jpvbs Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How about V10 the 6.2 - 7.7l with 10 cylinders. And with the 6.2 supposedly able to expand to 7.0l, that would make it a 8.8l V10 using those dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Believe it or not, Greyhound ran those GM buses with the 4 speed manuals in commuter service for many years. In the Bay Area of all places! Yes, Bob, I remember your comments about a modernized Lima. Too bad it's gone, looks like the time might be right for something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inselaffe Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) The GM big block is a great engine but its still not a proper MD/HD solution for spark ignition. Someone needs to do a proper high BMEP conversion of a MD/HD I6 (and I4) diesel bottom-end and put a tumble combustion system running stoichiometric with cooled EGR, simple twin-scroll wastegated turbo, a new DOHC cylinder head. shaft-mounted roller-rocker valve-train, replaceable cam bearings, and shallow dish steel pistons. Exactly the same (or greater) torque curve as the diesel it is based off and just a simple 3-way catalyst with none of this DPF and SCR malarkey hanging off the back of the exhaust. Run it on liquid propane, natural gas, E85, E100 or even the other alternative fuel in HD gasoline. Edited September 5, 2014 by Inselaffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Or just do a CNG version of the 6.7 Turbo.. By the time you do all that other work on a unique CNG engine, it's probably not worth it for Ford to chase such a small market. Edited September 5, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Or just do a CNG version of the 6.7 Turbo.Too expensive. This is cheap and easy 6.8L 3 valve V10 CNG, electric/exhaust hybrid turbo and water/alcohol injection. Ford's primary turbo supplier (Honeywell) is working on prototype electric/exhaust hybrid turbos. Don't hold your breath on this happening any time soon. Too logical. Edited September 5, 2014 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Too expensive. This is cheap and easy 6.8L 3 valve V10 CNG, electric/exhaust hybrid turbo and water/alcohol injection. Ford's primary turbo supplier (Honeywell) is working on prototype electric/exhaust hybrid turbos. Don't hold your breath on this happening any time soon. Too logical. Wiz- please elaborate-what IS "electric/exhaust.??? And I like Edstock's comment on the Otosan diesels but that is ground we have plowed and I guess the answer is always .."too expensive to make US compliant. By the way for you guys really into the tech side, I have always thought that the next big breakthrough in design would be to eliminate the cam driven valve train and replace with electrically operated valves. think of the parasitic loss associated with a valve train-be it a pushrod engine or even an OHC design. Am I dreaming?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Electrically actuated valves already exist but they're either too slow or too complicated since nobody seems to be jumping on the technology - not even the supercars where cost isn't an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Too expensive. This is cheap and easy 6.8L 3 valve V10 CNG, electric/exhaust hybrid turbo and water/alcohol injection. Considering the performance boost of the alcohol DI with the burning qualities of CNG, it should produce monster torque with the engine management and VVT, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Wiz- please elaborate-what IS "electric/exhaust.??? And I like Edstock's comment on the Otosan diesels but that is ground we have plowed and I guess the answer is always .."too expensive to make US compliant. By the way for you guys really into the tech side, I have always thought that the next big breakthrough in design would be to eliminate the cam driven valve train and replace with electrically operated valves. think of the parasitic loss associated with a valve train-be it a pushrod engine or even an OHC design. Am I dreaming?? I think tow is referring to a turbo that is a hybrid between electric and exhaust driven. Electrically driven at low speed to eliminate turbo lag, then switching to exhaust driven at speed. You know, I thought the same thing you did when I read his post....electronically actuated valves. I knew it was in the works, and if it could be made to work, I would think that would be a huge fuel economy benefit just eliminating friction in the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I think tow is referring to a turbo that is a hybrid between electric and exhaust driven. Electrically driven at low speed to eliminate turbo lag, then switching to exhaust driven at speed. You know, I thought the same thing you did when I read his post....electronically actuated valves. I knew it was in the works, and if it could be made to work, I would think that would be a huge fuel economy benefit just eliminating friction in the engine. Ah-makes sense on the electric low speed drive-hmnn-bastardized "supercharged turbo" Also trust you saw AK's comment on the electric valve control-find that hard to believe though-electric impulse vs all that mechanical action? What about the piezo (sp??) fuel inectors-they vary spray during the actual injection stroke-talk about rapid response! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Ah-makes sense on the electric low speed drive-hmnn-bastardized "supercharged turbo" Also trust you saw AK's comment on the electric valve control-find that hard to believe though-electric impulse vs all that mechanical action? What about the piezo (sp??) fuel inectors-they vary spray during the actual injection stroke-talk about rapid response! Yeah, I saw AK's post. I could see it being too slow. The electrical impulses wouldn't be that slow, but actually having an electric motor move the valve enough in such a short period of time could be a challenge. The valve doesn't have a choice when it is following the crank, but electrical may be hard to get the valve to move fast enough. And it can't be even a fraction of a second out of whack or you run into serious issues. I would imagine it is an extremely complicated system to work out. Does the 6.7L use piezo injectors? I know the 6.4L did as that was a big deal then, but I didn't know if Ford carried it over to the 6.7L. Edited September 6, 2014 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Exactly. The electrons are plenty fast enough - it's the mechanical actuator that's slow and the timing would be a nightmare to get right all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHV 16V Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Does the 6.7L use piezo injectors? I know the 6.4L did as that was a big deal then, but I didn't know if Ford carried it over to the 6.7L. Yes sir, sure does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Exactly. The electrons are plenty fast enough - it's the mechanical actuator that's slow and the timing would be a nightmare to get right all the time. Just imagine that actuator firing 100 times per second while the engine is running at 6k RPM. And doing that in a very predictable, repeatable manner millions (billions!) of times. And