VW caught cheating on emissions

[blwnsmoke]

 

It was not uncommon for EU diesels to use Engine oil to drive the injectors it was more the norm rather than the exception in the era hence the reason the 6.0L ended up with this system. The stiction issues are a combination of poor fuel and poor oil and or or infrequent oil changes. If I recall correctly the 6.0L came from ford with a conventional 15-W40 from the factory it was the base recommended oil for the 6.0L, it really should have been full synthetic EU diesels of the era were using full synthetics and I imagine that is what the designers intended for it. . The deposits from conventional oils certainly helped contribute to stiction issues, Shell Rotella T6 5w-40 is great oil for the 6.0L and with some Revx added will help with eliminating stiction over time.

 

The 6.0L was designed for the much cleaner ULSD so i'm sure the pre ULSD diesel did cause some issues but i belvie that over heating of the oil and injectors caused most of the problems.

 

One of the big killers of 6.0L injectors is fuel starvation and that is due to failing to change the filter in the fuel conditioner (the fuel filter every one forgets about) on the drivers side frame rail. This starves the injectors and is a another cause of the injectors overheating as the fuel helps cool and lubricate them. That filter is also the water separator if that filter becomes plugged either with crud or water it will starve the injectors and they will quickly burn out. It should be SOP to crack the drain plug on the fuel conditioner with each oil change, if any amount of water is found in it replace the filter.

 

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a Ford 6.0 discussion when it is a VW discussion but I'll just reply to a couple points you made on where I will agree and disagree.

 

Fuel starvation - Ford came out with a blue spring update (did it to my truck). The truck would starve for fuel when the pedal was to the floor. Pressure would drop from mid 50s psi to low 40s which yes, would kill injectors. A simple new spring "blue spring update" fixed this and did not kill injectors. What amazes me is that even Ford diesel techs didn't even know about this.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/03-07-Ford-6-0L-Powerstroke-Diesel-Fuel-Pressure-Blue-Spring-Kit-Standard-Motor-/231478618716?hash=item35e5336a5c:g:zlMAAOSw~gRVslBD&vxp=mtr

 

As far as oil goes - most who followed the diesel forums switch to Rosella T6 and I was always doing 7,500 mile oil changes. In the 160,000 miles on the truck now, it only ever had 1 injector replaced and that was around 30,000 miles where it left me stranded on the side of the road.

 

FICM - Who the hell puts a computer mounted directly to the top of the motor?? Yes, piss poor design and the internals were subpar. I sent my FICM out to Ed's FICM Repair (1/3 of the price of the still piss poor component design of the OEM) and he gutted the bad components and upgraded them. 7 day turn around, never another issue with a FICM. I was getting 39 volts at key on cycle and then 48 volts after start up. Didn't have starting issues yet but thank god I had a monitor to see it so I could get it fixed before it did leave me stranded.

 

http://ficmrepair.com

 

I don't see how a FICM is emissions related. I mean I guess you could say just about anything is emissions related but the FICM was purely a computer that controlled the injectors and it had subpar parts. When built properly, they worked and lasted forever. Ford could have easily put in better components and not had issues with them.

 

EGR cooler - Ford F'd up on this as well. When they changed from the tube style in the 2003 to the radiator style in I believe 04 or 05 they clogged much easier. Mine went out on my when my head gaskets blew at the 50k (I'm sure due to the shit gold coolant) and I upgrade to a bulletproof egr cooler (gutted 05-07 cooler with the 03 internals). This solved the coolant flow problem once switched over to the CAT-1 ELC coolant.

 

http://www.bulletproofdiesel.com/Articles.asp?ID=304

 

My understanding was that IH was washing their blocks from casting sand where Ford decided not to bother at first. Not sure on that now based on what you said.

 

In regards to HEAT.. yes, you are absolutely correct but all the fixes I listed above solved the heat problem. If Ford would have engineered this correctly, the 6.0 would not have had the reputation it has had. You fix the above issues and the motor wouldn't blink an eye at anything you commanded from it and truly last forever.

 

And yes the VT365 did not have HG issues but the 6.0 also had a higher HP/TQ rating then the VT365. In the VT365, 10 headbolts was enough but when Ford wanted more power, it simply was not enough clamping force.

 

It all comes down to where they can save a penny here and there by just "getting by" rather then ensuring it is built to proper specs.

 

If a 3rd party company can use the base of a Ford or IH design and make it better (i.e. Better FICM components, bulletproof EGR cooler etc), then Ford could have done it as well. Those components again, fixed the issues so I don't blame it on emissions.. that is proof that it can be done successfully. It was a matter of not testing enough and penny pinching.. pure and simple. Can't blame anyone but Ford for subpar components that didn't last.

