Is it just me, or does this starting to sound like some of the advertisements from the aftermarket tuner folks.
How is it Ford will be able to push 400 HP after adding more emissions stuff in the form of a SCR, yet still increase mileage by 3 MPG?
I can't see a 6 speed tranny adding this kind of mileage, unless they put such a big overdrive on there that you couldn't haul 200# without bogging the engine.
"Intake and exhaust flow through the cylinder heads is reversed (relative to conventional diesel engine design) with the exhaust exiting directly into dual sequential turbos sitting in the engine's valley."
This makes so much sense for a turbocharged engine. I'm trying to visualize what the engine will look like, you think there will be intake runners to each cylinder or some type of manifold on each side?
__________________
2000 F350 cc lariat 4wd 7.3l
1991 Bronco xlt 5.8l
known 6637 basher
known OT basher
known signature basher
Is it just me, or does this starting to sound like some of the advertisements from the aftermarket tuner folks.
How is it Ford will be able to push 400 HP after adding more emissions stuff in the form of a SCR, yet still increase mileage by 3 MPG?
I can't see a 6 speed tranny adding this kind of mileage, unless they put such a big overdrive on there that you couldn't haul 200# without bogging the engine.
Anyone have some insight or thoughts on this?
Here is a good article that I think will give you the insight that you are looking for.
Thanks for the link, but if they are forced to use a combination of SCR & EGR as mentioned in the article, and we still have to deal with a DPF, where does the increase in efficiency come from?
Very good article, thanks. I love the bit about "...EGR systems require no action on the part of the vehicle operator and are much less prone to tampering or misuse..."
I guess they don't count paying around $3,000 smackers for a new EGR cooler, EGR valve, and oil cooler as "action on the part of the vehicle operator" when this idiotic design fails.
I understand that casting particulates left over from manufacturing and maybe "stop-leak" material in the factory coolant fill may also clog up coolant passages over time and cause EGR and oil cooler failures - that's why I put one of the Dieselsite coolant filters on my truck - but putting exhaust back into the intake just ain't right.
__________________
2003 F250 CC LB 4x4, 6.0 with auto
Good info - now if they would only make the truck all new as well - going with the Tonka concept as a starting point. The 2008 interior is awesome, but time for new sheet metal!
__________________ 2008 F-250 Lariat SRW 4x4 CC SWB ...
... 6.4L & Torqshift w/3.73
... Dark Stone Metallic / Pueblo Gold
... Readylift levelling kit w/caster cams
... Toyo MT 35-12.5-18 BIG$HOW --«ŐżŐ¬»
Thanks for the link, but if they are forced to use a combination of SCR & EGR as mentioned in the article, and we still have to deal with a DPF, where does the increase in efficiency come from?
The increase in power and fuel economy comes from the tuning, just like the aftermarket tuners. The difference is Ford must make things emissions compliant. Like mentioned in the article, tuning for more power and greater fuel economy results in higher NOx emissions. The SCR system will allow Ford to focus the tuning more on the fuel and power aspects rather than emissions while letting the SCR deal with the additional NOx production.
__________________
'04 F-250 Harley-Davidson 6.0L CC SB
I think you'd get a big advantage from the exhaust manifold/turbo layout. You arent loosing near as much thermal energy as even my 7.3L will just because it'll have maybe a foot to travel vs three for mine.
In addition to that, they're getting better at making the DPF/EGR/SCR B.S. work with them instead of against them.
and what is the extra 3 MPG based off of? i thought that these pickups werent officially tested b/c of the GVWR
__________________
96 powerstroke
Tuned by Power hungry
__________________
2007 F-250 Super Cab Short Bed 4x4 XLT Sport Package 5.4L 3.73 LS Tow Command Presently working as a military contractor in Afghanistan.
Thanks for the link, but if they are forced to use a combination of SCR & EGR as mentioned in the article, and we still have to deal with a DPF, where does the increase in efficiency come from?
The increase will come from the fact that the engine will use LESS egr than before and clean up the NOx on the back end. Because soot oxidizes at a lower temperature in a NO2 base environment, passive regeneration will become more effective which means fewer active regens. The combination of less egr and passive regens will increase fuel economy.
