Hypothetical Build - F150 hybrid or Diesel?

[jpd80]

 

The 3.0L VM in the Ram is not at the limit of it's HP Potential it has higher HP outputs in other applications.

For Ford to match the VM 3.0L in the Ram it is likely going to require an all new engine.

 

The 3.2L 5 pot is not up to the task in current form and would require extensive reworking and still will likely have issues matching the HP and torque of the VM 3.0L in the Ram..

 

The 3.0L (AJD-V6) It is a shorter stoke higher compression engine compared to the 3.0L VM and will not really be a long term viable option as it has higher emissions pre treatment. (Although it dose exactly match the 3.0LVM's top tunes) They are in the third gen of this engine family and are just about hitting the wall in terms of further development in this engine series..

While I agree with the thrust of your post Mathew, I think the J/LR 3.0 is not as disadvantaged as we may think.

- AJD-V6's bore x stroke at 84.0mm x 90.0mm is not worlds apart different to that of the VM 3.0's 83.0mm x 92.0 mm

- Similarly the AJD-V6's 16.4:1 compression is just a tad higher than that of the VM 3.0's 15.5:1

- In terms of torque, the top J/LR 3.0 makes 271 hp/440 lb ft which heads VM 3.0's 240 hp/420 lb ft.

So you see that even though the AJD-V6 is slightly older design, it has been brought right up to date and thanks

to years of sales, the costs have no doubt been well amortized, leaving more scope for future development.

 

If we were to compare a 4WD Grand Cherokee V6 diesel with a 4WD Ranger Rover V6 diesel,

the heavier Range Rover's fuel economy is in no way disgraced when compared to the Grand Cherokee.

 

Land Rover Range Rover TDV6

8-speed auto 4WD

Urban - 8.5 l/100km

Extra Urban- 7.0 l/100km

Combined- 7.5 l/100km

 

Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo TDV6

8-speed auto 4WD

Urban - 9.3 l/100km

Extra Urban- 6.5 l/100km

Combined- 7.5 l/100km

 

I would propose a V6 Diesel engine capable of 3.0L to say 3.8L displacements a motor like that would be able to replace

the 3.2L I5 the 3.0LAJD V6 the 3.6L AJD V8 and the 4.4 Lion V8. If Ford could match the HP and torque per liter in the newest diesels on the market the 3.8L displacement could potentially yield 425Hp and 550Ftlbs of torque that is 95HP and 30FtLbs more torque than the current 4.4L Lion V8. In a lower cost, more compact more fuel efficient lower emission engine. It could replace 3 engine families with one. And being a new design it would be cleaner (pre exhaust treatment) and quieter than the ones currently in use. And I would think cheaper to manufacture.

 

That engine would be able to be spread across multiple vehicle platforms and open up new platforms for use amortizing the R&D cost rather quickly.

When looking at it this way it is a far better option than developing a Hybrid system for the F-150 as a new V6 diesel done as above would be able to find homes in platforms and applications across the globe.

 

The 3.8L displacement would actually out gun the 6.2L Boss used in the SVT Raptor and could easily find a home in the Super Duty as lower cost lighter duty diesel option over the 6.7L.

 

That is the right way to do a Diesel F150 and nuke the Ram diesel in the process.

 

 

Matthew

I like the way you think Matthew, I'm hoping that Ford could stroke the 3.0 TD V6 10% and get a 3.3 V6 with approx 480 lb ft.

I think something like that would strike a happy medium but your 3.8 proposal is great too with broader application in Super Duty..

 

The easy move would be to give the 3.2 I-5 upgraded head, cam and injection for a nice 450 lb ft torque output, those UK and

South African diesel plants aren't going anywhere, so I'd lay odds that a newer reinvented 2.2 and 3.2 Duratorq are on the way

for Transit, Ranger and maybe an F150....but yes, plenty of torque is the key...

[matthewq4b]

While I agree with the thrust of your post Mathew, I think the J/LR 3.0 is not as disadvantaged as we may think.

- AJD-V6's bore x stroke at 84.0mm x 90.0mm is not worlds apart different to that of the VM 3.0's 83.0mm x 92.0 mm

- Similarly the AJD-V6's 16.4:1 compression is just a tad higher than that of the VM 3.0's 15.5:1

- In terms of torque, the top J/LR 3.0 makes 271 hp/440 lb ft which heads VM 3.0's 240 hp/420 lb ft.

So you see that even though the AJD-V6 is slightly older design, it has been brought right up to date and thanks

to years of sales, the costs have no doubt been well amortized, leaving more scope for future development.

 

If we were to compare a 4WD Grand Cherokee V6 diesel with a 4WD Ranger Rover V6 diesel,

the heavier Range Rover's fuel economy is in no way disgraced when compared to the Grand Cherokee.

 

Land Rover Range Rover TDV6

8-speed auto 4WD

Urban - 8.5 l/100km

Extra Urban- 7.0 l/100km

Combined- 7.5 l/100km

 

Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo TDV6

8-speed auto 4WD

Urban - 9.3 l/100km

Extra Urban- 6.5 l/100km

Combined- 7.5 l/100km

 

I like the way you think Matthew, I'm hoping that Ford could stroke the 3.0 TD V6 10% and get a 3.3 V6 with approx 480 lb ft.

I think something like that would strike a happy medium but your 3.8 proposal is great too with broader application in Super Duty..

 

The easy move would be to give the 3.2 I-5 upgraded head, cam and injection for a nice 450 lb ft torque output, those UK and

South African diesel plants aren't going anywhere, so I'd lay odds that a newer reinvented 2.2 and 3.2 Duratorq are on the way

for Transit, Ranger and maybe an F150....but yes, plenty of torque is the key...

 

 

The only issue with the AJD V6 is it has already been expanded from the PSA DT17 2.7L The 2.7 was not designed to allow for a large displacement increase. So the AJD 3.0L is pretty much at capacity for a displacement increase.

 

The VM 3.0L as tuned for Maserati is making 271HP and 440 Ftlbs the same as the AJD. The 3.0l VM still has expandability left in it both in terms of HP and displacement. The AJD unfortunately is pretty much at the end of the road in terms of further increases.

