Why no Ecoboost in the F250?

[Hay Dude]

There's nothing wrong with a Cummins, other than it comes with a Dodge wrapped around it!

I have a Cummins and it's been pretty good, but I doubt I'll ever buy another one.

SR

My Ram wrapped around my Cummins is much better than any Ford I ever owned. Pretty close to my Chevy’s, too.

 

[Hay Dude]

A V-10 is probably worth less than most Cummins trucks even the 1990 ones so that seems like a pretty fair comparison.

No, it isn’t. Diesel engines are a multi-thousand dollar upgrade for a reason. The engines cost more to produce and for that the customer gets more engine longevity. There’s also an expensive after treatment system.
Older trucks are just inherently less comfortable and less enjoyable to drive. They also were less efficient and powerful.
You have to compare vehicles within a few years of each other or your comparison makes no sense.

 

[nisaacs]

I wish we could get more players in the PU segment.
I was thinking Jeep might give it a try again, or possibly International. There’s so much profit in trucks.
With the way the anti-fossil fuel winds are blowing here, one has to wonder if anything new will be offered

Here ya go.

 

[deezler]

I disagree there: The DPF doesnt cost efficiency, its the EGR to lower peak combustion temperature which lowers efficiency and increases PM, which makes DPFs inevitable.

Thats why most modern European engines move away from EGR. North American engines not so, because their buyers are biased against DEF after years of misleading propaganda by mostly Navistar and John Deere who promised a Diesel only solution, with Navistar complaining at the EPA about the performance of SCR technology of competitors. In the end, Navistar went to Cummins emission technologies for SCR technology after the company was nearly bankrupted and the CEO fired.

Well, it's not quite that simple. Many of our North American diesel engines already had EGR in place for a long time prior to the DPF implementations. EGR is a terrific and proven way to lower NOx, which was a somewhat stricter emissions limit for us here prior to the mandatory drastic reduction in PM. So in a lot of cases the DPF was simply added with relatively minimal calibration changes, other than the regeneration cycle which drinks a lot of fuel. And the DPF itself of course presents a substantial exhaust restriction which naturally reduces thermal efficiency. So no I don't blame the DPF specifically for all these problems; obviously the specific emissions limits are what brought us here.

Yeah I find it kind of hilarious that Navistar really thought they could avoid SCR. The air going into their 15L engine was as much as 50-60% EGR by volume at some operating points. The EGR tubes were 3" diameter pumping like mad.

The tuning that goes into completing a comprehensive engine calibration for a modern diesel engine is fairly astounding when you consider the full picture. My mind tends to think about power and efficiency as top tuning goals, but they are always balanced with vehicle drive-ability, customer "feel", engine noise, emissions compliance across the entire operating range (with specific regard to a manufacturers own chosen/engineered aftertreatment system), long-term durability, and more. It's a 10+ dimensional map of interactions at all times.

 

[charles todd]

Even the factory 6.2L gas motor has to scream to get the job done. I have a 2016 F250 (6.2L gas, auto crewcab shortbed), and 2006 F350 (6.0 diesel, 6spd manual, crewcab short bed) and have run both trucks HARD in the past 6-9 months as we relocated to a new farm 3 hours away from the old place.

Loaded GN trailers behind both trucks, running in tandem, my wife driving the gas motor truck. It will keep up and haul any load but the tachometer is bouncing off the red line often, while the diesel is chugging along at 1500-2000 rpm most of the time. Both trucks often grossed 18k-20k+. The 6.2L has been known to want to down shift as far as 2and gear trying to maintain 60-ish mph when cruise control is set pulling an empty aluminum horse trailer (4800#). That experience alone prompted my purchase of the '06 diesel with manual transmission.

I'd hate to see an EcoBoost motor in an F250 superduty truck.

Have a 2103 GMC, 6.0L, 3.73, Crew, Z71 4x4. It will pull almost anything. It likes RPMs when towing. It can drop into 2nd at 60mph tach over 4000. Not concerned a bit. ECU will not rev engine to the point of damaging itself. They do not provide the best fuel economy though. I usually average about 8mpg@65mph with camper and 12-13mpg empty. Have got as low as 5.5mpg with camper at 85 mph.

LS engines were built to rev. GM 6.0L engines can easily go 300k+. I personally know of some that made it over 400k in work trucks before losing oil pressure.

