I was checking out the ford webite and it said they are devloping a 3.6 l v8 diesel for the expedition and the F 150. How long could it be before they would offer it. I mean if their already annoucing it, it cant be too much longer till they release it, considering how gaurded they are keeping the 6.4 for the super duty.
yes the 3.6 has been a rumor for some time.but this may mean they will make it come true. the 3.6 and 4.4 engines are lightweight using CGT blocks. so they should be equal to or less than the gas engines.
Power Stroke (4.5L) V6 200 HP @ 2650 RPM
Includes: Radiator - Modine, 618 Sq In Down Flow, Aluminum, 2 row, louvered, with 381 Sq In charge air cooler., Starting Motor - 12-Volt, Visteon V110, Less thermal over-crank protection. 440 lb. ft. torque @ 1850 RPM, 3600 RPM governed speed. Includes Racor HFCM (Horizontal Fuel Conditioning Module) with 10 micron filter, water separator, heater and pump, frame mounted.
Comes in the New cab over commercial trucks. Not much HP, but great little torque machine. Maybe it will be seen in the future with the new low sulfur diesel requirements.
Remember you are talking about a turbo diesel here - not a gas engine.
Round these parts a 3.0l turbo diesel V6 Grand Cherokee will keep pace with its 5.7l HEMI powered brethren under most situations, and in real world driving (as in - in the sensible rpm range) it is far quicker.
Unless that 3 liter turbo diesel in the Jeep has 335 HP, which I doubt it comes anywhere close to, it won't be equalling the Hemi vehicle in quickness. Torque may be comparable, but HP won't. Torquey diesel, yes. Quicker, no. Your "parts" must have a different law of physics than my "parts."
A 3 liter turbodiesel will be deficient in horsepower. Not saying it wouldn't be an excellent motor for a Jeep, but it won't be a dragster, for sure. Can't rev.
How can an engine that is confined to "sensible" rpm ranges (obviously you mean it can't rev much; of course it can't) be quicker than one that can rev to the moon? It can't. Do you propose we prohibit the Hemi from revving above 3,000 rpm? Regarding the diesel, how about saying it has more torque at low revs? That's more factual. Or how about that it holds its speed better on hills without downshifting?
Rather have the diesel myself, though. Better mileage. Longer lasting. Probably shifts less. Good engine. Not fast.
Checked the specs-218 Hp, 379 lb. ft. for the Jeep diesel. Not quite in the 335 Hp league of the Hemi. Hemi has comparable torque at much higher revs.
"More of one can compensate for less of the other." That would be correct if the diesel made more torque than the Hemi, but it doesn't. It makes neither more horsepower or torque. Horsepower is much less, in fact.
And since acceleration is torque X RPM X GEARING, the higher revving motor stays in a lower gear to allow more torque multiplication to the wheels. Even a CV transmission is limited to the rev range of the motor that drives it. To offset the likely halving of the rpm's of the Hemi, the diesel would have to make much more torque than its current rating. That would likely be around 560-600 lb. ft.
The motor that has equivalent torque and higher horsepower will be "quicker." Always. The horsepower rating says so. Doesn't necessarily make it a better motor, but it does make it quicker. In roll-on acceleration, where the vehicle is already moving, it wouldn't even be close. The revving motor would have downshifting available to boost acceleration via torque multiplication; the non revver would not.