 

Unfortunately the 3.2 would need more than a head upgrade, cam swap and updated fueling, the block it's self was never designed for high HP and torque figures in severe applications. It would prob top out at 260 HP and 425Ftlbs of torque and I think that would be right on the ragged of the design with out a lot of margin for error or abuse. Not exactly sure I would want to stuff that in the F150 knowing the abuse the engine will see in that application. I see shades of the 6.0L fiasco again. And that is a perfect example actually

 

The 6.0L was designed for school bus applications and IHC never bothered to tell the EU firm that designed the engine that is was also going to in to Pick Up trucks. In School bus applications the 6.0L suffered basically none of the issues the Super Duties did. When the firm that designed it was told of the issues afterwards they were like "Whoa you never told us that engine was going in to pick up trucks, the engine is fine for the specifications and applications you supplied " Which it was. Leaving IHC no recourse but to battle with Ford.

 

I would rather see a purpose built engine to insure there were no surprises down the road given the fact you know these engines are going to be pushed to the edge and beyond/ you know it won't be 12 months before tuners, DPF and EGR deletes are available so might as well factor that in during the initial design stage to handle the the higher combustion temps, pressures and HP output for the NA P/U applications.

 

LR Jag and what ever other light applications say PIU applications could use the lighter duty 3.0L version (lighter block and head castings) alleviating some weight over the truck applications. A heavier casting 3.0L for the Transit, Between say 3.3L to 3.5L for the Transit HD350 /F150 and a 3.8L for the and E/F250/350 and F-53 and F-59 stripped chassis, I could see the 3.8 becoming very popular in the stripped chassis.

 

 

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

Mathew, I'll put something to you,

When the Lion V6 and V8 were developed they had a lot of common parts, pistons, crank throw bearings cams ect...

and even though the cylinder V angle changed, the deck height between the two didn't as part of maximizing machining.

 

When Ford increased the 2.7 to 3.0, they increased both bore and stroke slightly (81mm x 88mm to 84mm x 90mm)

but with the 3.6 to 4.4, they increased both bore and increased stroke by even more (81mm x 88mm to 84mm x 98mm)

 

So if Ford kept the 3.0's bore and added the V8's 98mm stroke, we would see a 3.3 which is where I got my engine...

 

The 3.2 is not the dog you think it is, I think you'll be surprised at what eventuates, two Puma plants feeding I-4s and I-5s

to Transit and Ranger plants are not going anywhere.

 

The one thing being overlooked is Nano and its potential as a light weight diesel, perhaps there.lies Ford's "Ingenium",

a next generation engine family that takes FNA's "lion" to another level, Ecoboost and diesel staring us right on the face..

Edited May 4, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Mathew, I'll put something to you,

When the Lion V6 and V8 were developed they had a lot of common parts, pistons, crank throw bearings cams ect...

and even though the cylinder V angle changed, the deck height between the two didn't as part of maximizing machining.

 

When Ford increased the 2.7 to 3.0, they increased both bore and stroke slightly (81mm x 88mm to 84mm x 90mm)

but with the 3.6 to 4.4, they increased both bore and increased stroke by even more (81mm x 88mm to 84mm x 98mm)

 

So if Ford kept the 3.0's bore and added the V8's 98mm stroke, we would see a 3.3 which is where I got my engine...

 

The 3.2 is not the dog you think it is, I think you'll be surprised at what eventuates, two Puma plants feeding I-4s and I-5s

to Transit and Ranger plants are not going anywhere.

 

The one thing being overlooked is Nano and its potential as a light weight diesel, perhaps there.lies Ford's "Ingenium",

a next generation engine family that takes FNA's "lion" to another level, Ecoboost and diesel staring us right on the face..

 

 

I see what your saying JD

 

The AJD's are expensive engines to build and not exactly what you would call easy to do service on. The design dates to the turn of the millennium and has been on the market for over 10 years now. It is 2 generations old in terms of diesels. It wont match the VM 630 in terms of NVH or cost of production. The design was ahead of it's time at the time of introduction but has just now been eclipsed by the latest gen of Diesel's. Since 2000 we have seen huge leaps forward with Diesels in terms of NVH, Emissions, efficiency and power output. The AJD engines are great engines but they are getting long in the tooth by 2018-19 we are going to see the next gen of diesels on the market and the AJD will need to be replaced at or around that time.. If Ford got on it now they could have an engine similar to what I proposed ready for that time frame possibly sooner.

 

For right now the 3.0L ADJ would be adequate for the F150 but not sure if it would match the VM 630's fuel economy.

 

The 3.2 is a great engine it just was not designed for higher power out puts. Could you get the needed HP out of it absolutely, could you do it and have it hang together long term in a F150, probably not. Additionally you would be torque deficient with one fewer cylinders compared to the VM 630.

 

Ideally It would be nice to have it all combined in one architecture that could be stroked and bored to accommodate an 800CC increase in displacement from the get go which certainly is not out side the realms of feasibility.

 

 

Maybe the Nano is the architecture to use on a new diesel but I suspect it would require an up size in deck height to get it to 3.8L

 

Such an engine could also be used as the basis for a four pot motor The architecture of all of Fords 4 pot diesels now date from before the millennium and are long over due for a replacement.

 

A 2.5L could be had by utilizing the rods pistons (bore and stroke) Bore spacing and valve train components (which would be common across all engines, minus cams) and most of the fuel system components from the 3.8L V6 . Or a 2.0L Four pot utilizing (bore and stroke) from the 3.0L. or a 2.2-2.3L 4 pot utilizing the bore and stroke from the F150/Transit motor.

 

The sub 2.0L four pots could continue to be joint venture engines as they are now to help amortize the costs for all involved.

 

 

If done properly this one engine architecture could serve all of Fords mid displacement diesel requirements 4 and 6 cylinder. Engines currently that have either past their best before date or are quickly approaching it. This would be a signifigent cost savings for the engine architecture R&D and manufacturing, allowing for a lower cost Diesel option compared to the competition.