 

What's funny is that given the horrible reputation of the 6.0, the 6.0s value are holding strong now. Everybody in the diesel world knows the weak points and all the easy fixes are out there. Because many of the 7.3s bodies are now rotting, people are turning to the 6.0s because they don't want to deal with the emissions crap of the 6.4 and 6.7.

 

I LOVE my 2015 6.7 but I won't keep it 1 day out of warranty. Far too expensive to fix anything motor/emissions related. Thank god Ford came out with 8yr/150,000 ESPs this year.

---------------------

Edited December 19, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[RichardJensen]

 

Here is a list you pick

 

 

Scania

MAN

MTU (Now RR Holdings)

Daimler AG

Iveco

 

All of the above had the technical know how to design the VT365 at that time. The Europeans were years ahead of the domestics at that time in terms of designing and building cleaner diesels , It remains so today as most of the passenger and light truck diesels being sold in NA have EU roots. Just do a search to see who Navistar has collaborated with in the past from the above list

 

I did an extensive search, and what I found was a number of forum posts that all referred to each other, and generally treated the use of a cartridge style oil filter as 'proof' that the engine was designed entirely in Europe.

 

I don't accept a similar pile of unsourced claims that use similar wording as persuasive.

 

And as far as which of those companies had the experience to engineer a smallish pushrod V8 diesel, I leave it to you to expand my horizons.

 

I fully support the idea that a European company like, oh, say, Bosch, would've been heavily involved in this engine, because that's how the world works these days, and that this involvement may have influenced the engine design to the extent of incorporating certain "European" elements like a cartridge oil filter.

 

But the idea that International would hire a company that had absolutely no experience building medium duty engines to design a highly complex medium duty engine? No. Not buying it.

 

Nor do I believe that International hired a competitor to design an engine for their products, and that this competitor would willingly agree to slit their own throats by delivering a state-of-the-art engine to a competitor in exchange for nothing more than up-front payments and a per-unit royalty.

 

That's not how the world works. How the world works is a company like Ford and a company like GM partner to develop a product that both companies use, or a company like Porsche provides consulting and design work for an engine that is not going to be used in a competing product (reportedly what happened with the Duratec 2.5/3.0), or a company buys rights to an engine from another company (e.g. the Rover V8) that no longer has a use for that engine. Or a company buys products from a Tier 1 supplier owned by or closely affiliated with another company (e.g. Aisin transmissions or Visteon & Delco back in the day).

 

Ford is not going to pay GM to design their next 4 cylinder and GM is not going to agree to design a 4 cylinder for Ford Motor.

[jpd80]

Random thought,

Would Ford seeking a 6.0 V8 engine from its diesel expert partner, Navistar

then allow that company / partner to outsource the design to a third party?

Edited December 19, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a Ford 6.0 discussion when it is a VW discussion but I'll just reply to a couple points you made on where I will agree and disagree.

 

Fuel starvation - Ford came out with a blue spring update (did it to my truck). The truck would starve for fuel when the pedal was to the floor. Pressure would drop from mid 50s psi to low 40s which yes, would kill injectors. A simple new spring "blue spring update" fixed this and did not kill injectors. What amazes me is that even Ford diesel techs didn't even know about this.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/03-07-Ford-6-0L-Powerstroke-Diesel-Fuel-Pressure-Blue-Spring-Kit-Standard-Motor-/231478618716?hash=item35e5336a5c:g:zlMAAOSw~gRVslBD&vxp=mtr

 

As far as oil goes - most who followed the diesel forums switch to Rosella T6 and I was always doing 7,500 mile oil changes. In the 160,000 miles on the truck now, it only ever had 1 injector replaced and that was around 30,000 miles where it left me stranded on the side of the road.

 

FICM - Who the hell puts a computer mounted directly to the top of the motor?? Yes, piss poor design and the internals were subpar. I sent my FICM out to Ed's FICM Repair (1/3 of the price of the still piss poor component design of the OEM) and he gutted the bad components and upgraded them. 7 day turn around, never another issue with a FICM. I was getting 39 volts at key on cycle and then 48 volts after start up. Didn't have starting issues yet but thank god I had a monitor to see it so I could get it fixed before it did leave me stranded.

