Military 6.7 on the way!
#1
03-26-2012, 08:56 PM
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military 6.7 on the way!
Great news for the 6.7 Power Stroke fans New Military Vehicle To Use Power Stroke - PickupTrucks.com News
#2
03-26-2012, 09:31 PM
Hmm... I wonder what they did with the emissions systems and the HPFP.
Real hummers can just about run on anything. With the stock 6.7L it would be killed pretty quick running anything but high-grade diesel. Off-road diesel is supposed to be to the same ultra-low sulphur quality, but chances are the fuel quality in combat zones is not the greatest.
That begs the question - what modifications are being made to the engine to hold up in that environment? Whatever it is I want one of their HPFP's!!!
Real hummers can just about run on anything. With the stock 6.7L it would be killed pretty quick running anything but high-grade diesel. Off-road diesel is supposed to be to the same ultra-low sulphur quality, but chances are the fuel quality in combat zones is not the greatest.
That begs the question - what modifications are being made to the engine to hold up in that environment? Whatever it is I want one of their HPFP's!!!
#4
03-26-2012, 09:44 PM
Shhh!!! Don't let the military hear that. Boy that wouldn't be good.
All joking aside, that is one of the benefits of vehicles like that - they have to be hard to kill, and I'd bet they (military contractors) would find a way (as they have in the past) to make the engine run on just about anything before they (military) would put strict constraints on their fuel quality. Its easier to put what you can get in to the tank than it is to supply fresh, high-lube, ultra-low sulphur diesel.
Just my 3 cents worth.
I bet Dim Sum would have some interesting thoughts in that subject.
All joking aside, that is one of the benefits of vehicles like that - they have to be hard to kill, and I'd bet they (military contractors) would find a way (as they have in the past) to make the engine run on just about anything before they (military) would put strict constraints on their fuel quality. Its easier to put what you can get in to the tank than it is to supply fresh, high-lube, ultra-low sulphur diesel.
Just my 3 cents worth.
I bet Dim Sum would have some interesting thoughts in that subject.
#5
03-26-2012, 10:01 PM
I don't know Steve...I remember reading a military study posted awhile back on one of the HPFP discussions and how the 6.7L engine held up just fine for all military durability testing.
Found it...
Found it...
Well here is a fact. The following article demonstrates the HPFS is reliable, even running JP8 (almost kerosene) through it. Test article was a 6.7 Ford Scorpion engine. For those using the US Fuel SCAR rating argument to support the pump failure rates, pay attention to the kinds of fuel used in this test. The Bosch pump was dissected and evaluted for wear. Here is the URL to the entire article with pictures. Go to page 5 for the breakdown of the pump and data. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf All four tests completed the full 210-hr test cycle without experiencing any unusual fuel related operating conditions. The turbocharger was the only item that gave them some issues. This factual report is to counter the posts in this thread that impute pump failures based on fuel origin. This test focuses on fuel type since they were interested in thier (the military) fuel sources and availabilty...like in afganistan.
Thier conlusion: In addition, no fuel system hardware failures were
experienced during testing, despite the much lower viscosity[/LEFT]
and lubricity levels of some of the test fuels
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Thier conlusion: In addition, no fuel system hardware failures were
experienced during testing, despite the much lower viscosity[/LEFT]
and lubricity levels of some of the test fuels
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
A large number of current commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) diesel engines available to
the U.S. Military employ High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel injection systems. Overall
performance and endurance of these HPCR systems has the potential to vary with use of military
or alternative fuels. Testing was conducted using the Ford 6.7L diesel engine to determine the
impact on engine and HPCR fuel system performance with the following test fuels: diesel (ULSD),
JP-8, 50%:50% volumetric blend of JP-8/Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK), and 100% SPK.
The U.S. Army 210-hr Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Cycle (TWVC) engine endurance test was used to
determine engine and HPCR system performance. Engine performance over the test duration, preand
post-test powercurves and post-test fuel injection component inspections were used to
determine each fuels performancethe U.S. Military employ High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel injection systems. Overall
performance and endurance of these HPCR systems has the potential to vary with use of military
or alternative fuels. Testing was conducted using the Ford 6.7L diesel engine to determine the
impact on engine and HPCR fuel system performance with the following test fuels: diesel (ULSD),
JP-8, 50%:50% volumetric blend of JP-8/Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK), and 100% SPK.
