Jump to content

Another new V8 ?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

Yes, Ecoboost was a Bosch invention.  Heard Bosch in India did most of the work on it.  Also heard a lot of Ford engineers felt a bit snubbed over the deal.

Bosch India (or contractors there) did most of the software coding.  It was a long path to get a change request there.  Bosch US, delay.  Bosch Germany, much longer delay. Bosch India.  Repeat coming back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theoldwizard1 said:

They were the first to "make it work"/

That was also a long time ago and originally intended for Ford Europe as a way of protecting gasoline engine sales in the face of almost landslide move to diesels. The power and torque levels originally used in the European EB 2.0 was something like 200 hp and 225 lb ft, I could imagine it working well in low boost but fuel economy suffering badly the moment the wick was turned up.

which is why US powertrain couldn’t repeat Euro derived economy, not even close. Derrick Kuzak  bought the 20% better economy  lie and spread it to Mulally not realising how much work had to be done to even get close to that number....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That was also a long time ago and originally intended for Ford Europe as a way of protecting gasoline engine sales in the face of almost landslide move to diesels. The power and torque levels originally used in the European EB 2.0 was something like 200 hp and 225 lb ft, I could imagine it working well in low boost but fuel economy suffering badly the moment the wick was turned up.

 

100% correct !  It was Ford of Europe that opened the door for Bosch in the US !

 

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

which is why US powertrain couldn’t repeat Euro derived economy, not even close. Derrick Kuzak  bought the 20% better economy  lie and spread it to Mulally not realising how much work had to be done to even get close to that number....

The 3.5L EcoBoost never achieved the number Bosch projected.  Power was acceptable, but they were way short of the projected fuel economy.

 

To me, the real tragedy was allowing Bosch to dictate software delivery schedule.  This was negotiated by Ford Purchasing with no input from Engineering.  The schedule did not "dovetail" into the typical testing/calibration cycle.  If the software did not perform according to the specification or additional features/functionality were required, it would take 6 months or Ford would have to pay a large sum (in Euros, no less) to get an "interim" delivery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, theoldwizard1 said:

The 3.5L EcoBoost never achieved the number Bosch projected.  Power was acceptable, but they were way short of the projected fuel economy.

 

Having owned 3 ecoboost vehicles starting with a 2013 Fusion, the biggest problem on early models was cylinder head cooling which required it to run rich.  That's why you see black soot on so many tailpipes.  That seems to have been fixed on the current generation.   I get great fuel mileage on my F150 3.5EB, matching or exceeding our 2016 MKX 3.7L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Having owned 3 ecoboost vehicles starting with a 2013 Fusion, the biggest problem on early models was cylinder head cooling which required it to run rich.  That's why you see black soot on so many tailpipes.  That seems to have been fixed on the current generation.   I get great fuel mileage on my F150 3.5EB, matching or exceeding our 2016 MKX 3.7L.

That head cooling problem was a result of the Cyclone V6 development preceding the application of Ecoboost,

that and the fact that early direct injection on the EB 3.5 was positioned for side entry instead of at the optimum

top center position. It’s to fords credit that it continued to develop the engine and correct early deficiencies.

 

and better, they did it without Bosch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

That head cooling problem was a result of the Cyclone V6 development preceding the application of Ecoboost,

that and the fact that early direct injection on the EB 3.5 was positioned for side entry instead of at the optimum

top center position. It’s to fords credit that it continued to develop the engine and correct early deficiencies.

 

and better, they did it without Bosch.

 

They had the same problem with the 4 cylinders.   My 2013 Fusion 2.0eb had great performance but the exhaust tips stayed black and fuel economy was good but not great.

 

And yes it is good that they've corrected it over the years, adding cylinder head cooling and other improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

They had the same problem with the 4 cylinders.   My 2013 Fusion 2.0eb had great performance but the exhaust tips stayed black and fuel economy was good but not great.

 

And yes it is good that they've corrected it over the years, adding cylinder head cooling and other improvements.