A diesel for the F150 in Fords case should not be "lets see what's on the shelf" and then stuff it in. But should include a corporate over view to look at all current applications and potential applications and design an engine that can accommodate as many as possible.

 

Matthew

Edited May 4, 2015 by matthewq4b

[Biker16]

I appreciate the conversation Matt and JPD are having, the question I have is how can Ford best simplify its diesel lineup, while improving the competitiveness of their engine and meeting Global emissions, standards.

 

What is the need in global Diesel engines for the next 10 years?

 

I'd like to see the new 2.0 duratorq become the base for all diesel engines less than 3 liter displacement. ranging from 75hp perliter to 105hp per liter for the Bi-turbo

 

Inline engine spaning from a 1.5l I-3 to a 2.8l I-5

1.5l I3 115hp-155hp

2.0l I4 150-210hp

 

Commercial vehicle

2.2l I4 long stroke 160-200hp

2.8l I5 long stroke, 204-250hp

 

 

3.3l I-6 long stroke 230-300hp.

 

The difficult segment is the 3 liter and higher engine segment where the global demand is much lower.

 

An I-6 based on the Global Duratorq I-4 would be a good fit for the F-150 and potentially the Transit as well, if it fits.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Biker16

[Inselaffe]

The AJD's are expensive engines to build and not exactly what you would call easy to do service on. The design dates to the turn of the millennium and has been on the market for over 10 years now. It is 2 generations old in terms of diesels. It wont match the VM 630 in terms of NVH or cost of production. The design was ahead of it's time at the time of introduction but has just now been eclipsed by the latest gen of Diesel's. Since 2000 we have seen huge leaps forward with Diesels in terms of NVH, Emissions, efficiency and power output. The AJD engines are great engines but they are getting long in the tooth by 2018-19 we are going to see the next gen of diesels on the market and the AJD will need to be replaced at or around that time.. If Ford got on it now they could have an engine similar to what I proposed ready for that time frame possibly sooner.

 

For right now the 3.0L ADJ would be adequate for the F150 but not sure if it would match the VM 630's fuel economy.

 

The VM 630 and Lion V6 were designed at the same time. It just took longer for the VM to find a vehicle!

 

There is very little that is out of date with the Lion V6 and the latest parallel sequential turbo version in the EU Range Rover Sports are making 306 bhp and 516 lb-ft with it's new low pressure EGR system and updated combustion system. They also have a single turbo version making 254 bhp and 440 lb-ft for the US LEV3 version of the Range Rover Sport, estimated at the moment 22 City and 28 Highway (compared with 20/28 for the Ram).

[matthewq4b]

 

The VM 630 and Lion V6 were designed at the same time. It just took longer for the VM to find a vehicle!

 

There is very little that is out of date with the Lion V6 and the latest parallel sequential turbo version in the EU Range Rover Sports are making 306 bhp and 516 lb-ft with it's new low pressure EGR system and updated combustion system. They also have a single turbo version making 254 bhp and 440 lb-ft for the US LEV3 version of the Range Rover Sport, estimated at the moment 22 City and 28 Highway (compared with 20/28 for the Ram).

 

Not quite the design of the 3.0L duratorq started in 2000 with an 04 introduction around the same basic time as the 6.0L.

Design Work on the VM 630 was started in 08-09 after the work on the 629 was stopped when GM cancelled the order.

They were NOT designed at the same time. nor is the 630 the same engine architecture as the 629. The 630 was introduced in 2011 in the Jeep Cherokee in the EU

 

. We are now in the 3rd gen of low emission diesels, with the VM 630 being what you could call a 2.5 gen.

 

 

The newest Diesels are all basically ecoboost set ups. All the new 3rd gen Diesels are twin sequential turbo units. With low enough production costs that they are the base engine option (with gassers as the upgrade) for some manufactures. The twin turbo AJD is right on spec for latest power outputs for 3rd gen low emission Diesels but at a much higher production cost per than equivalent 3rd gen designs.

The next gen (4th) of diesels likely will do away with the EGR some thing that Lion engines won't ever be able to achieve.

That is where Ford needs to be looking forward and not trying to retrofit a design whose basic roots are now 15 years old.

 

None of this rectifies the fact that Lion family of engines are costly pieces of kit compared to the VM630. This is just due to them being the first gen of what we could call low emission diesels. Additionally the AJD V6 has continually suffered from DPF issues since DPF was mandated this issue has never fully been sorted out after many revisions, but I suspect that it stems in part from stuffing a DPF on an older design. Most every one else launched new diesel engines just prior to DPF legislation that were cleaner burning pre treatment to reduce the load on the DPF. This has resulted in much more costly exhaust after treatment components for the ADJ compared to newer gen diesels.

There is no way you could drop the AJD in to the F150 and expect it to price match the Ram's diesel. And definitely not in ecoboost form.

 

Matthew

Edited May 5, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

I appreciate the conversation Matt and JPD are having, the question I have is how can Ford best simplify its diesel lineup, while improving the competitiveness of their engine and meeting Global emissions, standards.

 

What is the need in global Diesel engines for the next 10 years?

 

I'd like to see the new 2.0 duratorq become the base for all diesel engines less than 3 liter displacement. ranging from 75hp perliter to 105hp per liter for the Bi-turbo

 

Inline engine spaning from a 1.5l I-3 to a 2.8l I-5

1.5l I3 115hp-155hp

2.0l I4 150-210hp

 

Commercial vehicle

2.2l I4 long stroke 160-200hp

2.8l I5 long stroke, 204-250hp

 

 

3.3l I-6 long stroke 230-300hp.

 

The difficult segment is the 3 liter and higher engine segment where the global demand is much lower.

 

An I-6 based on the Global Duratorq I-4 would be a good fit for the F-150 and potentially the Transit as well, if it fits.

 

 

This has merit but the 1.5L diesels are tiny little things just given the applications they are used in. I don't think there is any way you would be able to used the same architecture to expand on it for plus 2.0L displacements. To date all of Fords Sub 2.0L Diesels have been unique engine families with no displacements over 1.9L with R&D partnered withother auto manufactures to help amortize the cost, since these small diesels are usually used in entry level vehicles.

