Hypothetical Build - F150 hybrid or Diesel?

[RichardJensen]

I'm guessing NVH is a major issue w/not using a 3.3L 4 cylinder in an F150

[bzcat]

Why did Nissan go to all that trouble making a Heavy Duty 1500 and then not give it more payload capacity?

That looks like a glaring omission/deficiency...especially in a vehicle with such a capable diesel engine.

 

The biggest factor is payload rating is chassis design, not engine output. Titan XD is based on a 12 years old frame design that was originally shared with the compact D40 Frontier (Navara in your part of the world). In another word, Titan XD has the classic "too much engine for the chassis" problem.

Edited April 8, 2015 by bzcat

[jpd80]

 

The biggest factor is payload rating is chassis design, not engine output. Titan XD is based on a 12 years old frame design that was originally shared with the compact D40 Frontier (Navara in your part of the world). In another word, Titan XD has the classic "too much engine for the chassis" problem.

In that respect, elevating the design from a large mid sized truck is a huge feat

it would be like Ford extending T6 Ranger to cover all of F150 but not quite F250.

 

I notice that no other company is prepared to copy Nissan so they are on their own..

The 5.0 diesel is a brute of an engine, probably appealing to those graduating from lower ranks.

[jpd80]

I still don't fully understand why Ford doesn't explore a 3.3L I-4 diesel for the F-150 that's based on roughly half of the Scorpion 6.7L? If parasitic losses stayed relative to the engine size, the engine would be capable of 220 HP and 430 lbs of torque which is certainly sufficient for the F-150 as a competitor to the Ram's ecodiesel. Using that platform for development, technology that's designed for the 6.7L would be more easily applied to the 3.3L in the future as they would share a combustion chamber design and have a cylinder head that is high in commonality.

You're asking Ford to develop a new diesel engine when they already have 3.2 I-5 and 3.0 V6 and 4.4 V8 siting there.

To me the issue isn't "doing" a diesel, it justifying including one in the range.

 

Truck duty cycles make hybrid development challenging. As seen in the Silverado, you have to retain gas engine capability sufficient to haul your rated capacities in a battery depleted situation. This means that you can't downsize the gas engine significantly to increase highway mileage.

Yes you can if the battery is big enough and run in "charge sustain" mode. to get over hills,

on the flat a 2.7 EB or even a 3.5 DI hybrid would be more than enough to haul near maximum load.

 

If you had something like Focus EV's 23 kWh battery, up to 40 miles electric running possible

or when you get to Ike Gauntlet, stick in charge sustain and use electric and 3.5 DI for the under 9 minute climb.

 

The other thing to note is rapid developments in battery chemistry that is allowing quicker recharging

and reduction of memory effect all while reducing the cost of batteries too, I think technology is going

to really ramp up in the next few years time and make battery life longer and power much more affordable.

Edited April 8, 2015 by jpd80

[old_fairmont_wagon]

You're asking Ford to develop a new diesel engine when they already have 3.2 I-5 and 3.0 V6 and 4.4 V8 siting there.

To me the issue isn't "doing" a diesel, it justifying including one in the range.

 

--Technically, I'm not asking for a WHOLE new engine. I'm asking for a high commonality derivative engine based on a "high" volume engine that's already federalized. Emissions work should be more manageable than a clean sheet engine as you're dealing with the same combustion chamber design. At this point in the conversation, it seems rather clear that the 4.4 Diesel is too much engine for where Ford wants to position the F-150 in the market, leaving just the two other options you gave. One is rather uncompetitive (the I-5) and the other (3.0 V6) we just don't have a clear picture about since it isn't really used in the US in any sort of "truck duty" scenario and may require sigificant modifications if it's going to be considered for the kind of usage seen in the F-150. I'm not asking for the Sun, Moon and Stars. Just a satellite in low earth orbit...

 

Yes you can if the battery is big enough and run in "charge sustain" mode. to get over hills,

on the flat a 2.7 EB or even a 3.5 DI hybrid would be more than enough to haul near maximum load.

 

If you had something like Focus EV's 23 kWh battery, up to 40 miles electric running possible

or when you get to Ike Gauntlet, stick in charge sustain and use electric and 3.5 DI for the under 9 minute climb.

 

The other thing to note is rapid developments in battery chemistry that is allowing quicker recharging

and reduction of memory effect all while reducing the cost of batteries too, I think technology is going

to really ramp up in the next few years time and make battery life longer and power much more affordable.

