Another new V8 ?

[theoldwizard]

On 11/8/2020 at 3:13 PM, jpd80 said:

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.

 

You are correct !  

[jpd80]

Thank you for that confirmation, I guess what's at the base of this thread is two things:

1. What is Ford's intentions for the 6.8 engine, limited HP model use or broader application

2. Is the 6.8 a signalling that Ford is moving away from more complex engine technologies.

 

Answering both,

I'm pretty certain that the 6.8 will be reserved for limited high end applications as getting the 6.8 to meet

tightening CAFE limits would be extremely different. Ford is now so far down tge track with using high tech

in the Coyote that it has to continue, it needs a return on all those developments.

 

 

 

[snooter]

With demise of cars ford is now forced into a due whatever it takes to maintain sales with f150...if f150 would fall out of vogue look for a merger....less complicated technology is a sure signal of fords health and is a bear-weather on the path of travel they intend to make going forth...personally, uncomplicated

 V8's with ease of shoe-horning into many as possible future performance applications makes much sense

[AGR]

37 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Thank you for that confirmation, I guess what's at the base of this thread is two things:

1. What is Ford's intentions for the 6.8 engine, limited HP model use or broader application

2. Is the 6.8 a signalling that Ford is moving away from more complex engine technologies.

 

Answering both,

I'm pretty certain that the 6.8 will be reserved for limited high end applications as getting the 6.8 to meet

tightening CAFE limits would be extremely different. Ford is now so far down tge track with using high tech

in the Coyote that it has to continue, it needs a return on all those developments.

 

 

 

 

CAFE will be less of a concern in the future with the F-150 EV coming out. The EPA calculates an MPG Equivalent for EVs, and that gets averaged in with the ICE powered vehicles. So you'll have the F-150 EV with 70-80 MPGE being averaged in with all the gasser F-150s.

[jpd80]

30 minutes ago, AGR said:

 

CAFE will be less of a concern in the future with the F-150 EV coming out. The EPA calculates an MPG Equivalent for EVs, and that gets averaged in with the ICE powered vehicles. So you'll have the F-150 EV with 70-80 MPGE being averaged in with all the gasser F-150s.

While that's true, they use the inverse mean to calculate the fleet fuel economy (gallons per mile).

Using that inverse mean stops / makes it a lot harder to average out the excessive fuel use already

recorded. it's not impossible to use EVs to cancel out thirsty vehicles but they just can't sell a lot

of them without running into difficulty.

Edited November 10, 2020 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Thank you for that confirmation, I guess what's at the base of this thread is two things:

1. What is Ford's intentions for the 6.8 engine, limited HP model use or broader application ?

2. Is the 6.8 a signalling that Ford is moving away from more complex engine technologies ?

"Limited" HP means it is not going compete with any other existing engines (why would you design an engine to compete with what you already have ?).

 

IMHO, the #1 and #2 goals are lower manufacturing cost (and hopefully customer cost).  Coyote and its variants are just too darn expensive.  They have their place, but it is in "halo" application.

 

 

[CGIron]

Which block is smaller and lighter ? The 3 l V6 aluminiumblock from Mercedes or the 3 l V6 block from Audi made in CGI?

 

https://www.sintercast.com/market/exhibitions-2012-19/

 

Scoll down to

GIFA World Foundry Trade Fair, 16-20 June 2015

" The display also included a direct comparison between the Audi 3.0 litre V6 CGI cylinder block and the Mercedes 3.0 litre V6 aluminium cylinder block, highlighting that the assembled Compacted Graphite Iron engine is 125 mm shorter and weighs 15 kg less than the aluminium engine."

 

 

 

beware of  akirby but these are raw facts. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by CGIron

[jpd80]

11 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

"Limited" HP means it is not going compete with any other existing engines (why would you design an engine to compete with what you already have ?).

 

IMHO, the #1 and #2 goals are lower manufacturing cost (and hopefully customer cost).  Coyote and its variants are just too darn expensive.  They have their place, but it is in "halo" application.

Relative to the cost of producing V6 Ecoboost engines, I'd say that the Coyote is a low cost engine.

Ford is still spending money upgrading Coyote, that tells us that Ford not planning on ending it anytime soon.

There's only two applications for Coyote, F150 and Mustang, current engine builds are about 20,000 a month.

 

TOW, I know that you've railed against Ford spending money on complicated engines, it's been a +20 year

love affair with OHC tech that's progressed over time, they're now so far down the track that they can't quit.

 

 

[slemke]

I think we would hear no end to the cost cutting complaints if the coyote is replaced by a cheaper pushrod v8.

