than a tow package Coyote in the same configuration, whether or not it could tow or haul as much.

That's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RPF said:
  1. The 6.2L only came in configurations with one of the TT packages. Are you really going to try to claim that this is because of a cooling system defect?

 

9 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

I'm claiming no such thing. All I'm saying is that the 6.2 got the biggest radiator available, regardless of configuration. That means they expected it to run as hot as a max tow EB35 and hotter than a tow package Coyote in the same configuration, whether or not it could tow or haul as much.

That's it. 

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

  In any event, the 6.2 has proved to be far superior to the 5.4, and I expect the 7.3 to be far superior to the 6.8.

And that's the thing, the 6.2 V8 replaced the 5.4 V8 in F150  but it was also used to replace 5.4 V8 and 6.8 V10 in F250 and F350.  While it didn't last in F150, there's been a lot of 6.2 V8s sold in F250 and F350 but I wonder if Ford had its time over would Ford have been better off developing it as a bigger bore 6.6 V8?    Would that extra torque have been enough for larger SD and the MDs back in 2010?

I guess in a way that question has the befit of hind sight and what GM has just done with its own 6.6 V8, so could Ford have gotten there years earlier and would a 6.6 Boss have worked better.?

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 10:12 AM, lfeg said:

I was recently invited to an event where the topic is the new International class 4 &5 trucks. These guys must be planning a real push as these are introduced as they are doing this one on a Sunday in just over a week. About all I know other than the topic is that someone from a dealer in Y-town will be there.

Well, the presentation yesterday was interesting. These trucks are being built in Springfield, OH, and one interesting thing is that the exhaust aftertreatment system and exhaust piping is from Cummins (surprising to me). One thing the guys attending picked up on was the availability of an engine mounted air compressor, and then there were questions about if and when air brakes would be available - especially in the heavier GVW ranges. Answer was that the option was being considered.

One thing the guy from the dealership was clear about was that the frames were not as strong as those in the Ford and Ram class 4 & 5. He said this was because they were concentrating on suitability for the GVW ranges, not towing. To have the highest GCWR was not a priority. Also he mentioned that these would sticker between $48K and $63K for just about all configurations.

One of the guys there was from an upfitter specializing in plow and spreader setups. I spent some time talking with him, and he said that in class 6&7 he preferred setting up Internationals to any other brand because they could be ordered with the frames predrilled for the install, and the wiring was easier. He told me that on a 5 ton chassis it would take him about three days to do an International where other brands would take him over a week. An interesting thing is that International provided a feed so that the speed of the spinner (the thing that spreads the salt) could be synchronized to the road speed automatically, so that the driver would not have to monitor and control that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, lfeg said:

Well, the presentation yesterday was interesting. These trucks are being built in Springfield, OH, and one interesting thing is that the exhaust aftertreatment system and exhaust piping is from Cummins (surprising to me). One thing the guys attending picked up on was the availability of an engine mounted air compressor, and then there were questions about if and when air brakes would be available - especially in the heavier GVW ranges. Answer was that the option was being considered.

One thing the guy from the dealership was clear about was that the frames were not as strong as those in the Ford and Ram class 4 & 5. He said this was because they were concentrating on suitability for the GVW ranges, not towing. To have the highest GCWR was not a priority. Also he mentioned that these would sticker between $48K and $63K for just about all configurations.

One of the guys there was from an upfitter specializing in plow and spreader setups. I spent some time talking with him, and he said that in class 6&7 he preferred setting up Internationals to any other brand because they could be ordered with the frames predrilled for the install, and the wiring was easier. He told me that on a 5 ton chassis it would take him about three days to do an International where other brands would take him over a week. An interesting thing is that International provided a feed so that the speed of the spinner (the thing that spreads the salt) could be synchronized to the road speed automatically, so that the driver would not have to monitor and control that.

Thx for posting.  Not sure about his statement that the GM/International frames were  not as strong as the Ford/ ram frames because they ..."were concentrating on suitability for GVW ranges, not towing".  I may be wrong but if anything wouldn't a truck dependent on carrying the entire weight need more "beef than one that has some of that load on a towed vehicle's frame/axles???

In any case I posted this a while back...

"I think the Internationals will do very well with anyone who currently operates class 6 and 7 trucks.  As I have said,  the Bluediamond Ford 750's did well with the Utilities when they had the Cummins/Allison power train.  The OAP 750's have virtually the same specs-frames, axles etc. What they don't have is the Cummins/Allison combo and that is hurting them..  In any case the utilities up here (National Grid, Eversource) are buying International and F'liners for their heavy class 7 line trucks.  I would think the CV will be a big hit with them as it will be one stop shopping.

Stay tuned for what starts showing up at the local Altech yard."

 

By the way, I swung through the Altech yard last week.. Still full of 550's awaiting installs and a the usual large number of f'liners, Internationals and Paccars in class  7 and above.  Seems like these utilities keep getting bigger and heavier chassis.  Actually some set up as triaxles and even some tandems with driving front axles.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notice the GCWR's of the class 4 and 5 GM/International's are lower than Ford and Ram, but the GVW's are higher.  And in the case of the 6500, much higher.  I saw the air compressor option too and wonder how long it will be before they have 22.5" wheels and air brakes on the option list.  Hearing more rumors about a GM/Navistar class 7/8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that one of the problems with the last generation GM Mediums, where they had a heavier frame derated to a lower rating for Class 4/5?  It basically amounted to less payload that the Ford/Ram competitors, since the truck was heavier?  I remember someone in GM Marketing making the point that their Mediums at the time we not dressed up pickups, but true Mediums downgraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hwyman3 said:

Wasn't that one of the problems with the last generation GM Mediums, where they had a heavier frame derated to a lower rating for Class 4/5?  It basically amounted to less payload that the Ford/Ram competitors, since the truck was heavier?  I remember someone in GM Marketing making the point that their Mediums at the time we not dressed up pickups, but true Mediums downgraded.

