BigBOSS
FRF Addict
I'm in for a small diesel as well!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
2015 F-150 2.7L with 400HP? WTF
- Thread starter MTF
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
What do you guys classify as a small diesel? Ford already developed a 4.4 diesel. They specifically chose not to use it in the F-150 and the provided it to Land Rover. Ford isn't holding anything back. They've just placed all their bets on the Ecoboost strategy until they prove otherwise. I think I post this EVERY year, but...
BramageDained
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Posts
- 761
- Reaction score
- 449
I really don't understand the 'Murica logic against anything that's not a big V8.
bstoner59
does it come in shmedium?
Ford has a small diesel coming out soon. The full size Transit van that should be out this year has a 3.2L Inline 5. Maybe Ford is planning on stuffing that little guy in the F-150??
That would be cool...
Cleave
FRF Addict
What are you talking about, all the ecoboost engines have direct injection, all the ford focus engines have direct injection, the 6.2L heads are cast for direct injection, ford is definitely headed towards direct injection in every engine, don't let GM's lies pull the wool over your eyes, they are the company that's caught in the past, flagship v-8 from the 50s, still running overhead valves
most people are stupid
OrangeAddict
FRF Addict
I agree, but I really don't think that is the reason that most companies do not put the diesel engines into the vehicles in the US. I would hypothesize that EPA/Government has more to do with it than people think. Companies (Car and oil) are not going to incur the higher cost of diesel engines due to the regulations.
The EPA/Government has made it harder to put diesel engines into most of the cars/trucks due to the emissions standards. If you have ever been to a city where those standards are low or non existent you would see this in a flash. Just step off a plane and get a taxi in a city like Cebu City or Manila in the Philippines and you will see what I mean, diesel is the main fuel in these places. There have been many advances in diesel engines to make them more emission friendly but you mainly see them on the HD truck where the EPA does not require as stringent emission standards. If the Governement/EPA/Lobbiest would lower the emission standards just a little bit then you would see more diesel engines.
I am sure that the car companies also have other concerns in the US market that inhibits their placement of a diesel engine into passenger cars. Like the fact that diesel engines are typically a louder engine. I know there have been many advances in these engines to make them more quiet but compared to a gasoline engine with similar technology I believe that you will still hear a slight difference. Then there is the fact that most americans are not used to the maintenance that comes with a diesel engine, nor the small issues that diesel engines have in the extreme cold. Most of these can be mitigated with time and education about the vehicle you are purchasing but I don't think the average american household wants to deal with this.
Please don't get me wrong I would love to see a clean burning diesel engine make it at least into a F-150 platform but even if it does will the total cost of ownership of that vehicle make a big enough difference to pull americans away from Gasoline engines. I doubt it.
Probably the bigger issue will the majority of americans be willing to push down the EPA standards in order to make diesel engines the cheaper alternative to gasoline engines.
Let the bashing begin….
I agree, but I really don't think that is the reason that most companies do not put the diesel engines into the vehicles in the US. I would hypothesize that EPA/Government has more to do with it than people think. Companies (Car and oil) are not going to incur the higher cost of diesel engines due to the regulations.
The EPA/Government has made it harder to put diesel engines into most of the cars/trucks due to the emissions standards. If you have ever been to a city where those standards are low or non existent you would see this in a flash. Just step off a plane and get a taxi in a city like Cebu City or Manila in the Philippines and you will see what I mean, diesel is the main fuel in these places. There have been many advances in diesel engines to make them more emission friendly but you mainly see them on the HD truck where the EPA does not require as stringent emission standards. If the Governement/EPA/Lobbiest would lower the emission standards just a little bit then you would see more diesel engines.
I am sure that the car companies also have other concerns in the US market that inhibits their placement of a diesel engine into passenger cars. Like the fact that diesel engines are typically a louder engine. I know there have been many advances in these engines to make them more quiet but compared to a gasoline engine with similar technology I believe that you will still hear a slight difference. Then there is the fact that most americans are not used to the maintenance that comes with a diesel engine, nor the small issues that diesel engines have in the extreme cold. Most of these can be mitigated with time and education about the vehicle you are purchasing but I don't think the average american household wants to deal with this.