 

http://ficmrepair.com

 

I don't see how a FICM is emissions related. I mean I guess you could say just about anything is emissions related but the FICM was purely a computer that controlled the injectors and it had subpar parts. When built properly, they worked and lasted forever. Ford could have easily put in better components and not had issues with them.

 

EGR cooler - Ford F'd up on this as well. When they changed from the tube style in the 2003 to the radiator style in I believe 04 or 05 they clogged much easier. Mine went out on my when my head gaskets blew at the 50k (I'm sure due to the shit gold coolant) and I upgrade to a bulletproof egr cooler (gutted 05-07 cooler with the 03 internals). This solved the coolant flow problem once switched over to the CAT-1 ELC coolant.

 

http://www.bulletproofdiesel.com/Articles.asp?ID=304

 

My understanding was that IH was washing their blocks from casting sand where Ford decided not to bother at first. Not sure on that now based on what you said.

 

In regards to HEAT.. yes, you are absolutely correct but all the fixes I listed above solved the heat problem. If Ford would have engineered this correctly, the 6.0 would not have had the reputation it has had. You fix the above issues and the motor wouldn't blink an eye at anything you commanded from it and truly last forever.

 

And yes the VT365 did not have HG issues but the 6.0 also had a higher HP/TQ rating then the VT365. In the VT365, 10 headbolts was enough but when Ford wanted more power, it simply was not enough clamping force.

 

It all comes down to where they can save a penny here and there by just "getting by" rather then ensuring it is built to proper specs.

 

If a 3rd party company can use the base of a Ford or IH design and make it better (i.e. Better FICM components, bulletproof EGR cooler etc), then Ford could have done it as well. Those components again, fixed the issues so I don't blame it on emissions.. that is proof that it can be done successfully. It was a matter of not testing enough and penny pinching.. pure and simple. Can't blame anyone but Ford for subpar components that didn't last.

 

What's funny is that given the horrible reputation of the 6.0, the 6.0s value are holding strong now. Everybody in the diesel world knows the weak points and all the easy fixes are out there. Because many of the 7.3s bodies are now rotting, people are turning to the 6.0s because they don't want to deal with the emissions crap of the 6.4 and 6.7.

 

I LOVE my 2015 6.7 but I won't keep it 1 day out of warranty. Far too expensive to fix anything motor/emissions related. Thank god Ford came out with 8yr/150,000 ESPs this year.

---------------------

 

Yup all related problems in short when the engine was dropped in the Pick all this stuff cropped up.

 

The blue spring mod again is a Ford application issue it is not an issue in the VT365 as the fueling requirements were not as high. The fuel injectors also suffered from this.

 

Ford asked Navistar to supply an engine and they did. Ford had no idea that the engine was not suitable as engineered for their HP and Emission specifications.

Just a couple points. The EGR cooler cooler change from tube style to radiator style was done because EGR gas temps were to way high entering the intake. The stock unit was not cooling the gasses enough in the Ford application due to the higher EGR cycle.

 

The location of the FICM on the valve cover at the time was not uncommon at the time for EU truck engines. Daimler, Scania, and MAN all mounted their injection control modules in the same or similar locations with out issue. FICM failures in the VT365 are not very common. It was marginal piece from the get go no question there. But perfectly serviceable in the designed application. In the tighter engine bay of the Ford with higher peak engine temps this marginal piece was failing. .

 

The 6.0L was good engine as designed for the application Intended it fell apart once the emissions were increased and the HP raised do either or separately and again you wouldn't have the Issues that plagued it.

Edited December 20, 2015 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

 

I did an extensive search, and what I found was a number of forum posts that all referred to each other, and generally treated the use of a cartridge style oil filter as 'proof' that the engine was designed entirely in Europe.

 

I don't accept a similar pile of unsourced claims that use similar wording as persuasive.

 

And as far as which of those companies had the experience to engineer a smallish pushrod V8 diesel, I leave it to you to expand my horizons.

 

I fully support the idea that a European company like, oh, say, Bosch, would've been heavily involved in this engine, because that's how the world works these days, and that this involvement may have influenced the engine design to the extent of incorporating certain "European" elements like a cartridge oil filter.

 

But the idea that International would hire a company that had absolutely no experience building medium duty engines to design a highly complex medium duty engine? No. Not buying it.

 

Nor do I believe that International hired a competitor to design an engine for their products, and that this competitor would willingly agree to slit their own throats by delivering a state-of-the-art engine to a competitor in exchange for nothing more than up-front payments and a per-unit royalty.