CT

 

[Renze]

Well, it's not quite that simple. Many of our North American diesel engines already had EGR in place for a long time prior to the DPF implementations. EGR is a terrific and proven way to lower NOx, which was a somewhat stricter emissions limit for us here prior to the mandatory drastic reduction in PM.

Yes, it is that simple, but like you say, EGR was a stop-gap method of lowering NoX at the time PM goals werent as strict, and many manufacturers hung on to emission technology revolving around EGR for quite long, because thats what they knew, and emission stages followed up too quick to start over new.

And if your DPF is such a restriction that it reduces thermal efficiency... i dont know what DPFs youve been around lately, but we never found a difference between the aftermarket DPFs we installed, and the mufflers we mounted as an OEM...

But there is a tradeoff between NoX and PM, because hot combustion produces NoX, cooler combustion produces PM. EGR was just a poor compromise between the two to lower peak combustion temperature without lowering peak combustion pressure, although it meant that manufacturers that went without SCR, needed extreme amounts of EGR to meet NoX emissions, which caused a lot of soot which soot filters were unable to cope with, resulting in both poorer combustion efficiency, and more fuel needed in the DPF for active regeneration.

Once manufacturers adopted SCR and let SCR deal with NoX outside the cylinder, they started tuning the combustion again for optimal efficiency and minimal soot, which tremendously lowered the workload of the DPF, thereby minimising the need for active regeneration, thus increasing fuel efficiency both inside and outside the cylinder.

SCR opened the way for way leaner and more reliable engine tuning, however some manufacturers are adding it as an afterthought to tackle the last hurdles of emission stages, while relying on their EGR based experience, not rewriting the full engine mapping towards the possibilities of SCR based emission technology like, for instance, FPT/Iveco, AgcoPower, Traton (Scania/MAN and soon Navistar)

 

[Hay Dude]

Here ya go.


View attachment 762755

Won’t fit in my garage at home and lower GCWR than my Ram (in ‘20)

 

[Hay Dude]

Yes, it is that simple, but like you say, EGR was a stop-gap method of lowering NoX at the time PM goals werent as strict, and many manufacturers hung on to emission technology revolving around EGR for quite long, because thats what they knew, and emission stages followed up too quick to start over new.

And if your DPF is such a restriction that it reduces thermal efficiency... i dont know what DPFs youve been around lately, but we never found a difference between the aftermarket DPFs we installed, and the mufflers we mounted as an OEM...

But there is a tradeoff between NoX and PM, because hot combustion produces NoX, cooler combustion produces PM. EGR was just a poor compromise between the two to lower peak combustion temperature without lowering peak combustion pressure, although it meant that manufacturers that went without SCR, needed extreme amounts of EGR to meet NoX emissions, which caused a lot of soot which soot filters were unable to cope with, resulting in both poorer combustion efficiency, and more fuel needed in the DPF for active regeneration.

Once manufacturers adopted SCR and let SCR deal with NoX outside the cylinder, they started tuning the combustion again for optimal efficiency and minimal soot, which tremendously lowered the workload of the DPF, thereby minimising the need for active regeneration, thus increasing fuel efficiency both inside and outside the cylinder.

SCR opened the way for way leaner and more reliable engine tuning, however some manufacturers are adding it as an afterthought to tackle the last hurdles of emission stages, while relying on their EGR based experience, not rewriting the full engine mapping towards the possibilities of SCR based emission technology like, for instance, FPT/Iveco, AgcoPower, Traton (Scania/MAN and soon Navistar)

DPF not a restriction until clogged. SCR not a real big deal. The reservoir is large and it costs next to nothing to refill. No trouble during winter-so far.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

All i want is a 5.9 cummins with a p-pump, g56 trans, basic radio and hand crank windows in a 2022 body.

 

[bnold]

With THAT thinking, I don't own a Chevy, I own a Silverado. And Ford trucks aren't Fords any longer, they are now F150's! (I have a ford)

A dodge is a dodge is a dodge, I have one of those too!

I guess you buy a truck for the interior, I don't, I buy trucks for "reliability".

SR

Not really, Ram and Dodge split business units entirely.

A Dodge Ram hasn’t been available since 2010-ish. My 2011 was half and half!


Well, the reliability and ability to work with the cab on the truck is with the Cummins already, I figured that was just known!

But yes, I have to sit in the interior for many thousand hours, so that is a consideration.