New Ford engine discussion thread.

[jpd80]

So it's obvious that DOHC and ti-vct can allow a smaller displacement engine to make more power. That's cool. Ford's 5.0 coyote can go toe-to-toe with GM's 6.2 LS. Basically it takes roughly 25% more displacement to get the same numbers given an ohv valvetrain. This would be awesome if Ford was building a 6.2L coyote, but they're not; they're building a 5.0 coyote. So in the end, you get the same power whether you buy the GM or Ford. Two different ways to skin a cat basically.

It really doesn't go toe to toe with the 6.2, I think that's becoming the job of the EB35 with up to 450 hp and 500 lb ft.

See, the urgency and need to compete directly with the 6.2 fell away about the time that F150 buyers began to embrace Ecoboost,

look at how the Mustang 5.0's performance has trailed the 6.2 Camaro for years yet it really hasn't affected sales to enthuiasts

 

The 2018 Mustang should be much improved with better power/torque delivery band 10AT but expect a similar smaller bump

when GM released the 10AT SS Camaro. I think the gap will be a lot closer than it is now as the 5.0 Coyote needs to stay in

the higher end of its power band to really shine against the 6.2 Camaro.

 

All the while F150 buyers love their EB35, especially now that it has the 10 AT (only about 10% of Silverado 1500s have the 6.2)

I think that's where the real battle between V8 and Ecoboost is being waged (Ford now limiting the Boss 6.2 for Super Duty / E Series only)

Edited September 20, 2017 by jpd80

[White99GT]

It really doesn't go toe to toe with the 6.2, I think that's becoming the job of the EB35 with up to 450 hp and 500 lb ft.

See, the urgency and need to compete directly with the 6.2 fell away about the time that F150 buyers began to embrace Ecoboost,

look at how the Mustang 5.0's performance has trailed the 6.2 Camaro for years yet it really hasn't affected sales to enthuiasts

 

Well, the S197 5.0 dominated the 6.2 LS3 Camaros.

 

The 6th Gen's LT1 got the benefit of GDI, more compression, a lighter chassis and an 8-speed auto all at once.

 

We should see the 5.0's return to glory now that it has also gotten GDI, a compression bump, and a 10-speed auto.

 

The 5.0 shines with boost, gaining a larger HP/PSI return for a given power adder than the LS/LT.

The 5.0/6R80 is still one of the easiest way to go 9s with a relatively stock car, add boost/tire/converter and you're there.

Edited September 29, 2017 by White99GT

[jpd80]

Sure, if you're thinking Sports cars but I was looking more at F150, Expedition and Navigator

Mustang Vs Camaro is a comparatively small market especially when it comes to V8s...

Mustang buyers still love their Coyotes and keep buying them in decent numbers

 

Plenty of fans are looking forward to the first side by side tests between the '18 Mustang GT auto

and the SS camaro Auto...I think the fireworks will start with the 0-60 mph times and end in a

massive internet discussion over the 1/4 mile times.....that's pretty much a given.

 

 

I'll just add fuel economy here since Sevensecondsuv mentioned it on 5.0 Coyote Vs GM 6.2 V8 AFM

 

2017 Mustang GT 6MT........25 mpg

2017 Camaro SS 6MT.........25 mpg

 

2017 Mustang GT 6AT........24 mpg

2017 Camaro SS 6AT.........27 mpg

 

The 10AT will be the great leveler in both performance and fuel economy.

Edited September 30, 2017 by jpd80

[White99GT]

Sure, if you're thinking Sports cars but I was looking more at F150, Expedition and Navigator

Mustang Vs Camaro is a comparatively small market especially when it comes to V8s...

Mustang buyers still love their Coyotes and keep buying them in decent numbers

 

Plenty of fans are looking forward to the first side by side tests between the '18 Mustang GT auto

and the SS camaro Auto...I think the fireworks will start with the 0-60 mph times and end in a

massive internet discussion over the 1/4 mile times.....that's pretty much a given.