We are seeing a minimum of 5% increase in fuel economy on a 2007 engine with SCR and that's with very early software. Once we fine tune it, I'm sure it will be amazing. With massive egr, the technology that uses only egr for 2010, we're predicting a 2% fuel econ. penalty minimum.
The increase will come from the fact that the engine will use LESS egr than before and clean up the NOx on the back end. Because soot oxidizes at a lower temperature in a NO2 base environment, passive regeneration will become more effective which means fewer active regens. The combination of less egr and passive regens will increase fuel economy.
We are seeing a minimum of 5% increase in fuel economy on a 2007 engine with SCR and that's with very early software. Once we fine tune it, I'm sure it will be amazing. With massive egr, the technology that uses only egr for 2010, we're predicting a 2% fuel econ. penalty minimum.
Thanks Rob. To put things in perspective, can you tell me how much of a drop your trucks took meeting the 08 emissions? It seems like the 6.4 is suffering close to a 25% drop compared to my 7.3, but that's not a fair comparison since they may have added 1 or 2 ponies under the hood.
Just trying to do more of an apples to apples comparison and understand what penalty the current emissions stuff has as far as MPG so your 5% + increase gives me a better idea of what we're looking at.
I can't keep my 7.3 forever, but my original thoughts of buying an 09 6.4 to avoid the new emissions stuff doesn't sound like such a good idea now.
Thanks Rob. To put things in perspective, can you tell me how much of a drop your trucks took meeting the 08 emissions? It seems like the 6.4 is suffering close to a 25% drop compared to my 7.3, but that's not a fair comparison since they may have added 1 or 2 ponies under the hood.
Just trying to do more of an apples to apples comparison and understand what penalty the current emissions stuff has as far as MPG so your 5% + increase gives me a better idea of what we're looking at.
I can't keep my 7.3 forever, but my original thoughts of buying an 09 6.4 to avoid the new emissions stuff doesn't sound like such a good idea now.
Our trucks (class 8 OTR) took a 5-8% hit between 2000 and 2007. 2000 was before EGR and, of course, 2007 is with EGR and DPF. Our 2010 test engines are MY2007 with the SCR equipment added to them. We've already seen a 5% increase. We're making some hardware changes to the engine and software changes later this year. All of our long haul trucks are passive regen only. That, in itself, saves nearly a gallon of fuel every 1800 miles.
So far, we've already made up the loss that 2007 caused. Now to make up what 2002 caused.
BTW~ the operating cost for urea in our trucks is less than $0.006 per mile. That's figured at $2/gallon.
Another thing to consider, urea-based SCR technology is new to this market, but has been used with great success in Europe since 2004 in both pass cars and commercial trucks. Whereas, the dpf was new to the entire industry and North America was the first to see it.
I wouldn't be afraid to be the first in line to buy a 2010 truck.
Our trucks (class 8 OTR) took a 5-8% hit between 2000 and 2007. 2000 was before EGR and, of course, 2007 is with EGR and DPF. Our 2010 test engines are MY2007 with the SCR equipment added to them. We've already seen a 5% increase. We're making some hardware changes to the engine and software changes later this year. All of our long haul trucks are passive regen only. That, in itself, saves nearly a gallon of fuel every 1800 miles.
So far, we've already made up the loss that 2007 caused. Now to make up what 2002 caused.
BTW~ the operating cost for urea in our trucks is less than $0.006 per mile. That's figured at $2/gallon.
Another thing to consider, urea-based SCR technology is new to this market, but has been used with great success in Europe since 2004 in both pass cars and commercial trucks. Whereas, the dpf was new to the entire industry and North America was the first to see it.
I wouldn't be afraid to be the first in line to buy a 2010 truck.
Thanks for your side of the story. That's what I've been suspecting, and that's why I've been having second thoughts about the 09 model year.
Now if we can just get Ford to quite playing the HP game and focus on longevity and fuel economy we'll be back to what made the diesel what it was.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
BIG$HOW --«ŐżŐ¬»
