that is a 6 cyl engine towing around aro 6000 lbs of brick. i think that mileage is pretty decent. yes it will be strangled by emissions just like the current engine. guys i know get 20-22 in their 7.3 cargo vans regulary. best mileage for my 4.6 was 18 occasionally and more like 15. not much of a difference.
my tdi jetta gets 35 city and 40-42 hwy. the like gasser would get 22 city 27 hwy. in a smaller package the percent you expect is available.
Well, heavier diesel trucks have deeper gearing for pulling huge loads, they're not purpose built for fuel mileage, they're built for PULLING like a locomotive. Also, they need to drop this V6 idea and get with the inline 6.
There is no reason for an inline 6 in an F-150. Longer, heavier, and tall. An I6 will not make any more torque then a V6 with the same bore and stroke.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
I wonder how wide and tall a V6 with a 4.72" stroke will be.. huh
What kind of engine do you have in mind that would have a 4.72" Stroke, Cummins 5.9?...You realize that that would be a ridiculously huge engine for a half ton? If you want to play that game, the Ford Cologne 4.0 V6 has a 3.32" stroke, another 1.5" of deck height on either side to bring it up to 4.8" stroke isn't going to make it that much bigger at all - and it still be a hell of a lot more compact then a Cummins 5.9.
So I still do not see what your point is.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
What kind of engine do you have in mind that would have a 4.72" Stroke, Cummins 5.9?...You realize that that would be a ridiculously huge engine for a half ton? If you want to play that game, the Ford Cologne 4.0 V6 has a 3.32" stroke, another 1.5" of deck height on either side to bring it up to 4.8" stroke isn't going to make it that much bigger at all - and it still be a hell of a lot more compact then a Cummins 5.9.
So I still do not see what your point is.
I think a diesel such as a 5.9 is perfect for a 1/2 ton. I'm putting one in my Bronco, in fact. A diesel with 440 ft/lbs of torque @ 1600 rpm is great for power and for fuel mileage. Some say it's too much for the stock axles, but they swap 4bbl 460s in 1/2 tons/Broncos all the time, and they make similar torque and twice the horsepower of the diesel.But that's all personal preference, no arguments there. I like a lot of motor.Well, since you only need half the total stroke at each end of the piston travel, you would actually only need an additional .7" of deck height for a 1.4" stroke increase. The 4.0 has only a 3.32" stroke, and a rod length of 5.748" Do you think you can just add deck height to clear the extra stroke? Sure you'd have the room at the top, but what about in the crankcase? All that extra counter weight size and rod caps and bolts have to swing around in there, so the entire case will need to be enlarged by a LOT to clear it all. (3/4" all around??)This means the block is now wider, bigger, and heavier.Then you have the issue of rod to stroke ratio, which in this stroked 4.0L V6 is now down to 1.2:1.(4.72" divided by 5.748") Piston life expectancy will be measured in terms of days or weeks, not years.The rod in the 5.9L is 7.55" long, giving it a rod to stroke ratio of 1.6:1. So you would need another 1.8" of rod length in this 4.0L V6, making the deck height a total of 1.8" + .7" taller. Now account for the required piston height for the increase in wrist pin diameter to withstand the diesel service, add another .25". (1.8" + .7" +.25" is slightly more than 2 and a half inches more deck height. (I won't even count the fact that the diesel pistons are taller) The stock deck of the 4.0L is 8.858", so now it's going to be 11.38" inches.You think this stroked V6 is still compact??? A 460 only has a 10.3" deck.And to top this off, now we have a V6 design with its inherent poor reciprocating balance to deal with, instead of the inline design's near perfect balance. (And it's quite a bit wider and taller than a 460.)Modern engineers love to make things "compact" so everything fits so nice in the engine bay. A big 1/2 ton truck, and the engine bay is smaller than my Mustang's and you have to make do with a V6, and it's a nightmare to work on. Thank God I'm not repairing cars and trucks for a living anymore.You're probably right, there likely isn't sufficient room for an inline 6 in the new trucks, but that's the fault of the manufacturer. I won't be buying anything with a V6 engine. (gas or diesel)
Ford should design a good solid inline 6 diesel of their own, that's at least as good as the Cummins, if not better,(I know Ford could do it) and use this SAME engine in ALL their full size trucks.