 

 

I'll just add fuel economy here since Sevensecondsuv mentioned it on 5.0 Coyote Vs GM 6.2 V8 AFM

 

2017 Mustang GT 6MT........25 mpg

2017 Camaro SS 6MT.........25 mpg

 

2017 Mustang GT 6AT........24 mpg

2017 Camaro SS 6AT.........27 mpg

 

The 10AT will be the great leveler in both performance and fuel economy.

 

The 2018 5.0 F150s are extremely impressive, I drove an '18 EB 3.5 back to back with an '18 5.0 and the 5.0 is now the one to get, IMO.

 

With the 6-speeds the EB had a big advantage over the 5.0, the 10-speed took that away.

The 5.0's better top end really shines now.

Edited September 30, 2017 by White99GT

[jpd80]

 

The 2018 5.0 F150s are extremely impressive, I drove an '18 EB 3.5 back to back with an '18 5.0 and the 5.0 is now the one to get, IMO.

 

With the 6-speeds the EB had a big advantage over the 5.0, the 10-speed took that away.

The 5.0's better top end really shines now.

Interesting.

So now the two engine personalities begin to shine through, the devil is in the detail

 

5.0 V8.......395 hp @ 5,750 rpm 400 lb-ft @ 3,850 rpm

3.5 EB.......375 hp @ 5,000 rpm 470 lb-ft @ 3,500 rpm.

 

The V8's higher rev range continues the torque and HP in gears for another 1,000 rpm while the EB has already shifted to a taller gear.

This becomes significant under kick down when maximum acceleration is the goal, rather than hauling or towing a load up a steep hill.

Edited October 1, 2017 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

It would be interesting to see a real world fuel mileage comparison between these two and the 2.7 EB.

[theoldwizard]

Looking at the CAFE/EPA writing on the wall, DI will start to fade away. New/pending particulate emissions are going to kill it. DI alone, does NOT add that much power or fuel economy.

[MY93SHO]

Looking at the CAFE/EPA writing on the wall, DI will start to fade away. New/pending particulate emissions are going to kill it. DI alone, does NOT add that much power or fuel economy.

"DI alone, does NOT add that much power or fuel economy."

 

Then why did everyone switch to it? You'd think the Japanese and Koreans would be smart enough to not use it.

[jpd80]

And yet Ford is going to PFDI almost across the board, so there's merit in both direct and port injection

otherwise Ford wouldn't be spending resources and cash putting two fuel systems into its engines.

 

It's the same old broken record we've heard before about engine complexity, DOHC costs more than 2V pushrod

but here we are decades later and Ford is still going with DOHC 4valve heads, dual TiVCT, charge motion valves

and now PFDI as a refinement of mixture control and adding torque and horsepower through greater efficiency.

 

The next step I can see is separate fuels for DI and PFI systems, much like the MIT Bobcat research into direct injection

of small quantities of E85 as a detonation suppressant in boosted engines run on 87 octane fuel.that is the next step in

down sizing engine s and increasing power density and efficiency to near diesel levels with fewer emission concerns.

 

All the nonsense about particulates from DI gasoline is just that, a low cost particle filter can be applied to exhaust systems and

replaced at set service intervals - it's not a big technical issue like ultrafine particles in diesel exhausts which are there all the time.

Edited October 2, 2017 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

And yet Ford is going to PFDI almost across the board, so there's merit in both direct and port injection

otherwise Ford wouldn't be spending resources and cash putting two fuel systems into its engines.

 

 

 

Far as I know, Ford is the only manufacturer doing this now. Not sure why no one else thinks this is a solution.

[jpd80]

 

Far as I know, Ford is the only manufacturer doing this now. Not sure why no one else thinks this is a solution.

Toyota tried it a decade ago, think it was called D4S,

 

Subaru flat 4 has it too, also Audi 3.2 V6 and 5.2 V10.

 

https://blog.caranddriver.com/explained-why-some-engines-have-both-port-and-direct-injection/

 

The ultimate strategy is combining both PI and DI benefits, using each to diminish the other’s negatives.

