Why won't Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Why won't Ford put a smaller version of the PowerStroke Turbo Diesel in the new F150?! I would really like a diesel pickup but have no need for something as big as F250/F350. Plus this new F150 looks awesome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

I'm with you there!

Ford/Navistar actually designed and set-up a plant to build a V6 Powerstroke for the 1/2 ton trucks, but Ford wussed out at the last minute (and Navistar threatened a lawsuit!)

A small 4 cylinder diesel truck would be nice, too. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
PlatinumGLS said:
Why won't Ford put a smaller version of the PowerStroke Turbo Diesel in the new F150?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because the GVWR is not large enough to fit into a more lenient emissions bracket?

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
tjl said:
[ QUOTE ]
PlatinumGLS said:
Why won't Ford put a smaller version of the PowerStroke Turbo Diesel in the new F150?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because the GVWR is not large enough to fit into a more lenient emissions bracket?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly it. Below 8500 lbs GVWR, the trucks have to meet much more stringent emission standards (Tier II automotive, same as cars), and they don't have a diesel that will do it. VW had a heckuva time getting a 1.9 4-cylinder to squeak (barely) through Tier II; it's way tougher with an engine that's way bigger and pulling way more load but still has to pass the same emission requirements in grams per mile.

The V6 Powerstroke was a lame duck, from what I've heard. They're having enough trouble with the 6.0 V8 Powerstroke.

By the way, diesel engines require very strong crankshafts. In-line engine, one con-rod per crank throw and main bearings on each side of each crank throw, no problem. V8, two con-rods right next to each other on the same crankpin, not quite as good but it will do. V6, what do you do? If you build it like a V8, it will be strong enough (same as the V8), but with 90-degree bank angle, it's an uneven-firing engine, mighty rough when you have low revs and high compression. If you build it like a gasoline V6, with offset crankpins, the crankshaft is nowhere near as strong because now you have two separate crank throws between pairs of main bearings.

Ever wonder why big-rig engines are almost always inline-six? There you go.

I don't know what the proposed arrangement of the V6 Powerstroke was, nor do I know how VW/Audi handle it with the 2.5 V6. That's a small, light-duty engine compared to the Powerstroke; perhaps they could get away with offset crankpins on an engine that small.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

The V6 may have gotten a balance shaft, like GM and Ford have done on 90 degree gas V6s for quite a while that were based off of V8 designs.

An inline 6 would definitely be sturdier...but that is almost true no matter what fuel you're burning.

Now, if they put the cylinder angle at 60 degrees as many smaller V6 engines are, that would cure the odd-firing woes, but that would also severely limit how much commonality it would have with the 6.0L V8, so I do not think they would have done that.

GM had a 90 degree V6 diesel, the 4.3L, that was basically the Olds 5.7L (350) diesel minus 2 cylinders. It did not have any balance shaft, and it really was not any worse for roughness as their 3.8L Buick gas V6 of the same era, believe it or not! I would not speculate on the longevity of that 4.3L diesel, however... /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

I found this SAE/CAT paper from 1999.

Caterpillar Light Truck Clean Diesel Program

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

The V6 Powerstroke was to have a 90-degree bank angle displacing 4.5L. Without going into the details, I was an insider in the development of this engine, and I will only go as far as to say that there were significant "issues" and delays. The engine was slated for the 2002-2003 release in the F150 but where is it now?... At least one SAE paper has been published on the engine

Oilhammer is right in saying that a 90-degree V6 would allow for a lot of commonality with the V8, which was the path taken. Odd-firing can be solved with 30-degree offset crankpins, but as GoFaster correctly noted, this compromises the strength of the crankshaft so high ratings are not possible without some novel engineering.

Neither the 60-degree nor 90-degree V6 configurations have perfect reciprocating balance for forces and moments in the first- and second-orders; only inline- and flat-6s do. I don't recall whether this particular engine had balance shaft or not, but NVH was one of the least of its problems...

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

How about putting the diesel that they going to use for Jag's in the F150 with CGI block?

