J-150 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Just look at the 5cyl in the Sprinter... 154 HP from 2.8L... 55HP/L... and that's an older Mercedes design. Ford's "new" 6.4 only gets 50HP/L. these are trucks... not cars. Quoting maxiumum HP is a marketing tool for car buyers. So... 55 vs 50. What is the power curve for each? What about torque? What is the the TQ per liter and what does the torque band look like? Also, what is the compression on each? There is a lot more to this that a simplistic 55 vs 50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 You notice very quickly that the European diesels pollute WAY less. There is one, and only one reason why this is so: The law requires it. Riding behind a brand new 6.4L PSD will be like taking a walk in the park as well, why? Because the law requires it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What is really sad is that Ford, up until recently the second largest auto/truck mfr. in the world and still (so far) the second largest mfr. in the US never really manufactured their OWN diesels. The real shame was installing in the 60's thru early 90's GM-owned Detroit Diesels in their heavy trucks! Add to that the cylindrical GM-owned Frigidaire AC compressor (R6?) that was fitted on their cars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiveohjim Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 No way! Nav is not going to push its biggest customer away, and Ford has no place better to go for diesels. And IIRC the issues with the 6.0 were due to FORD spec changes. Nav diesels are excellent engines providing great service in everything except EARLY 6.0 SD Fords. What I would like to see is Ford build SD trucks with engine and trans options just like they do with the F-600 on up. Wouldn't it be nice to spec out your pickup just like the bigger trucks. They do sort of. Down in brazil They build the current F250/350SD with a 3.5L B series Cummins. And the also build a ranger with 4 full size door and a 3.0L Powerstroke deisel. Somebody grey market those truck up here is the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd87 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 This little spat won't end the ford/international relationship because they need each other, and they have BY FAR the best combination in the market. Powerstrokes have been awesome (minus, as said before, a few 03-04 6 liters). The 7.3 powerstroke was the best engine ever made. I highly doubt anyone will make a motor that good ever again, but if anyone were to come close to that, IMO it'll be the company that did it before. I think that offering a second diesel option, say a cummins(dodges contract ends at the end of this year), would be a good idea. No one else offers 2 diesel options, and putting a cummins (with a better fuel pump than the dodges, of course) in a ford would bring over many dodge customers who are sick of having tin bodies and frames, their front ends rebuilt, and $400 fuel pumps replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kokomo M/W Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 The injeccters were the main problem, but there were other problems with the engineering that all added up , several years ago Navistar use to " hot test " all their engines ,then they decided to only check roughly 10% that way, the rest being checked with computor hookups, I think that is when a lot of their problems started. (bean counters). Navistar and the UAW relationship here in Indy is shaking at best, The company would love nothing better that to shut down this plant and move all the work to their SCAB plant in Alabama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 ... The 6.4 is *mostly* Ford, the wiring harness, emissions, egr, etc are all Ford designed and sourced unlike the 6.0. Wanna bet that the 6.4 is going to be much, much more reliable than the 6.0? More likely even less reliable. Your saying Ford is (ir)responsible for the shift to high pressure common rail ( HPCR)? One would have thought these guys would have developed half an IQ and gone with the CAT ACERT design. Afterall, it was the CAT injected 7.3 that put Ford and the SDs on the map. Certainly not Fords autotrannys or other powertrain "innovations" in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I still say Ford should be pursuing relationship with Volvo Penta for Diesels The Volvo heavy diesels are some of the most reliable and technically advanced in the world . Volvo is getting huge HP and torque numbers out of their units. They have a 5.5L In-line 6 that is ideally suited to the Super Duty's 370 horse and 650 FtlBs or torque. This is a low compression diesel (17.5:1). The engine was designed for marine applications a service way more severe than what any truck will