Ram 1/2 ton Diesel a hit...did Ford miss the boat?

[Deanh]

 

It is *your* assertion that a diesel is always more efficient than a gas engine. Not mine.

compare Jetta 2.0 diesel #s to regular or turboed 2.0 gas VW engine. Throw in the 6.8 if you want....( ??? )

[Deanh]

regardless of your thoughts Rich, im not the only one convinced of diesels better efficiency....although gas engines ARE catching up....

[RichardJensen]

regardless of your thoughts Rich

 

Again. These are not 'thoughts' they are 'facts'.

 

If you push a diesel to its limits it will under-perform a gas engine that is not being taxed to the same extent even if both are doing the same amount of work.

[Deanh]

 

Again. These are not 'thoughts' they are 'facts'.

 

If you push a diesel to its limits it will under-perform a gas engine that is not being taxed to the same extent even if both are doing the same amount of work.

have I once mentioned pushing engines to limits?....I dont believe so....without going back, I think I mentioned a 5000lb trailer behind an F150 with the diesel, ECO V6 and 5.0 for comparison stakes and stated I believed the diesel would have better mileage, and then all hell broke loose with redlines, GVWRS, Jetta engines...etc etc ....pass the tanning butter....lol

[RichardJensen]

I think I mentioned a 5000lb trailer behind an F150 with the diesel, ECO V6 and 5.0 for comparison stakes and stated I believed the diesel would have better mileage

 

No, I mentioned that scenario. And I pointed out that it is quite likely that the EcoDiesel's performance would suffer a more dramatic fall off in efficiency than the gas engines in that scenario. And that any fall off in efficiency would only increase as you added weight to the vehicle.

[jpd80]

The fact that Ford did not proceed with the 4.4 TDV8 says to me that the EB 35 made much more economical sense,

could it be that the EB 27 now makes more sense than simply following Chrysler and the Ram 3.0 Diesel?

 

If Ford used a diesel in F150, would that add sales or just replace sales from the two EB V6s?

Edited July 11, 2014 by jpd80

[Hemiman]

All engines are theoretically most efficient at maximum torque. In real world it's really about 80% max power due to the need to run slightly rich at max.

 

Efficient production of HP drops off as you back down from that figure. This is especially true of spark ignition types.

 

Diesels see very little drop as you back away from max.

 

The answer is, HP for HP the diesel is ALWAYS more efficient than spark ignition, especially at partial load.

 

Why?

 

Higher Compression.

Does not need to maintain stoichiometric fuel ratio.

Less pumping loss at part load due to no throttle (This also allows for some exhaust energy to be recovered on turbo-diesels).

More energy dense fuel.

 

Ford's EB dgi engines close this gap slightly but only a few points in BSFC.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the EB engines. I wish Ford would produce an EB 5.0. It would find a nice home between the shock towers of my 67 Fastback.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Hemiman

[RichardJensen]

It seems that the biggest differentiator these days is energy density.

 

Running the same tests, at roughly the same weight, the Jetta diesel is 13.3% more efficient than the gas engine, with ~20% higher density fuel.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33819&id=33927 (granted the transmissions are different)

[Deanh]

It seems that the biggest differentiator these days is energy density.

 

Running the same tests, at roughly the same weight, the Jetta diesel is 13.3% more efficient than the gas engine, with ~20% higher density fuel.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33819&id=33927 (granted the transmissions are different)

.... transmissions would be geared to so called "sweet spots"...

[jpd80]

Is this a case of consistency or reliability with advertised fuel economy numbers?

I'm thinking that in trucks diesels tend to be more faithful to the advertised fuel economy numbers

where as small changes in driving/load can have serious negative effects on gasoline fuel economy.

 

I'm still mulling this vision:

6.2 V8 = 12/18mpg ---> 3.5 EB V6 = 15/22mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 16/24mpg

5.0 V8 = 16/21mpg ---> 2.7 EB V6 = 19/25mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 20/27mpg

 

I know that the above might seem a leap of faith to some but marketing the 2.7 EB as a diesel alternative

could be extremely effective and result in Ford selling huge numbers of the new engine compared to a diesel.

 

I don't doubt that a 3.6/4.4 TDV8 would be a good addition to the F150/SD range but is it really necessary

when Ford covers so many of its F150 customers - is there a need for an "efficient lugging diesel" F150?

