Cummins new gas engine

[Acoals]

I think the Ford Ecoboost is a big step in the right direction.

In theory, yes, except the fact that those engines are nothing but expensive problems. They don't hold up real well; there is a reason Ford never put them in the heavy trucks, instead going back to naturally aspirated big cube gas.

 

[Shimmy1]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I would be in favor of leaving all the highway vehicles alone, if we could go back to Tier 2 on every single off-highway piece of equipment made.

To me, Tier 2 was the pinnacle in diesel engine design. Yes, they still stink, but that's about it, nothing like a blue haze chugging Big Cam, or a slobbering Detroit.

 

[BC Placer gold]

In theory, yes, except the fact that those engines are nothing but expensive problems. They don't hold up real well; there is a reason Ford never put them in the heavy trucks, instead going back to naturally aspirated big cube gas.

i have a really nice condition F150 2017 ‘lawn ornament’ currently (wrecking yard 3.5 eco boost price here-$6000 to $7000). Ran really nice and smooth for a while (lol!). It was a rare unit with higher payload (2500lbs)/gvw 7800lbs so could legally scale with tidy tank/tools etc.

I think overly complicated: failure prone cam phasers, 2 tiny hard to access turbos, 2 timing chains, intercooler (plastic).

1. Very hard on fuel with any load/hauling (pretty good empty)

2. Next to zero holdback on descents (10 speed would drop and bunch of gears, rev high and make a lot of noise)

Just my opinion…

 

[cfherrman]

There's nothing wrong with the eco boost, there's everything wrong with current new engine designs. Eco boost a old engine and it would last.

 

[Birken Vogt]

Yeah it was just crazy hearing about those Ca fire trucks during that mess and how some from other states not allowed since they didn't pass emissions.

That story was a total lie, what it really was, was the State fire headquarters shops (Davis) are right along the route that the out of state fire trucks were taking (I-80) and they stopped there for mechanical inspection, to fix the bulging tires and worn out brakes on the Possum Hollow Volunteer Fire Hall trucks coming in, once repairs were made in a few hours they were on their way.

 

[CM1995]

I don't think it would take much for manufacturers to remove DPF's and DEF systems. There are deleted pickups running all over the place.

It would be even easier for equipment manufacturers to get rid of it. They all already make Tier 2 equipment for countries around the world.

 

[terex herder]

IMO, turbos don't belong on spark passenger engines. And when the factory installs them, they do it as cheaply as possible. Run it hard, turn it off. How long before the oil cooks, cokes, and blocks the oil? And who wants to wait 5 minutes to turn off your engine before you go into the store? And unlike a diesel, you can't just force more air into the cylinder.

Diesels? Turbo all the way. There are no problems with forcing more air into the combustion chamber on compression ignition.

The high point of gas powered pickups was Chevy's 8.2L. Yes, it was a fuel hog. But you can schedule fuel stops, and gas pumps are everywhere, 24/7. It won't leave you stranded in the middle of the night when the only good mechanic you know is 500 miles away. Other than oil changes, plugs about every 120K, and an air filter no maintenance required.

 

[Shimmy1]

The high point of gas powered pickups was Chevy's 8.2L. Yes, it was a fuel hog. But you can schedule fuel stops, and gas pumps are everywhere

I honestly believe that when those trucks were being produced, if GM would have wanted them to get better mileage, and that they wouldn't have had to hide under the shroud of *emissions* they would have. Easily. For the exact same reasons that Tier 2 engines prior to 2003 make 25-40% better mileage before an ECM flash. I will not get into any further discussion on why, I just know that there are more factors at play in this than most want to admit.

 

[Birken Vogt]

That new EPA guy said a number of things in his little speech, some other things are on their web site, but if they would simply say a return to Tier 3 (or is it 2?) without EGR and DPF I would feel a lot better. Right now it is all non specific and everybody on the internet is just thinking it says whatever they want it to say.

I'm OK with HPCR, it's the not-in-cylinder systems that are the problem.

But we all know there is more to it than that, because this emissions choking has greatly accelerated the hamster wheel of truck and equipment replacement cycle, and the manufacturers don't want to go back on that.

 

[92U 3406]

My neighbour and I were talking trucks the other day. He worked for one of the big heavy haul outfits and they were using Ecoboost F-150's for pilot trucks. Said they'd rarely get much more than 100,000 kilometers out of them before the engines crapped out. Don't really see many problems with the 5.0 though. Service manager and shop lead at my local dealer have told me they've seen the 5.0 last half a million kilometers if taken care of.

 

[MG84]

IMO, turbos don't belong on spark passenger engines. And when the factory installs them, they do it as cheaply as possible. Run it hard, turn it off. How long before the oil cooks, cokes, and blocks the oil? And who wants to wait 5 minutes to turn off your engine before you go into the store? And unlike a diesel, you can't just force more air into the cylinder.