 

That's not how the world works. How the world works is a company like Ford and a company like GM partner to develop a product that both companies use, or a company like Porsche provides consulting and design work for an engine that is not going to be used in a competing product (reportedly what happened with the Duratec 2.5/3.0), or a company buys rights to an engine from another company (e.g. the Rover V8) that no longer has a use for that engine. Or a company buys products from a Tier 1 supplier owned by or closely affiliated with another company (e.g. Aisin transmissions or Visteon & Delco back in the day).

 

Ford is not going to pay GM to design their next 4 cylinder and GM is not going to agree to design a 4 cylinder for Ford Motor.

 

 

Random thought,

Would Ford seeking a 6.0 V8 engine from its diesel expert partner, Navistar

then allow that company / partner to outsource the design to a third party?

 

 

OK I found an out.

JPD Navistar just had to supply an IH manufactured engine to Ford which they did No one built the 6.0L for Navistar they just did not do the design on it.

 

As for Richard

 

Need to lay some back ground here, In 1996, PACCAR acquired DAF Trucks out of bankruptcy In, In 2000 Daimler/ Frieghtliner Acquired Detroit Diesel in, 2001 Volvo AB acquired Renault Véhicules Industriels and in turn Mack. This latter deal added Mack to the existing Volvo AB North American operation.

 

Daimler's preferred engine was now Daimler-owned Detroit Diesel. Given that Freightliner, Daimler North American truck brand, had considerable market share, this gave both Caterpillar and Cummins reason to think as a significant part of their respective market had potentially been removed.

 

For Volvo the acquisition of Detroit Diesel was welcomed as here was an opportunity legitimized by Daimler's action to pursue business in NA by with its own engine range.

 

PACCAR was probably more nervous, but had some comfort from its existing European engine manufacturing operation. DAF in Europe had been more reliant on engine supply than many of its competitors but it could at least claim to have a Plan B should supplies dry up.

 

Now this also impacted CAT and Cummins but we are just going to concentrate on Navistar.

 

 

Navistar watched the events during 2000 with some trepidation. Regardless of their expertise in Medium Duty engine production, they were wholly reliant upon supply for its Heavy Duty range. Unlike Volvo, Mack, PACCAR and Daimler Freightliner, it had no other place to go for in house engines. Navistar needed to ensure engine supply, furthermore with the impending increasing restrictions on Diesel emissions Navistar had no practical experience with ULSD motors or cleaner Diesel technology unlike the other Heavy truck manufactures that had EU operations or owners to glean experience from. .

During 2000 Navistar approached both Volvo and Cummins to ensure a continued supply of engines and shared development of Diesel emissions this proved unsuccessful and negotiations with both were suspended in 2001.

 

Navistar was getting increasingly desperate to find a partner to insure a continued supply of engines and glean experience with clean diesels.

 

Thus entered MAN.

 

MAN designed & manufactured on road engines from 50hp to 1,8000HP in 4cyl I6 V6 V8 and V12 configurations additionally they sold and manufactured their own line of trucks and buses and military vehicles under the MAN brand name and OAF , they also provided design work for other manufacturers

In addition MAN designed and manufactured off road, power generation and ship diesels.

MAN a leader in clean diesel technology was looking to increase sales in it's commercial vehicles division, but with the recent rash of mergers it appeared that there was not going to be a lot of opportunity to increase sales of their on road power plants.

 

MAN and Navistar had no competing products in their portfolio's and both were looking for what the other had to offer.

 

 

The first order of business was to get a replacement for the T444E designed and built to meet the up the coming switch to ULSD and tighter emission controls this design project was given to MAN commercial vehicles division with manufacturing to reside with Navistar In NA as the first tentative step in forming a mutually beneficial collaboration.. This project was intended to be to be a direct replacement for the T444E and the then future VT365 was designed as a medium duty diesel who's primary application was to power Navi owned IC school buses and IH medium duty trucks with that emissions regime accounted for in the design.

 

During testing of prototypes MAN found out Navi was also going to be be suppling Ford this engine for the light duty F Series this was a point of concern with MAN as this design was not intended for that emissions regime although capable of meeting those emissions they were not the parameters the engine was designed around MAN had concerns that the engine my not be entirely satisfactory for that application given the reduced emissions and proposed increased HP in the Ford application. Either the increased HP or the reduced emissions would have safely fallen within the design parameters but not both.

By that time IH had already made commitments to Ford for delivery of the 6.0L. Thus negating any opportunity of redesigning the engine.

MAN designed an engine to replace the T444E not the 7.3 power stroke.

