Bob Rosadini Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 2 hours ago, theoldwizard said: Believe it or not, I actually wrote software for Ford's "original" attempt at cylinder deactivation (on the old 300/4.9L I6 - dropped 3 cylinders) in about 1980 (?). It was within one year of going into production when it and 4x8 version were cancelled. Cadillac came out with a version a year later. It was so bad, customers demanded that it be eliminated (cut one wire). Well here we are 30-40 years later. And the failures back Then were due to???? I would think application of today's technology would make a big difference. I remember Cadillacs failed attempt but doesn't GM and Ram both offer it now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 4, 2020 Share Posted November 4, 2020 My F150 3.5LEB loafs along at 1200 rpm most of the time thanks to the 10 speed tranny and available low end torque even going up small hills. That plus auto stop start and aggressive deceleration fuel cut off make it easy to get 25+ mpg and still tow 12K and 3K payload. Fancy engine tricks not needed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 5, 2020 Author Share Posted November 5, 2020 19 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said: Well here we are 30-40 years later. And the failures back Then were due to???? I would think application of today's technology would make a big difference. I remember Cadillacs failed attempt but doesn't GM and Ram both offer it now? Same reason as Cadillac. It drove like crap ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Interesting to note that GM only deactivates two cylinders on the 4.3 V6, must have learned from those early deactivation disasters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 23 hours ago, akirby said: My F150 3.5LEB loafs along at 1200 rpm most of the time thanks to the 10 speed tranny and available low end torque even going up small hills. That plus auto stop start and aggressive deceleration fuel cut off make it easy to get 25+ mpg and still tow 12K and 3K payload. Fancy engine tricks not needed. You mean like turbo charging, Di, variable valve timing, hell ecoBoost is practically a flathead ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Gnostic said: You mean like turbo charging, Di, variable valve timing, hell ecoBoost is practically a flathead ? Fair enough but I was really referring to cylinder deactivation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted November 5, 2020 Share Posted November 5, 2020 Cylinder deactivation done by engine oil pressure was originally developed by Lotus Cars in England. The company was purchased by GM and later spun off but GM kept the intellectual rights to the cylinder deactivation on a V8! Edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slemke Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 16 hours ago, jpd80 said: Interesting to note that GM only deactivates two cylinders on the 4.3 V6, must have learned from those early deactivation disasters. Not surprising. Deactivating 2 cylinders puts the effective displacement between that of the 5.3l and 6.2l v8s in 4 cyl mode. I recall reading that the 6.2l hit the sweet spot for cylinder deactivation. It will be interesting to see how well the coyote runs on two legs. Probably just fine in the Mustang, but the heavier F-150 might be too much for 2.5l. If that is the case, I doubt we will see the 2.3l eb in anything larger than the Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 14 minutes ago, slemke said: Not surprising. Deactivating 2 cylinders puts the effective displacement between that of the 5.3l and 6.2l v8s in 4 cyl mode. I recall reading that the 6.2l hit the sweet spot for cylinder deactivation. It will be interesting to see how well the coyote runs on two legs. Probably just fine in the Mustang, but the heavier F-150 might be too much for 2.5l. If that is the case, I doubt we will see the 2.3l eb in anything larger than the Ranger. I believe it’s dynamic fuel cut so not 4 cylinder mode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 On 11/4/2020 at 9:33 AM, CGIron said: With the block in aluminium it will be bigger than the current 7.3 l Godzilla and that´s not the way to make it fit in many enginebays. Much better to have the engineblock in CGI as several Ford engines like 6.7 PS, 2,7 and 3 l EcoBoost. In that way it can be made much smaller, stiffer , more silent and lighter than an aluminium block, and the CGI can stand heavy trims. Used in Nascar för decades. Uh, pretty sure the 3.0L EB uses an aluminum block. The design may be similar to the 2.7L Nano V6 but the block is not. Why do you think an aluminum block 6.8 would be "bigger than the current 7.3 l Godzilla"? The overall block dimensions are generally based on the bore and stroke requirements, not the material the block is made from. As I said in my other post, because of the shorter stroke a 6.8L could have a lower deck height which would actually make it physically smaller than the 7.3L. Extra ribbing or thicker internal webbing may be required to add strength in an aluminum block, either of which might add a little more weight, but that would not make the block physically too large to fit in "many enginebays". I have nothing against using CGI for an engine block when it is necessary but for some applications it would be overkill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 6, 2020 Author Share Posted November 6, 2020 15 hours ago, edselford said: Cylinder deactivation done by engine oil pressure was originally developed by Lotus Cars in England. The company was purchased by GM and later spun off but GM kept the intellectual rights to the cylinder deactivation on a V8! Edselford Sorry Edsel. Cadillac used the exact same mechanism that TRW was trying to sell to Ford ! The software to control the mechanism was written "in house" by both companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 