6.8L V-10 Dropped For 2014???

[FordFanForEver]

Not necessarily, because of computer-operated fuel injection: how much and when.

 

In a motorhome, fuel mileage decreases with speeds over 60. To achieve the best fuel mileage witha 6.8 V10, maintain speed between 55-60.

[theoldwizard]

Yes, I remember that too. Before it was cancelled, word was the Boss would have also been a hi-po option in the Mustang, and was to have been built in a number of different versions and displacements.

This info is second hand and from my fading memory.

 

The idea of the BOSS was a new "family" of V8 engines 2 possibly 3 displacements. The small one was for Mustang. The medium for pickups (up to F350) and the big one was for medium duty trucks. From my recollection, the project was cancelled/"put on the back burner" twice. The first designs were actually pushrod ! The first postponement was the classic "do we really need another big gas engine". At the time Ford was working on 2 V8 diesels, the 4.4L, which has never been in a Ford product, and the Scorpion 6.7L. The 4.4L was cancelled (for Ford products) because of the rising cost of diesel fuel and the realization that "diesel fluid" would make this engine even less cost effective.

 

When the Hurricane (previous internal name) was finally resurrected as the BOSS, they ran into 2 issues. Fuel economy was not as good as they wanted, especially for the "small" version. The "large" version had cooling issues (medium duty truck engines have to pass different durability tests).

 

Right about this time a small group of "boy racers" in the modular engine group said, "We can make a lot more power out of the 4.6L !". Management gave them the green light when they realized that much/most of the current block machining line did not have to be changed. The new 5.0L went from paper design to production in record time.

 

The 6.2L got the green light as a replacement for V10. The old 6.8L had poor fuel economy and high costs (10 pistons really do cost more than 8 !) The 6.2L meet those goals.

 

 

A 7.0L version is just not big enough for F650/750 especially when coupled with CNG which cuts power by about 10%.

Edited May 7, 2013 by theoldwizard

[7Mary3]

FWIW, that is very consistant with what I heard.

 

Is that story typical Ford or what!

[jpd80]

Yeah thanks wizard,

Sometimes we need to remember the chronology and thought processes behind those decisions, many of which were formulated

in very dim days when Ford's future was uncertain and F Truck sales had fallen to around 30,000/mth total.

 

Now that Ford is now back on stable ground, perhaps there's been a softening of that view internally and

medium duty trucks will get an engine designed to work with CNG as well as diesel?

 

Would a converted 6.7 diesel turbo be usable as a medium duty CNG engine?

Edited May 8, 2013 by jpd80

[chevys]

Thanks for the info wizard. I have wondered a lot of times what Ford could do with a modern pushrod V8 and I guess we will never know.

[twintornados]

Thanks for the info wizard. I have wondered a lot of times what Ford could do with a modern pushrod V8 and I guess we will never know.

"Modern" and "pushrod V8" are mutually exclusive terms...unless you are down at GM drinking the kool-aid....

[jpd80]

"Modern" and "pushrod V8" are mutually exclusive terms...unless you are down at GM drinking the kool-aid....

Think NASCAR pushrod FR9 engine used for both HP applications and for Trucks...

[twintornados]

Think NASCAR pushrod FR9 engine used for both HP applications and for Trucks...

"NASCAR" is also mutually exclusive from the term "modern"....however, "pushrods" and "restricter plates" do seem to have a common theme....

[theoldwizard]

Would a converted 6.7 diesel turbo be usable as a medium duty CNG engine?

Converted to what ? A spark ignited engine ? No, too heavy, too expensive (CGI) and even with a turbo, still not big enough.

 

IMHO, CNG diesels are not cost effective. All of the diesel plumbing stays and you add CNG. LNG costs are just ridiculous ! It might be cheaper to convert NG to diesel (yes, it can be done) than to convert Class 8 to LNG.

 

 

What the industry needs is a large (>8.0L) spark ignited engine optimized for CNG only ! Westport owns a stationary engine company, but they are not optimal for medium duty truck installation.

Edited May 8, 2013 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

Double post

Edited May 8, 2013 by theoldwizard

[jpd80]

Converted to what ? A spark ignited engine ? No, too heavy, too expensive (CGI) and even with a turbo, still not big enough.

 

IMHO, CNG diesels are not cost effective. All of the diesel plumbing stays and you add CNG. LNG costs are just ridiculous ! It might be cheaper to convert NG to diesel (yes, it can be done) than to convert Class 8 to LNG.