 

MAN and Navistar continued to work on other various projects and entered in to discussions about formalizing it. This culminated in a collaboration pact with MAN for Product Design, Development, Sourcing and Manufacturing in late 2004.

 

It saw MAN agree to supply its D20 and D26 engines to Navistar. And In 2005, Navistar acquired Brazilian engine manufacturer MWM Motores. , this provided Navistar with a lower cost production site for the MAN D20 and D26 engine blocks, which would then be dressed in the Huntsville plant.

 

http://ir.navistar.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=149889

 

http://ir.navistar.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=156189

 

http://ir.navistar.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=160201

 

The 6.0L/VT365 was a MAN designed engine manufactured by Navistar just as all (in part or fully) the new Navistar engines have been for the last ten or so years

The MAN design influences are quite apparent in the VT365/6.0L, especially in the long bock assy.

 

 

Between 2011 and 2012 Volkswagen took controlling interest of MAN SE the parent group of all MAN subsidiaries..

 

SO.... technically you can now blame VW for the 6.0L not being able to perform correctly and meet emissions. And you all thought this side bar had nothing to do with the original topic ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

During testing of prototypes MAN found out Navi was also going to be be suppling Ford this engine for the light duty F Series this was a point of concern with MAN as this design was not intended for that emissions regime although capable of meeting those emissions they were not the parameters the engine was designed around MAN had concerns that the engine my not be entirely satisfactory for that application given the reduced emissions and proposed increased HP in the Ford application. Either the increased HP or the reduced emissions would have safely fallen within the design parameters but not both.

http://ir.navistar.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=149889

The 6.0L/VT365 was a MAN designed engine manufactured by Navistar just as all (in part or fully) the new Navistar engines have been for the last ten or so years

The MAN design influences are quite apparent in the VT365/6.0L, especially in the long bock assy.

 

 

Between 2011 and 2012 Volkswagen took controlling interest of MAN SE the parent group of all MAN subsidiaries..

 

SO.... technically you can now blame VW for the 6.0L not being able to perform correctly and meet emissions. And you all thought this side bar had nothing to do with the original topic ;-)

 

Not conclusive, but very persuasive. I'm convinced.

 

And thanks for digging up those press releases.

[BrewfanGRB]

Every dollar a mfr spends on expensive and/or new technology comes out of the buyers' pockets.

 

Urea injection? cha-ching!

 

If it's $200/vehicle it's no big deal. If it's $2K/vehicle it's a big deal to some folks. If it's $10K/vehicle it's a huge deal to everybody!

 

Or what if you make the regulations so strict that nobody can pass it? Then we don't get anything.

 

You have to draw the line where the benefits outweigh the costs and the market can support it. Going too far does no good.

 

Oh? Someone's forcing people to buy cars? I missed that. We've continually met emissions and fuel efficiency targets, even though the carmakers had to often be dragged, kicking and screaming to do it. But, miraculously, the standards are met and we have more highly-featured, safer and more powerful vehicles. This year, there will be a record or near-record sales in the US market. So either carmakers have figured out how to do this without raising prices so high as to cut sales or the buyers are willing to pay those prices. Either way, I fail to see why it's any concern of yours. ("Hey! Stop selling 18M vehicles, you're taking money out of people's pockets!" or "Hey! Stop buying those vehicles, you're paying for marginal increases in efficiency and decreases in emissions I don't think are worth it!")

 

And you can NEVER go too far. The goal should be getting to getting to zero tailpipe emissions. Every emission is something that was in the ground, not doing anything to us and now is IN the atmosphere--increasing warming or increasing premature death or increasing chronic illness. Is that hyperbolic? Sure. But the idea that "going too far does no good" is nonsense.

[matthewq4b]

 

Not conclusive, but very persuasive. I'm convinced.

 

And thanks for digging up those press releases.

 

No problem Richard I was not sure those releases were still available publicly.

[akirby]

Oh? Someone's forcing people to buy cars? I missed that. We've continually met emissions and fuel efficiency targets, even though the carmakers had to often be dragged, kicking and screaming to do it. But, miraculously, the standards are met and we have more highly-featured, safer and more powerful vehicles. This year, there will be a record or near-record sales in the US market. So either carmakers have figured out how to do this without raising prices so high as to cut sales or the buyers are willing to pay those prices. Either way, I fail to see why it's any concern of yours. ("Hey! Stop selling 18M vehicles, you're taking money out of people's pockets!" or "Hey! Stop buying those vehicles, you're paying for marginal increases in efficiency and decreases in emissions I don't think are worth it!")