 

But, as we've seen, pushing the EB27 or 35 up to 90% or higher throttle is a formula for very poor fuel economy. The overall goal of hybrid is to maximize fuel economy and that's not going to get it done. Now, that being said, I'll grant you that, as a comparisson, the EB35 is naturally more efficient than the big GM V8 that they had in their hybrid, though it is also not much lighter. I also grant that we're talking about a corner case here, but, it is one that has to be considered. Even in charge sustain mode, you still need to be able to generate enough power to move the load competently. You can not downsize the gasoline engine in a truck in the same manner as a car using CURRENT hybrid tech. If they've got something amazing coming down the pipe, it obviously changes things, but, in the end, the power isn't free, it has to come from somewhere...

[jpd80]

while the hybrid system acts as an economy measure when the truck is unladen, it then switched to being an electric power adder when the truck is fully laden. So instead of a turbocharger adding the extra 100 hp, that's where the electric side chimes in on hills and thanks to the increased weight in a fully loaded situation, the regen braking captures a lot more power going down hills.

 

While i'd never attempt to convince anyone that a Naturally aspirated 3.5 DI V6 could haul any more than it prescribed 7,600 lbs max, it is indeed possible that the addition of hybriding in that situation actually helps fuel economy immensely, especially when speed varies a lot and the electric side can be used as much as possible. extend that assistance to climbing grades and recapturing the energy going down hills and I think you could raise a fair argument for improved economy..especially when towing a load.

 

Now take all of that and switch the 3.5 DI V6 for either a 5.0V8 or a 2.7 Ecoboost and voila, we have a truck that still tows but has electric assist when needed to reduce fuel usage. Be that slow speed stop start city driving or undulating highway roads either loaded or unloaded.

Edited April 9, 2015 by jpd80

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I do see your point jpd80, and I'll accept that if the hybrid system can keep the gasoline engine from having to lean into the turbos too much, it'll improve the highway mileage in the situation that you're speaking of. When you've got a situation where the required power is variable from one minute to the next, and the total average power draw is in the gasoline engine's favorable operating range with respect to fuel economy, then you'll indeed gain from the situation that you are talking about.

 

I must admit that my point of view on this is highly skewed by the region that I live in. I can drive hours in any direction from New Orleans and, aside from a couple of bridges, not find a grade bigger than .5% or a hill of any measurable height. The land down here is flat, and flat, steady state highway cruising in a rounded off brick is not a formula for great fuel economy. If you want to tow at or near the frame and suspension limits of an F-150 that's equipped with the tow package, you aren't going to be getting much benefit from a traditional hybrid drivetrain on the highway down here. The power need is constant, and if your trailer is as aerodynamic as most of them, its going to be a major source of drag. Just using my Father-in-law's F-150 and 29 foot RV as an example, normally on the highway, he's north of 20 mpg at 70 mph. Towing the trailer, he was down in the 12 mpg range. That's a 5.0L SuperCab XLT SB tow package towing near its GCVWR with a trivial change in elevation from start to finish at 70 mph. I don't want to know what that would have been with the EB35 or with a hybrid (which probably would have had a smaller trailer due to the weight of the batteries reducing the remaining GCVWR that's available).

 

This is why I still believe that there will be a split in the truck market as CAFE pushes higher and higher. There will have to be city trucks and highway trucks, both optimized for different use cycles and rated accordingly. What makes a truck more useful for one use case will quite likely make the opposite use case less efficient.

[jpd80]

If you're in an area that's dead flat and towing to the max with a 5.0 XLT and getting North of 20 mpg at constant 70 mph,

you don't need a hybrid. That is tremendous fuel economy for a maxed out F150 and probably the only situation where

that would occur. (ideal for a diesel.) The good fuel economy is a sure indication that the engine is not working deep into

the throttle, so maybe an Ecoboost 3.5 would be similar.

 

So what about all the other situations where an F150 is used where speed and load varies, surely there a fairly big market

out there for people who treat their F150 like a large sedan and less like a commercial truck that's constantly maxed out.

 

Please keep in mind that Hybrid is suggested as an option only, not a replacement for gasoline engines or a diesel

and is not intended for constant load/commercial fleet like running.

Edited April 9, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Here is a wild idea, make a new diesel engine out of the new EB 2.7.

[fordmantpw]

Here is a wild idea, make a new diesel engine out of the new EB 2.7.

 

No. Just, no!

 

If you are going to make a diesel, make a diesel. Don't turn a gasser into a diesel.

[akirby]

The new EB engines with turbo DI are a lot closer to diesels than older gas engines.

[fordmantpw]

The new EB engines with turbo DI are a lot closer to diesels than older gas engines.

 

Yes, but I'm sure there are specifics to the design for burn patterns, cooling, etc that are optimized for diesel vs. gas. Maybe the block could be used for both? It is already CGI.