The U.S. Army 210-hr Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Cycle (TWVC) engine endurance test was used to
determine engine and HPCR system performance. Engine performance over the test duration, preand
post-test powercurves and post-test fuel injection component inspections were used to
#6
03-26-2012, 10:05 PM
All joking aside, that is one of the benefits of vehicles like that - they have to be hard to kill, and I'd bet they (military contractors) would find a way (as they have in the past) to make the engine run on just about anything before they (military) would put strict constraints on their fuel quality. Its easier to put what you can get in to the tank than it is to supply fresh, high-lube, ultra-low sulphur diesel.
I remember when I was in Pakistan around the beginning of 2006 that the fuelers commented about how great the fuel quality was that they purchased from the vendors over there. I also remember seeing this fuel pumped into various civilian, NATO, US, and Australian helicopters as well as our own trucks.
#7
03-26-2012, 10:11 PM
I'll post more thoughts in the morning.....exhausted.
1. Wonder what tranny they are using. Most of the military applications are Allison, but if they mate an allison to the Ford, they will have to do all of the tranny tuning themselves? Not sure on that one. I hope to see the Ford tranny!
2. This is a tough sell to the US government with a Mexican made diesel. Generally, we like to buy things MADE IN USA...(generally). I'm not the official word of course.
3. I do know that we export a lot of Ford's to the middle east without the EPA stuff in them. I do know for fact that they run like raped apes over there running regular diesel (not ULSD). That being said, I also know that they are not running on JP-8. We use a lot of diesel equipment and we run them on diesel. We prefer a single fuel force, but the reality of that requires a significant amount of testing that obviously hasn't been completed. JP-8 doesn't have the wear additives in it that are required and has far too low a cetane rating (think 20 guys) to run in this engine. I would venture to guess, the engine has the same pump that we see in the Mexican trucks (which makes it an easy acquisition)
Remember, Ford says they were not involved in the decision to use their diesel. This means, no special modifications have been engineered yet between BAE and Ford. This means most likely stock form! Good for us as now we'll be able to get our hands on some test data for this engine once the military starts T&E.
I'm glad to see this. I personally....would probably prefer a Cummins or CAT because their distribution network for parts is second to none. Ford can't come close to CAT's support network and if a Cat C7 would fit in that rig (Probably not b/c of size and weight) I'd go with a CAT. Supportability is important and that is where Ford/BAE will probably lose points. Only people who support the Ford diesel are Ford dealers. As well, this engine is a North America only engine. The likelyhood of finding parts in other parts of the world is zero.
With all of that BS aside, it looks like they are trying to make the vehicle small. That's probably why they went with the V8 form factor.
I am 100,000,000% happy it is not a Maxxforce!
1. Wonder what tranny they are using. Most of the military applications are Allison, but if they mate an allison to the Ford, they will have to do all of the tranny tuning themselves? Not sure on that one. I hope to see the Ford tranny!
2. This is a tough sell to the US government with a Mexican made diesel. Generally, we like to buy things MADE IN USA...(generally). I'm not the official word of course.
3. I do know that we export a lot of Ford's to the middle east without the EPA stuff in them. I do know for fact that they run like raped apes over there running regular diesel (not ULSD). That being said, I also know that they are not running on JP-8. We use a lot of diesel equipment and we run them on diesel. We prefer a single fuel force, but the reality of that requires a significant amount of testing that obviously hasn't been completed. JP-8 doesn't have the wear additives in it that are required and has far too low a cetane rating (think 20 guys) to run in this engine. I would venture to guess, the engine has the same pump that we see in the Mexican trucks (which makes it an easy acquisition)
Remember, Ford says they were not involved in the decision to use their diesel. This means, no special modifications have been engineered yet between BAE and Ford. This means most likely stock form! Good for us as now we'll be able to get our hands on some test data for this engine once the military starts T&E.
I'm glad to see this. I personally....would probably prefer a Cummins or CAT because their distribution network for parts is second to none. Ford can't come close to CAT's support network and if a Cat C7 would fit in that rig (Probably not b/c of size and weight) I'd go with a CAT. Supportability is important and that is where Ford/BAE will probably lose points. Only people who support the Ford diesel are Ford dealers. As well, this engine is a North America only engine. The likelyhood of finding parts in other parts of the world is zero.
With all of that BS aside, it looks like they are trying to make the vehicle small. That's probably why they went with the V8 form factor.
I am 100,000,000% happy it is not a Maxxforce!