 

How much cheaper to build are we talking anyway?  If Ford has to reduce the premium charged for a v8, would it be worth it?  Would that also reduce the premium charged for the 3.5l eb and hybrid?

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Relative to the cost of producing V6 Ecoboost engines, I'd say that the Coyote is a low cost engine.

Ford is still spending money upgrading Coyote, that tells us that Ford not planning on ending it anytime soon.

There's only two applications for Coyote, F150 and Mustang, current engine builds are about 20,000 a month.

 

TOW, I know that you've railed against Ford spending money on complicated engines, it's been a +20 year

love affair with OHC tech that's progressed over time, they're now so far down the track that they can't quit.

 

 

Well JP, would it be safe to  say, they are not quitting, just recognizing that for certain markets (commercial medium trucks), pushrods can do the job for less money?  When the 7.3 was rumored and some suggested it would NOT be OHC I found that hard to believe given the fact the mod motor  was well  established.  But when the 7.3 was introduced, the chief engineer did a good job explaining why it was the appropriate design for a Medium duty application.  And for sure, while it was emphasized that it was the proper design for heavier commercial applications, the gear heads have done a good job of turning it into a performance engine to give the LS some competition.

 

Seems like there will be room for both and who knows, maybe Ford will get serious about class 6 and 7 and we will see a new truck now that there is a cost effective alternative to diesel for a lot of operators.

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well JP, would it be safe to  say, they are not quitting, just recognizing that for certain markets (commercial medium trucks), pushrods can do the job for less money?  When the 7.3 was rumored and some suggested it would NOT be OHC I found that hard to believe given the fact the mod motor  was well  established.  But when the 7.3 was introduced, the chief engineer did a good job explaining why it was the appropriate design for a Medium duty application.  And for sure, while it was emphasized that it was the proper design for heavier commercial applications, the gear heads have done a good job of turning it into a performance engine to give the LS some competition.

 

Seems like there will be room for both and who knows, maybe Ford will get serious about class 6 and 7 and we will see a new truck now that there is a cost effective alternative to diesel for a lot of operators.

Yes, I was very interested to see how Ford would walk back from OHC to basic wedge head, pushrod engine.

The engineer did a good job but the 7.3 addresses a misstep/ foul up that occured with the 6.2 Boss nearly

ten years ago....could you imagine 5.8/7.3 V8 double act with pushrod tech back then?

As now, Instant hit with all F Series buyers and engines that could fit into E Series, stripped chassis and Mustang.

Edited November 12, 2020 by jpd80

[twintornados]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yes, I was very interested to see how Ford would walk back from OHC to basic wedge head, pushrod engine.

The engineer did a good job but the 7.3 addresses a misstep/ foul up that occured with the 6.2 Boss nearly

ten years ago....could you imagine 5.8/7.3 V8 double act with pushrod tech back then?

As now, Instant hit with all F Series buyers and engines that could fit into E Series, stripped chassis and Mustang.

 

As truck engines go, the only vehicle that has no issue fitting engines is E-Series..that beast has had everything from 232 Essex V6's to 460 Big Blocks, 7.3L Navistar diesels and even the venerable 300 cube straight six...

[jpd80]

On 11/12/2020 at 9:49 PM, twintornados said:

 

As truck engines go, the only vehicle that has no issue fitting engines is E-Series..that beast has had everything from 232 Essex V6's to 460 Big Blocks, 7.3L Navistar diesels and even the venerable 300 cube straight six...

I wonder why Ford pointed out the need for the 7.3 to fit across all applications when that was never an issue,

 the only other vehicle that I can think of that could use the 7.3 is Transit but is that even a consideration?

The 3.5 EB is powerful but gives dreadful fuel economy when loaded compared to a large Atmo gas engine.

 

[snooter]

Last thing anybody wants is a dam complicated engine that best belongs in the 1/2t....the 7.3 was needed for the f250 and f350 which is wholly dependant on useage...stuff that 6.8 in the stang and shut the barn door and move on

[twintornados]

36 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I wonder why Ford pointed out the need for the 7.3 to fit across all applications when that was never an issue,

 the only other vehicle that I can think of that could use the 7.3 is Transit but is that even a consideration?

The 3.5 EB is powerful but gives dreadful fuel economy when loaded compared to a large Atmo gas engine.

 

 

Put it in Transit T-450...

[theoldwizard]

14 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Put it in Transit T-450...

The Transit chassis (or lack there of) can not handle additional payload.  This is probably the biggest misstep in allowing EU to have the design lead.  And why are the dual rear wheels INBOARD ?  With the tall version I want as much rear wheel width on the road as possible.  That and those skinny ass rear seats !  Fine if you are under 5'4" and 150 lbs.  Most adults in the US are not !