Edited July 11, 2014 by jpd80

[Edstock]

Then there's the 10-speed transmissions that will be here soon. With EB, efficiency will be interesting.

[chevys]

Is this a case of consistency or reliability with advertised fuel economy numbers?

I'm thinking that in trucks diesels tend to be more faithful to the advertised fuel economy numbers

where as small changes in driving/load can have serious negative effects on gasoline fuel economy.

 

I'm still mulling this vision:

6.2 V8 = 12/18mpg ---> 3.5 EB V6 = 15/22mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 16/24mpg

5.0 V8 = 16/21mpg ---> 2.7 EB V6 = 19/25mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 20/27mpg

 

I know that the above might seem a leap of faith to some but marketing the 2.7 EB as a diesel alternative

could be extremely effective and result in Ford selling huge numbers of the new engine compared to a diesel.

 

I don't doubt that a 3.6/4.4 TDV8 would be a good addition to the F150/SD range but is it really necessary

when Ford covers so many of its F150 customers - is there a need for an "efficient lugging diesel" F150?

 

Depends on what the upcharge is for the 2.7 and what the gas mileage is. I have to say the 2.7EB is probably one of the most interesting motors Ford has come out with in a long long time.

[jpd80]

The 3.5 EB did a great job of breaking down the perception barriers of a turbo six powering a full size truck,

the 2.7 EB can now build upon that and will probably have a much easier path to acceptance.

[chevys]

The 3.5 EB did a great job of breaking down the perception barriers of a turbo six powering a full size truck,

the 2.7 EB can now build upon that and will probably have a much easier path to acceptance.

Not disputing and I think you are right. It just depneds on what it costs.

[jpd80]

Not disputing and I think you are right. It just depneds on what it costs.

Looking at Ford's current prices, the EB 27 option should fall somewhere between the EB 35 and the 5.0 V8,

a significantly lower price than the comparable Ram 1500 Eco diesel models but with higher towing & payload?

That would be Ford's ace in the hole....

 

Consider EB 27 as having same power/torque as 5.4 3V but with roughly 25-30% better EPA fuel economy,

current owners of pre-2011 F150s would probably perceive the '15 F150 & EB 27 as almost diesel like

and that will probably be the main focus of Ford's marketing campaigns for that engine combination,

getting those existing F150 owners back into the showroom to buy a new truck..

 

While Ram is using its new diesel truck to grow more sales, I believe Ford will use the new EB 27 to

convert a lot of existing V8 truck owners to a new kind of truck that gives much better economy

thereby reaching many more previous owners than a diesel version ever could, i hope I'm right...

Edited July 12, 2014 by jpd80

[Hemiman]

The EB 2.7 is a very interesting development. "Almost diesel like" not only applies to it's performance, but also, it's basic design/construction. (Maybe plans for future diesel)?

 

This leads me to another thought. Time was, that a diesel cost a approximately 2-3 times more to produce than a spark ignition engine of equal HP. Most of this cost can be traced to the precision, high pressure injection system required. Additional costs in better designs were in: Oil/piston cooling, turbocharging, intercooling. Additionally, you have the overall heavier construction of the long block components.

 

Most of this disparity in cost, holds up when compared to a N/A gasser, (even up to a modern multi port EFI design).

 

Now, if you look at the current crop of DGI Turbo gassers (Like Ford's EB), I question, just how big that production cost disparity is? Even the traditional heavy construction requirements for the diesel have been partially mitigated by common rail EFI in modern diesels. (Due to multi-sequenced injection events, diesels no longer have to contend with the - SQUIRT BANG!!!! pressure rise of traditional mechanical injection).

 

Question is: How much more is the unit cost to manufacture something like the VM Motori 3.0 vs the EB 2.7?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Hemiman

[RichardJensen]

The big expense now is in the after-treatment systems.

[jpd80]

The big expense now is in the after-treatment systems.

This.

Even if manufacturing costs were contained and both diesel and gasoline could be made off the 2.7 EB,

there's still the problem with diesel NOX emissions and the added cost of the exhust after treatment.

 

On the other hand, Bobcat's Ethanol boosting may have just advanced a notch...(two fuel systems is still expensive)

[Hemiman]

Diesel emission controls are still in their infancy. (Where we were with gas engines in the 70's). I'm guessing the the next big breakthrough here, will be in pre or during combustion treatment. Along the lines of H2O - Methanol injection. More Power - More economy - Cleaner emissions.

