Ford Trucks to Get 62 MPG?

[slowzuki]

Actually its a combination of both, but on the highway, aerodynamics is the biggest factor. In town weight is by far the biggest factor.

Trucks get the mileage that they get due mostly due to weight, not aerodynamics. A Z06 Corvette gets close to 30MPG hwy with close to 500HP..Why?...It weighs half what a truck does and can tow/haul virtually nothing.

 

[slowzuki]

We aren't quite there yet for 30 mpg highway in such a truck. Not at the 70 mph everyone wants to drive. It would need to be an underpowered 4 cyl version of the Ford ecoboost, with tiny little tires, chopped roof, air foil underbelly pan, wheel well covers etc. Would look terrible and certainly no 4wd.

With the technology available right now, there is no reason a 1/2 ton truck with a 9k lb tow capacity cannot get 30mpg. There is no conspiracy.

 

[deerefan]

I agree with you to a point but they do it though pricing, not buying up magic carburetors. Every time gas hits a new high level the car companies start talking about new technology. To put a halt on that they simply lower the cost of fuel. This makes it un economical to peruse new technology. Its simple business. Run your competitor out of business.

Chris

Exactly. They may not buy up the technology, maybe I am wrong. But there are ways they can control it, like you mentioned, fuel prices. You hit the nail on the head while I was hitting the wood around the nail!!

 

[slowzuki]

Thats a lot of power per litre, it wouldn't hold up to heavy use. The epa regs are what have kept major cities from looking like China/India cities. More diesels that sell, the more regs there are going to need to be.

I believe it is the EPA more than the oil companies that are preventing it. A ~4L 4 cyl diesel in a half ton truck with ~250hp and 550 torque should be able to get 30mpg with no problem if the EPA would let it be build to the pre 2004 regs. They could even build it with a 200hp 500 torque setting for mileage and when you put it in tow haul it would bump up to 300hp and 600 torque.

Ed

 

[deerefan]

Thats a lot of power per litre, it wouldn't hold up to heavy use. The epa regs are what have kept major cities from looking like China/India cities. More diesels that sell, the more regs there are going to need to be.

What I can't get my mind around is why did the fuel effeciency plummet with the new diesels? My friend had a 5.9 cummins 1 ton that got north of 20 but his wifes 1 ton 6.7 cummins has only hit 18 twice. What gives?

 

[RobertN]

I dont care for all the smog stuff robbing mileage. But, in some area's there has been a marked improvements; the Los Angeles area has had marked improvements. I'm in N. Calif, where we do not have as much smog, but we still get plenty.

The basins and mountains throughout the state create pollution issues that most of the US does not have.

I would think though, that a clean burning engine would get better mileage than one that is not. My brother has a '71 Chevy 3/4 ton with a 350. Man, you can smell that old carbeurated engine run!

Sounds like the president and the state of california are ignoring the laws of physics, as usual...

 

[jagyzf]

What I can't get my mind around is why did the fuel effeciency plummet with the new diesels? My friend had a 5.9 cummins 1 ton that got north of 20 but his wifes 1 ton 6.7 cummins has only hit 18 twice. What gives?

EPA regulation, the trucks have to run richer to lower NOx levels, and the EGR and DPF regeneration all take fuel milage down. People want more power and at the same time cleaner air. The only way allowed is through EPA mandated tech which lowers fuel milage.

 

[slowzuki]

The newest ones are getting better in GM and Ford, Dodge chose to not use urea, so they are using "super" egr, ie sending piles of exhaust back through the motor, and also retarding the timing to limit peak cylinder temperatures. High cylinder temps cause NOx. The problem is high engine efficiency comes from high peak cylinder pressures which are hand in hand with high temps.

So the old cummins could run advanced injection timing and no/little egr and get good economy. The Ford/Chev motors still can run those type of setting, but treat the exhaust NOx with DEF.

What I can't get my mind around is why did the fuel effeciency plummet with the new diesels? My friend had a 5.9 cummins 1 ton that got north of 20 but his wifes 1 ton 6.7 cummins has only hit 18 twice. What gives?

 

[Rancher Ed]

Thats a lot of power per litre, it wouldn't hold up to heavy use. The epa regs are what have kept major cities from looking like China/India cities. More diesels that sell, the more regs there are going to need to be.

I know it is on the high side but if you bump it up to 4.4L and compare it to:

Ford 6.0L- 54.17hp per liter 95 lb ft per liter
Ford 6.7L- 59.71hp per liter 119 lb ft per liter
GM 06 6.6L- 53.03hp per liter 100 lb ft per liter
GM 11 6.6L- 59.85hp per liter 116 lb ft per liter
Dodge 5.9L- 55.08hp per liter 103 lb ft per liter
Dodge 6.7L- 52.24hp per liter 119 lb ft per liter

Cummins ISM 11L- 45.45hp per liter 141 lb ft per liter
Cummins ISL 8.9L- 44.94hp per liter 135 lb ft per liter
Cummins ISX 14.9L- 40.27hp per liter 138 lb ft per liter


If it was 4.4L
@ 200hp & 500 lb ft- 45.45hp per liter 114 lb ft per liter
@ 250hp & 550 lb ft- 56.82hp per liter 125 lb ft per liter
@ 300hp & 600 lb ft- 68.18 hp per liter 136 lb ft per liter
So it looks like getting 300hp might be stretching it a bit too much but the rest of it all looks doable to me.


What I am envisioning is a turbo charged engine tuned for complete combustion with a governed speed of 2800 rpm. I would then treat the exhaust to get the Nox to 2007 levels and the partical level to half way between 2004 and 2007 levels.

Something I would be interested in seeing is how the Nox and partical matter compare from a 2006 dodge cummins vs a 2008 dodge cummins over say 10,000 miles. At some point, any reduction in exhaust pollution is offset by the extra fuel burned per 100 miles when you includ refining and transporting that extra fuel.

Ed

 

[deerefan]

The newest ones are getting better in GM and Ford, Dodge chose to not use urea, so they are using "super" egr, ie sending piles of exhaust back through the motor, and also retarding the timing to limit peak cylinder temperatures. High cylinder temps cause NOx. The problem is high engine efficiency comes from high peak cylinder pressures which are hand in hand with high temps.

So the old cummins could run advanced injection timing and no/little egr and get good economy. The Ford/Chev motors still can run those type of setting, but treat the exhaust NOx with DEF.

Ok I see now. I have built some motors in my time, mainly carbed small block chevys. This new tech can get a little baffling.