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

I think the Jaguar diesel is quite a bit different animal for quite a bit different purpose...but hey, have you driven a Toyota Tundra? That 4.7L V8 lifted from the big sedan (Lexus LS) and reworked really has some gusto! /images/graemlins/eek.gif

TDImeister, what seems odd to me is that Navistar even bothers with V8s anymore. I mean, the old Powerstroke was built off the original gas IHC V8s from the stone ages. Seems like an inline 6 would be a better bet anyways, and since they were starting with a clean slate, why not go that route? Certainly works for Cummins, and Navistar actually has a very successful I6 with their DT466E engines...so they know the advantages of the layout.

But really, one could probably build an I4 off the same architecture as the 6.0L V8, just make it 50%, and have a nice 3.0L 16 valve turbodiesel that would probably move an F150 around reasonably well. Of course as is usually the case with big 4 cylinders, they would need balance shafts, but parts-bin-sourcing from the V8 would be a no-brainer.

I think Cummins has an I4 version of the ISB sixes.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
I think Cummins has an I4 version of the ISB sixes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah they do and I know someone that put one in a mid 90's Cherokee. Kept having problems with output shafts as I guess it really shakes the crap out of the thing. I'm sure the factory could do a better job, but emissions might be a bear. The I4 ISB is pretty much for off-road equipment.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
Ever wonder why big-rig engines are almost always inline-six? There you go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same reason that BMW makes inline-six configurations as their main design engine lineup - because it's smoother. An inline-six as well as a V-12 are the only two engine designs that are naturally balance in terms of reciprocation and are fairly compact.

You can also make an opposed engine (such as a Subaru 4 or 6 cylinder) that is naturally balanced, but then it's a wide engine. An inline 6 or V-12 fits in the narrow confines of the front end of a car much easier.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
MrMopar said:
The same reason that BMW makes inline-six configurations as their main design engine lineup - because it's smoother. An inline-six as well as a V-12 are the only two engine designs that are naturally balance in terms of reciprocation and are fairly compact.

You can also make an opposed engine (such as a Subaru 4 or 6 cylinder) that is naturally balanced, but then it's a wide engine. An inline 6 or V-12 fits in the narrow confines of the front end of a car much easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horizontally opposed engines fit in the backs of little VW beetles from the 1930s to the end of production in 2003.

An inline 6 does have the disadvantage of length. For cars where maximizing interior room is important, this can be a significant problem. (People buy BMWs for either sportiness or prestige, and are willing to give up a bit of interior room for the inline 6 and RWD for that.)

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

But, Volvo has managed to squeeze an inline 6 sideways into the S80, and now Daewoo is building the Suzuki Verona, which I believe has a 2.5L I6 sideways in front.

So, although packaging can be tough, it is not impossible.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

I doubt Ford would have any problems fitting a ~4.5L inline-6 under the hood of an F150 /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
tjl said:
Horizontally opposed engines fit in the backs of little VW beetles from the 1930s to the end of production in 2003.

An inline 6 does have the disadvantage of length. For cars where maximizing interior room is important, this can be a significant problem. (People buy BMWs for either sportiness or prestige, and are willing to give up a bit of interior room for the inline 6 and RWD for that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, for the life of me I can't figure out why Porsche and Subaru are the only two car companies that still manufacture horizontally opposed engines. Subaru advertises that they can maintain a low center of gravity this way, and it seems to me that an engine set lower in the chassis can also easily accomodate future pedestrian crash regulations in Europe (which mandate a certain amount of crush space between the hood and the top of the engine so that a hood can deform under impact instead of causing more damage to a person upon impact).

Anyone know why more manufacturers don't use horizontal engines more often?

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Boxer engines typically cannot be assembled as quickly and cheaply as inline and V engines, plus the machining is much more complex, as the crankshaft centerline is also the case half split. Plus, packaging in the "traditional" sense can become an issue for some layouts. Porsche and Subaru have both built non-boxer engines for other (now defunct) layouts, like the 924/944/968/928 and Justy, respectively.

GM had horrible machine problems during the initial engineering of the Corvairs...they had mastered simple engines machined off of a flat oil pan rail, but the boxer posed a new challenge.