see. Volvo has a few diesels that are used in both marine and truck applications. Their is about a 20% percent difference in HP ratings between the applications. (Marine being lower) to insure it's long term durability in that use. That 370hp outta the 5.5 could feasibly be bumped to 425 HP (or more) for road applications with out affecting it's durability. The advantage of going to a Volvo diesel is they could provide a turn key unit to Ford. With Ford not having to do any if little engineering. The 5.5 Volvo is a new diesel for Volvo one of the new gen higher revving units. The 5.5 is designed for planing hulls and is not a low RPM lumbering unit for displacement hulls. The engine will fit under hood of the Super Duty with out any difficulty even when fitted with all the heat exchanger gear used in marine applications that is not necessary for road applications. It is a common rail DOHC 4 valve unit with gear drive cams and designed for low fuel consumption, noise and vibration. The engine weight wise is about the same as the unit currently used in the super duty's. Eventually some one is going to wake up to this engine stuff it in a P/U truck and really clean up. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Volvo-Penta is a great idea, as they might be more flexible to work with, keeping in mind that Ford Dagenham is building an ultra high-tech 4-liter CGI casting V-8 with some input from Peugeot/Citroen. So, why not build a 6-7 liter version CGI block? Maybe Volvo-Penta might be interested in CGI tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) Volvo-Penta is a great idea, as they might be more flexible to work with, keeping in mind that Ford Dagenham is building an ultra high-tech 4-liter CGI casting V-8 with some input from Peugeot/Citroen. So, why not build a 6-7 liter version CGI block? Maybe Volvo-Penta might be interested in CGI tech. Volvo Penta has beast of a 4 banger Diesel too Again one of the new gen units 3.7 L with 250 Hp at 3500RPM and 420 Ftlbs at just 1500 Rpm with a peak torque of 465 Ft Lbs at 2500 rmp Volvo claims it is equivalent in power of 5.0L displacement Marine gas engines. Weight wise it is about the same as equivalently displaced cast iron V6's. NVH might be an issue in such a large 4 banger. But the motor is equipped with balance shafts. So primary engine vibration may not be much of an issue. They also have a 2.4L 5banger 190Hp at 3750 RPM and 295 Fltlbs of peak torque at 2000 RPM this engine has an amazingly flat torque curve it is still making 272Ftlbs of torque at 3600 RPM. This engine is again a DOHC, only it is an all aluminum engine and is on par weight wise with cast iron gas 4 bangers of similar displacements. It would be a perfect unit for the Ranger Sport Track Explorer etc. Volvo Penta has some really decent diesels that would transfer nicely in to road vehicles. It is too bad that Ford is not exploring some of these Marine units. And i,m sure Volvo Penta would be interested in the CGI for some of their smaller diesels. The 2.4 and 3.7 and possibly the 5.5 since these engines are meant for lighter weight pleasure craft planing hulls. The 5.5 is also used in commercial applications. Also the peak HP in the 5.5 from Penta is 435 Hp not 370 also the peak torque is 765 Ft Lbs of torque not 650 Ft Lbs. Using that Ford might issues trying to find a tranny that can handle that amount torque and still fit in the SD's They would have to get cozy with Allison I imagine. Ford if nothing else should consider looking at the some of the Penta Diesels for light and medium truck applications. If they find them suitable it could save them shit loads of R&D. And get end up getting diesels that are already proven reliable units. The fact that they are built and designed for Marine applications will gaurentee their durabilty in road applications. The Next Penta engine up from the 5.5L is a 9.4 L monster that could not feasably be used in Light or Medium truck applications. Matthew Edited January 21, 2007 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I cannot remember if Volvo-Penta works with Volvo Truck which in turn still belongs to GM? Sounds like a good idea and worth exploring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Volvo truck doesn't belong to GM. Never have. Volvo bought GM's heavy truck unit in '87, and marketed WhiteGMC models until '97. GM truck designs were phased out by '90 (according to wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Trucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Volvo truck doesn't belong to GM. Never have. Volvo bought GM's heavy truck unit in '87, and marketed WhiteGMC models until '97. GM truck designs were phased out by '90 (according to wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Trucks Ah there we go. Mea