 

 

What the industry needs is a large (>8.0L) spark ignited engine optimized for CNG only ! Westport owns a stationary engine company, but they are not optimal for medium duty truck installation.

Thanks, I see the problem now.

Whilst a 6.2 or a larger version of it might be OK for SD F250/F350, the engine soon runs out of available torque in larger vehicles.

I think you're right about Ford needing to outsource a larger capacity CNG engine fore these applications,

I think the actual numbers of MD trucks would rule out an own design...

[7Mary3]

And that brings up an interesting question: My company just bought a number of Freightliner M2 112's with Cummins/Westport ISL-G CNG engines in them (nice trucks, BTW). No question the ISL-G will not fit in a Ford F-750 without a major rework of the front end. However, I am told that shortly Cummins/Westport will have CNG/LNG version of both the ISB 6.7L and the ISX 12L available. Couldn't Ford offer an ISB CNG/LNG option? Seems to me that would be the logical route to take if Ford was going to offer a gaseous fuel option on the 650 and 750. Unless of course Ford has no desire to build a CNG/LNG medium duty. Then again if the next generation Avon Lake mediums will not offer a Cummins engine.........

[Bob Rosadini]

And that brings up an interesting question: My company just bought a number of Freightliner M2 112's with Cummins/Westport ISL-G CNG engines in them (nice trucks, BTW). No question the ISL-G will not fit in a Ford F-750 without a major rework of the front end. However, I am told that shortly Cummins/Westport will have CNG/LNG version of both the ISB 6.7L and the ISX 12L available. Couldn't Ford offer an ISB CNG/LNG option? Seems to me that would be the logical route to take if Ford was going to offer a gaseous fuel option on the 650 and 750. Unless of course Ford has no desire to build a CNG/LNG medium duty. Then again if the next generation Avon Lake mediums will not offer a Cummins engine.........

Have to believe Ford will be all over the CNG/LNG ISB. Other than the bulk of the fuel tank, is there any other issue vs diesel? -Like cooling? In any case assuming the Avon Lake thing goes forward I could not imagine them designing the new truck without it being suitable for 12/13 liter power.

 

By the way, I raised the question a week or two ago about resurrecting the 460. It was a good industrial engine I do believe until Ford pulled the plug on industrial engines. Have any thoughts on that? Only thing I saw were some negative comments about GM's continued reliance on pushrods. Hmnn-seems to me those pushrod GM's still put out decent power, economy and reliability.

 

Do OHC engines make sense? For sure. Actually I'm looking for the day when valves become electonically activated-goodbye camshafts, never mind pushrods- but in the meantime how difficult would it be to bring the 460 back-perhaps with a few more cubic inches??

[twintornados]

By the way, I raised the question a week or two ago about resurrecting the 460....

 

Since the 6.2L Hurricane/Boss engine block is cast iron but has aluminum heads for all applications...what would it take for Ford to make a set of cast iron heads and heavy duty cast iron exhaust manifolds to accommodate medium duty applications? With it's wider bore spacing over Triton (115mm vs 100mm) punching it out further to max out your bore should be a relative snap.....the 385 series was good back in her day...but was a pig on fuel ratings. My dad had a 460 in his '74 LTD...that motor was a beast and he could pass everything on the road...except a gas station..

 

Hell, Ford could just "farm out" the cast iron heads and manifolds and put 'em on in house....

[Stray Kat]

I hate the idea of Ford farming out the design of a gaseous fuel medium truck engine. Ford is an engine company and should act like it!

[theoldwizard]

However, I am told that shortly Cummins/Westport will have CNG/LNG version of both the ISB 6.7L and the ISX 12L available. Couldn't Ford offer an ISB CNG/LNG option?

If there is a demand for it, I am certain it will happen.

Seems to me that would be the logical route to take if Ford was going to offer a gaseous fuel option on the 650 and 750. Unless of course Ford has no desire to build a CNG/LNG medium duty.

It is all demand based. Ford is clearly willing to "follow the pack".

 

 

I keeping bring up large gasoline engines, because the are lighter and MUCH cheaper to converter to single fuel CNG. The only way they can compete with diesel/CNG is with much larger displacement.

[theoldwizard]

Have to believe Ford will be all over the CNG/LNG ISB. Other than the bulk of the fuel tank, is there any other issue vs diesel? -Like cooling?