[akirby]

 

Yes, but I'm sure there are specifics to the design for burn patterns, cooling, etc that are optimized for diesel vs. gas. Maybe the block could be used for both? It is already CGI.

 

Well first you'd have to plug up the spark plug holes.......

[fordmantpw]

 

Well first you'd have to plug up the spark plug holes.......

 

Just fill them with glow plugs.

[akirby]

If Ford does come out with a new 3.0L TD it will be interesting to compare it with the new 3.0L EB.

[RichardJensen]

I would be very surprised if Ford hasn't at least considered using the 2.7L as a starting point for a small commercial diesel.

 

I mean, by the time all was said and done, you probably wouldn't have anything in common except maybe the bore spacing, but it might be a better starting point for a diesel than a clean-sheet.

[bzcat]

Ford already has a 2.7 Lion V6 diesel so if anything, they'd start there, not with the gasoline 2.7 EB.

 

Diesel engine design has advanced very far in the last decade so adopting a gas engine for diesel duty is basically tossing out a lot of those development experience and starting over - rather pointless and illogical from an engineering standpoint.

 

Using a similar bore and stroke as a gasoline engine may save some costs but you are probably giving up some efficiency as it is probably not the most optimum bore and stroke for a diesel of similar displacement. On an inline engine, the sharing of basic block makes more sense... on a V-engine, various cooling and exhaust requirements means packaging of gas vs. diesel are quite different, thus reducing the potential benefits of sharing the block.

Edited April 13, 2015 by bzcat

[Biker16]

The new EB engines with turbo DI are a lot closer to diesels than older gas engines.

 

That's what I was thinking, it is Ford's first Clean sheet Ecoboost engine. with the internals that are capable of hadling the presures of a Diesel engine

 

Yes, but I'm sure there are specifics to the design for burn patterns, cooling, etc that are optimized for diesel vs. gas. Maybe the block could be used for both? It is already CGI.

 

It would have specific heads, pistons and crankshaft.

 

Ford already has a 2.7 Lion V6 diesel so if anything, they'd start there, not with the gasoline 2.7 EB.

 

Diesel engine design has advanced very far in the last decade so adopting a gas engine for diesel duty is basically tossing out a lot of those development experience and starting over - rather pointless and illogical from an engineering standpoint.

 

Using a similar bore and stroke as a gasoline engine may save some costs but you are probably giving up some efficiency as it is probably not the most optimum bore and stroke for a diesel of similar displacement.

 

I'd bet the cost for a EB2.7 adapted engine would be much lower than a Lion V6. plus the tooling and production is already "mostly" paid for in the USA.

[akirby]

Forgot that the 2.7L EB was a V6.

[RichardJensen]

 

I'd bet the cost for a EB2.7 adapted engine would be much lower than a Lion V6. plus the tooling and production is already "mostly" paid for in the USA.

 

I dunno how much tooling and production could be shared. Maybe some of the block machining could be done on a common line if the bore centers are common. Beyond that, totally different heads, cams/valve trains, etc.

[jpd80]

Perhaps JLR is showing the way with its "Ingenium" engines that can be built as gasoline or diesel.

It could simply be coincidental or Ford covering all bases..

 

One thing is for sure, a modern up to date 2.7 V6 diesel should be good for around 400 lb ft and coupled

with a truck that is significantly lighter than Ram's 1500 EcoDiesel should give similar performance with even better economy.

 

A 3.3 V6 diesel would be much better, giving around 480 lb ft - plenty of torque with superb fuel economy.

[chucky2]

2.7 or perhaps even smaller. There are a lot of F-150 uses where a full size is desired and purchased yet it's just not worked that hard. One wonders if the rumored 2.8 4 cyl GM is bringing to Canyonado will make it to their 1500 series...

[jpd80]

But if all you're doing is adding the diesel for fuel economy over any real towing ability,

the 2.3 Ecoboost is probably a more economical solution, it still has 320 lb ft and that's

still way more than the base 3.5 TiVCT V6.

 

But getting F150 buyers to accept an I-4 turbo engine?

Good luck with that..

[fordmantpw]

But getting F150 buyers to accept an I-4 turbo engine?

Good luck with that..

 

That's what many thought about the turbo V6...

 

I think we will see an EB I4 in the F150 in 3-5 years.

[papilgee4evaeva]

That's what many thought about the turbo V6...

 

I think we will see an EB I4 in the F150 in 3-5 years.

 

In the name of diminishing returns, I sincerely hope not.

 

What was the last fullsize pickup to have a 4-cyl option anyway? Was there one? I ask because trucks have had 6-cyl engines forever, so turbocharging 6 cylinders never seemed too farfetched. But 4 is another matter.