But nowadays, many engines are built with a split crankcase, just split on a different plane, with a big bottom "girdle" going under the crankshaft...in effect giving some of the same rigidity as a boxer. The Cadillac Northstar, most newer Toyota engines, and some Nissans have this set-up, among others.

In my opinion, a flat-6 is one of the smoothest, most stable, flat-torque curve, sweetest sounding and running engines known to man. And the inherent "oversquare" nature of a boxer (stroke shorter than the bore is wide) makes them a longer lasting engine potentially. Shorter stroke means a slower piston speed, even at higher RPMs.

BMW motorcycles (with the exception of the Rotax-powered 650) are boxers, and I read a really good article once on all the advantages of having opposing cylinders. They are also used in light aircraft, stationary generators (Onan), and some old Detroit Diesels were boxers! Big, massive 500 cubic inch 4 cylinders with supercharged forced air scavanging and a 2 stroke cumbustion cycle...and they would run and run and run!

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
oilhammer said:
But, Volvo has managed to squeeze an inline 6 sideways into the S80, and now Daewoo is building the Suzuki Verona, which I believe has a 2.5L I6 sideways in front.

So, although packaging can be tough, it is not impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but then you've got other packaging problems - i.e. the transmission available. In the Volvo S80 and XC90 (both Volvos available with an I-6 engine) you can't get the 5 automatic transmission with the I-6 engine. The I-5 engine offers the 5 speed, but the length of the I-6 engine prevents anything but the 4 speed transmission being built. The Suzuki also comes with a 4 speed auto, but no 5 speed is available so I don't know if it could be fit in that car. Somehow I doubt it.

All the rear wheel drive vehicles that are available with an I-6 engine can easily fit a larger auto transmission (BMW, Lexus) so it depends on the orientation of the engine.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Why did GM quit the 1/2 ton TD? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Same reason Ford isn't putting a diesel in the F150: won't pass emission standards for light duty vehicles (or more correctly, the technology was/is not available at the time to pass the emission standards).

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Hello! I'm new here.

I don't mean to ask a stupid question, but how do you learn these things about which engines are balanced, what configurations affect the stability of the crankshaft, etc... etc... I don't have time to get an automotive engineering degree, but if there are books or resources that explain this stuff I would love to find it.

I would think (?) that one additional advantage of an I4 or I6 engine over any other configuration is that if you are using an Over Head Camshaft configuration, you only need one row of Cams. Right? For a V or horizontally opposed engine, you would need to set up a Cam or Cams for each bank. Wouldn't the I4 or I6 save on engine complexity, space used, power used to spin the cams, and total weight that way? (Or is my ignorance making me look like a fool? /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

The question is not stupid at all. Actually it's a very complex issue, and configurations that wouldn't seem to be balanced actually are, while configurations that look balanced aren't always.

All my experience is practical; I've had a few engines apart and rebuilt them in my time ... mostly after I blew them up (my hobby is motorcycle roadracing). I've read lots about it from many sources.

Horizontal opposed engines with a "boxer" arrangement (pistons move in and out together) are almost perfectly balanced because the engine is almost symmetrical. It looks symmetrical when you look at it from the end, but in practice, if you look at it from the top, it isn't quite, because the con-rods are on different crank throws so one bank of cylinders is ahead of the other (it has to be this way for the boxer configuration). This effect is very small, and if you have a flat-four, the slight imbalance of each pair cancels out, and the flat-four arrangement has perfect primary and secondary balance.

One of the things that could be a wee bit tricky about a flat-four diesel is getting the crankshaft strong enough, because there isn't a bearing between the crank throws at each pair of cylinders, and there isn't a place to put such a bearing unless you make the engine longer.

In-line fours have perfect primary balance, but the secondary balance is not so good. There is a harmonic acting at twice crankshaft speed, because if the crankshaft hs at halfway between TDC and BDC the pistons are a little lower than halfway down due to the angle of the con-rods. The effect can be reduced by having longer con-rods and lighter reciprocating parts, or practically eliminated by using balance shafts running at twice crankshaft speed.

