I find it interesting to note that had IHC and Ford had their normal development period, they may have found out BEFORE market that the oil cooler didn't like casting sand.

Remember that the EPA moved the phase-in date on the 2004 emissions spec from 1/1/2005 to 10/1/2002. That loss of development time (over half a normal development cycle) cost ALL the engine manufacturers a great deal of money and aggravation. NO engine maker survived the 2002/2004 emissions run without MASSIVE problems. Note that they ALL utilized in-series oil and EGR coolers. And ALL of them had problems with undersizing of the coolers.

You'll note that the physical size of the EGR cooler on the 6.4 is considerably larger than that of the 6.0. And the 6.7's cooler is substantially larger STILL.

---------

Many of these tradeoffs in design come from packaging requirements, and weight concerns. A fluid/gas cooler will ALWAYS take up less space than a gas/gas cooler. Especially when AIR is the cooling fluid. And in a truck that ALREADY tips the scales at 8000 lbs, adding another 500-600 lbs for a cast-iron ATA cooler just wasn't in the cards. Not to mention, where would you put it?

-----------

Cavitation IS routinely dealt with, and most cavitation failures result from two causes: old age, or poor maintenance. That's what SCA's in coolant are for. I had just under one million miles (976K or so) on my Detroit Series 60. I was close to, but not "into" cavitation failure on at least one cylinder, when I had it overhauled. DDC's MTBF on the Series 60 is 1M miles, so I was right on the money. If you have cavitation losses in an engine with less than 500K miles, someone isn't taking care of the coolant.

-blaine

 

Yes, everyone had a bad idea...


As for the size of the EGR cooler in the 6.7. Keep in mind that EGR increased considerably, so what is the net increase in size (if any)?


Insofar as the estimate of 500lbs for an air-air cooler?

No way --- we need to sit down and run some hard numbers. I seriously do not think it is that high.

I am more thinking it is in the range of 10lbs, and the majority of the issue being bulk.

Think in terms of a turbo intercooler.

 

The charge cooler in the Freightliner is all aluminum, and weighs in at between 50 and 100 lbs. The steel radiator in the Freightliner is several hundred pounds. Three feet square.

Even if you COULD manufacture a cast-iron cooler with wall-thickness that thin (and I'm thinking that's not possible), just because it's cast iron means that it will be heavy. Cast iron is NOT the metal of choice for heat conduction and transfer. It does resist exhaust-induced corrosion better than most, but it's sheer weight makes it unacceptable. Get the weight reasonable, and you are forced to use materials that are far less capable in the heat ranges required. Which is why IHC's EGR coolers failed; not because of poor construction, but because the aluminum simply couldn't maintain structural integrity in 1200 degree peak temps (which were brought on by the casting-sand-induced oil cooler failures).

-blaine

 

The compromise would be a very thin inner liner of cast iron (to resist exhaust corrosion), and a aluminum outside to aid with heat transfer.

Now, would a lot of these problems be moot if we tapped the EGR way further back?

Theoretically, there is no practical reason why a EGR cooler cannot be put ahead of the DOC but low in the frame / underside?

Why does it have to be at the front of the vehicle?

What about putting it on top (eg at hood) with a vent in the hood as is done with many car turbo intercoolers?

Great comments, blaine.

 

I am going to violate one of my personal rules and continue the hijack .....

It is unwise and expensive to clad a heat exchanger with a metal that has a significantly different thermal growth property than the base metal.

It is not that onerous to maintain the coolant system - flush every 50k miles. Also, a coolant filter is easy enough and cheap enough to install. I would hate to see Ford add the dollars to the price of a new truck when I can get a fairly high degree of reliability with these two actions. I personally think the EGR system is cost effective (assuming that you have to have one). I will say that the new flash (and gauges) are also important and fairly reasonable in cost. As was said earlier, the main issue is the oil cooler placement and the small coolant side passageways.

Even so, I can live with the issue since, with proper care, I do not think that most folks would see any problems for MANY miles. Even if it is inevitable that after 100k (on my own dime) that I have to replace the oil cooler, I personally think it is a small price to pay vs Ford designing and installing something approaching bulletproof that would surely have other trade-offs (cost, accessibility impact, weight, etc).