 

And you can NEVER go too far. The goal should be getting to getting to zero tailpipe emissions. Every emission is something that was in the ground, not doing anything to us and now is IN the atmosphere--increasing warming or increasing premature death or increasing chronic illness. Is that hyperbolic? Sure. But the idea that "going too far does no good" is nonsense.

 

Huh? Where did I say that it's gone that far yet? It hasn't. All I said is that it's possible.

 

If the EPA demanded every vehicle get 50 mpg (window sticker) within one year do you really think that's obtainable with current technology?

[jpd80]

 

No problem Richard I was not sure those releases were still available publicly.

Great pick up Matthew, might I suggest you put those in a safe place in case they go missing later.

I took the time to read them fully and found the information well sourced and very convincing.

It just goes to show that keeping control of Tier 1 suppliers, especially in JVs is critical.

 

How many times have we seen OEMs burned by unauthorized changes by suppliers

or worse, flawed designs that had insufficient capability to handle all perceived challenges.

 

No wonder Ford took control of its diesel engine design and cut ties with Navistar,

that 6.7 looks to be a gem of an engine after the variable quality of past endeavors..

I wonder if a 90 degree V6 off the 6.7 is possible as another SD variant..

Edited December 21, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

 

Oh? Someone's forcing people to buy cars? I missed that. We've continually met emissions and fuel efficiency targets, even though the carmakers had to often be dragged, kicking and screaming to do it. But, miraculously, the standards are met and we have more highly-featured, safer and more powerful vehicles. This year, there will be a record or near-record sales in the US market. So either carmakers have figured out how to do this without raising prices so high as to cut sales or the buyers are willing to pay those prices. Either way, I fail to see why it's any concern of yours. ("Hey! Stop selling 18M vehicles, you're taking money out of people's pockets!" or "Hey! Stop buying those vehicles, you're paying for marginal increases in efficiency and decreases in emissions I don't think are worth it!")

What we've seen in the past few years is the formulation of a forward looking plan on fuel consumption

and emissions levels. When Manufactutrers are given both time and clear direction to execute the

objectives of those policies, then there should be no reason not to comfortably meet those goals.

 

Rapid changes in policy destabilize the reliability of set out plans, make goals and stick to them.

 

And you can NEVER go too far. The goal should be getting to getting to zero tailpipe emissions. Every emission is something that was in the ground, not doing anything to us and now is IN the atmosphere--increasing warming or increasing premature death or increasing chronic illness. Is that hyperbolic? Sure. But the idea that "going too far does no good" is nonsense.

I think getting ahead of achievable goals is key here and as I said above, provided manufacturers are given sufficient lead time

then there should be no excuses for not meeting set out goals. VW chose to cheat even though the tech was there to comply.

 

A lot of external forces on oil prices at the moment forcing down to ridiculously cheap levels but we cannot rely on that lasting

for more than a few years. So manufacturers should be spending this time pressing hard on electrification so that when the

oil companies decide to start raising prices and profits, they get the surprise of their life when more and more comsumers

start buying less of their products..that day can't come soon enough IMO.

 

My greatest wish is for Ford to deliver a Hybrid F150 that achieves the same or slightly better fuel economy

as the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel in both highway and city fuel economy loops. I hope Ford makes that happen.

Edited December 21, 2015 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

The 6.0L/VT365 was a MAN designed engine manufactured by Navistar just as all (in part or fully) the new Navistar engines have been for the last ten or so years

The MAN design influences are quite apparent in the VT365/6.0L, especially in the long bock assy.

 

 

Between 2011 and 2012 Volkswagen took controlling interest of MAN SE the parent group of all MAN subsidiaries..

 

I'd be curious to know what role this may have played in Ford's decision to go solo on the 6.7..... I mean, you can look at the 6.0L disaster and figure that poisoned the well permanently between these two companies, but I've got to think that Ford execs were already uneasy with the idea that the company they hired to design their diesel engines needed to hire a company to design their diesel engines.

[Donaldo]

Huh? Where did I say that it's gone that far yet? It hasn't. All I said is that it's possible.

 

If the EPA demanded every vehicle get 50 mpg (window sticker) within one year do you really think that's obtainable with current technology?

 

Countries with more expensive gas have had lots of 50mpg+ cars running around for a long time.

[fordmantpw]

 

Countries with more expensive gas have had lots of 50mpg+ cars running around for a long time.

 

And they don't meet US crash standards or US emissions requirements or US customer desires, or...

[akirby]

 

And they don't meet US crash standards or US emissions requirements or US customer desires, or...