[jpd80]

In the meantime, Ram1500 will give us an indication of the depth of diesel sales, it will be interesting to see

how sales numbers go in the next 12 months once the initial rush settles down, i have a hunch it's around 10%.

[Anthony]

In the meantime, Ram1500 will give us an indication of the depth of diesel sales, it will be interesting to see

how sales numbers go in the next 12 months once the initial rush settles down, i have a hunch it's around 10%.

I'm not sure engine capacity allows for more then that?

[NickF1011]

I'm not sure engine capacity allows for more then that?

 

In a vehicle as profitable as the Ram surely is, if capacity for an engine option was an issue, you'd think they'd find a way to supply more of them.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Is this a case of consistency or reliability with advertised fuel economy numbers?

I'm thinking that in trucks diesels tend to be more faithful to the advertised fuel economy numbers

where as small changes in driving/load can have serious negative effects on gasoline fuel economy.

 

I'm still mulling this vision:

6.2 V8 = 12/18mpg ---> 3.5 EB V6 = 15/22mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 16/24mpg

5.0 V8 = 16/21mpg ---> 2.7 EB V6 = 19/25mpg (22% improvement) ----> +1/+2mpg Alloy F150 = 20/27mpg

 

I know that the above might seem a leap of faith to some but marketing the 2.7 EB as a diesel alternative

could be extremely effective and result in Ford selling huge numbers of the new engine compared to a diesel.

 

I don't doubt that a 3.6/4.4 TDV8 would be a good addition to the F150/SD range but is it really necessary

when Ford covers so many of its F150 customers - is there a need for an "efficient lugging diesel" F150?

 

JPD, You may have those economy improvement numbers reversed. The biggest advantage to the new F-150 is empty weight. Weight has its biggest impact on city mileage, not highway mileage that is more significantly impacted by aerodynamic drag. I suspect that the Alloy 150 EB 3.5 setup will gain about 1-2mpg city and 1 mpg highway. The same would go for your conjectural steps for the 5.0L to 2.7EB to Alloy 150 upgrade. I'll be shocked if its any higher than 25mpg highway with the 6 speed and maybe 26 mpg highway with the 10 speed.

 

I think that the next big step in F-150 fuel economy will be a moderate hybrid based around the 2.3L I4. That may be the first F-150 to hit 27 mpg highway and perhaps even 22 or 23 city. For what its going to do, it won't need a huge battery pack as it'll be expected to provide its biggest push during off the line acceleration. I really don't know how ANYONE is going to make a full sized pickup hit 30 mpg on the highway.

[jpd80]

 

JPD, You may have those economy improvement numbers reversed. The biggest advantage to the new F-150 is empty weight. Weight has its biggest impact on city mileage, not highway mileage that is more significantly impacted by aerodynamic drag. I suspect that the Alloy 150 EB 3.5 setup will gain about 1-2mpg city and 1 mpg highway. The same would go for your conjectural steps for the 5.0L to 2.7EB to Alloy 150 upgrade. I'll be shocked if its any higher than 25mpg highway with the 6 speed and maybe 26 mpg highway with the 10 speed.

We'll see but I'm sure that the push for economy improvement is on the highway cycle - that's the most important to Ford and CAFE. I had forgotten all about the stop/start feature that Ford is combining with the 2.7 EB, that should help a bit on the city cycle.

 

I think that the next big step in F-150 fuel economy will be a moderate hybrid based around the 2.3L I4. That may be the first F-150 to hit 27 mpg highway and perhaps even 22 or 23 city. For what its going to do, it won't need a huge battery pack as it'll be expected to provide its biggest push during off the line acceleration. I really don't know how ANYONE is going to make a full sized pickup hit 30 mpg on the highway.

Look at what's being positioned in F150, a 3.5 V6 with DI, the next obvious step is to add batteries and a hybrid transmission. We know that Ford can get 41-43 mpg highway cycle with a 3700 lb hybrid, add a 1,200 lbs to that and I'll spot you 12 mpg....

 

In closing, the whole point of the new Alloy body F150 and it new engines is to significantly gap the competition,

anyone thinking that Ford will simply "level up" with its competitors is not really seeing what's happening.

Edited July 14, 2014 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Is there any reasoning why the 2.7L EB would cost more then the 3.5L Ecoboost engine? If anything the 3.5L EB is the top dog engine with the 5L V8 behind it then the 2.7L bringing up the rear with the 3.5L behind it.