 

Gearloose, Absolutely no offense meant but the horse is already out of the barn and re-designing the wheel isn't going to change what we have in the 6.0 or what we will get in the 6.7. I'm sure that we do not know all of the criteria thrown at the auto manf. by the EPA. Bottom line, we will learn to live with and/or modify what is on the market or keep the old technology and refuse to buy the new trucks. Constant re-hashing of what should have been done really gets us nothing except absurdly long posts.

 

If you plate aluminum and a ferrous metal, you have to worry about electrolytic corrosion, which is why you almost never see such a beast in practice, or in rare situations where the requirements are SOO exacting to necessitate that and that only, and the service lives are short.

Detroit (and the other class-8 engine manufacturers) typically put the fluid-based EGR cooler alongside the block, inside the frame rail.

The whole problem with the "first generation" EGR Cooler designs was that they were ALL in series. Separate the fluid streams, and you eliminate 99% of the problems. It took them nearly a decade to figure this out, for reasons that I'll NEVER understand.

For use of a gas-based cooler, you'd have to either place the cooler in the nose, to use ram-air, or ducted from the side to use flow-air around the side of the vehicle, or forced by fans. Getting the ductwork to work for a 100K mileage lifetime is difficult, due to impact damage. Low mounting in the front of the vehicle has the same constraints. Lightweight coolers don't like impact from ANYTHING, even bugs, insects, and road gravel; to say nothing of deer, other cars, etc.... And then if you still want to use ducting/fans, the weight from the ducting/fans cancels out any benefit from the lightweight cooler. Below or behind the vehicle, if the engine is not already behind the vehicle, involves piping/ducting that becomes prohibitive. Not to mention 150+ degree pavement temps.

--------------

Note that the whole problem stems from 2 sources: trying to run EGR on a positive-pressure manifold, and massive weight reduction in the engine bay. Engine manufacturers had few problems (other than soot buildup) on cast-iron intake manifolds on passenger car engines. But aluminum intakes, combined with positive pressure intake systems, means that the recirculated exhaust gas MUST be cooled before reintroduction.

(When I worked auto parts, the sales of AIR-pump valve replacements was almost as common as spark plugs. The idiots in design didn't quite "get" that 1000 degree exhaust gas would ALWAYS melt nylon valve parts... DUH! They're still having the same problems today!)

----------

A lot of what you're thinking comes back to the "good-fast-cheap" triangle. You're wanting good and fast, and by definition, that can't come cheap. Cost pressures by definition knock down some of the good and fast. I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want a personal vehicle whose procurement cost is well into six figures.....

-blaine

 

LOL... never offended by fair comments!

The issue is moot...

Unless you are thinking in terms of an add on mod.....

But then you know me... I am trying to improve on the existing Dieselite coolant filter also!





If I were to show you the "issues" in the microcontrollers that Ford uses in the PCM, made by a big American company that is a shadow of its former self, you would .....

Or the software bugs....

Or... lol...


blaine:

The good news:

There are lurkers out there, known to be engineers for Ford, etc. that read this stuff...

You have great stuff... wish you were on the 6.7 design team.

 

Last I knew, they were using Motorola 68HC11 microcontrollers. And I suspect some of the issues have do deal with solder joints and such, driven by the need to try to get rid of the evil lead alloys. (despite their ultimate suitability for the usage environment)

The software issues: I was once told that over 90% of the code in fuel injection controllers is used to deal with failures, run diagnostics, report errors, etc; that is, lots of things OTHER than actually metering fuel. Fuel metering code can be handled in a few lines.

I think a LARGE part of what some of their problems stem from is that they have such a HYOOGE target to hit. They're trying to make this truck be every THING to every ONE. Not only that, but it's a MOVING target. The standards never sit still long enough for a platform to become stable, like the 7.3 (and other, older engines) was allowed to do.

I think that at some point, they'll HAVE to separate the market (indeed, it seems that EPA is all but FORCING them down this path) to get the "work" trucks out of the "play" truck crowd. I think at that point that many of their problems will subside; 2010 is the last major milestone on diesel emissions reductions for on-highway use (although CAFE regs may dictate further changes) and technology that wasn't even dreamed of 10 years ago is now starting to come online to help deal with some of the issues that no one even thought they'd have to think about considering 10 years ago.