Toyota, for example, fires both injectors during low to medium load and rpm conditions—in other words,

during normal driving. This raises the density of the incoming charge without boosting and flushes carbon

deposits off the intake valves. During high load and rpm circumstances, when maximum combustion

chamber cooling is needed because detonation is more likely, DI handles all the fuel delivery.

 

Peter Dowding, Ford’s chief engineer of powertrain gasoline systems, revealed a different strategy.

Ford uses PI alone at idle and at low rpm for smooth, quiet, and efficient engine operation. As rpm

and load increase, fuel delivery becomes a programmed blend of PI and DI. In contrast to Toyota’s

methodology, Ford’s PI is always operating, responsible for at least 5 to 10 percent of the fuel delivery.

 

Dowding and his Ford engineering colleague Stephen Russ stress that carbon deposits on tailpipes

and intake valves have never been an issue in their DI engines. Dowding adds: “Now that electric

motors are being assigned increasing propulsion roles, our task is to improve engine efficiency

whenever we can. Ford’s dual-fuel technology has already proven to be a valuable, cost-effective

strategy in this effort.”

 

[theoldwizard]

"DI alone, does NOT add that much power or fuel economy."

 

Then why did everyone switch to it? You'd think the Japanese and Koreans would be smart enough to not use it.

 

And yet Ford is going to PFDI almost across the board, so there's merit in both direct and port injection

otherwise Ford wouldn't be spending resources and cash putting two fuel,mm systems into its engines.re there all the time.

Marketing.

 

DI is great IF you are allowed to exceed HC outside if the "tested" area of operations like in EU.

 

I have not seen that PFDI is going "across the board". It is VERY expensive.

[theoldwizard]

The dual fuel PFI/DI project, in combination with turbo/super charging, that Ford worked on with MIT (?) several years ago (I can't remember the name) DOES produce a lot of power. I am not sure if it can meet the new particulate standards.

 

What has surprised me is that very few companies are doing electric assist, turbocharging. (An electric motor to spin up the turbo at low exhaust flow rates.)

[jpd80]

 

Marketing.

 

DI is great IF you are allowed to exceed HC outside if the "tested" area of operations like in EU.

DI does not necessarily increase HC outside of the tested area, not the way Ford is using it.

 

Read the article i posted, Ford's use of PFDI is roughly 90% fuel through PFI and 10% via DI,

they are using the DI mostly of engine idle improvements and emission profile but also readying

for the next step which will be E85 on the DI side for increased detonation suppression.

 

I have not seen that PFDI is going "across the board". It is VERY expensive.

The engines that are getting it on Nth America are are '18 Mustang and F150 2.3 EB, 2.7 EB, 3.5 EB. 5.0 V8, 3.3 TiVCT V6

and I would expect as new product cycles arrive, those other engine types will eventually fall into line as well.

Edited October 3, 2017 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

So with this E85 direct injection idea, wouldn't that essentially mean that there will be two separate fuel tanks to keep full of two different fuels?

 

Sounds like something a dedicated gear head might put up with but that would be a deal breaker for most buyers.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[blksn8k2]

So with this E85 direct injection idea, wouldn't that essentially mean that there will be two separate fuel tanks to keep full of two different fuels?

 

Sounds like something a dedicated gear head might put up with but that would be a deal breaker for most buyers.

 

"Sounds worse than a farking diesel", as Mike Myers' Fat Bastard would say.

[jpd80]

So with this E85 direct injection idea, wouldn't that essentially mean that there will be two separate fuel tanks to keep full of two different fuels?

 

Sounds like something a dedicated gear head might put up with but that would be a deal breaker for most buyers.

or no worse than filling Bluetec urea injection tank, keep in mind that the consumption of E85 was around 3 to 5%.

of the main fuel, 87 regular instead of having to buy tank loads of 93 or even more exotic fuel.

 

I know it sounds fiddly but it was developed at a time when most thought that diesels would really struggle

with planned emission Tiers, especially in light trucks and passenger vehicles.

 

One of the engines they tested was a GM 3.6 HF V6 that was producing over 600 lb ft on 87 gas,

but one of the give backs was that engines had to be stronger like diesels to survive..