That was exactly the case.  I am not sure about the comment that the GM/International trucks having a 'weaker frame' than the Ford and Ram which results in their lower class 4/5 GCWR's.  I have seen the trucks, and if anything it appears that they too may have a higher unladen weight than corresponding Fords and Rams as their frames, suspensions, and axles look more substantial.  I will ask my Navistar contacts next time I talk to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

That was exactly the case.  I am not sure about the comment that the GM/International trucks having a 'weaker frame' than the Ford and Ram which results in their lower class 4/5 GCWR's.  I have seen the trucks, and if anything it appears that they too may have a higher unladen weight than corresponding Fords and Rams as their frames, suspensions, and axles look more substantial.  I will ask my Navistar contacts next time I talk to them.

I saw one of the new Silverado 6500s at the builder's show in Las Vegas.  According to their guy with the truck, it is mostly GM with only the Axles and Frames from International.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I did notice the GCWR's of the class 4 and 5 GM/International's are lower than Ford and Ram, but the GVW's are higher.  And in the case of the 6500, much higher.  I saw the air compressor option too and wonder how long it will be before they have 22.5" wheels and air brakes on the option list.  Hearing more rumors about a GM/Navistar class 7/8. 

I'm confused.. That is NOT what the International guy told Ifeg.  This is the International guy's comment...One thing the guy from the dealership was clear about was that the frames were not as strong as those in the Ford and Ram class 4 & 5. He said this was because they were concentrating on suitability for the GVW ranges, not towing.

Doesn't that statement  mean...the frames are not as strong as those on the Fords and Rams as they were concentrating on GVW not GCWR.  Therefore by Internationals definition, you need a beefier frame for "towing"!  

That makes no sense IMO-again GVW infers payload plus vehicle weight on number of axles.  GCWR spreads the payload over the number of axles on the trailer as well.  Bottom line as I see it the International statement makes no sense.  If you were concentrating on GVW, you would need a HEAVIER spec than one suitable for tractor or pintle hook towing.  Again we are not talking about engine/trans capability, we are talking about chassis/axle ratings.

And the 6500 has a 22,000 ib max GVW.  A 650 has a max of 26,000Lbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hwyman3 said:

I saw one of the new Silverado 6500s at the builder's show in Las Vegas.  According to their guy with the truck, it is mostly GM with only the Axles and Frames from International.  

Axles and frames are a significant portion of the truck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent some time after the presentation talking with the guy that gave the presentation. From him being from the dealership side he seemed to have the opinion that if you have to do heavy towing where you have a trailer heavy enough to need a 30K + GCWR you need a class 6 0r 7 truck. I tend to agree. And his presentation was limited to the class 4 and 5 units - nothing at all on class 6. And he stressed that the cabs, interiors and engine were GM, frames are international, trans is Allison, axles and transfer case are Meritor and Dana.

And the crowd was really interested if/when air brakes and 22.5s would be available. Also, no mention at all on gas engines, he said that initially the Internationals would be disel only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, twintornados said:

Axles and frames are a significant portion of the truck...

And not much different than the Bluediamond deal.  4400 International chassis with a Ford SD cab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lfeg said:

I spent some time after the presentation talking with the guy that gave the presentation. From him being from the dealership side he seemed to have the opinion that if you have to do heavy towing where you have a trailer heavy enough to need a 30K + GCWR you need a class 6 0r 7 truck. I tend to agree. And his presentation was limited to the class 4 and 5 units - nothing at all on class 6. And he stressed that the cabs, interiors and engine were GM, frames are international, trans is Allison, axles and transfer case are Meritor and Dana.

And the crowd was really interested if/when air brakes and 22.5s would be available. Also, no mention at all on gas engines, he said that initially the Internationals would be disel only.

Agree for sure on class 6/7 when it comes to towing anything beyond a Bobcat or a mini excavator.  How many accidents occur  today where when you read between the lines, the trailer was determining where the entire unit was going.  Not so much with the gooseneck rigs but for sure with the "bumper" hitch rigs -be they a ball or .pintle.  Guy loads the trailer incorrectly and the trailer is in control!    To say nothing of stopping distances.

I think the crazy HP/torque ratings that RAM/GM/Ford offer in class 5 and lower gives guys a feeling they can tow anything.  And they can- stopping and keeping it on the road may be another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lfeg said:

I spent some time after the presentation talking with the guy that gave the presentation. From him being from the dealership side he seemed to have the opinion that if you have to do heavy towing where you have a trailer heavy enough to need a 30K + GCWR you need a class 6 0r 7 truck. I tend to agree. And his presentation was limited to the class 4 and 5 units - nothing at all on class 6. And he stressed that the cabs, interiors and engine were GM, frames are international, trans is Allison, axles and transfer case are Meritor and Dana.

And the crowd was really interested if/when air brakes and 22.5s would be available. Also, no mention at all on gas engines, he said that initially the Internationals would be disel only.

Gentleman I talked to at the builder's show told me GM is working on getting a Gasoline engine in the new mediums.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×