2011 F150 engine choices

[p71]

Sorry P71...An engine is an air pump plain and simple. I don't think you fully understand either what I said or how an engine works. I know that internal combustion engines are inefficient, but were talking reletive to one another. Diesel's BUT-potential density is the key factor. In fact since were talking about engines that RUN ON FUEL then it's really the most important factor. Hydrogen??? Sure it has plenty of PE, BUT to extract thattakes more energy then you get so NO, your Hydrogen theory doesn't "hold water" Bio-Haul, most specificaly blue-green algea has MASSive potential and is readily produced ANYWHERE wih sun and water. Thanks for playing though

I stand by my original statement(s) and I know what I'm talking about. Got several degree's to prove it.

Cheers

Dave

Dave,

If I do not understand what you said I apologise, however my lack of understanding can only be due to your lack of ability to communicate... I have excellent comprehension skills, and I have several degrees to prove it.

However I suspect that I did understand exactly what you meant and refuted it.

As to an engine simply being an air pump: sure. However saying a turbo is simply a device to pump more air is simplistic and incorrect. Turbos do allow you to pump more air OR to pump the same amount of air more efficiently.

Hydrogen is more energy dense than diesel.

Hydrogen is vastly easier than ANY form of diesel to produce... I can do it anywhere with a cup of water and a battery. Sure it uses more energy than it gives, that is entropy for you. Here is the thing, you need to consider all "man made" fixes as an energy store not an energy source.

Growing blue green algae take lots of water and lots of land and lots of sunlight and lots of nutrients if you want to do it on a commercial scale. Then you have to ensure that only the correct strains of oil rich algae grow, which is notoriously difficult. Then you need to work out a way to macerate the cells and separate the oil from the waste materials and water...

Biomass is great in theory but also uses more energy than it produces. If you want me to allow you to use the "free" energy from photosynthesis you are going to have to let me use "free" solar or wind energy...

In addition to this there is the problem that unless extensively treated bio-diesel will become rancid and has severe flow problems in cold temperatures, so from a practical standpoint it is not the greatest solution. If you dedicate the same number of acres to solar panels hydrogen production as you would to bio-diesel production you will end up being able to move more miles on the hydrogen.

Honestly I do not think hydrogen is necessarily the solution, I just feel that in the near term grown fuels are definitely not.

I know it is a bad move to give advice on the internet but here goes: argue the data not the point. You never have any idea who you may be talking to; the guy you try to impress by saying "I have a bunch of degrees" could be your former professor or the inventor of the next greatest advance in mechanical engineering.

Finally, in a lighter vein, I do not play, I dropped out of kindergarten because I heard they had recess.

 

[4Rescue]

87 Bronco: I'm guessing that you have an OLDER 7.3 Desiel??? Bet you wouldn't get rid of it for this 3.5L TT OR even a newer 6.0PSD would you???

P71 I have NO idea what your backgrounbd is, I can only atest to mine and with several MA'srangin from Physics to Orgainc Chem/Combustion to Fire Sciences/EMS to a BS in Economics. I know what I know. Don't know what you know. To me, Science is my religion. And I respect it as such and have paid ALOT of attention to know what I know as well as actualy working with all this knowledge to glean the things a classroom can't teach about each as well.
I don't think that there's NO ROOM for both Hydrogen AND Bio-haul, but were talking about Gas/Turocharging versus Diesel Turbocharging and frankly Diesel wins and always will. You can't re-invent the "Tane's" (heptane octane etc) and fuel is what it is. It has X ammount of Potential energy.

Part of what I was trying to think of that I couldn't figure out how to say, is that honestly the WHOLE game has changed in terms of what's important to car/truck makers. I for one think it's LAME, but whatever.

What I mean by that is the CEO of FO MO CO doesn't care about "engineering details" so much as he cares about "sales figures" and "the bottom Line"... In all honesty, with the way AMericans have ADD over vehicles, these rigs won't even be around in 10-years to really validate any of their data. The CEO tells the workers/engineer's "Make a me a car that has 500hp and get's 50mpg... don't care how you do it, JUST DO IT" were seeing a MPG and Power war simillar to the HP wars of the muscle care era. SO, people do things to try to make thet goal a reality, including overly complicated exhaust cleaning systems and all manner of other junk that's NOT important to a motor, but IS important to the people whjo buy into ADVERTISING. Consequentialy, motors and vehicles in GENERAL these days are seen as far more "disposable" Sure my 22RE has not alot of power, and yeah it doesn't get TERRIFIC milage BUT, it is built with LONGEVITY in mind and the ability to run on ANY grade of gassoline as well as be rebuilt several times. New motors aren't like this. Yes HD truck motors are, but most passenger car motors have thinner walled blocks and other components that aren't meant to last all that long. It's planned obsolescence.

