New Light & Medium Duty News

[old_fairmont_wagon]

While I completely agree that the duty cycles of a mod 5.8l v8 in the gt500 and a derived 7.3l v-10 would be substantially different, I would imagine that the much reduced cylinder pressures on the v-10 as compared to the blown v-8 would lend a lot to improving its durrability. It would also allow the v-10 to use less exotic pistons, less exotic cylinder lining technology and perhaps have some other cost improvements.

 

From a regular maintenance perspective, both the boss 6.2l and the v-10 use similar amounts of oil, have the same number of filters and hoses, and both only have one oil filter. The v-10, since it has only one plug per cylinder, actually has fewer plugs that the dual plug boss, to the tune of 6 less. So, except for major overhauls, i'd imagine that the v-10 is cheaper to maintain. I can't imagine that a dual plug boss derived v-10 would make anyone very happy. 20 plugs? Really? The radials on the b-17 didn't have that many plugs! (One row, 9 cylinders, dual plugs)

 

None of these are very good solutions. Ford needs a bespoke architecture medium duty gasoline and gaseous engine if it wants to be serious in this market. Basic characteristics should be 7.0-8.2 liters base displacement range, one plug, dohc, dual vvt, cgi block for durability and weight reasons. The design should be flexibile enoigh to handle reverse flow heads for a turbocharged version, staight flow heads for n/a and supercharged gaseous versions, and should be also capable of marine duty.

 

Can some mod delete the above duplicate post, I accidentally hit send while editing out typos...

[7Mary3]

Using the 5.0L in the F-150 makes sense, it is shared with the Mustang. The 6.2L seems questionable to me because it's only in the 250 and 350, however that's a lot of volume. The 6.8L is questionable because of it's part count and manufacturing expense, size, and exclusive use in relatively low volume vehicles. But, the tooling is paid for. So, all things considered, Ford is probably O.K. for now.

 

We will see how the new 650 and 750 do sales wise, but even if they are a big success it will be a bit of a surprise if sales justify a dedicated gasoline engine family for them. Ford seems quite uninterested in offering 'factory' CNG/LNG fuel options, instead relying on upfitters to do the conversions (and this is beginning to be a problem, IMHO). That might indicate Ford is less likely to really pursue a new large spark-ignition engine. Hard to say at this point.

 

For the sake of argument though, how about a reengineered 6.2L with a V-10 version for the larger trucks. Adopt DI and a wedge combustion chamber. Try to do the V-10 without a balance shaft.

[twintornados]

It seems that 6.8L V10 is going to be the defacto gas motor for medium duty for the next 5-7 years.....as long as the motor is cheap to manufacture and cheap to maintain, it will carry on unabated and be successful due to its inexpensive nature for fleet applications. That is the ONLY thing that matters to fleets.

Edited March 31, 2014 by twintornados

[theoldwizard]

The 6.2L seems questionable to me because it's only in the 250 and 350, however that's a lot of volume.

The original design intent was for the 7.0L version to go in the F450-F750. For unknown (cooling ?) reasoins, the 7.0L never happened.

 

 

 

You guys need to stop "arm chair quarter backing" and get with the "real world" !

 

First, despite what ever accolade have been heaped on the V10 over time, it was never a cost effective engine to manufacture. The additional and unique parts, even though many were shared with the Modular engines, just were "not a good idea".

 

Second, engine and cylinder head machining lines are pretty much custom made. It you don't have the equipment design for the extra "holes" adding that capability is next to impossible.

 

Third, is a human thing. No one in management s going to recommend "more of the same" (i.e. another V10) if the previous generation was anything less that a fantastic success. There was enormous pressure by management for the BOSS to have overhead valves and cylinder de-activation, with the only logic being "that is what the the other guys do !" It took considerable effort by the engineers to change their mind.

 

 

I have $1 at 20-to-1 odds that any "new" engine aimed at Class 4-7 trucks will be a V8 and have the same bore spacing as an existing production engine.

 

Another dollar at 10-to-1 odds that that same engine will NOT use CGI or DI !

[twintornados]

I believe that 6.8L V10 was produced to compete with Dodges' V10 for their truck lines as Dodge had long before that, gotten rid of their original "big blocks" and Ford was moving away from the 385 series "big blocks", attempting to come up with a modernized version of a truck motor that produces gobs of torque ....then Dodge did something unique and built the Viper, stuffing a Hi-Po version of their truck motor in it and history was made....

I am inclined to believe that Wiz is right on this one...any future engine for medium duty will have to be inexpensive to manufacture and cheap to maintain. That rules out CGI and complex induction systems...but with the lines for 6.8L V10 already being up, running, and paid for makes it the natural choice for the near term as Ford wrings every amortized dollar out of that engine line and maximizes the profit potential for their medium duty line.

[lfeg]

The V10 will continue on until Ford decides to replace it or to move on without it. With the demise of the E Series vans, the V10 will be a fairly low production (for Ford at least) engine for fairly specific applications.

