Yah,
__it's comming in from land rover's diesel eng production line.
Mostlikly US is getting the major part of prodution numbers
tho.

 

I own a 93 Ranger with 300000 miles on it actually the second ranger the first was an 87 I beat em to death.I own a Pest Control business and use them.The only thing I wish is that Ford would get their head out of the sand and re- release the fuel sipping diesel in the states.You can buy a diesel Ranger in almost every nation under the sun but the US just cant get it.VW makes a car the gets 58 MPG(just diesel)no-one makes a small truck here.If I were a treehugger I would be livid because you can buy an F2-350 etc all day long but not a ranger diesel.I suppose done properly the Ranger would get 40 MPGs a far cry from the 15-20 Mpgs ethanol offers.I havent even gotten into making Bio-diesel yet....cost savings I think so.

 

CGI is around 1000.00 extra in a non mass produced block. I would imagine that they could cut the price in half.

 

I owned an 87 Ranger with the 2.3l turbo diesel. I loved it. I got about 35-45 mpg. I always wished they had kept making them and can not understand why they stopped. It was a Mitsibushi engine.

J.

 

I think it´s too high estimated but I know that Sintercast, the company behind the foundrytech, is charging about 3 cents/lb on the production at Tupy.
They will start producing 4,4-litre V8 for LandRover in the UK at the same enginefactory as the 6,7-litre is made. Chihuahua in Mexico.
So far it´s not coming to the US

Ford Ready to Start 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8 Diesel Production - PickupTrucks.com News

"The 6.7-liter V-8 isn’t the only diesel engine that Ford will produce at Engine Plant II. A light-duty 4.4-liter V-8 diesel that was going to be available for the Ford F-150 but has since been shelved will be built there starting next summer for export to Europe for use in Land Rover’s SUVs."

 

i know this is random but what about the 2011 5.0L? Does anyone think that will end up in the f150?

 

Caterpillar has used COMPACTED GRAFIT IRON in some engines for several years ...very tough metal

 

You can check various applications where CGI is used at the homepage of Sintercast

Welcome to SinterCast

applications

Supermetal CGI

among them the 6.7-litre Ford diesel

SinterCast: Ford Launches New F-Series Super Duty® Trucks With Compacted Graphite Iron Cylinder Blocks

It´s just beginning with CGI.

 

So is the 4.4 diesel real or not?

 

At the opening of the new line in Nov 2009 at the Chihuahua-plant it was told that LandRover in UK should take some 20-40.000 of the new 4.4-litre V8 from this summer but after that it was completely silent.

No trace at all. Until NOW

Report: 2011 Euro Range Rover to get 4.4L diesel, the ex-F150 engine? — Autoblog Green

It´s this engine. Ford is expected to have more plans for this one since it must be a non profit project with that low inital numbers. IF the engine will show up in F-150 it will be highly profitable.............

 

2011 Range Rover Officially revealed with new 4.4 liter V8 diesel engine

The diesels currently used by Land Rover (andJaguar) are produced at the Dagenham engine plant owned by Ford, Jaguar-Land Rover’s former parent while the 4.4 liter turbodiesel engine, which is scheduled to be launched this fall, is being built at Ford’s Chihuahua engine plant.

from
2011 Range Rover gets a new 4.4-liter diesel engine - AutoSpies Auto News

Range Rover to get 4.4-liter, 308-horsepower diesel

Automotive World - UK: Range Rover first for 4.4-litre V8 diesel

"The new engine, as fitted to Range Rover, produces 230kW (308bhp) and 700Nm (516lb ft) torque. Despite the larger displacement and the significant power increase, the engine provides a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to its 3.6-litre predecessor.

Diesel watchers have already noted that the power of the new Ford engine is higher than the 224kW of Navistar’s new MaxxForce 7 V8 diesel of 6.4-litres capacity. The MaxxForce 7, however, yields a 28% higher torque of 895Nm for a capacity hike of 45%.

Ford produces the 4.4-litre engine at its Chihuahua Engine Plant in Mexico. Production volumes in the near term are likely as for the 3.6-litre unit, as JLR gradually implements substitution.

The new engine will bow at JLR’s media even in London on 1 July, staged to celebrate 40 years of Land Rover. Sales of the more powerful Range Rover begin on 1 October."

--------------------
This engine in F-150 would be a hit........

 

i realize this is an old post but its still an interesting one. if ford ever does get this 4.4l diesel avalible in the states, id like to find one, bore it out to 5.0 (maybe) and stick it in a 1969-70 fastback mustang. think about it, you'd have a tire-frying MUSCLE car with well over 500lb-ft of torque and if you could flip tunes you could get amazing milage with it as well.. just something to dream about.....

 

double post

 

If I could have my ideal daily driver, besides my '11 F-350, I think a 4x4 truck the size of a Ranger with a crew cab and regular size bed with a cap would do the trick. The hard part is the way they are now they still aren't getting over the upper teens in fuel mileage. The diesel, if it can get upwards of 40mpg, would be awesome. Then I could get a daily driver that was actually worth a crap. No sense in racking up miles on my nice truck in that case, but I'll live with it and I thoroughly enjoy it. I just don't like the expense and knowing how fast I'm packing on the miles I got the truck in June and I am already over 6,000 miles.

 

I've got a 1992 Chevy Astro EXT Cargo (V6, A/T, A/C); my family and I initially used it in our freight business, logging on it 510k miles in 48 months. I retired that vehicle from freight service when a close family member suffered illness that caused a bedridden condition, and we used van as a transport to doctors & hospitals until purchase of a 2003 Lincoln Town Car L.