that's just 1 valve on 1 cylinder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Yes sir, sure does. Thanks! I thought it did, but wasn't sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Actually, for EAVs (electrically actuated valves) the timing is the simple part, after all, they've been timing injector cycles for decades and can do it at 15,000 rpm + for multiple pulses per cycle. The problem is that a mechanical cam is 100% reliable not just for getting the valve to open and shut, but to open in exactly the way you want it to and close in exactly the way you want it to. I can do an exact replication of the ramp up to full lift, and the taper off to fully closed. Valves aren't just on and off, there is a great deal of time where they are partly open and closed that is well understood by computer based engine models. This is all timed to get the precise mixing and swirling of the contents of the cylinder before the charge is ignited, and to allow the maximum effective evacuation of the cylinder once it's closed. Also, as was said before, you need it all to be EXACT. You can't have a solenoid start to go bad and slow down on you, not only does it rob power, it can also adversely effect emissions, and that's something that the car makers are very accountable for. There have been EAV engines on test benches since the 80s (and before that if a story that I read is to be believed), but they've rarely demonstrated the desired longevity needed for mass production. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Actually, for EAVs (electrically actuated valves) the timing is the simple part, after all, they've been timing injector cycles for decades and can do it at 15,000 rpm + for multiple pulses per cycle. The problem is that a mechanical cam is 100% reliable not just for getting the valve to open and shut, but to open in exactly the way you want it to and close in exactly the way you want it to. I can do an exact replication of the ramp up to full lift, and the taper off to fully closed. Valves aren't just on and off, there is a great deal of time where they are partly open and closed that is well understood by computer based engine models. This is all timed to get the precise mixing and swirling of the contents of the cylinder before the charge is ignited, and to allow the maximum effective evacuation of the cylinder once it's closed. Also, as was said before, you need it all to be EXACT. You can't have a solenoid start to go bad and slow down on you, not only does it rob power, it can also adversely effect emissions, and that's something that the car makers are very accountable for. There have been EAV engines on test benches since the 80s (and before that if a story that I read is to be believed), but they've rarely demonstrated the desired longevity needed for mass production. thx as always an education here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Also, I'm wondering how efficient electrically actuated valves would really be? I mean, the electricity used to open those valves ain't free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inselaffe Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Electric actuated valves have been promised for ages, look at Sturman's and Siemen's offerings, but the actuators are huge and as far as I know no one has really sorted the valve closing velocity issue (i.e. too fast). A better bet is the solenoid controlled hydraulic valve actuation, successfully in production with Fiat in their Multi-Air but also offered by Jacobs Vehicle Systems (Jake-Brakes). Also mechanical valvetrain friction is usually a very small part of the overall friction in an engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inselaffe Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) Or just do a CNG version of the 6.7 Turbo.. By the time you do all that other work on a unique CNG engine, it's probably not worth it for Ford to chase such a small market. TBH I wasn't referring to Ford and I wasn't limiting it to CNG. I was talking about a proper MD/HD I4/I6 "Ecoboost” style converted diesel bottom-end with cooled EGR, peak power at ~2000rpm & peak torque at ~1200rpm, a minimum I6 B50 life of 500000 miles (maybe 350000 miles on the I4) able to run with multiple SI suitable fuels, although not at the same time. The economics are quite different on proper MD/HD engines when an entire engine can cost more than a Ford Focus. The 6.7 I consider to be a LD engine as its a high(ish) speed V8 and has aluminum heads. Also because its a V8 and cam-in-block with skewed valve pattern and swirl based combustion, it’s not a good candidate for SI conversion without almost completely re-engineering it, the Boss V8 would probably be a better base. Also there’s no good way of getting round the inherent charge robbing issue on a V8. Too expensive. This is cheap and easy 6.8L 3 valve V10 CNG, electric/exhaust hybrid turbo and water/alcohol injection. Ford's primary turbo supplier (Honeywell) is working on prototype electric/exhaust hybrid turbos. Don't hold your breath on this happening any time soon. Too logical. Honeywell are still quite far from production with this setup, heat and electrics aren’t good bedfellows. Also I bet the V10 would need to be reworked heavily to take the higher cylinder pressures and heat rejection. Edited September 7, 2014 by Inselaffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 AFAIK, the only widespread use of unconventional valves was in F1, and that was because of the mechanical limitations of springs at F1 engine speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inselaffe Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 AFAIK, the only widespread use of unconventional valves was in F1, and that was because of the mechanical limitations of springs at F1 engine speeds. Still use cams though just with pneumatic springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Also, I'm wondering how efficient electrically actuated valves would really be? I mean, the electricity used to open those valves ain't free. You mean electricity isn't free? I think it would be a wash since you would eliminate the camshafts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Latest School Bus Fleet magazine has an awesome inside the flap ad about the Blue Bird/Roush Ford collaboration. It aggressively touts the millions of Ford 6.8's that have been built and have a proven record. This is a Blue Bird ad! I haven't been able to find a link yet, but I've been busy so I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. The Vision Blue Bird bus can be ordered with the Ford 6R1-40 transmission. I thought they were only using Allisons, but I guess not. I feel a joint venture coming between Ford and Blue Bird which will give International/IC and Freightliner/Thomas a real run for their money! But even if it's not a formal venture, they're still doing really well informally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) You mean electricity isn't free? I think it would be a wash since you would eliminate the camshafts. And of course, if it's just a wash, there's no point in adding the cost/complexity Edited September 7, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.