 

As the fuel economy and emissions mandates get tighter over the next 7 to 10 years (yea, even for class 8) I can see both the V10 and the 6.2 V8 being replaced with a new V8 in two configurations - small displacement (5 to 6.5 liter range) for F350 / F450 / F550, and a large displacement (7.5 to 8.5 liter range) for F550 / F650 / F750. Blue sky, it could even be more "modular" design - a V6 for the small displacement and a V8 for large displacement. 4 valve DOHC really does not add all that much for heavy duty engines, but I would not rule it out depending on emissions regs. Same for location of the cam shaft(s), where they are does not really matter as long as the valves are opened and closed at the proper points. And much in the arena of future engine design will depend on some of the current research going on. Anyone else notice the efforts going toward different combustion regimes? Gasoline direct injection compression ignition is gaining some traction, as are some other schemes to increase efficiency in the combustion chamber while keeping combustion temperatures lower to reduce certain emissions. No doubt it will be getting interesting.

[Edstock]

Ford might even look at their alcohol direct-injection system again for gasoline engines. Its benefits might have a market with truck operators who need diesel-size torque . . .

[Bob Rosadini]

Wild thought, but listening to all the arguments about relative costs associated with the V-10 and its inherent complexity-even beyond the balance shaft issue- and all the inferences that the Boss has "Issues"-

 

what would prevent the resurection of the 460, push rods and all-with obvious state of art fuel system and even an ecoboost treatment. Not sure bout thje 460, but remember the 429 was I believe the only factory prepped LPG option.

 

I know wild thought.

[lfeg]

Nothing wrong with wild thoughts. And for a large engine the 429 was not all that heavy, but it could take alot of abuse. But I still say that it would make sense to repurpose a durable long lived rotating assembly and block from the past and fit it with the latest head, induction, fuel delivery, and exhaust technology for a dedicated truck engine.

[theoldwizard]

Ford might even look at their alcohol direct-injection system again for gasoline engines. Its benefits might have a market with truck operators who need diesel-size torque . . .

IIRC, that system used gasoline DFI and E85 port injection and a turbo. It worked great except that is was incredibly expensive (2 complete fuel systems) and CGI was recommended for higher boosting.

 

I can't believe that any operator would want a truck that required 2 different fuels.

 

 

Sadly, what this really shows is that E85 is NOT a cost effective fuel.

Edited April 1, 2014 by theoldwizard

[Bob Rosadini]

IIRC, that system used gasoline DFI and E85 port injection and a turbo. It worked great except that is was incredibly expensive (2 complete fuel systems) and CGI was recommended for higher boosting.

 

I can't believe that any operator would want a truck that required 2 different fuels.

 

 

Sadly, what this really shows is that E85 is NOT a cost effective fuel.

For sure-and while you are at it, thrown in E-10. I remember when the ethanol mandate was passed my thought was.."buy John Deere stock--unfortunately I didn't. In any case, think of the impact the use of ethanol has had on other segments of the economy-food costs, animal feed costs etc. to say nothing of the fact that from a logistics perspective, as ethanol is injected at the distribution terminal as it goes into the tank truck as to this date because of its corrosive properties it can't be shipped via pipeline,, Therefore, 10% of our gasoline supply moves by expensive modes of transportation-truck and or rail. Lets just hope E-85 remains a"boutique" fuel. And actually the feds have had to back off of mandated ethanol targets as due to improved MPG numbers, the amount of gasoline sold at E-10 content, cannot support the mandated Ethanol use numbers without going to E-15.

[lfeg]

IIRC, that system used gasoline DFI and E85 port injection and a turbo. It worked great except that is was incredibly expensive (2 complete fuel systems) and CGI was recommended for higher boosting.

 

I can't believe that any operator would want a truck that required 2 different fuels.

 

 

Sadly, what this really shows is that E85 is NOT a cost effective fuel

That is one of the drivers of natural gas (or even gasoline) as a fuel - a single fuel, no second tank for a different fluid. In fleet use, fuel and fueling logistics matter, as they have an impact on total cost of operation. The more fuels and fluids you need to have available to keep your vehicles fueled, the costlier it gets. Even truck stop cost of operation goes up when you add DEF dispensers. More types of dispensers = more cost.

[Joe771476]

Here's an interesting read. Name the only brand that offers a class 1 thru 7 truck. Believe me, that's a great selling point.

 

 

Truck Fleet Management :: Demand Increases for Job-Site Service

[bzcat]

Here's an interesting read. Name the only brand that offers a class 1 thru 7 truck. Believe me, that's a great selling point.

 

 

Truck Fleet Management :: Demand Increases for Job-Site Service

 

Ford doesn't offer any class 1 truck... not since Ranger was discontinued. Ford has class 2 thru 7 trucks - still the biggest range under the same brand. If you include vans, then Ford has class 1 with Transit Connect.

 

Toyota has the next widest offering with class 1 Tacoma, class 2 Tundra, and class 5-7 with Hino trucks.

 

Daimler has class 3-5 with Fuso and class 6-8 with Freightliner. Although if you include vans, Daimler also has class 2-3 Mercedes Sprinter.