 

An I6 of 3L Plus displacement would not fit under hood of the F150. Nor could it be used in laterally mounted applications same with a I5. A V6 is much better option that will have more potential applications to cross over in to. Starting with a 3.0L V6 and expanding up or using it as the base for Inline 4's from 2.0L on up covers the most possible applications with one basic engine architecture. A 3.8L option for the Super Duty and F53 and F59 might just be what the Doctor ordered. It should be able to have equivalent and probably better HP and Torque than the old 7.3L power stroke. It would also put a diesel back in the E Series (if it is still around by then). And expand the market for the Transit HD CCA such as ambulance use here in NA.

 

The 3.8 could in theory could have 2 cylinders added on making it 5.0L V8 diesel. That could potentially top out over 500 HP and over 730 Ftlbs of torque. But such an engine has no place currently in the line up. Also I think you would be starting to push the limits of the base architecture at those power levels.

 

I know where you are coming from Biker I much prefer In line diesels over V config myself but times have changed and these 5 and 6 cylinder inline engines just don't fit in most of todays designs for cars and even some light trucks. It sucks I know but it is what it is.

 

 

Matthew

Edited May 5, 2015 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

The V6 Lion is not an expensive engine, that is a myth perpetrated by the Auora of Jaguar/ Land Rover usage.

 

Look closely and you'll see that Ford Australia has been using the earlier 2.7 V6 single turbo in its Territory utility

for close on five years now with the option price for customers at around AUS $3,000 which is approx USD $2,200.

Sure it's a superseded engine but I'm betting FoA gets them for a very reasonable price to charge such a low premium.

 

Also keep in mind that we are comparing a couple of Utility based V6 diesels with a purpose built Truck I-5 diesel.

It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison where we just assume that the I-5 is old underpowered instead of

seeing it as an engine prepped for heavy sustained loads in Transits and Rangers. Sure the V6s can fill that role

but let's be real here, they were primarily developed as SUV and car engines with trucks a distant consideration.

 

I'm really hoping to see a Transit pick up with I-5 diesel to settle a few arguments either way Vs Ran 1500 Ecodiesel

 

 

So, how would you guys design a diesel hybrid for F150?

Perhaps a 2.2 I-4 diesel with a basic battery package and maybe a North South version of Ford's electric CVT?

.the diesel would give slugger 280 lb ft down low....Or is that hybrid best kept to a gasoline DI engine set up......

Edited May 5, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

 

This has merit but the 1.5L diesels are tiny little things just given the applications they are used in. I don't think there is any way you would be able to used the same architecture to expand on it for plus 2.0L displacements. To date all of Fords Sub 2.0L Diesels have been unique engine families with no displacements over 1.9L with R&D partnered withother auto manufactures to help amortize the cost, since these small diesels are usually used in entry level vehicles.

 

An I6 of 3L Plus displacement would not fit under hood of the F150. Nor could it be used in laterally mounted applications same with a I5. A V6 is much better option that will have more potential applications to cross over in to. Starting with a 3.0L V6 and expanding up or using it as the base for Inline 4's from 2.0L on up covers the most possible applications with one basic engine architecture. A 3.8L option for the Super Duty and F53 and F59 might just be what the Doctor ordered. It should be able to have equivalent and probably better HP and Torque than the old 7.3L power stroke. It would also put a diesel back in the E Series (if it is still around by then). And expand the market for the Transit HD CCA such as ambulance use here in NA.

 

The 3.8 could in theory could have 2 cylinders added on making it 5.0L V8 diesel. That could potentially top out over 500 HP and over 730 Ftlbs of torque. But such an engine has no place currently in the line up. Also I think you would be starting to push the limits of the base architecture at those power levels.

 

I know where you are coming from Biker I much prefer In line diesels over V config myself but times have changed and these 5 and 6 cylinder inline engines just don't fit in most of todays designs for cars and even some light trucks. It sucks I know but it is what it is.

 

 

Matthew

 

 

I really appreciate your insights,

 

I globally I just don't see the volume in >3.0 V6 Diesel engines, contrary to popular belief Ford isn't really a global player in Diesel engines. Ford needs small displacement diesels for ROW more than they need a medium displacement diesel for North america.

 

I can agree that the cost is in the cylinder design and sharing the combustion chamber design is paramount.

 

I could see an advantage in designing a .5 liter and .55 liter cylinder that could be used in I-3, I-4, I-5, V6 and V8 configurations.

 

That would yield a 3.3 V6 and 4.4l V8, which could share 60 degree engine block design.

[jpd80]

A lot of Asian regions impose steep capacity taxes on vehicles with engines over 1.5 liters, 2.0 liters and even worse if over 3.0 liters.

Edited May 5, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

 

I really appreciate your insights,

 

I globally I just don't see the volume in >3.0 V6 Diesel engines, contrary to popular belief Ford isn't really a global player in Diesel engines. Ford needs small displacement diesels for ROW more than they need a medium displacement diesel for North america.

 

I can agree that the cost is in the cylinder design and sharing the combustion chamber design is paramount.

 

I could see an advantage in designing a .5 liter and .55 liter cylinder that could be used in I-3, I-4, I-5, V6 and V8 configurations.

 

That would yield a 3.3 V6 and 4.4l V8, which could share 60 degree engine block design.

 

Actually the.3.0l area Displacement diesels are the biggest sellers globally by far and are found in more vehicles than any thing else. They are far away the most common of the smaller displacement diesels found in NA. As soon as you move in to mid size and larger vehicles the 3.0L displacement is pretty much a must.

Also once you start getting over 2.0L in a I4 diesel NVH becomes much more pronounced.

With the advent of the CUV they are the perfect size for these vehicles and most all SUV's. These heavier vehicles are where the Diesel can really shine. Even With Ford if you think of the vehicles that could in NA use a 3.0L Diesel compared to the 2.0 or 5he 2.5. The Focus Fusion C Max TC and Escape could use a 2.0-2.5 Liter diesel . The Fiesta 1.5L Everything else would really need a 3.0L or plus V6.