Following Hurricane Katrina, I used that van for evacuating my family; it has currently over 579k miles -- and but for the downturn in the economy (or, perhaps more accurately, my economy) would now be well over 600k -- and it runs nearly as well as it did when brand new (which is to say very well). Fuel economy has dropped from a best of 25.3 mpg in freight service to between 18.5 and 18.7 mpg in rural and city driving (despite ethanol in the gasoline), but it could use a tune-up (which it will eventually get).

The Astro minivan is seriously underrated: in POV service, I've put 4400 lbs of cargo (concrete) in the cargo area and towed a 2-axle trailer (ca. 2450 lbs empty) loaded with 2 skids of concrete blocks and some miscellaneous building materials (about 4200 lbs net); I don't recall my van's lightweight, but a guess would put it around 3000 pounds with fuel, giving me a GCW just over 14k. So loaded, the combination looked a little funny, but it handled the load without any problems -- uphill, downhill, city, interstate, etc. Of course, I adjusted my driving style to compensate for the added mass, basically meaning I allowed longer time and distances for acceleration and braking, but I ran the legal limit on speeds without any problems.

Hauling freight, my Astro probably averaged just over 2700 pounds of cargo (some loads were lighter, some loads were heavier). About 20 percent of the time, I pulled a 2-axle U-haul enclosed trailer; the van and trailer were loaded with automotive wiring harnesses (a typical "70-pound" box weighed between 117 and 125 pounds, according to the scales at the airport, where each box had to be individually weighed).

I suspect the engine will probably need a rebuild in the next few years. If I increase my use of the vehicle, I think I could reach 750k before overhaul -- and if I had kept the van in freight service, I'd have well over a million miles on it by now -- and I think I would have rebuilt the engine under those circumstances somewhere around 900k to 1.1 million miles. As it is, it just spends too much time in the shed, and the engine's thermal cycles are more dramatic now than when it was in freight service, so I think I'll do well to get 650-675k before I have to overhaul it.

The longevity of an engine between overhauls depends mainly on two things: (a) clean oil & air, and (b) minimizing thermal differential between periods of use and periods of rest.

My 1968 F-100 came with a 360, 3-on-the-tree manual and a 3.25 rear. At 230k miles, the pan was dropped as part of a pre-rebuild inspection; the bearing halves looked brand-new, so it all went back together without a rebuild. It ran about 300k more miles before it started using a little oil, but by 575k miles, oil consumption had gotten pretty bad and the engine smoked noticeably. My F-100 would have gone significantly farther between the OE build and the rebuild if I had taken better care of it, but I both abused and neglected it (because I was ignorant: when I was shown how to care for a vehicle, my vehicles started giving me longer service), and it had lots of periods when it cooled to ambient temperature.

I ran 3 PSDs (7.3t, A/T, A/C) in 16-ft aluminum airfreight-box "E-Super Duty" commercial cutaways with 1500-lb tuck-under liftgates; sold them when they had 100k miles apiece on them. Had I kept them, I think between the OE build and the first rebuild, they'd have gone over 700k miles (perhaps even over a million). My PSDs averaged 11.8 mpg in revenue service, almost all interstate; lowest mpg was 10.5, highest was 14.0 mpg (only 1 driver was able to get that number, but he was able to get it consistently), second-highest was between 12.2 and 12.3 mpg (me driving).

I had another commercial cutaway that used a 14-ft FRP airfreight-box with a step bumper; it was apparently part of a Ford experiment to put the 3.9BT Cummins in the E350. It wasn't a speed demon, but it never got worse than 25 mpg and its best mpg was around 32; normal was around 28 empty, 26 loaded -- so the lowest and highest numbers should be considered flukes. All these mpg figures are between-fillup averages. I was the only person that could drive the E350 for more than about an hour, because the radiant heat through the doghouse was so severe -- but, as most small-business owners know, sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I've had lots of other vehicles besides these, but these are my favorite "practical for everyday use" truck rides. When I ran a different sort of trucking operation, I ran Class 7 trucks (GMC and Mack); I think the GMCs used an Allison 640 trans -- and Cat/Ford 3208 engines (Ford valve covers under a GMC hood is a strange sight). This is already long, so I'll skip the details, other than to say that driver stupidity can destroy engines & transmissions that are surprisingly expensive -- in this case, because the transmission obeyed the driver's command to downshift from about 55 mph into a low gear (probably 2nd) while the truck was loaded to 55,000-or-so GVW. No: I wasn't that driver, and he wasn't my driver anymore after that.

If I had stayed in freight, I would have bought some high-roof LWB Sprinter vans; even as narrow as they are, they're far more comfortable than the E-series Fords and they have a more useful cargo/passenger area. Ford should take some coachwork clues from Mercedes and build an E-series van that has Sprinter height and length, with E-series width and power. I'm confident Ford aerodynamicists and powertrain experts could figure out a way to make such a van get 20+ mpg -- and that would sell like fresh hotcakes.

The Sprinter's relatively upright seating position for the driver is almost ideal for me (69-70" tall male); i'd prefer the seat just a tad higher from the floor, if I were optimizing it for my comfort. The E-series isn't as comfortable as my Astro, and that's saying something considering the Astro is now nearly 20 years old; Ford's pickups and cars are even worse: I'm amazed that government regulators continue to allow such ergonomically disastrous practices and I'm frankly amazed that consumers haven't by now rebelled. But that's just me: I don't anymore by vehicles that I deem uncomfortable and that I reasonably suspect are unsafe because the seating position unnecessarily contributes to both distraction and fatigue.

Anyway, in my experience, 400k miles isn't really very far. A vehicle that needs mechanical support beyond routine servicing maintenance -- oil, filters, belts and hoses, spark plugs (where applicable; even then, those shouldn't require touching before 90k miles), coolant, etc. -- in less than 500,000 miles or 10 years is, in my opinion, junk.