6, 2020 Author Share Posted November 6, 2020 On 11/3/2020 at 8:38 PM, blksn8k2 said: If they truly are going with an all new aluminum block ... On 11/3/2020 at 8:48 PM, blksn8k2 said: Also, the aluminum block opens the door for using PTWA spray bore cylinders ... Both of these "technologies" are expensive (PTWA is VERY expensive ... is there any "high volume" production engine that uses it ?). If this new engine was slated for the Mustang (which I highly doubt) then either or both might make sense. A couple hundred extra pounds in an F-series does not matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 Somewhat off-topic but I saw a short video of a 7.3L Godzilla crate motor installed in a Superformance two-seat Cobra replica. Not much detail but you can hear it running. If they can make that thing fit in something that small... The video is on V's Performance Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/VsAutomotive/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, theoldwizard said: Both of these "technologies" are expensive (PTWA is VERY expensive ... is there any "high volume" production engine that uses it ?). If this new engine was slated for the Mustang (which I highly doubt) then either or both might make sense. A couple hundred extra pounds in an F-series does not matter. All gen 3 Coyote engine have been using PTWA since 2018. That includes the Mustang GT and the F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 1 hour ago, blksn8k2 said: Uh, pretty sure the 3.0L EB uses an aluminum block. The design may be similar to the 2.7L Nano V6 but the block is not. I have nothing against using CGI for an engine block when it is necessary but for some applications it would be overkill. Did you forget that he works for Sintercast? CGI good, loominum bad..... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 12 hours ago, slemke said: If that is the case, I doubt we will see the 2.3l eb in anything larger than the Ranger. It was available in Explorer for a little while. I can't remember if it still is with the new one or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said: It was available in Explorer for a little while. I can't remember if it still is with the new one or not. It’s still listed for the 2020 Explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 6, 2020 Share Posted November 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said: It was available in Explorer for a little while. I can't remember if it still is with the new one or not. The 2.3 EB is the base engine in civilian Explorer, you can't get the atmo 3.3 V6 or V6 EB in lower trim levels. Edited November 6, 2020 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted November 7, 2020 Share Posted November 7, 2020 I wonder if GM dynamic fuel management system would further reduce CO2 when compared to regular cylinder deactivation. edselford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 8, 2020 Author Share Posted November 8, 2020 (edited) On 11/6/2020 at 8:05 AM, blksn8k2 said: All gen 3 Coyote engine have been using PTWA since 2018. That includes the Mustang GT and the F-150. According to the Ford 2011-2019 5.0L Coyote Technical Reference, page 3, Quote PTWA (Plasma Transferred Wire Arc) cylinder bores as found on the GT350 5.2L Gen 3 now up to 10 qt oild capacity with composite oil pan. (They tried a composite oil pan before with poor results.) Somewhere I head that they dropped the "piston cooling jet" oil squirters. I thought those were a good idea. Edited November 8, 2020 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted November 8, 2020 Share Posted November 8, 2020 On 11/6/2020 at 7:55 AM, theoldwizard said: Sorry Edsel. Cadillac used the exact same mechanism that TRW was trying to sell to Ford ! The software to control the mechanism was written "in house" by both companies. Isn't that what was behind the "divorce" from Navistar over the 6.4/6.0 Power Stroke fiasco??? Or at least the biggest reason??? Or should I say Navistar's defense?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edselford Posted November 8, 2020 Share Posted November 8, 2020 Great article the old wizard on ford 5.0 refinements! I was told that the 5.8 V8 version of the 6.2 failed because the cylinder deactivation system failed durability testing. I think it was a TRW system????? Please do the research on Lotus. They use to make a V8 sports car and the cylinder deactivation came out of their attempt to increase gas mileage on their own V8. I am sure that was in 1980’s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 8, 2020 Share Posted November 8, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, theoldwizard said: According to the Ford 2011-2019 5.0L Coyote Technical Reference, page 3, Gen 3 now up to 10 qt oild capacity with composite oil pan. (They tried a composite oil pan before with poor results.) Somewhere I head that they dropped the "piston cooling jet" oil squirters. I thought those were a good idea. I think you've misinterpreted the highlighted quote, all 5.0 & 5.2 now have PTAW blocks, that becomes apparent as you read the subsequent pages, 5.0 blocks don't have cast-in liners anymore. Edited November 8, 2020 by jpd80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelyD Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 On 11/3/2020 at 7:05 PM, jpd80 said: Last Quarter, Ram truck sales were 60,000 behind Chevrolet/GMC trucks and 65,000 behind Ford F Series. Whatever! Ford is putting a 6.8 in the F-150 to insure it stays #1. Powertrain engineering is my focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, SteelyD said: Whatever! Ford is putting a 6.8 in the F-150 to insure it stays #1. Powertrain engineering is my focus. Absolutely and those figures I quoted weren't meant to pull the wheels off what you were saying, I like the way you're thinking. Edited November 9, 2020 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.