Trending Topics
#8
03-26-2012, 11:18 PM
#9
03-27-2012, 05:40 AM
#10
03-27-2012, 06:50 AM
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#11
03-27-2012, 07:24 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Il/Cabin in Wi
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#12
03-27-2012, 10:36 AM
#13
03-27-2012, 11:01 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: herriman utah
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll post more thoughts in the morning.....exhausted.
1. Wonder what tranny they are using. Most of the military applications are Allison, but if they mate an allison to the Ford, they will have to do all of the tranny tuning themselves? Not sure on that one. I hope to see the Ford tranny!
2. This is a tough sell to the US government with a Mexican made diesel. Generally, we like to buy things MADE IN USA...(generally). I'm not the official word of course.
3. I do know that we export a lot of Ford's to the middle east without the EPA stuff in them. I do know for fact that they run like raped apes over there running regular diesel (not ULSD). That being said, I also know that they are not running on JP-8. We use a lot of diesel equipment and we run them on diesel. We prefer a single fuel force, but the reality of that requires a significant amount of testing that obviously hasn't been completed. JP-8 doesn't have the wear additives in it that are required and has far too low a cetane rating (think 20 guys) to run in this engine. I would venture to guess, the engine has the same pump that we see in the Mexican trucks (which makes it an easy acquisition)
Remember, Ford says they were not involved in the decision to use their diesel. This means, no special modifications have been engineered yet between BAE and Ford. This means most likely stock form! Good for us as now we'll be able to get our hands on some test data for this engine once the military starts T&E.
I'm glad to see this. I personally....would probably prefer a Cummins or CAT because their distribution network for parts is second to none. Ford can't come close to CAT's support network and if a Cat C7 would fit in that rig (Probably not b/c of size and weight) I'd go with a CAT. Supportability is important and that is where Ford/BAE will probably lose points. Only people who support the Ford diesel are Ford dealers. As well, this engine is a North America only engine. The likelyhood of finding parts in other parts of the world is zero.
With all of that BS aside, it looks like they are trying to make the vehicle small. That's probably why they went with the V8 form factor.
I am 100,000,000% happy it is not a Maxxforce!
1. Wonder what tranny they are using. Most of the military applications are Allison, but if they mate an allison to the Ford, they will have to do all of the tranny tuning themselves? Not sure on that one. I hope to see the Ford tranny!
2. This is a tough sell to the US government with a Mexican made diesel. Generally, we like to buy things MADE IN USA...(generally). I'm not the official word of course.
3. I do know that we export a lot of Ford's to the middle east without the EPA stuff in them. I do know for fact that they run like raped apes over there running regular diesel (not ULSD). That being said, I also know that they are not running on JP-8. We use a lot of diesel equipment and we run them on diesel. We prefer a single fuel force, but the reality of that requires a significant amount of testing that obviously hasn't been completed. JP-8 doesn't have the wear additives in it that are required and has far too low a cetane rating (think 20 guys) to run in this engine. I would venture to guess, the engine has the same pump that we see in the Mexican trucks (which makes it an easy acquisition)
Remember, Ford says they were not involved in the decision to use their diesel. This means, no special modifications have been engineered yet between BAE and Ford. This means most likely stock form! Good for us as now we'll be able to get our hands on some test data for this engine once the military starts T&E.
I'm glad to see this. I personally....would probably prefer a Cummins or CAT because their distribution network for parts is second to none. Ford can't come close to CAT's support network and if a Cat C7 would fit in that rig (Probably not b/c of size and weight) I'd go with a CAT. Supportability is important and that is where Ford/BAE will probably lose points. Only people who support the Ford diesel are Ford dealers. As well, this engine is a North America only engine. The likelyhood of finding parts in other parts of the world is zero.
With all of that BS aside, it looks like they are trying to make the vehicle small. That's probably why they went with the V8 form factor.
I am 100,000,000% happy it is not a Maxxforce!
#14
03-27-2012, 11:20 AM
You are correct.
CAT, however, makes plenty of Off Road diesels....like the C7 that goes in a few different vehicles
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oshkosh-mrap/
Military vehicles do not have to meet the emissions standards of on road diesels. Actually, military diesels have to be much more tolerant of fuel sources available around the globe....and ULSD is not available everywhere.
CAT, however, makes plenty of Off Road diesels....like the C7 that goes in a few different vehicles
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oshkosh-mrap/
Military vehicles do not have to meet the emissions standards of on road diesels. Actually, military diesels have to be much more tolerant of fuel sources available around the globe....and ULSD is not available everywhere.
#15
03-27-2012, 12:32 PM