Any bi-fuel engine requires a lot of plumbing and a lot of wiring. Other than that, it is still an internal cumbustion engine.

In any case assuming the Avon Lake thing goes forward I could not imagine them designing the new truck without it being suitable for 12/13 liter power.

WOW ! We are talking Class 6 and 7 ! I can't imagine the need for an engine that big in either class.

By the way, I raised the question a week or two ago about resurrecting the 460. It was a good industrial engine I do believe until Ford pulled the plug on industrial engines.

Highly unlikely. Modern casting techniques would mean the old molds would be irrelevant. I'm certain the combustion chamber would have to be heavily reworked (i.e. new pistons and new heads). IHMO, it is still not big enough for a dedicated spark ignited CNG engine.

...but in the meantime how difficult would it be to bring the 460 back-perhaps with a few more cubic inches??

For a "few more cubic inches", why not the 7.0L BOSS ? Edited May 9, 2013 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

... Hell, Ford could just "farm out" the cast iron heads and manifolds and put 'em on in house....

Most (all ?) cast aluminum and cast iron parts are "farmed out". Ford does the final machining on most.

[theoldwizard]

deleted duplicate post.

Edited May 10, 2013 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

I hate the idea of Ford farming out the design of a gaseous fuel medium truck engine. Ford is an engine company and should act like it!

That may have been the "old" Ford, but not the "new" Ford !

 

If they can't make a profit on it, they are not going to do it !

[Bob Rosadini]

Any bi-fuel engine requires a lot of plumbing and a lot of wiring. Other than that, it is still an internal cumbustion engine.WOW ! We are talking Class 6 and 7 ! I can't imagine the need for an engine that big in either class.

Highly unlikely. Modern casting techniques would mean the old molds would be irrelevant. I'm certain the combustion chamber would have to be heavily reworked (i.e. new pistons and new heads). IHMO, it is still not big enough for a dedicated spark ignited CNG engine.

For a "few more cubic inches", why not the 7.0L BOSS ?

Ol Wiz

 

My comment on 12/13 liters is based on future use of the chassis in class 8 vocational. The current 750 has adequate frame options, axle options and tire/wheel options to serve a limited class 8 market. What it doesn't have is engine/transmission options. I can't see Ford making an investment in a new class 7 that cannot go very easily into class 8. And when I say class 8, I'm not just talking about traditional vocational markets (ten wheelers, triaxles for construction, refuse, tankers etc., I'm also talking about regional freight distribution. Don't loose site of the future of intermodal- its coming. And it won't take a 500 HP long nose sleeper tractor to cover that market!

 

Its all about market size and there is no reason why this next generation medium can't move up to class 8 to cover a lot of additionsal market.

[7Mary3]

If there is a demand for it, I am certain it will happen.

 

It is all demand based. Ford is clearly willing to "follow the pack".

 

 

I keeping bring up large gasoline engines, because the are lighter and MUCH cheaper to converter to single fuel CNG. The only way they can compete with diesel/CNG is with much larger displacement.

 

I completely agree with the idea that it is far better to engineer a large displacement spark ignition gasoline/CNG/LNG engine rather than convert a diesel. Diesel conversions are far more involved, and in addition diesels are far heavier than needed for spark ignition. The Cummins ISL-G is a good performing engine, but there is a lot of useless mass in the design. I would not be surprised if Cummins/Westport at some time comes up with dedicated spark ignition engine.

 

Going back a number of years, does anyone remember the GMC gasoline V-6/diesel Toroflow and International gasoline V-549/diesel DV-550 engines? Both of these engine families were designed primarily as gasoline engines but were built as mid-range diesels too. Yes, as diesels they were marginal! But I think they did prove that spark and compression ignition engines are pretty much mutually exclusive.

[mikeputc]

Rest easy. Ford is not dropping the 6.8-liter V10 from the F-450/F-550.

 

Mike Levine

Ford Trucks Communications Manager.

Twitter: @mrlevine

[jpd80]

Rest easy. Ford is not dropping the 6.8-liter V10 from the F-450/F-550.

 

Mike Levine

Ford Trucks Communications Manager.

Twitter: @mrlevine

Thanks Mike,

 

Any chance of a slight upgrade to the 6.8 V10 going forward?

[mikeputc]

Sorry. No other news to announce about the 6.8-liter V10 at this time.

 

It's a kick ass engine in its current state.

 

- Mike