The only application that would require a small diesel is the Fiesta.

 

That is why using the 3.0L Displacement as the foundation works so well. You can expand up to cover everthing to the Super duty and F53 and F59 and scale down to 2.0L covering 98% of the potential sales giving you excellent economy of scale. The small diesel as they have always been are unique engine family's cost shared with manufactures No point in messing with that formula it has worked great to date for every one involved.

 

Matthew

Edited May 5, 2015 by matthewq4b

[Biker16]

Actually the.3.0l area Displacement diesels are the biggest sellers globally by far and are found in more vehicles than any thing else. They are far away the most common of the smaller displacement diesels found in NA. As soon as you move in to mid size and larger vehicles the 3.0L displacement is pretty much a must.

Also once you start getting over 2.0L in a I4 diesel NVH becomes much more pronounced.

With the advent of the CUV they are the perfect size for these vehicles and most all SUV's. These heavier vehicles are where the Diesel can really shine. Even With Ford if you think of the vehicles that could in NA use a 3.0L Diesel compared to the 2.0 or 5he 2.5. The Focus Fusion C Max TC and Escape could use a 2.0-2.5 Liter diesel . The Fiesta 1.5L Everything else would really need a 3.0L or plus V6.

The only application that would require a small diesel is the Fiesta.

 

That is why using the 3.0L Displacement as the foundation works so well. You can expand up to cover everthing to the Super duty and F53 and F59 and scale down to 2.0L covering 98% of the potential sales giving you excellent economy of scale. The small diesel as they have always been are unique engine family's cost shared with manufactures No point in messing with that formula it has worked great to date for every one involved.

 

Matthew

Globally, less than 2liters is the rule.

 

In fact Ford in Europe has almost completely phased out the 2.2 liter from passenger vehicles. With the new bi turbo 2.0 taking its place.

 

The largest diesel engine in the transit connect is only 1.6liters.

 

As of now I cannot foresee any segment outside of trucks where the new bi turbo, engine cannot excel. With the 1.5lirer diesels making 165hp, among them the replacement for the older 2.0liter diesels. In effect much like gas engines diesels are downsizing, more power with less displacement.

[matthewq4b]

The V6 Lion is not an expensive engine, that is a myth perpetrated by the Auora of Jaguar/ Land Rover usage.

 

Look closely and you'll see that Ford Australia has been using the earlier 2.7 V6 single turbo in its Territory utility

for close on five years now with the option price for customers at around AUS $3,000 which is approx USD $2,200.

Sure it's a superseded engine but I'm betting FoA gets them for a very reasonable price to charge such a low premium.

 

Also keep in mind that we are comparing a couple of Utility based V6 diesels with a purpose built Truck I-5 diesel.

It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison where we just assume that the I-5 is old underpowered instead of

seeing it as an engine prepped for heavy sustained loads in Transits and Rangers. Sure the V6s can fill that role

but let's be real here, they were primarily developed as SUV and car engines with trucks a distant consideration.

 

I'm really hoping to see a Transit pick up with I-5 diesel to settle a few arguments either way Vs Ran 1500 Ecodiesel

 

 

So, how would you guys design a diesel hybrid for F150?

Perhaps a 2.2 I-4 diesel with a basic battery package and maybe a North South version of Ford's electric CVT?

.the diesel would give slugger 280 lb ft down low....Or is that hybrid best kept to a gasoline DI engine set up......

 

Ya the 2.7 is not mearly as refined as the 3.0L..

 

It is also only making 190 HP and 325 ft lbs it is still the exact same engine Ford was making 11 years ago with NO updating other than emission compliance. So ya it should be cheap.

 

The I5 is a bit of an orphan right now. There is no point keeping it when a you could replace 3 engine families with one.

For stop gap in the F150 in the interim it may work but likely would still end up HP and Torque deficient to the VM630. it would require reworking the whole engine. From the ground up the bottom end of 2.5 I5 was never designed to take the HP increases required to make it a viable competitor to the VM630. So it could be done but would it really be cost effective long run ?

 

 

And yes 2.2l-2.3L Diesel would be adequate for a F150 Hybrid it would be about 230-240Hp and around 275 ftlbs of torque, seat of the pants it won't feel too different from 3.5L V6 from a standing stop till about 35- 40MPH on the engine alone. I think the only place it would really really be noticed is pulling hills on the hyway if the battery pack is depleted.

 

 

Peugout has a 2.0L diesel hybrid the 508RXH 4WD

 

68 MPG (US) urban / 57 MPG (US) Extra Urban / 59 MPG (US) combined

 

In the 508 with the 2.2L diesel (No gasser is offered)

29 MPG (US) urban / 50 MPG (US) Extra Urban / 39 MPG (US) combined

 

In the 508 with the 2.0L diesel (No gasser is offered)

31 MPG (US) urban / 51 MPG (US) Extra Urban / 41 MPG (US) combined

 

the 508RXH is a near Explorer sized vehicle

 

The best the Explorer can manage is 18 city / 26 hwy / 21 combined (4WD) with the 2.3 Ecoboost

 

I know it's bit like comparing apples to oranges with the EU MPG Ratings to the EPA ratings and vehicles that are not the same exact size. But the difference in Fuel economy with the hybrid Diesel in the city cycle is huge even over the regular diesel.

 

So I think there is a place for a Diesel hybrid in the F150 and it might actually be the best hybrid option when everything is taken in to consideration.

 

The diesel hybrid system with either a 2.0L or 2.3L could find a home in many of Ford vehicles Imagine an Explorer that was getting 50MPG plus or 60MPG in the city? You would likely have every LEO in the country banging on the door to get that guy in to their fleets. Not to mention it would pretty much nuke all other SUV's in the segment here in NA if the cost can be kept reasonable enough where the Diesel Hybrid option would self pay.

 

 

Matthew

 

 

.

[matthewq4b]

Globally, less than 2liters is the rule.