I agree with that. I personally have never been a fan of the Ford Ecoboost concept, and honestly I believe it's something that neither Ford nor the consumer really want. I think their hand was forced to go that way to a)meet unobtainable fuel economy standards and b)deliver the power that consumers think they need. Ford has pushed them so hard to meet the fleet average economy standards that are brought down by models with the V8s. Problem with the Ecoboost is you have a tiny displacement engine, pushing lots of boost and lots of power. These new Ecoboost 2.7 and 3.5 are pushing big block and diesel like power numbers out of a peanut sized engine. Longevity and reliability are the first things to go in that scenario, followed by fuel economy. They publish great economy numbers, but that's in ideal not-real-world conditions. If the power is there people are going to use it, then economy goes right out the window. Start to really work it and then the mpg is really going straight to ****. It takes no small amount of fuel to make 400hp/500lb-ft.

 

[colson04]

Said they'd rarely get much more than 100,000 kilometers out of them before the engines crapped out.

Eh? That's only 60,000 miles. I owned one for 95,000 miles that ran great until the truck got totaled. I know several that are well over 125,000 miles (200,000km) and run very well. My brother in law is having an electrical gremlin with his at 200,000 miles, but they think it's the throttle body because the truck goes from running perfect, to running like crap, and back on its own. I liked my 3.5L ecoboost. Plenty of power and reasonable fuel mileage when empty. Loaded, it performed really well and I didn't care about the fuel economy then.

 

[Shimmy1]

That new EPA guy said a number of things in his little speech, some other things are on their web site, but if they would simply say a return to Tier 3 (or is it 2?) without EGR and DPF I would feel a lot better.

Tier 2 is unadulterated. Tier 3 is EGR and limited catalytic converter. Tier 4i was full-on DPF, Tier 4Final is DEF.

Obviously, these are kind of a summation, but relative to the general progression from nothing to what we have today on diesel engines.

 

[Birken Vogt]

Yes, a summation. Like in 2006 there was Cummins 8.3 with about 310 or 330 horsepower IIRC, HPCR injection, catalyst muffler, and nothing else. But I think they used some flex credits to get around EGR. But that engine was just about perfect, it just ran and ran with no problems, ran quiet, no smoke, nothing. If we could all go back to stuff like that the world would be better.

 

[Truck Shop]

Facts--for a naturally aspirated Chevy 350
*
@5500 rpm
350 cu.in.---CFM required
mild street stock---473.5 CFM
Racing --------------612.7 CFM.
Cam duration in allot of engines especially these days because of either being OHC or
roller is used to cram more air into cylinders. One of the biggest reasons auto manufactures
went to roller cam V8's starting in the mid 80's was not just performance enhancement.
Because of the style of lobe ramps on a roller cam a stock engine can run way more
duration allowing more air charge in cylinders without sacrificing a smooth idle or smooth
running. It was a great way to clean up and meet EPA requirements. Plus a roller cam got
rid of the issue with zinc for flat tappet hydraulic cams, and a roller will long out live
a flat tappet.
*
Think of CFM as if you were sucking through a straw, the higher the rpm the harder it
is through the same size straw. As far as turbocharging--that science has come along
way too.
*
Most of what is incorporated into engines for the public--probably started in a little
shack behind a couple guys houses years ago like--Ed Iskenderian.

 

[cfherrman]

If you would sleeve the 5.0 down to 3.5 and turbo it the same as the eco boost it would last as long as the 5.0 regular.

Low flow oil pumps driven by a belt don't do well, and Ford is not along with only engines only lasting 80k miles.

Gas turbos are fine with Efi as you measure the air instead of measuring the fuel. If your base engine will only go 80k miles the turbo version won't do any better

 

[Truck Shop]

Eco 3.5 bore 3.624 x 3.409 stroke
5.0L Coyote bore 3.63 x 3.65 stroke almost square
5.0L 302 bore 4.000 x 3.000 stroke
*
not much point--the Coyote is already there.

 

[Truck Shop]

A thought that many don't ponder/wonder or even care, it's just the way things are built
and someone higher up came up with the idea it was all that was needed so that's why
it seems to always be the same every time they see it.
Intake and exhaust valve diameters, why is it a cylinder head has 1.94 intakes and 1.50
exhaust valves. A very simple and yet dumb question I thought at the time { I was 14}
when I asked it of a {I thought experienced} mechanic, only to get a answer of {I suppose
that's all the engineers thought was needed}. Then I happened to be at a Auto Rama
show car/race car show in Sacramento in 1970. I asked the same question to a guy standing
next to a car that was a Ford factory race sponsored BOSS 302. Moody told me it's hard
for a engine to pull air in past a small valve but it's much easier to push it past the same small
valve.
*
The reason to add boost from a turbo or supercharger., and diesel uses the same valve
diameter for all.

 

[cfherrman]

My point is the 3.5 sucks because of the engine and not the turbos

 

[Truck Shop]

My point is the 3.5 sucks because of the engine and not the turbos

I agree to a point--might as well drive a Coyote.