My Ecoboost Mustang gets good gas mileage (averaging about 25.5 overall), but it still has sooty tailpipes.  I also spend a good bit of time in Sport+ Plus mode or the mileage might be a little better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, akirby said:

 

They had the same problem with the 4 cylinders.   My 2013 Fusion 2.0eb had great performance but the exhaust tips stayed black and fuel economy was good but not great.

 

And yes it is good that they've corrected it over the years, adding cylinder head cooling and other improvements.

For any faults, the Ecoboost strategy was the right way for Ford to go in spite of any early problems as Ford had no choice after its own cylinder deactivation program crashed and burned.

 

id still like to see the 600 HP version from the GT in a super hot Mustang, probably go well in export markets as  XR6Turbo or some other name with local reference

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That head cooling problem was a result of the Cyclone V6 development preceding the application of Ecoboost,

that and the fact that early direct injection on the EB 3.5 was positioned for side entry instead of at the optimum

top center position. It’s to fords credit that it continued to develop the engine and correct early deficiencies.

 

and better, they did it without Bosch.

If they did it without Bosch, why is the Bosch logo on the 3.0L nano control box?  Bosch is still involved somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slemke said:

If they did it without Bosch, why is the Bosch logo on the 3.0L nano control box?  Bosch is still involved somehow.

They still buy hardware from Bosch but all the software is now written by Ford engineers, something that still triggers Bosch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 8:59 PM, jpd80 said:

For any faults, the Ecoboost strategy was the right way for Ford to go in spite of any early problems as Ford had no choice after its own cylinder deactivation program crashed and burned.

Are you referring to back in the early 80s ?  I worked on that and yes it was terrible.  The vendor (TRW ?) sold it to Cadillac.  Within a year or two it was discontinued and most of the vehicles had it disabled.

 

There was some serious discussion during the development of the BOSS engine, but I think the real issue was packaging.  No real attempt was ever made to put it on any Modular engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 3:36 AM, jpd80 said:

They still buy hardware from Bosch but all the software is now written by Ford engineers, something that still triggers Bosch.

... SOME hardware ...

Powertrain Control Module come from Continental (last I heard).  High pressure fuel pump is a Japanese supplier (not Denso).  Injectors and O2 sensor are likely from Bosch.  The rest of the sensors and actuators come from a host of different companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much technology do you think will be on the 6.8 liter V8?

Anything like variable lift and dynamic fuel management?

Also many, many years ago ford had an experimental V8 that had two cams in block, one cam intake and the other cam the exhaust 

Does anyone think we will see something like that?

edselford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, theoldwizard1 said:

Are you referring to back in the early 80s ?  I worked on that and yes it was terrible.  The vendor (TRW ?) sold it to Cadillac.  Within a year or two it was discontinued and most of the vehicles had it disabled.

 

There was some serious discussion during the development of the BOSS engine, but I think the real issue was packaging.  No real attempt was ever made to put it on any Modular engines.

The moment that Ford decided not to develop cylinder deactivation for the Boss 6.2, it was clear that it’s time in F150 would be limited thanks to tightening CAFE regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, edselford said:

How much technology do you think will be on the 6.8 liter V8?

Anything like variable lift and dynamic fuel management?

Also many, many years ago ford had an experimental V8 that had two cams in block, one cam intake and the other cam the exhaust 

Does anyone think we will see something like that?

edselford

Personally, no, I wouldn't expect to see anything like two cams in the block. If they're going to do something like that, they might as well stick with the OHC systems they already have. I think we're too late in the ICE lifecycle to see any wild developments; nobody is going to want to sink money into that when regulatory pressure is driving them out of the heart of the market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 5:38 PM, edselford said:

How much technology do you think will be on the 6.8 liter V8?

Anything like variable lift and dynamic fuel management?

Also many, many years ago ford had an experimental V8 that had two cams in block, one cam intake and the other cam the exhaust 

Does anyone think we will see something like that?

edselford

Depends on how high the performance target is set at.  Variable lift and cam, very likely.  More than one cam in block: no.  Might as well go ohc or dohc at that point.  With a large bore, 4 valve per cylinder might be facing diminishing returns....so 2 or 3 valve.  Port and direct injection.  Likely some form of Atkinson or Miller cycle for better fuel economy.

