Ford Trucks to Get 62 MPG?

[deerefan]

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

I do not know even if this were to happen in the us if folks would jump on. Diesel fuel is higher, the oil changes, though longer intervals than gas motors, tend to be more expensive and diesel engines can get rather costly to repair or replace. Now, a guy like me who needs a truck to make a living, can definitely use the power, effeciency and durability of a 1/2 ton with a 4 or 5 litre diesel that has a 10 or 11k lb tow capacity and gets 25mpg or more. Would be very interesting to see how it plays out, maybe a trial run with a few models to test the market though I doubt the big 3 are in a financial position to just test the market.

 

[automech]

maybe they get 62mpg cause they get towed so often?

 

[Rancher Ed]

I do not know even if this were to happen in the us if folks would jump on. Diesel fuel is higher, the oil changes, though longer intervals than gas motors, tend to be more expensive and diesel engines can get rather costly to repair or replace. Now, a guy like me who needs a truck to make a living, can definitely use the power, effeciency and durability of a 1/2 ton with a 4 or 5 litre diesel that has a 10 or 11k lb tow capacity and gets 25mpg or more. Would be very interesting to see how it plays out, maybe a trial run with a few models to test the market though I doubt the big 3 are in a financial position to just test the market.

I don't know really have any idea what most people want or how it would do. I have lived in the country all my life and really don't understand how some city people think and act. Do you know why they wouldn't like it?

My thinking is that without the EGR puting soot back into the engine you could have the oil changes every 10k or longer which should make it less than a gas engine over the same mileage. Diesel fuel is higher like you say and yes diesel engines can be exspensive to repair/replace.

I think it would also do great in the larger SUVs. Mate it up to a 6 or 8 speed dual-cluch trans like I mentioned and put it in a GM Suburban, Yukon, Ford Explorer, etc. I would think that people would love a large SUV than got 25mpg in the city, 30 on the highway, and could tow 10k, even if fuel was more expensive. Even the smaller SUVs that can't tow don't even get that mileage.
I don't think we will every see it but I would sure like to at least see a trial run like you said.

Ed

 

[dstig1]

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

Sorry but no way. If you spend any time in industry in a public company, you know that all the guys at the top care about is this quarter and next. To lower prices for supposed strategic reasons to stop new car technology would hurt this quarter. They won't do it. That is one of the biggest weaknesses of public companies - they are too tied to short term results by Wall St and it takes a brave CEO and board to stand up to that. Most of them are in it for the money, not to build a 200-yr company. And the money is tied to this quarter and this year.

Watch their results when you are saying they are lowering prices to stop these new technologies. Do you see their numbers falter? If so, you may have a case. If not then no.

 

[mjncad]

The 100 mpg carburetor of the 70's is also a farce. Simple physics and chemistry prove id does not work. Fuel only has so many BTU's per gallon. Efficient fuel delivery can only do so much.

Chris

Exactly...nothing is 100% efficient.

I was going to post some Colani designs... Hes WAY out there:thumbsup:

Called the trailertail. Ive read 12% savings when combined with a side skirt. ATDynamics - Fuel Efficiency Aerodynamic Technology for Tractor Trailers saving over 10% with TrailerTail and Side Skirts

The TrailerTail reminds me of the tailcone they put on the space shuttles when they transport them via 747. I wonder how well they hold up in real world use. Anyway; trailers, SUV's and anything with a flat back creates turbulence and/or slight vacuum that increases drag since the air does not exit the vehicle envelope cleanly. Granted, a car drafting closely behind a semi will see a marked improvement in MPG; but as the Mythbusters proved, one has to be dangerously close to realize the fuel savings.

As for Colani; some may call him visionary, some may call him crackpot; but he reminds me of archijerks in a lot of ways spewing all this artsy-fartsy frou-frou language about how (fill in the blank) evokes a sense of (fill in the blank) while being majestic...blah...blah...blah. I do think he has some interesting ideas that need a practical engineer's touch to determine if they are viable or not. Now Burt Rutan of aviation fame is a visionary engineer in my opinion that makes his wild ideas work.

It would be nice but not practical on a large scale. The current system to deal with NG is too small to support automobiles. Pipelines, stations, transport systems, ect ect would have to be built. No one wants to look long term, they want to look today.

It just does not work to retrofit. Now starting from scratch it may but we have a system in place to support gas.

Chris

Once again this is a case of the chicken and the egg conundrum. However had NG been the dominant fuel in the early part of the 20th Century, gas and/or diesel would be the curiosity instead. One of the issues with NG powered cars is getting the refueling time down to something comparable to gas/diesel powered vehicles. Early pumping systems were pathetically slow; but still faster than recharging electric vehicles.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Sorry but no way. If you spend any time in industry in a public company, you know that all the guys at the top care about is this quarter and next. To lower prices for supposed strategic reasons to stop new car technology would hurt this quarter. They won't do it. That is one of the biggest weaknesses of public companies - they are too tied to short term results by Wall St and it takes a brave CEO and board to stand up to that. Most of them are in it for the money, not to build a 200-yr company. And the money is tied to this quarter and this year.

Watch their results when you are saying they are lowering prices to stop these new technologies. Do you see their numbers falter? If so, you may have a case. If not then no.

You can make money two ways. 1st is high profit margin. 2nd is high volume. I see it all the time. The company I work for is one of them that participate in this practice. Very simple, just undercut the competition then when the falter buy up the remains.

Chris

 

[jonyyuma]

None of the big Three will build a auto, that can or will lug the engine with tall gearing. It would spell disaster for them. I had hoped for a CVT that had an overdrive, hence improved fuel mileage. This would be strictly for carrying two passengers and a extra payload of aprox. 100 lbs?..Saturn did make a sedan, that was set up like this apparently there was not enough R&d into it to stay.IMHO, fuel injection has really pushed the ratings up, on most engines..

 

[timswi]

Just to clarify...I never made mention of tractor-trailers...I was referring to pick-ups..A big difference in the U.S...

Ain't giving up my pickup or the wife's Hummer, don't care what gas costs...If the socialists want to punish me with $8.00 gas...Good luck..I ,and my brethren can vote...And we do.

 

[frogfish]

Here's a link that's been around for a couple of years now, suppose to be a F150 with hydraulic technology, alleged to get 60mpg, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think Ford could build enough F150s to keep up with the demand!

Ford to build 60-mpg F150 | FordMuscle.com

 

[mjncad]

That's the hydraulic accumulator technology that Chris mentioned in post #2.