Culpa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 No clue why Volvo kept those diagonal braces on the WhiteGMC grilles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 No clue why Volvo kept those diagonal braces on the WhiteGMC grilles. Do you have a picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I cannot remember if Volvo-Penta works with Volvo Truck which in turn still belongs to GM? Sounds like a good idea and worth exploring. That was things were Volvo/White with the trucks. The Volvo Group (AB Volvo) Owns Volvo Penta, Mack (yes Volvo owns Mack), Renualt Trucks (and Renualt trucks), Volvo Buses, Volvo Construction Equipement, Volvo Aero, Volvo Industrial, and Volvo Finacial. Plus host of managment company's Now I suppse you could slam a Mack sticker on the Vovo Diesels if used in the Fords But not sure if that would be an advantage or a disadvantage.. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) I cannot remember if Volvo-Penta works with Volvo Truck which in turn still belongs to GM? Sounds like a good idea and worth exploring. An explination right from Volvo. Volvo truck history USA Matthew Edited January 22, 2007 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Emissions might be an issue with any Volvo diesel engine on a Class 2-5 truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 All it's missing is the Volvo emblem in the centre. Maybe those were the only grilles they had? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Emissions might be an issue with any Volvo diesel engine on a Class 2-5 truck. I do not think so Richard the Small Volvo diesels are Teir II compliant what ever the hell that is. These engines are brand NEW the 5.5 is 2 years old the 2.4 1 and the 3.4 new for 2007. And are expected to be able to meet future Emmisons with no dificulty. Part of the reason they are low compression units. They were designed to meet the incresing Marine Emmision standards. And in fact apply all the same emmision reduction tech as Road vehicals (Varible Turbine blades etc). Just no Cats. And the Euro Standrds for Marine diesel emmisions are very high. Much higher than U.S ones. I do not think getting them to meet the stadards would be that big a deal. As they were designed to do this. There were built with this in mind. Matthew Edited January 22, 2007 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 On anouther Note Volvo is already using Urea after cat treatment on it's buses. They call it Selctive Catalytic Reduction. The brand Name for the Urea Treatment formula Is AdBlue and is widly avalible in Europe. For every Liter of Diesel Fuel burned in a bus you will use about 35 ML of AdBlue. there is about a 4% increase in fuel Milage in the sytems using AdBlue and that more than pays for the Urea Treatment required for the lower emmsions. Volvo is right on the cutting edge of Diesel emmision reductions. They are the largest builder of Heavy duty Diesels in the world. So the tightening Diesel emmision regs affect them in big way. And they are way ahead of most ever body else in this field. In all reality this is where Ford should be hooking their wagon too for a Diesel engine supplier for thier Light and Medium trucks. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Well I suppose "AdBlue" is better than "AdPee". I don't think that Ford would burn a bridge with Navistar unless they had a backup.... IIRC, Diesel trucks in the next few years will have to meet Tier II Bin 5 emissions regs. That's, the equivalent of California's LEV II standards. Edited January 22, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Well I suppose "AdBlue" is better than "AdPee". I don't think that Ford would burn a bridge with Navistar unless they had a backup.... IIRC, Diesel trucks in the next few years will have to meet Tier II Bin 5 emissions regs. That's, the equivalent of California's LEV II standards. I have no idea exactly what the regs are. Do you have link stating exactly what they will be? I imagine until better tech comes along urea addtion ny be the only way to achive it. BTW AdBlue is just Urea in demineralised water. So Ad Pee might work lol. Not sure if i would want to be the guy behind the Ad Pee Diesel. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/detailedchart.pdf This has your answers. But it is hardly the easiest thing to read. Ford's diesels fall under California's MDV4 & 5 classifications (essentially, Class 2-4 vehicles). In California the emission standards depend on the weight of the vehicle (heavier vehicles can be dirtier). EPA regs do not distinguish between weight classes. The F250 is under the EPA's MDLV classification. Federal regs on Class 3 & higher vehicles are not, apparently, listed on this table. 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.