(thanks, BTW. )

-blaine

 

Solder confirmed as an issue.

I cannot confirm it, but suspect Ford got burned by the capacitor caper too.

xBox, Sony, etc. all got burned by the lead free solder issue.




I am not so sure about a few lines to do fuel injection.

A ton of the code is done to interpret what the sensors are telling the PCM.

If you ever see the "raw" input from the sensors on a scope, you will understand why it must be processed to yield usable data.

Much of that processing is done in code --- so is the fault diagnostics, fail safes, etc.

That is where the complexity comes in.

Generally, it is reckoned that a modern PCM have about 1 to 3 million lines of "essential" code.

That does not include things like ABS, Airbags, etc. that are all separate.


IMHO, the all things to all people truck is finished as of now.

My wager:

The next major redesign will see the F-150 go unibody.

250s and 350s will be pure commercial trucks.

Look at the E series -- the line is toast except for the 350 cutaways and so on.

The lower end will be replaced by a US made big Transit that is like the Sprinter --- unibody.


So the days of cheap towing capacity with a F-150 / E-150 is gone.


We will be paying at least 50% more for a real truck in 5 years.


Take a look at the truck CAFEs --- it is flatly not achievable with the existing 150s.

 

Sorry about the

Trucks will remain as body-on-frame. Towing capacity simply can't be effectively achieved any other way. But leaf springs and live axles will be a thing of the past (weight reasons) and so too will be steel bodies.

Engines will go Eco-boost(tm) or clean diesel for fuel economy; EcoBoost here in the states (where EPA loathes diesel) and CleanDiesel every where else in the world. Gone will be the tire-smoking engines we enjoy now. Towing capacity will be eviscerated, and so the DEMAND for big tow numbers (i.e. huge trailers, RV's, etc) will be knocked down. The new SAE towing guidelines suggest that towing sales numbers are going to be cut in half.

The F250 will be "reined in" and brought back into the "light duty" line (witness the return to vacuum-boosted brakes in the 2011 F250, and the fact that you can spec an F150 with an 8000 GVWR) and the F350 will be pushed up another 1000 lbs in the GVW classes to get it into commercial truck territory, or eliminated all together. There will be a fairly large gap between the two.

The E-series has been moribund for years. It does have it's uses, but there are other alternatives to what it's offering, at competitive prices, without the safety concerns.

Prices for medium-duty trucks have been coming down somewhat in the last 10 years as the capabilities (and prices) of the F350/450 platforms have gone up.

The market for "gently used" medium duty trucks will explode as people who still need the capabilities get around to moving into an appropriate vehicle class. Not to mention that the economics that drove the explosion of HYOOGE RV's is gone forever.

But ultimately it depends on what fuel prices do. If they stay low, then the truck market will continue to flourish. If they go up like they did 2 years ago, then the truck market will dry up and blow away; at least on the coasts, anyway. Farmers will always need trucks.
-------------

Now, can we find the original thread around here any more, or have we completely buried it?

-blaine

 

Dear Hijacker:

Have you thought of a job on the buy side as an auto analyst on Wall Street?

Darn good analysis.

Excellent.

You don't just need your own thread --- you need a paid platform for work this good.

 

Fellas,
So, has anyone used diesel manor's ccv kit? Here is a link, BD Diesel 1032170 CCV Kit for Ford Powerstroke at DieselManor Seems to be a bit pricey. I've decided to go ahead and do the mod, just trying to get set up here. If anyone knows of any other "all in one" kit let me know. Thanks for the help.

 

Jayybird -

Be careful on the "everything ccv kits". You need to know where they locate the ccv filter itself - can't really tell from the Diesel Manor pic. The main issue is whether or not you have room for it. This is the with the DIY kits also - deciding where you locate it. I strongly suggest 1 inch hose (if you have a chip or will ever get one). No smaller than 3/4 inch if you are stock.

 

I strongly suggest no smaller than 1 inch hose stock or not. The CCV mod can cause excessive crankcase pressure if it doesn't breathe properly which can lead to other problems. I know the belief is that the oil vapor causes problems going through the system but I also know a LOT of trucks running totally stock with a LOT of miles that NEVER have problems. My CCV mod went in the trash as I got tired of the smell everytime I stopped at a drive thru. Just MHO.