 

In fact Ford in Europe has almost completely phased out the 2.2 liter from passenger vehicles. With the new bi turbo 2.0 taking its place.

 

The largest diesel engine in the transit connect is only 1.6liters.

 

As of now I cannot foresee any segment outside of trucks where the new bi turbo, engine cannot excel. With the 1.5lirer diesels making 165hp, among them the replacement for the older 2.0liter diesels. In effect much like gas engines diesels are downsizing, more power with less displacement.

Yup in small vehicles and Mid sized Cars 1.5 to 2.0L is adequate. But you sill have a huge segment of CUV's and SUV's that will require bigger engines than that. 2.0L Diesels in mid sized vehicles is about as small as you want to go. We are seeing the average size of vehicles increase globally also, especially in China so many countries still have smaller vehicles, but the markets that are going to drive sales numbers NA and China such is not the case.

 

Once you start getting to the 1.5-1.6L range the engines get in to some pretty small stuff and there really is no need for expandability as they are not using displacements from sub 1.0L to 2.0L but are consolidating around 1.5 or 1.6L Once you get over that 1.9 mark you start seeing varying displacements. from 2.0 to 2.5L or even more in 4 pot motors. And you will need engines of 3.0L displacement for the foreseeable future until the SUV CUV fad passes.

It is nearly impossible to get a compact 1.5 or 1.6L engine to be able to expand up past 2.5 liters in a V6 and keep the bore spacing tight enough to fit the space requirements for some of the 1.5L applications. We have all seen what the results are of engines expected to be expandable and then compromised due to tight bore spacing.

 

 

Once you move to 2.0L inline 4's packaging requirements are not a strict and you can have a little larger external dimension also the extra mass will help with NVH issues. This is also the displacement range where we are in short order going to start seeing 250HP and 300ftlbs out of a 2.0L diesel. When you start pumping those numbers out a 2.0L 4 pot diesel the base architecture is going to have to be quite beefy so I would not start with a 1.5L engine that has seen a 33% increase in displacement as the foundation for that. In contrast starting with 3.0L V6 to also be used as the foundation for a 2.0l four pot and to get it to the 3.8L required for a light duty diesel for the Super duty and F53 and F59 only needs a 23% increase in displacement that is well well with in the means of modern engine design with out compromising structure integrity. Additionally the 3.8L wont need to be pushed balls out like the 2.0L 4 cyl's are going to be. Starting with a 3.0L V6 as the base foundation is the most sound path to take.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

 

Ya the 2.7 is not mearly as refined as the 3.0L..

 

It is also only making 190 HP and 325 ft lbs it is still the exact same engine Ford was making 11 years ago with NO updating other than emission compliance. So ya it should be cheap.

Basically all the same elements that go into the 3.0 though...apart for newer hP injection and improved heads/porting.

Really what at base here is that the Lion V6 and V8 are reserved primarily for J/LR bit if Ford saw a need, I'm sure it would use them.

And being such an advanced design when released kept the engine at the fore front when the VM V6 was released, there is no low

hanging fruit left to pick.

 

One distinct advantage of adapting to SCR exhaust treatment is that both engines would need far less if any EGR as NOX reduction

would now be handled by exuaust after treatment and catalyst. Maybe this is why Ford NA is waiting for FoE to do Euro 6 diesels

and then adapt across to US EPA, you'd have to imagine that diesels would become super clean then with better particulate filters too.

[matthewq4b]

Basically all the same elements that go into the 3.0 though...apart for newer hP injection and improved heads/porting.

Really what at base here is that the Lion V6 and V8 are reserved primarily for J/LR bit if Ford saw a need, I'm sure it would use them.

And being such an advanced design when released kept the engine at the fore front when the VM V6 was released, there is no low

hanging fruit left to pick.

 

One distinct advantage of adapting to SCR exhaust treatment is that both engines would need far less if any EGR as NOX reduction

would now be handled by exuaust after treatment and catalyst. Maybe this is why Ford NA is waiting for FoE to do Euro 6 diesels

and then adapt across to US EPA, you'd have to imagine that diesels would become super clean then with better particulate filters too.

 

 

The newer diesels are lower compression thus reducing combustion temps and reducing the amount of SCR required to get the NOX down to acceptable levels.

With lower compression comes the advantage of putting less stress on the cranks, blocks and sealing surfaces the blocks don't need to be as stress critical or sealing critical at the same HP, that is where a big chunk of the cost savings come in.

They still need EGR and DPF as all the new diesels currently on market still utilize EGR and DPF but the lower compression ratio reduces NOX emissions which in turn reduces the size of the SCR cats and the amount of urea needed thus reducing costs both production and operating.

 

The AJD's where way ahead when released but time has caught up with them They are more expensive to build than the VM630, dirtier (pre exhaust treatment) and just not a cost effective option when compared to the VM630

 

If Ford is going to be looking at a diesel for the F150 then it needs to be clean sheet utilizing the latest tech so it is a viable power plant for the next 10 or so years and not 1 or 2 and needs to be part of a family of engines.

The VM630 should get another 4 or 5 or so years before it will need to be replaced with a more modern unit.

 

Over the last 10 years we have seen diesel compression rations drop as much as 8 points in autos with some of the very newest engines down to 14:1 The diesel engines utilizing this low compression ratio do not require SCR exhaust after treatment to meet current and future proposed diesel NOX emission standards. These lower compression diesels are all sequential turbo set ups running quite high boost.

Some of the stuff in development is very high boost with even lower compression ratios. Those engines are still a couple generations away but are able to also do away with the DPF and potentially the EGR, and still meet particulate and NOX emissions. Leaving just the catalytic converter as the only required emission equipment. These diesels supposedly are cleaner than their corresponding gasoline counter parts at the tail pipe.

 

Diesel tech has advanced by leaps and bounds over the last 8 or 9 years and most of the current problems that have added cost to the diesel to meet emissions are slowly being solved and eventually will be gone in to history much like the air pump on gasoline engines.

The diesel is far from dead regardless what the detractors say.