[RichardJensen]

Meh. Transit Connect--not exactly a 'truck', but a commercial vehicle, nonetheless.

[bzcat]

Meh. Transit Connect--not exactly a 'truck', but a commercial vehicle, nonetheless.

 

Yep... not a truck, hence my qualifier of "if you include vans".

 

But Ford is essentially selling Transit Connect as the replacement for Ranger in commercial fleet sales.

Edited April 4, 2014 by bzcat

[RichardJensen]

I didn't catch that in your first post.

[theoldwizard]

That is one of the drivers of natural gas (or even gasoline) as a fuel - a single fuel, no second tank for a different fluid. In fleet use, fuel and fueling logistics matter, as they have an impact on total cost of operation. The more fuels and fluids you need to have available to keep your vehicles fueled, the costlier it gets. Even truck stop cost of operation goes up when you add DEF dispensers. More types of dispensers = more cost.

Perfectly stated !

 

However, CNG/LNG still has but a "toe hold" in the commercial truck market.

 

If you believe what is written by the Press, the fastest growing niche in a market that is only a niche compared to light duty vehicles, is CNG powered Class 7 and 8. Yep, CNG, NOT LNG ! The Cummins-Westport ISX12G is supposedly "selling like hot cakes" ! It uses the Cummins 12L I6 block with a spark ignited, gaseous fuel, designed head, a turbo charger and Westport design fuel system. It does not have the power ("only" 1100 lb-ft of torque !) or range of a comparable diesel but it does fit many needs.

 

"Total cost of Operation" is a HUGE win !

[lfeg]

There are many local delivery trucks out there, just look at the traffic from freight terminals to manufacturers, distributors, warehousing facilities, and such. Where I am at we get about 5 to 8 class 7 and 8 trucks every day delivering and picking up. And we are small potatoes. These are the applications for CNG, trucks go out, drop off and pick up, and return to the terminal. Many are less than 200 miles per day, and with central fueling at the terminal. CNG / LNG for over the road is a stretch right now, but local delivery is ripe. And the Ford F650 / F750 can be in the sweet spot for local delivery.

[theoldwizard]

These are the applications for CNG, trucks go out, drop off and pick up, and return to the terminal. Many are less than 200 miles per day, and with central fueling at the terminal. CNG / LNG for over the road is a stretch right now, but local delivery is ripe. And the Ford F650 / F750 can be in the sweet spot for local delivery.

I have discussed this repeatedly with people "in the industry" and no one can understand why Class 4-7 vehicles are not making a mass change over to CNG, except for one reason. SHORT TERM COST ! This is very short sighted because long term (> 5 years) "total cost of ownership" is savings is HUGE !

 

There are only 2 companies that I know of that have made serious commitments to CNG: AT&T and Waste Management. Neither are moving fast and I would say the WM is more committed because they are installing their own pumping stations.

 

The odd one is Frito-Lay. Most of their delivery trucks are already powered by LPG (conversion by Roush), which has not been know as a low cost fuel. The installation costs are much less than CNG because the tanks are much lower cost. I have also been told that when buying large quantities of LPG over a medium time period (1 year), pricing is more "negotiable".

[7Mary3]

Both municipal and public transit fleets have gone to CNG in a big way here in California. Of course their financial situation is quite different from the private sector and they are not so concerned with short-term costs (particularly if Federal money comes into pay). The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority's entire bus fleet, one of the largest in the nation, is CNG.

 

It will come. Initial costs are scary, but you can't deny the long-term savings over diesel.

[MGolden]

Thinking beyond 5 years here in the rust belt is not very common. The road treatments for ice have everything in bad condition. Our cutaway chevy utility van gets new trans cooler lines EVERY year.

[Joe771476]

I always thought the F150 was a class 1 truck. The original F100 was; Ford just raised the number to 150 to suggest a bigger payload or toughness. Check this article out.

 

 

Guide to Truck Classes: Light, Medium and Heavy Duty - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com.

 

.

[RichardJensen]

 

Yep... not a truck, hence my qualifier of "if you include vans".

 

But Ford is essentially selling Transit Connect as the replacement for Ranger in commercial fleet sales.

 

Thinking a bit more about this---yes, Toyota covers a breadth that is almost equal to Ford's but the depth is nowhere near as close, and the other commercial vehicle lines are even farther back:

 

 

You've got cab/chassis, dual and single wheel variants of the Transit and E-Series, and wagon and panel versions of the Transit and Transit Connect, as well as the F-150, Super Duty and Medium Duty stuff. That's a lot of variation.

[twintornados]

I always thought the F150 was a class 1 truck. The original F100 was; Ford just raised the number to 150 to suggest a bigger payload or toughness. Check this article out.

 

 

Guide to Truck Classes: Light, Medium and Heavy Duty - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com.

 

.

Originally the F-100....it was "bumped" to F-150 to get around the unleaded requirement and other emission requirements that were moving to light trucks in the mid-seventies....last F100 made was in 1983....