You are also forgetting V6s have a 60* V (atleast non-hacked properly designed ones). So even if the deck height was that high, it would STILL be narrow then a 460, shorter then an I6, and not as long as either one of them. The 5.4 Modular engine is just as wide - if not a bit more then a 460. So the narrower theoretical 5.9 V6 would have no problem fitting in. Modern 60* V6s with split crank pins/flying arms are plenty smooth, even 90* V6s are now acceptably smooth. What this all matter anyways? We are talking about a 4.4L engine, not a 5.9L. There is really no point to a straight 6 anymore, unless you are a smoothness freak (in which case you should just get a V12), or you like looking at tall, straight engines.
As far using the same diesel engine in all their trucks - not even Dodge is doing that. They are going to be sticking a 5.6L V8 Cummins in the 1500s, and potentially a smaller V6 Cummins in the Dakotas.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
You are also forgetting V6s have a 60* V (atleast non-hacked properly designed ones). So even if the deck height was that high, it would STILL be narrow then a 460, shorter then an I6, and not as long as either one of them. The 5.4 Modular engine is just as wide - if not a bit more then a 460. So the narrower theoretical 5.9 V6 would have no problem fitting in. Modern 60* V6s with split crank pins/flying arms are plenty smooth, even 90* V6s are now acceptably smooth. What this all matter anyways? We are talking about a 4.4L engine, not a 5.9L. There is really no point to a straight 6 anymore, unless you are a smoothness freak (in which case you should just get a V12), or you like looking at tall, straight engines.
As far using the same diesel engine in all their trucks - not even Dodge is doing that. They are going to be sticking a 5.6L V8 Cummins in the 1500s, and potentially a smaller V6 Cummins in the Dakotas.
I think 4.4L is too small for a 1/2 ton truck,(I wouldnt use it in a smaller truck like a Ranger either, I'd use something like the Cummins 4BT ) and judging by the low predicted fuel mileage of these new diesels, I'd say it's not a good direction to go. 20% more mpg over the gas models just doesnt offset the higher cost of the fuel.And I don't like dodge trucks, I would never buy one. I don't really like the newer Cummins, either, due to all the electronic crap and emission controls that hang on them. Incredibly powerful and durable, yes, but a nightmare to work on. Older generation all-mechanical 5.9 Cummins, on the other hand, are one of my favorite motors, with good reason. (ease of maintenance is one of the big factors. I HATE working in tight engine compartments, so the narrow inline is a beautiful thing)You present interesting points, but going by my own experience, a V6 diesel will never be as good as an inline 6 diesel. On that, we'll just agree to disagree.
As far as power, you have to consider that todays diesels can wring A LOT of power out of not to many cubes. I've heard of anywhere between 250-300hp and 400-450 ft-lbs for the 4.4. That should be enough to haul around an F-150.
Unfortunately the electronic crap is something we all have to live with now, but on a plus side, it has had years to develop and mature, starting with the first electronically fuel injected gas engines
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
i think a half ton diesel sounds like a great idea! and that kind of estimated power will be more than enough, also banks will be fast on increasing power outputs. i know i cant leave anything stock so i would definitely consider adding one to my garage.
The copywriter for the mag sure isn't much of a truck person, to wit::::
To be built in Mexico, the 4.4-liter V-8 will be offered in production F-150s by late 2009, and by 2011 it is expected to be the base diesel engine in Ford's Super Duty pickups.
According to this "person", we ain't gonna be pulling 15k lb trailers with a 4.4 in a Super Duty.
__________________
'01 7.3 SC 6x6 Lariat "Hercules" Undocumented Alien?? So a drug dealer is an Undocumented Pharmacist, huh?
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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
) and judging by the low predicted fuel mileage of these new diesels, I'd say it's not a good direction to go. 20% more mpg over the gas models just doesnt offset the higher cost of the fuel.And I don't like dodge trucks, I would never buy one. I don't really like the newer Cummins, either, due to all the electronic crap and emission controls that hang on them. Incredibly powerful and durable, yes, but a nightmare to work on. Older generation all-mechanical 5.9 Cummins, on the other hand, are one of my favorite motors, with good reason. (ease of maintenance is one of the big factors. I HATE working in tight engine compartments, so the narrow inline is a beautiful thing)You present interesting points, but going by my own experience, a V6 diesel will never be as good as an inline 6 diesel. On that, we'll just agree to disagree.