 

Matthew

Edited May 6, 2015 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

 

The AJD's where way ahead when released but time has caught up with them They are more expensive to build than the VM630, dirtier (pre exhaust treatment) and just not a cost effective option when compared to the VM630

Matthew, where are are you getting this info from?

 

It sounds like you have some very good intel source like talking directly to engineering?

 

I wonder how this affects J/LR and diesels proposed for North America...

the new Range Rover TD V6 AWD is EPA rated at 22/28/25 mpg

FCA's Grand Cherokee TD V6 AWD is EPA rated at 21/28/24 mpg

 

One would suspect that the Range Rover at over 5500 lbs is also much heavier than the GC...

 

Something interesting from Land Rover's US site...

 

In addition to the cleansing efficiency of the SCR, every aspect of the Td6 engine has been optimized to ensure emissions

are as low as possible. This includes the new Low Pressure EGR system which has been critical to the success of Td6

emission ratings and further improves fuel economy.

 

Unlike traditional High Pressure EGR systems, which recirculate gases directly from the exhaust manifold to inlet manifold

at high pressure, the revised design takes gases at low pressure - after the DPF filter in the exhaust pipe - and feeds them

back to the turbocharger inlet. From here they pass through an intercooler, resulting in a lower peak combustion temperature.

 

The higher the peak combustion temperature, the more NOx is produced, so the low pressure EGR system has the effect of

reducing the level of NOx produced, by lowering the peak combustion temperature and improving efficiency.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Matthew, where are are you getting this info from?

 

It sounds like you have some very good intel source like talking directly to engineering?

 

I wonder how this affects J/LR and diesels proposed for North America...

the new Range Rover TD V6 AWD is EPA rated at 22/28/25 mpg

FCA's Grand Cherokee TD V6 AWD is EPA rated at 21/28/24 mpg

 

One would suspect that the Range Rover at over 5500 lbs is also much heavier than the GC...

 

Something interesting from Land Rover's US site...

 

 

 

I do some engineering consulting work is about all I can say.

 

The updated 3.0L in the range rover is a twin turbo'd and uses what they are calling low pressure EGR

Where as the VM630 is a single turbo and still using the conventional EGR system.

 

The Lion engines were ahead of their time but time has caught up with them.

 

 

What is Land rover is calling a low pressure EGR is what should have been done will all diesels as soon as DPF's were installed it is the friggen common sense thing to do.

 

The conventional system takes exhaust gas almost right from the exhaust manifold, this presents some problems.

You have exhaust gas that can be in excess of 1000F that then needs to be fed in to the motor's induction system. Well obviously you can't stuff 1000F plus exhaust gases in to the induction system. So it needs to be cooled usually with a heat exchanger using the engines coolant as the heat sink. These seems ok on the surface but turbo diesel exhaust can reach temps up to 1400F when really being pushed hard now your EGR cooler has become an engine coolant steam generator. This was one of the big problems with the 6.0L the EGR cooler over heating the engine coolant leading to head gasket and piston failures. That is why EGR delete kits are so popular for the 6.0L

 

It also raises the intake charge temp reducing efficiency of the engine.

Additionally you end up dumping all kinds of oily soot in to the intake here is link to a VW TDI intake that is being cleaned to see how bad a problem this can be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIijYgvxW0g.

 

My I5 Mercedes also had this issue but I could not heat the intake to clean it as it is a plastic intake, so it got soaked for a couple days in diesel to clean it out.

 

What Landrover has done, is do the common sense thing and take the EGR gasses from after the DPF. As should have been done by everyone as soon as DPF's were fitted.

This has several benefits.

There is no oily soot to plug up the induction system.

The gases are much cooler and by the time they travel to the injection point they have cooled even further and do not need further cooling thus eliminating the need for an egr cooler ,this increases engine reliability and reduces cost and packaging issues.

Also it sees a boost in fuel efficiency as the intake charge is a lower temp.

The low pressure EGR system can be retro fitted to any Diesel with a DPF and will eliminate the EGR cooler in the process.

 

The Range rover is less than 400Lbs heavier then the GC and just barely beats the GC in terms of fuel economy with an extra turbo and the low pressure EGR system..

 

The VM630 is a lower compression Diesel (15.someting :1) and if fitted with the same gear it would out strip the twin turbo LR engine in terms of power and efficiency.

 

The reduction of NOX has been a stumbling block of sorts for diesels.

There are a couple things used to combat this. The use of SCR exhausts and the retarding of fuel timing.

Both have disadvantages.

The SCR is added cost (manufacturing and operating) and adds complexity

The Retarding of fuel timing reduces power and efficiency.

 

But there are ways around the NOX issue.

 

Mazda for example has what could call the first low compression diesel on the market it has a compression ratio of just 14:1

 

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-d/

 

This lower compression ratio has many benefits as mentioned in the article above

 

It reduces combustion temps and thus NOX levels to the point where the SCR system is no longer needed.

Fuel timing can be advanced back resulting in more power and better efficiency.

The engine components can also be made lighter thus reducing manufacturing costs.

And last but not least NVH is also reduced.

 

The issues with low compression diesels is starting them when cold.

In years past low compression diesels had hot bulbs to over come this.

More commonly known as hot bulb engines.

 

With Piezo injectors variable valving and better glow plugs this is now a non issue.

There're are even lower compression diesels in the works with compression ratios as low as 12.5:1.

 

 

If Ford is going to stuff a diesel in the F150 it needs to be clean sheet using the latest advancements.

It will make for a lighter more efficient engine, that produces more power per liter, with simpler exhaust after treatment and has lower over all cost.

 

Using the 3.0L ADJ would be a short term stop gap at best.

 

Matthew

Edited May 6, 2015 by matthewq4b

[fordmantpw]

Just gotta say, I love reading this stuff Matthew. Very interesting!

[jpd80]

Thanks Matthew, I knew you had some pretty red hot intel on this....

 

So after reading Matthew's thoughts on next generation low compression diesels, I really am beginning to wonder

if Nano's V6 architecture may see use as a diesel as well as Ecoboost. It's as though Ford was taking notes when

Jaguar land Rover set about designing its "Ingenium" I-4 multi-fuel engine family.