Please don't get me wrong I would love to see a clean burning diesel engine make it at least into a F-150 platform but even if it does will the total cost of ownership of that vehicle make a big enough difference to pull americans away from Gasoline engines. I doubt it.
Probably the bigger issue will the majority of americans be willing to push down the EPA standards in order to make diesel engines the cheaper alternative to gasoline engines.
Let the bashing begin….
Bingo.
Boss Hoss
FRF Addict
This is from 2010---Ford is putting more into DI but is a few years behind the curve:
Why New Ford V-6 and V-8 Engines Don't Have Direct InjectionBy Bengt Halvorson 6 10,589 views
A couple of years ago, General Motors introduced a new-generation 3.6-liter direct-injection V-6—beating its Detroit rivals, and most other automakers, to market with a DI engine. Between the Los Angeles and Detroit auto shows, Ford has introduced a pair of all-new V-6 and V-8 engines, slated for a wide range of applications and the V-6 making more power and torque than that GM V-6. But neither of the Ford engines employ DI.
So, we asked a powertrain expert at Ford, why is this? The answer, surprisingly, is that while we've been led for years to assume that direct injection is always a step ahead for fuel economy and emissions, in many cases it's not—especially when considering cost and complexity, and how the technology will pair with other innovations.
"When the program started, it [the new Duratec in the Mustang] was a direct-injection engine," said Greg T. Johnson, a powertrain integration manager whose responsibilities include both engines. But according to Johnson, Ford powertrain engineers eventually realized that leaving the DI aspect out of the design allowed charge-cooling advantages—allowing engineers to better optimize intake air temps for fuel economy, power, and emissions.
Typically, direct injection allows better control over knock, enabling a higher compression ratio, which does help optimize combustion. "Yeah, it helped us a little bit with knock, but it wasn't that much for all the cost," said Johnson, referring to all the more expensive parts, such as high-pressure fuel-system components, needed for DI. Ford even brought a DI version of the engine through to the point of running prototypes, "but in the end it didn't make business sense," Johnson summed.
The strategy—instead optimizing the new Ti-VCT system and emphasizing breathing—paid off. Having the extra leeway with breathing allowed both engines to put out more power and torque than rival direct-injection engines, while the variable valvetrain boosts efficiency with low load. The new Ford Duratec 37 produces 305 horsepower and 280 pound-feet, while GM's 3.6-liter direct-injected V-6 makes 280 to 304 hp, and 266 to 273 lb-ft, depending on the application.
The new 5.0-liter V-8 in the 2011 Mustang GT likewise has Ti-VCT and some of the same design attributes, according to Johnson (though with a number of racing oriented enhancements we report on here). It also makes more than many same-size or slightly larger V-8s, at 412 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque.
Fuel economy, too, is a strong point, with the V-6 expected to yield up to 30 mpg on the highway in the 2011 Ford Mustang and up to 25 mpg on the highway in the 2011 Lincoln MKX (and anticipated for the 2011 Ford Edge). GM's direct-injected V-6 achieves 18/29, at best, in the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro and up to 17/24 mpg in the (admittedly larger) Buick Enclave.
The new 5.0-liter V-8 is also expected to be quite fuel-efficient, with ratings up to 25 mpg highway in the 2011 Ford Mustang GT.
The 2.0-liter, naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine being introduced for the Ford Focus does have DI. According to Johnson, there are no plans to add direct injection to normally aspirated V-6 or V-8 engines, but we will continue to see direct injection in all EcoBoost engines because they are very knock limited and the extra measure of DI helps.
Undoubtedly, it depends who you ask. But maybe DI isn't the very worthwhile upgrade it's often touted to be.
Similar threads