 

Talk to people running T150/250/350.  They eat rear brakes for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  Plus the way the rotors are mounted you have to pull the axle.

[jpd80]

That’s typical FOE issues, you’d think they’d learn by now

that commercial fleets expect and deserve better than

shoddy Guibo joints, brakes that wear out quickly and 

a bitch to replace. What happened to sensible, basic design.

[silvrsvt]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That’s typical FOE issues, you’d think they’d learn by now

that commercial fleets expect and deserve better than

shoddy Guibo joints, brakes that wear out quickly and 

a bitch to replace. What happened to sensible, basic design.

 

Technically Guibo joints are simple/basic design vs CV joints.

 

It seems like higher end makes (Porsche/BMW/etc) use them alot (at least going by my Wheeler dealer TV show viewings LOL) and it seems like they might be the type of design that works fine for 100K or so, but after that your asking for problems-but the thing I can wrap my head around is why its an issue in NA and not the EU- you'd figure they would have the same problem since they are used in similar roles?!

 

As for the Transit rear brake issues-seems like its a minor issue-someone posted a video of someone doing them, and outside the additional mess, it didn't take that much longer to do then your standard brake job. 

[theoldwizard]

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That’s typical FOE issues, you’d think they’d learn by now

that commercial fleets expect and deserve better than

shoddy Guibo joints, brakes that wear out quickly and 

a bitch to replace. What happened to sensible, basic design.

What I don't understand is that these designs were used in the "rest of the world" for many years without the issues that they have encountered in the US.  What do we do different ?

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, theoldwizard said:

What I don't understand is that these designs were used in the "rest of the world" for many years without the issues that they have encountered in the US.  What do we do different ?

A guess? We grind the supplier for the lowest cost.  The concept maybe fine, but the performance spec? .... the material used?  No such thing as a free lunch.

[bzcat]

On 11/13/2020 at 3:16 PM, twintornados said:

 

Put it in Transit T-450...

 

Ford made the decision to separate the light duty and medium duty cab chassis for a reason. If you make a T-450, some unnecessary structural weight will find itself back in the T-150 or 250 vans. This was one of the reason why Ford wanted to replace the E-150 and 250 vans in the first place. What works for E-450 cab chassis doesn't really help with E-150 vans and vice versa. 

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

What I don't understand is that these designs were used in the "rest of the world" for many years without the issues that they have encountered in the US.  What do we do different ?

The big difference between USA and ROW  is the use of smaller diesels and manual transmissions,

so I wonder if that lower power, slower acceleration, increased engine braking and generally slower

journey speeds all adds up to a design found wanting when put into US conditions with higher expectations.

 

All the problems reported present as substandard or defective  parts but I wonder if it's simply the design

being a bit under done for North America.

Edited November 16, 2020 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

On 11/10/2020 at 1:54 PM, jpd80 said:

 

Answering both,

I'm pretty certain that the 6.8 will be reserved for limited high end applications as getting the 6.8 to meet

tightening CAFE limits would be extremely different. Ford is now so far down tge track with using high tech

in the Coyote that it has to continue, it needs a return on all those developments.

 

One thing Ford did not get right on the gen 3 Coyote is NVH. The damn thing sounds like a diesel typewriter at times. I tried covering up some of the injector noise on my '18 F-150 by installing a Mustang GT engine cover. While it did help some it didn't do squat for all the other miscellaneous rattles and clangs which Ford claims is "normal". It is normally embarrassing to let idle which is another reason to not switch off the Auto Stop/Start (ASS) system.

[edselford]

When I worked in the manual transmission business, we saw very different duty cycles between US and Europe transmissions.

what we called “time in gear “ life calculations for transmission durability were totally different.

Probably the points that were already discussed are all valid.

Also, Europe tended to use high numerical axle ratios ie lower speeds and more engine braking compared to US with basically all automatic transmissions with faster axle ratios !

 

edselford

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, edselford said:

When I worked in the manual transmission business, we saw very different duty cycles between US and Europe transmissions.

what we called “time in gear “ life calculations for transmission durability were totally different.

Probably the points that were already discussed are all valid.

Also, Europe tended to use high numerical axle ratios ie lower speeds and more engine braking compared to US with basically all automatic transmissions with faster axle ratios !

 

Thats due to the higher speeds the autobahn for example...I remember when I was specing out my 1998 Mustang GT while in Germany before I got out of the Army, the 3.27 gears weren't an option through AAFES Auto Sales.