90-degree V-twins with pistons on the same crankpin have perfect primary balance IF the counterweights on the crankshaft are matched to the weight of the pistons and con-rods properly. Secondary balance isn't perfect. V8's of the usual arrangement have perfect primary balance because they are multiple V-twins in line, and the secondary balance is reasonable because all four V-twin engines are 90 degrees apart with the usual crankshaft arrangement on those.

V-twins with bank angles other than 90 degrees can have perfect primary balance if the crankpins are offset by an amount which is (2 x (90 - bank angle)). Or they can have balance shafts. If you have neither (45-degree Harley-Davidson V-twin) the engine shakes like mad.

Inline three engines have good primary and secondary balance but an end-to-end "rocking couple". Inline sixes cancel this out by being mirror-image inline threes. V6 engines with 60-degree bank angle and offset crankpins are multiples of V-twins with offset crankpins. 90-degree V6 engines are not so good; a lot of those have balance shafts.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

By the way, you're right about the camshaft issue on OHC engines. With a pushrod V8, a single camshaft sits nicely in the bank of the V, and the arrangement works out just fine. With OHC, using a V or boxer arrangement requires a much more complex cam-drive arrangement (and more camshafts).

This question has come up countless times on motorcycle internet discussion forums; invariably someone comes up who thinks the Honda V4 (DOHC) arrangement is the greatest thing since sliced bread ... invariably this person has never had to work on one!! (And the inline arrangement allows the accessories to be put behind the engine, which negates the "on-the-surface" benefit of making the V-type engine narrower, and the intake ports are all in line, and you have one cylinder head and one timing chain so machining (when new) or rebuilding (when fixing) is easier, and it allows the transmission to be pushed further forward which allows a longer swingarm which is better for weight distribution and force transfer into the chassis ...

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Because Ford fired International and has no engine.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, you're right about the camshaft issue on OHC engines. With a pushrod V8, a single camshaft sits nicely in the bank of the V, and the arrangement works out just fine. With OHC, using a V or boxer arrangement requires a much more complex cam-drive arrangement (and more camshafts).

This question has come up countless times on motorcycle internet discussion forums; invariably someone comes up who thinks the Honda V4 (DOHC) arrangement is the greatest thing since sliced bread ... invariably this person has never had to work on one!! (And the inline arrangement allows the accessories to be put behind the engine, which negates the "on-the-surface" benefit of making the V-type engine narrower, and the intake ports are all in line, and you have one cylinder head and one timing chain so machining (when new) or rebuilding (when fixing) is easier, and it allows the transmission to be pushed further forward which allows a longer swingarm which is better for weight distribution and force transfer into the chassis ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the responses, GoFaster. See, I like reading about this kind of thing but I have zero practical experience under the hood of a car. I've read through HowStuffWorks.com, but that's just about the extent of my engineering knowledge.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

[ QUOTE ]
The question is not stupid at all. Actually it's a very complex issue, and configurations that wouldn't seem to be balanced actually are, while configurations that look balanced aren't always.

...

Horizontal opposed engines with a "boxer" arrangement (pistons move in and out together) are almost perfectly balanced because the engine is almost symmetrical. It looks symmetrical when you look at it from the end, but in practice, if you look at it from the top, it isn't quite, because the con-rods are on different crank throws so one bank of cylinders is ahead of the other (it has to be this way for the boxer configuration). This effect is very small, and if you have a flat-four, the slight imbalance of each pair cancels out, and the flat-four arrangement has perfect primary and secondary balance.


One of the things that could be a wee bit tricky about a flat-four diesel is getting the crankshaft strong enough, because there isn't a bearing between the crank throws at each pair of cylinders, and there isn't a place to put such a bearing unless you make the engine longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that adding two additional bearing journals would not lenghten the engine appreciably enough to preclude manufacturing as a showstopper. Even the lowly VW Type 1 crank was a 5-bearing crank, and in a fairly short form factor.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

Not that I know anything (well maybe I do) but, do not bet against a Cummins in a Ford. There was a motor that they developed for the Dodge Durango, Dodge cancelled on them. The motor exists. You guys can figure the rest out. This was reported in Automotive News as well as an inside source that I may or may not have.

bEC

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

mgwerks said: "Even the lowly VW Type 1 crank was a 5-bearing crank, and in a fairly short form factor."