 

At the moment, I think Ford is using PFDI a similar way to also achieve detonation suppression

but not at the superior levels of E85 - I agree it's even more exotic but it's now within reach...

Edited October 3, 2017 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

Yeah, already diesel owners whine and moan about the stupid urea tanks. I just don't see the general populous putting up with it when for generations all they've had to do was keep the gas tank full.

 

Not to mention that in order to control detonation, the E85 is going to have to constitute a non-trivial fraction of the fuel mix. Combine that with the fact that stoich for E85 is a lot lower than gas, and it's obvious that it's going to take quite a bit of E85. We're not talking put a couple gallons in the urea tank once a month. It'd be more like buy 5 gallons of E85 for every 10 gallons of gas. I think I'd prefer to run on straight E85 at that point.

[92merc]

The only way I could see E85 injection would be in a high torque turbo application. Something like a 5.0 EB for the Super Duty. When adding the E85, they could bump up the boost on the turbo during E85 DI injection to give it more power.

 

I'm fairly certain I heard Ford had tested that theory a few years ago. One would think if that had worked out well, we would have been hearing about it by now.

[jpd80]

The only way I could see E85 injection would be in a high torque turbo application. Something like a 5.0 EB for the Super Duty. When adding the E85, they could bump up the boost on the turbo during E85 DI injection to give it more power.

 

I'm fairly certain I heard Ford had tested that theory a few years ago. One would think if that had worked out well, we would have been hearing about it by now.

You are, the first step is PFDI where 93 is being used to allow 510 lb ft in Raptor 3.5 EB. Small quantities of 93

(around 10% of total fuel flow) via the DI circuit assists in detonation suppression without producing excessive

emission byproducts.

 

The other side of it is that SCR was refined and became cost effective in some applications while

low gas prices have negated the need for more diesel replacements...

Edited October 3, 2017 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

DI does not necessarily increase HC outside of the tested area, not the way Ford is using it.

I never said Ford US was using it that way ! Ford EU and likely any other manufacturer using DI in EU IS !

 

I was working in Ford Engine Engineering when Bosch came to Dearborn and "sold" EcoBoost to the Ford US management. Yes, the first 3.5L EcoBoost was mostly a Bosch design with pretty much all Bosch components. The interesting back story is that Ford engineers could not reproduce the numbers that Bosch used to sell the program to Ford management. After over 1 year, Bosch sent some engineers to Dearborn to review Ford's test procedures.

 

Bottom line, Bosch deceived Ford US management by presenting data based on the then EU standards, which were (are?) MUCH LOOSER on HC at highway operation/outside of the testing region. This accounted for several MPG highway.

[theoldwizard]

So with this E85 direct injection idea, wouldn't that essentially mean that there will be two separate fuel tanks to keep full of two different fuels?

 

Sounds like something a dedicated gear head might put up with but that would be a deal breaker for most buyers.

You hit the nail on the head !

Edited October 4, 2017 by theoldwizard

[lfeg]

When it comes to particulate emissions, all I know is that the tailpipe on my '13 ecoboost F150 is blacker than the one on my mid 60s International 3414 diesel. After a long trip I even have to wipe some black off of the side of the bed just aft of the tailpipe.

[Sevensecondsuv]

If that's normal for these things, I predict a massive scandal in about 5-10 years where Ford is accused of taking advantage of a loop hole in the emissions law in order to line their pockets selling trucks that are turning the earth black. It won't be pretty.

 

Or yours is just an isolated incident.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

When it comes to particulate emissions, all I know is that the tailpipe on my '13 ecoboost F150 is blacker than the one on my mid 60s International 3414 diesel. After a long trip I even have to wipe some black off of the side of the bed just aft of the tailpipe.

If theoldwizard is correct and DI generates a lot of particulates outside of official test loops,

then it would be prudent for Ford and others to move away from that before law makers

catch up and start scrutinizing particulate emissions...

 

I suspect this is why Ford has moved to PFDI and transferred most of the fuel flow back to port injection,

we were never really told that much about how the Ecoboost engines operate under full load.