Edited by slemke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, edselford said:

How much technology do you think will be on the 6.8 liter V8?

Anything like variable lift and dynamic fuel management?

Also many, many years ago ford had an experimental V8 that had two cams in block, one cam intake and the other cam the exhaust 

Does anyone think we will see something like that?

edselford

 

Don't remember Ford working on a twin-cam-in-block V-8, but GM experimented with one:

 

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c8-general-discussion/4268742-gen-vi-engine-based-on-xv8-dual-cam-in-block-concept.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the Boss 429 was developed, there was an experimental 427 that had two cams in block. It was called “Calliope”

The bore was 4.34” and stroke of 3.62”

I don’t think it was an FE but probably based off of the 4.90” bore center.

I think it ran but with no development, produced 630 hp.

Mary, thank you for a very interesting article on the gm experimental V8

edselford

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 9:18 AM, theoldwizard1 said:

Are you referring to back in the early 80s ?  I worked on that and yes it was terrible.  The vendor (TRW ?) sold it to Cadillac.  Within a year or two it was discontinued and most of the vehicles had it disabled.

 

There was some serious discussion during the development of the BOSS engine, but I think the real issue was packaging.  No real attempt was ever made to put it on any Modular engines.

 

If you consider the Coyote an evolution of the modular design Ford is now using cylinder deactivation on a mod motor. The 2021 F-150 5.0L has it.

 

“The 5.0-liter V-8 gets a bump of 5 horsepower and 10 pound-feet of torque, to 400 horsepower and 410 pound-feet,” said Dawn McKenzie, Ford Truck Communications Manager. “We’ve also added a variable displacement cylinder deactivation function to the 5.0-liter, helping fuel economy by reducing the number of cylinders receiving fuel during lower speeds and under light loads.”

 

https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2020/10/2021-ford-f150-5-0l-v8-engine/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

 

If you consider the Coyote an evolution of the modular design Ford is now using cylinder deactivation on a mod motor. The 2021 F-150 5.0L has it.

 

“The 5.0-liter V-8 gets a bump of 5 horsepower and 10 pound-feet of torque, to 400 horsepower and 410 pound-feet,” said Dawn McKenzie, Ford Truck Communications Manager. “We’ve also added a variable displacement cylinder deactivation function to the 5.0-liter, helping fuel economy by reducing the number of cylinders receiving fuel during lower speeds and under light loads.”

 

https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2020/10/2021-ford-f150-5-0l-v8-engine/

It’s only taken ten years to get cylinder deactivation on a Coyote.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It’s only taken ten years to get cylinder deactivation on a Coyote.........

Didn’t really need it until now.  Not having it gave some additional differentiation between coyote fuel efficiency and ecoboost and the ecoboosts could get Ford the CAFE numbers needed.  Now that CAFE is tightened again, it was added.  I wonder if it will result in wider applications of the coyote.  Expedition could use a v8 option.

 

Has it shown up in the Mustang?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slemke said:

Didn’t really need it until now.  Not having it gave some additional differentiation between coyote fuel efficiency and ecoboost and the ecoboosts could get Ford the CAFE numbers needed.  Now that CAFE is tightened again, it was added.  I wonder if it will result in wider applications of the coyote.  Expedition could use a v8 option.

 

Has it shown up in the Mustang?

Also has rubber timing belt and oil pump belt that must be changed at 150,000 miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, slemke said:

Didn’t really need it until now.  Not having it gave some additional differentiation between coyote fuel efficiency and ecoboost and the ecoboosts could get Ford the CAFE numbers needed.  Now that CAFE is tightened again, it was added.  I wonder if it will result in wider applications of the coyote.  Expedition could use a v8 option.

 

Has it shown up in the Mustang?

 

I'd think that the Bronco could be a candidate for a V-8, either the Coyote or upcoming 6.8l. It's an enthusiast vehicle that can support  a massive upcharge necessary for selling a V-8, its close competition has V-8 options (Wrangler and Defender), and this could support its own "family" that they appear to be going for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...