All the VW Type 1's I ever worked on had only 3 main bearings.

Why won\'t Ford put a Turbo Diesel in the F150?!

I think the baby PSD is still alive, check this out.


International® VT 275 A Beefy Engine For CF Series Trucks New V-6 Diesel Provides a Smooth, Responsive Drive

Warrenville, IL (March 3, 2004) An advanced 4.5-liter V-6 turbo diesel engine, previewed by International Truck and Engine Corporation this week at NTEA, will power the new International® CF Series commercial trucks. The robust International® VT 275 expands the family of “V” engines produced at International Diesel of Alabama in Huntsville, Ala.

Designed specifically for in-city driving, the best-in-class 200-horsepower International VT 275 diesel features a twin turbocharger – the first of its kind in North America – for fast acceleration in stop-andInternational-go traffic.

Built on the International® engine technology platform, the new VT 275 engine also utilizes the proven G2 high-pressure common rail fuel system to optimize fuel economy and cooled exhaust gas recirculation to minimize emissions. Fleets will further benefit from a commonality of parts because the International VT 275 shares many components with the International V-8 engine family.

Now, for the first time, medium duty fleet owners have a domestic choice for lighter duty vehicles. The International CF Series with the VT 275 engines expands the company’s product line and provides entry into a new market, serving Class 4 and 5 vocations with a brand fleets know and trust.

“North American fleets with International® engines already in use won’t have a big learning curve with this engine, because of the common technology platforms used in all International engines,” said Tim Cooney, vice president, worldwide sales and marketing for the International Engine Group. “The fact that we are an integrated truck and engine manufacturer helped us to design a package that best meets the needs of this market. We’re building on our 100 years of experience in the commercial truck and diesel engine marketplace to deliver a truck and engine that is engineered to perform.”

Paired with an automatic transmission, the International® VT 275 engine provides smooth shifting. Operators who are not truck drivers by trade will feel they are driving an SUV rather than a medium-duty vehicle. And, with the regulated two-stage setup of the twin turbo, one turbocharger is used for initial startup while the second is used at high speeds, providing fast response the moment the driver steps on the accelerator.

“It used to be, when you were driving behind a truck in traffic you would seemingly sit for minutes waiting for it accelerate at a light,” said Cooney. “That won’t happen with the International VT 275 in our CF Series trucks. The twin turbo technology and drive train matching gets the load moving with the traffic”

The International VT 275 was designed with efficiency in mind. The G2 fuel system uses higher injection pressure combined with four valves per cylinder to provide performance and fuel economy while lowering emissions, due to more complete mixing of fuel and air for better combustion. This technology ensures precise fuel injection control for a quicker response to driver input, while optimizing fuel consumption.

“The International VT 275 is a unique, robust engine designed for fuel economy, durability and driver response that the Class 4 and 5 commercial truck market demands,” said Cooney. “The product attributes combined with the outstanding parts and service support that International brings to its customers makes this an attractive American manufactured product.”

International Truck and Engine is the nation’s largest producer of mid-range diesel engines, medium trucks, heavy trucks, severe service vehicles, bus chassis and a provider of parts and service sold under the International® brand. The company also is a private label designer and manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and SUV markets. Additionally, through a joint venture with Ford Motor Company, the company builds medium commercial trucks and sells truck and diesel engine service parts. A subsidiary, IC Corporation, produces integrated school buses. International Truck and Engine has the broadest distribution network in the industry. Financing for customers and dealers is provided through a wholly owned subsidiary of Navistar. Additional information can be found on the company's web site at www.InternationalDelivers.com.





Back to News Listings
Printer Friendly Version
Email This Article





For additional information contact:

Matt Smela
(708) 865-4342

Shelly Frost Beeler
(312) 988-4122








Search the Newsroom



View all by date
Heavy Trucks
Medium Trucks
Severe Trucks
Bus
Engine
Parts
Corporate