 

This ^^^^

 

Also - I didn't say SOME vehicles I said ALL vehicles.

Edited December 21, 2015 by akirby

[jpd80]

 

I'd be curious to know what role this may have played in Ford's decision to go solo on the 6.7..... I mean, you can look at the 6.0L disaster and figure that poisoned the well permanently between these two companies, but I've got to think that Ford execs were already uneasy with the idea that the company they hired to design their diesel engines needed to hire a company to design their diesel engines.

It sticks out like a sore thumb, the alarm bells must have been going off but probably precious little Ford could do about it..

 

I'm glad that Ford resolved to do its own engine, the 6.7 is a well designed engine and worlds apart in terms of reliability.

[matthewq4b]

 

I'd be curious to know what role this may have played in Ford's decision to go solo on the 6.7..... I mean, you can look at the 6.0L disaster and figure that poisoned the well permanently between these two companies, but I've got to think that Ford execs were already uneasy with the idea that the company they hired to design their diesel engines needed to hire a company to design their diesel engines.

 

It sticks out like a sore thumb, the alarm bells must have been going off but probably precious little Ford could do about it..

 

I'm glad that Ford resolved to do its own engine, the 6.7 is a well designed engine and worlds apart in terms of reliability.

 

 

I'm sure Ford was a little miffed that Navistar out sourced the design of the engine. But as Jp said there was little they could do about it. And both MAN and Navi kept the origins of the engine quiet. I'm pretty sure if it got out that the new Navi Diesel in the Super Duty was of German origin I'm not sure that it would have gone over well with a good portion of the target customers.

 

As for Ford designing their own, they did not have a lot of option. Who could they go to? Cat was exiting road diesels. Ford did enter discussions with Cummins about replacing the 7.3 but it went no where and it was also off the table for the replacing the 6.4L I imagine Chrysler has them locked in for exclusivity with the 6cyl hence the reason Nissan is getting a V8. Ford was not really left with a lot of option, either stick with Navi or source an engine from a Japaneses or an EU supplier (Ford would not be able to keep that quiet) or do their own. Really the only practical solution was to do their own.

 

The 6.7 is far better than the 6.4 but not as good as the Cummins in the Ram. Personally I would have like them to see them do an I6 instead of a V8 but i'm sure Ford had their reasons for a doing a V8 The 6.7 Ford is by far the most powerful Diesel available in a Pick up.

[jpd80]

Matt, could Ford do a 90 V6 off the 6.7 V8 or would that throw up too many curve balls?

Iit would be an oddfire 90 degree V6 that keeps the crank pins like V8 for ease.

I think GM had similar plans for a V6 off their Duramax V8...

Edited December 23, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Matt, could Ford do a 90 V6 off the 6.7 V8 or would that throw up too many curve balls?

Iit would be an oddfire 90 degree V6 that keeps the crank pins like V8 for ease.

I think GM had similar plans for a V6 off their Duramax V8...

 

 

That would give you and engine of approximately 5.0L displacement I think vibration would be wicked with out a balance shafts even in odd fire configuration.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with the 4.5L either but what I do know is that the the 4.5L Duramax is not really based off the 6.6 Duramax. I think it could be better described as a new V6 that shares some component dimensions with the V8 Duramax.

 

The 4.5L Duramax is a 72° V6 and is fitted with a Balance shaft to quell vibrations with it;s common crank pins. It was designed to fit in any space the small block gas engine could. It was equipped with reverse flow heads with integral exhaust manifolds and the 72° bank angle was as narrow as they could go and still fit the turbo and cat in the engine valley The cat is basically plugged right in to the back of the turbo for increased catalyst efficiency to reduce emissions. It was reported that it could meet teir 2 bin 5 with out added SCR.

 

If Ford does in fact build a diesel F-150 then we can be sure that GM will build a diesel 1/ 2ton There are rumours that GM may revive the 4.5L for this application or use the same VM 3.0L that the Ram does. GM owned 50% of VM motori until late 2013 when Fiat bought GM's 50% share in the company, GM did put an option for guaranteed future use of the VM 3.0L diesel as a condition of the sale, and they have said that if the market demands it ( read that as as, if Ford does it) they would offer a Diesel in their half ton trucks. I doubt they would use the 3.0L VM, but you never know.

 

The AJD-V6 is good motor but pricey and I do wonder how well it will hold up in the F-150, I think Ford would be better off going down the the same road as GM did with the 4.5L, and build a new V6 Diesel "based" off the 6.7L for the F-150.