Car makers use all kinds of mass-produced parts and common parts to ower costs of manufacturing, SO if there were more diesel's out in N.America they wouldn't command as high a price. Look at Dodge (far and AWAY the best of the big 3)... while Ford and Shivvy were trying to comem up with all kinds of nw motors, the old Cummins soldiered on and was greatly successfull. Why did it command a premium??? Because it COULD. Nobody else offered something and the market set the price. We need more Diesel'ws, not more gas engine options. My folks waited 6-months to get their VW TDi Wagon ecause every one in NA was spoken for so it comanded the premium... were there more it would NOT. It's suply and demand

Thing I see, is that IMO in 10 years the 3.5 will be all but forgotten as FOrd (as is demonstrated by the last 10 years of "engineering" byt Ferd) will have replaced IT with oh say a 3.4L engine that now claims to get 20% better milage then the "old" 3.5L... All Ford want's to do is sell more Junk. They don't WANT people to hold onto vehicles for 20-30 years because it means THEY'RE not selling you any new trucks. ME, I keep a good rig untill it's DONE... but I'm certainly not the "common user" I see it as fairly possible that FOrd will move onto "Duo-Charging" (another design VW is using in other markets with great success in small engines) and I'm sure that too will be called a "Game-changer" and it will be no less true then the new TTV6...

AGIN, I don't think this is totoaly WASTED tech, it just isn't the right application IMO ADN if it means stoping progress on small diesel's then it's doing more harm then good. If this DOES turn out to be a big a "game changer" as the PR guys are saying, then fine, I'll eat my words then, but this "next big thing" is just OLD TECH re-hashed and put in a shinny new package to sell to the consumer.

 

[haven]

Pickuptrucks.com has posted a comprehensive test of the 3.5L Ecoboost turbo V6. They took two identically equipped 2WD Ecoboost F150s on a 2000 mile trip that included lots of freeways with steep grades and high altitudes. One truck ran unloaded, the other towing a 9000 lb trailer.

Result: The unloaded 2WD truck averaged 21 mpg, the truck with trailer 8.5 mpg.

Conclusion: The Ecoboost was the equal of the F150 with 5.0L V8 that Pickuptrucks.com tested earlier for towing and in overall performance. And Ecoboost delivered much better fuel economy than the V8 when running unloaded.

A purchase decision comes down to intended use. Most F150s spend their days running errands. If you regularly need a truck for towing and hauling, you should buy a SuperDuty model, not an F150. For the people who tow and haul only occasionally, the Ecoboost F150 makes a lot of sense.

 

[haven]

Ford reports that 100,000 F150s have been purchased with the EcoBoost gas turbo V6 under the hood. That's about 40% of F150 sales this year.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/24/ford-f-150-ecoboost-hits-100-000-sales/

 

[Redline]

I only had one (long) test drive but I'm still impressed with the 3.5L EcoBoost engine. Living at altitude, I love forced induction.

 

[Buliwyf]

I drove the 6.2 in a Superduty recently. It was very nice. More powerful feeling than a V10.

While I'll agree that a small displacement turbocharged engine is the right direction to go in 1/2 ton trucks. I'd still opt for the 6.2L V8. I'd love to have a Raptor without all the expensive bling and leather, just the suspension and body panels. Raptor XL??? (I've allready bugged Ford. Am I the only one that thinks a cheaper Raptor would rule?)

 

[p71]

My raptor was a base model and was nicer equipped and only 1500 more than the next nearest FX4

 

[Buliwyf]

That's not bad at all. Dealers are still gouging on the Raptor in my area, I guess. Maybe those prices will come down when they have 1 year old Raptors sitting on thier lots.

 

[bronconut]

Glad to report that I've seen no Eco Boost F150's in the shop for any engine concerns, haven't seen any cars equiped with it either rexcept a few early production models that had a spark plug issue.

 

[Redline]

Glad to report that I've seen no Eco Boost F150's in the shop for any engine concerns, haven't seen any cars equiped with it either rexcept a few early production models that had a spark plug issue.

That's saying a lot. Good.

 

[Pskhaat]

I just read this thread and was about to reply in detail to 4Rescue and p71, but there seems to be some lost blood there, and from a distance, funny thing is you both sound correct.

I recommend that you exercise caution when looking just at peak HP/torque numbers, even when they are accompanied by RPM. It is good to look at the 'big picture' of the HP and torque curves on a graph.

Could not be more correct. Distinct HP and Torque numbers mean nothing without looking at the curve.

... frankly they're playing a game of bait and switch and trying to avoid the laws of physics and thermo-dynamics

Yes, diesel and equivalents have more volumetric energy density than gasoline only by about 12%. Not THAT much more. Like you, however, I wish the R&D would be spent on an engine with fuel that has more potential, I'm not sure where from where the gasoline love affair comes in the US auto industry.

...most important: ENDLESS FUEL SUPLIES!!!

No energy is ENDLESS, just do the math.

...a few years down the road to the problems Ford will inevitably have with yet ANOTHER new motor.

Yes Diesel is more energy dense but a conventional engine is so ridiculously inefficient that some steps are available in efficiency.

Then why not pursue efficiency with Diesel?

Also the ecoboost's dyno sheet shows a ludicrously flat torque curve. ... flat torque curves move mountains.

No, no, no. Chapter 3 here can help explain.

Obviously what technology to go to is a big problem. If the solution were easy we would already have done it... I see ford's attempt as a good if slightly misguided one. On the other hand they no far more than I do so maybe they have some detail I do not.
thanks for listening.

There are both pros and cons to both gasoline and diesel engines, as well as any other fuel. If there was a prefect fuel, we would be using it, rather than paying Big Brother.