I always get a kick out of people in general bashing a Ford diesel, especially the 6.7. I always tell them that Dodge had to get SOMEONE ELSE to build them an engine and that GM finally figured out the best way for them to build a diesel and a heavy duty transmission was to let SOMEONE ELSE do it for them. Now we have the Nissan people starting to run their mouths or so it seems at work.

 

Fact is, since 2008 the playing field shrank a lot as all the diesels had to be remade.

The only thing that I would like to see is a return to big displacement 6 cylinder grunt with more gearing. I truly enjoy my 6.7 but these V8 high revving engines make me nervous still. I know it's an unusual opinion and I'm not all that into cummins, I just enjoy an I6 engine whether it's gas or diesel.

 

I do not know the reason behind this: Big straight 6's seem to burn dirty. Have never explored why, I think it has to do with (??) the design and firing order. They are great engines and as close to bullet proof as you can get. Knocking out 250,000 mi on them is not rare, but meeting emissions standards is not easy and has been the case of most of them being dropped from the line up...

The F 6.7 is what I see when you bring a room full of diesel engineers and a room full of gas engineers together and tell them give me the best of both worlds.

I would like to see Ford bring in a room full of GreyDog engineers and release and 6.7 Million Miler with warranty. Ford had better idea and did with an engine built out of used KingFord Charcoal Briquets...its state of the art. My question is it scaleable? Can we take thje 6.7 and slice and dice to get a 3.4L and 500 lbs of torque and 30-40 mpg? {Granted I know we have some on the forum getting that mpg now but they only get it when they are towing a 30k 5ver @ 80 mph].

Can we use the same architecture to build a 3, 4, 6 8 engine?

Anyhow just the mental wanderings of a too long ago mech engineer turned software engineer...who cried when they guy drove off last Fri with my Miller welder and Hypertherm Plasma cutter, knowing my welding days are over and gone. Time takes its toll on the man.

 

I just want to say that my wife has a GMC 1/2 ton gasser. There are times that the squares upset me and I thought it was just me. Thanks Joel. I feel like we bonded there. brohug.

 

Actually its a hold over from the days the Army experimented with square wheels and its 2 ½ T trucks for off road use.

The square wheels and tires gave incredible off road performance, however the on road ride was brutal on tooth fillings.



NO, I am NOT KIDDING!

 

Only the government, Government Motors, would experiment with square wheels.
Ever read BC?

 

Seriously???

Did you ever see the myth busters episode where they tested it?


Remember When Mythbusters Proved Square Wheels Kind of Actually Work?

 

Don't remember of reading it, might have????

Yes the Army actually tried it. The thought was they could get all the tires out of phase and the on road ride would be acceptable. IIRC the front tires were round and the 6 rear were squarish, the corners were quite rounded, but there was enough of the flats to give great traction.

Not sure who came up with this but being an off roader since the early 60's when we either bought surplus Army Jeep/truck tires or snow tires sold up N, but you could order them thru Sears, Atlas Tires.

The Army could have, should have invested its efforts into better off road tires rather than square...

I worked in R&D for many years and was amazed at some of the things they came out of their heads down the hall. I had a dream job in IT.

 

Back in the 70's a Ca. congressman tried to get seat belt legislation passed for motorcycles. They should have used him as the test guinee pig.

 

Well, to be a smart azz, square wheels are really round wheels with a very aggressive tread pattern....

And don, I've read the same thing in that I6 engines don't have low enough emissions for some reason. Doesn't seem logical though. They provide a lot of power along a single axis rotation point with the crank shaft being in line with the piston strokes. I4's are wimpy, I5 is smoother, I6 and up is buttery smooth and torquey.. I'm sure the V block is very close but it's not the same with the angles and more rpm is required.

 

Remember that and the air bags as you go flying over them, maybe the seatbelt fixed that???

Now that is funny...

Go back an era and you find the 'straight 8's' and wow did they run smooth. I watch dad balance a quarter on the radiator cap with the engine running many a time when he was tuning that ole Packard up.

Optimally a V6 has a bank angle of 60 degrees and a V8 a bank angle of 90. Not to say there are not a lot of 90 degree V6's around the GM camp, but this is a tooling issue. They make the V6 or the same tooling as the V8. Today I doubt anyone is using 90 degree on a V6. It all comes down to crankpin offset which is 60 degree for the V 6 and you guessed it 90 degrees for the V8. That said there is an end game which calls the shot of how you build. From smooth low hp/torque applications to extreme duty high hp/torque and then there are airplanes...

 

Big Block V8's of yesteryear would produce a lot of TQ.

 

That's where the saying "no replacement for displacement" came from.

 

Years ago when the emissions where first getting Started the large bore engines would have trouble with high HC. The larger the bore the more places For the HC to "hide"in the cooler outer areas and not get burned during combustion. In fact the top piston ring was moved up higher on most engines for this same reason. So if you have a 6 cyl with the same displacement as a V8, the 6 cyl will probably be a little "dirtier".

 

there has to be something to the inline diesel engine.....Big trucks use this still very large displacement in line engines. Lots of large diesel powered generators also use in line engines both 4 and 6 bangers.