[RichardJensen]

I would think that Ford's F150 diesel would come from a different direction, based on their much larger commercial operations*; that is, that whatever diesel is developed to replace the 3.2L I-5 in the Transit would be offered in the F150 as well, as opposed to scaling down the Scorpion.

 

*GM's EU van line is badge-engineered Renaults, they've dropped their half-ton van in the US, and FCA's light duty commercial range isn't as large as Ford's.

 

BTW. I was driving behind one of them Dodge Promaster things. Watching that thing bounce around on those "We'll add payload capacity by putting really stiff leaf springs on it" rear suspension, and all I can say is I was really glad I don't have to drive one of those for a living. That looks like about as miserable a place to spend your time as anything on the road.

Edited December 23, 2015 by RichardJensen

[fuzzymoomoo]

I've heard the promaster is terrifying under any sort of turning motion

 

As long as the road is straight and flat, it's fine

[J-150]

I would think that Ford's F150 diesel would come from a different direction, based on their much larger commercial operations*; that is, that whatever diesel is developed to replace the 3.2L I-5 in the Transit would be offered in the F150 as well, as opposed to scaling down the Scorpion.

 

 

What about a 3.4 I4 off the Scorpion.

 

Would probably still put out more than the 3.2 or the FCA 3.0

[RichardJensen]

That's an awful big four cylinder, especially a diesel. Probably need engine mount bushings the size of oil drums.

[jpd80]

The AJD-V6 is good motor but pricey and I do wonder how well it will hold up in the F-150, I think Ford would be better off going down the the same road as GM did with the 4.5L, and build a new V6 Diesel "based" off the 6.7L for the F-150.

It was interesting to see that when the 2.7 & 3.6 engines were effectively replaced by the 3.0 and 4.4 respectively,

the V6 grew less in proportion with the increase done with the V8, I wonder if there's some "wiggle room"

to develop a slightly bigger V6 at 3.3 liters to give just a wick more torque and stuff up any plans by GM...

Around 460 to 480 lb ft would be enough to guarantee strong towing capacity without damaging fuel economy...

[matthewq4b]

It was interesting to see that when the 2.7 & 3.6 engines were effectively replaced by the 3.0 and 4.4 respectively,

the V6 grew less in proportion with the increase done with the V8, I wonder if there's some "wiggle room"

to develop a slightly bigger V6 at 3.3 liters to give just a wick more torque and stuff up any plans by GM...

Around 460 to 480 lb ft would be enough to guarantee strong towing capacity without damaging fuel economy...

 

The 4.5L GM developed was a beast of a V6 they claimed more than 310hp (likely 312 or something like that) and more than 550 Flbs of torque, it was not far off the figures for the 6.0L power stroke at 325 horse and 560 to 570 ftlbs torque and GM claimed 25% better fuel efficiency than the 6.6L.

 

I don't think the AJD could be pushed to near those numbers reliably. The AJD is pretty much at it's limit displacement wise. So if Ford is looking to match the 3.0L RAM the AJD is the answer.

If GM revives the 4.5L Ford will be on the short end of the stick along side Ram.

 

What Ford could do is build an Inline 5 cylinder based off the 6.7 architecture, basically cut it in half and add a cylinder, this would give you an engine of about 4.0L and should be able to manage 300hp and 475 to 500 Ftlbs in top tune. and being an inline it will offer a much better torque curve than a V engine meaning the engine will not be stressed as much to do the same work an equivalent V6 and no split crank pins as in the AJD. This would more than split the difference between the 3.0L VM and the 4.5L Duramax

 

It would be able to replace the aging 3.2L in the transit and and find a home in the F Series and Expy. Also being a 5 pot it would be cheaper to manufacture than a V6 and especially the AJD, packaging would be simpler lowering costs and being an Inline easing mait and lowering warranty costs and life of ownership costs.

 

It could also serve as a base HP option in the Super Duty (F 250) and it could be be an alternative to the V10 in the cut away vans with basically equivalent HP and more torque in top tune.

 

I don't think there has ever been a pig 5 cylinder diesel they are all great motors. A 5 pot of 4.0L could also find applications in light duty medium applications in other markets in Fords cab overs in Eurasia and South America. Ford could either replace or offer another option besides the 2.8L Cummins 4 pot used in the Super Duty in South America.

 

If it was up to me I would look very had at a 5 pot based off the 6.7 architecture it would have far more potential applications than the AJD it would be lower cost to produce offer near equivalent efficiency and there would be no question as to reliability in pick up truck applications.

Edited December 24, 2015 by matthewq4b