 

To make the Nano architecture conducive to truly efficient diesel design, I suspect that additional design elements

like reverse head design allowing a centralized turbo with twin scroll technology.Combine that with the latest ideas

in lowered static compression ratio reducing NOX and enabling more boost (charge density) and Ford is well on

its way to a class leading diesel engine.

Edited May 7, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Thanks Matthew, I knew you had some pretty red hot intel on this....

 

So after reading Matthew's thoughts on next generation low compression diesels, I really am beginning to wonder

if Nano's V6 architecture may see use as a diesel as well as Ecoboost. It's as though Ford was taking notes when

Jaguar land Rover set about designing its "Ingenium" I-4 multi-fuel engine family.

 

To make the Nano architecture conducive to truly efficient diesel design, I suspect that additional design elements

like reverse head design allowing a centralized turbo with twin scroll technology.Combine that with the latest ideas

in lowered static compression ratio reducing NOX and enabling more boost (charge density) and Ford is well on

its way to a class leading diesel engine.

 

 

Ok to really blow your mind check out Mazda's Skyactive-Gasoline engine. Take note of the compression ratio.

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-g/

 

You see where all this is going.....

 

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

 

 

Ok to really blow your mind check out Mazda's Skyactive-Gasoline engine. Take note of the compression ratio.

http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-g/

 

You see where all this is going.....

 

 

Matthew

It's as though Mazda is taking a Hybrid Atkinson cycle 2.0 GDI to the upper compression limit and then using late exhaust valve timing

to trim actual capacity but still retain decent compression.

 

The interesting part for me is that for all of Mazda's talk of low comp SkyActiv Diesel being superior and more efficient

at meeting tougher emissions, it is still to present an EPA emission compliant SkyActiv diesel, insufficient sales potential?

I'm beting that Mazda has hit the brick wall with trying to convince people to buy such a technological marvel.....

Edited May 7, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

Yup in small vehicles and Mid sized Cars 1.5 to 2.0L is adequate. But you sill have a huge segment of CUV's and SUV's that will require bigger engines than that. 2.0L Diesels in mid sized vehicles is about as small as you want to go. We are seeing the average size of vehicles increase globally also, especially in China so many countries still have smaller vehicles, but the markets that are going to drive sales numbers NA and China such is not the case.

 

Once you start getting to the 1.5-1.6L range the engines get in to some pretty small stuff and there really is no need for expandability as they are not using displacements from sub 1.0L to 2.0L but are consolidating around 1.5 or 1.6L Once you get over that 1.9 mark you start seeing varying displacements. from 2.0 to 2.5L or even more in 4 pot motors. And you will need engines of 3.0L displacement for the foreseeable future until the SUV CUV fad passes.

It is nearly impossible to get a compact 1.5 or 1.6L engine to be able to expand up past 2.5 liters in a V6 and keep the bore spacing tight enough to fit the space requirements for some of the 1.5L applications. We have all seen what the results are of engines expected to be expandable and then compromised due to tight bore spacing.

 

 

Once you move to 2.0L inline 4's packaging requirements are not a strict and you can have a little larger external dimension also the extra mass will help with NVH issues. This is also the displacement range where we are in short order going to start seeing 250HP and 300ftlbs out of a 2.0L diesel. When you start pumping those numbers out a 2.0L 4 pot diesel the base architecture is going to have to be quite beefy so I would not start with a 1.5L engine that has seen a 33% increase in displacement as the foundation for that. In contrast starting with 3.0L V6 to also be used as the foundation for a 2.0l four pot and to get it to the 3.8L required for a light duty diesel for the Super duty and F53 and F59 only needs a 23% increase in displacement that is well well with in the means of modern engine design with out compromising structure integrity. Additionally the 3.8L wont need to be pushed balls out like the 2.0L 4 cyl's are going to be. Starting with a 3.0L V6 as the base foundation is the most sound path to take.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

 

just to clarify, the 1.5l was a I-3 not an1-4,

[matthewq4b]

It's as though Mazda is taking a Hybrid Atkinson cycle 2.0 GDI to the upper compression limit and then using late exhaust valve timing

to trim actual capacity but still retain decent compression.

 

The interesting part for me is that for all of Mazda's talk of low comp SkyActiv Diesel being superior and more efficient

at meeting tougher emissions, it is still to present an EPA emission compliant SkyActiv diesel, insufficient sales potential?

I'm beting that Mazda has hit the brick wall with trying to convince people to buy such a technological marvel.....

 

 

They had intended for a 2014 launch here in Canada not sure about the US, But from my understanding Mazda was having issues with drivability and in turn emissions with extreme cold weather starts and still being able to maintain the performance expected in certain circumstances. Diesels generally see quite a reduction in power during warm up when they are in extremely cold

 

Additionally Mazda has had some minor reliability issues in some markets (it is Mazda mind you). So they want to iron all this out before launching in the all important NA market . Mazda has said they are working on solutions for this and hopes it can resolve the problems with revised calibration. Barring that if it can not be resolved quickly they will fit SRC to be used during warm up only. SCR will require a redesign of the vehicles to accommodate it so I think they are trying to find a way of doing it with revised calibration.

 

It is the first iteration of this tech and it will have teething problems, and again it is Mazda.

 

We have seen similar issues from several different manufactures when new diesel tech is launched. I think everyone learned their lesson from the 6.0L fiasco and are a bit gun shy and want to make sure there is as little chance as possible to repeat that.

Even the Germans are getting a couple years use under their belts in the EU market and else where before coming here with new diesels.

Fiat Chrysler did the same with the VM630 it got used in other markets for a couple years to iron out the teething problems before ending up here in NA.

 

We here in North America tend to be vocal lot and litigation happy and more than eager to smear products all over the place when it is shall we say are not all they are claimed to be.

So I can't say I fault Mazda or any one else for that matter for making sure things are all sorted out before selling here.

 

 

Matthew

Edited May 8, 2015 by matthewq4b