Ford 4.4L V8 Diesel
04-12-2008, 11:59 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
04-13-2008, 11:18 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE, Ohio
Posts: 1,504
04-14-2008, 07:21 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Akron, OH.
Posts: 610
Man you guys are picky, its a cell phone pic snapped by some guy who doesn't want to lose his job. The stand is probably for the dum higher-ups that dont know what they are looking at.
I'm curious why dodge would bring a V-6 to a V-8 war. Not just because of the nice ring that "V-8" has. V-6's are naturally unbalanced, add in inherent diesel roughness and that sounds like a really big counter rotating balance shaft and alot of insulation. It might have been better to lob 2 cylinders off the ole cummings.
I am also dissappointed in the 300+hp that the big three are aiming for. I am pretty sure that 200-250hp would get the job done and the MPG's could REALLY be impressive. These 300HP motors are going to make 500ftlbs which is going to require the heaviest transmissions/rearends/brakes. Diesel is $4 bucks a gallon, the trucks could use the extra 2 mpg. Plus these trucks at the 300hp will cut into more profitible 3/4-1ton sales because of their increased abilites. Its going to still make a diesel truck too expensive for 90% of buyers.
I'm curious why dodge would bring a V-6 to a V-8 war. Not just because of the nice ring that "V-8" has. V-6's are naturally unbalanced, add in inherent diesel roughness and that sounds like a really big counter rotating balance shaft and alot of insulation. It might have been better to lob 2 cylinders off the ole cummings.
I am also dissappointed in the 300+hp that the big three are aiming for. I am pretty sure that 200-250hp would get the job done and the MPG's could REALLY be impressive. These 300HP motors are going to make 500ftlbs which is going to require the heaviest transmissions/rearends/brakes. Diesel is $4 bucks a gallon, the trucks could use the extra 2 mpg. Plus these trucks at the 300hp will cut into more profitible 3/4-1ton sales because of their increased abilites. Its going to still make a diesel truck too expensive for 90% of buyers.
04-14-2008, 07:37 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pewee Valley, KY
Posts: 4,600
I'm curious why dodge would bring a V-6 to a V-8 war. Not just because of the nice ring that "V-8" has. V-6's are naturally unbalanced, add in inherent diesel roughness and that sounds like a really big counter rotating balance shaft and alot of insulation. It might have been better to lob 2 cylinders off the ole cummings.
Isn't that why everyone uses that banking for its V6s?
04-14-2008, 07:48 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
I'm curious why dodge would bring a V-6 to a V-8 war. Not just because of the nice ring that "V-8" has. V-6's are naturally unbalanced, add in inherent diesel roughness and that sounds like a really big counter rotating balance shaft and alot of insulation. It might have been better to lob 2 cylinders off the ole cummings.
04-14-2008, 08:43 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Akron, OH.
Posts: 610
From wiki:
Due to the odd number of cylinders in each bank, V6 designs are inherently unbalanced and can benefit from some auxiliary counterbalancing. A V6 is basically two straight-3 engines running on the same crankshaft, and since the straight-3 suffers from a primary dynamic imbalance which causes an end-to-end rocking motion, the V6 also suffers from the same problem unless steps are taken to mitigate it.[2]
Unlike a 90° V8 with crossplane crankshaft, a V6 cannot be laid out so that the vibrations from the two banks completely cancel each other. This makes designing a smooth engine a much bigger challenge. When Lancia pioneered the V6 in 1950, they used a 60° angle between the cylinder banks and a six-throw crankshaft to achieve equally spaced firing intervals of 120°. This still has some balance and secondary vibration problems. When Buick designed a 90° V6 based on their 90° V8, they initially used a simpler three-throw crankshaft laid out in the same manner as the V8 with pairs of connecting rods sharing the same crankpin, which resulted in firing intervals alternating between 90° and 150°. This produced a rough-running design which was unacceptable to many customers. Later, Buick and other manufacturers refined the design by using a split-pin crankshaft which achieved a regular 120° firing interval by staggering adjacent crankpins by 15° in opposite directions to eliminate the uneven firing and make the engine reasonably smooth.[3] Some manufacturers such as Mercedes Benz have taken the 90° design a step further by adding a balancing shaft to offset the primary vibrations and produce an almost fully balanced engine.
Some designers have reverted to a 60° angle between cylinder banks, which produces a more compact engine, but have used three-throw crankshafts with flying arms between the crankpins of each throw to achieve even 120° angles between firing intervals. This has the additional advantage that the flying arms can be weighted for balancing purposes.[3] This still leaves an unbalanced primary couple, which is offset by counterweights on the crankshaft and flywheel to leave a small secondary couple, which can be absorbed by carefully designed engine mounts.[4]
I would love to see something smaller offered. I dont know why they all dont run turbo I-4's. A 3.0L with 220hp and 400ftlbs would probably work well with the new 6 speeds and you could see 25mpg or better. If they have to run allison type transmissions and rear ends the mpg gains will be completely wasted by the heavier components and the $6000 option price of the diesel/transmission. That would make an extended cab Z-71 type type truck sticker for 41-42K. A less powerful option could be offered for alot less like $3000 and give the few extra mpgs we will all need when the next hurricane makes diesel $5-6 a gallon.
Due to the odd number of cylinders in each bank, V6 designs are inherently unbalanced and can benefit from some auxiliary counterbalancing. A V6 is basically two straight-3 engines running on the same crankshaft, and since the straight-3 suffers from a primary dynamic imbalance which causes an end-to-end rocking motion, the V6 also suffers from the same problem unless steps are taken to mitigate it.[2]
Unlike a 90° V8 with crossplane crankshaft, a V6 cannot be laid out so that the vibrations from the two banks completely cancel each other. This makes designing a smooth engine a much bigger challenge. When Lancia pioneered the V6 in 1950, they used a 60° angle between the cylinder banks and a six-throw crankshaft to achieve equally spaced firing intervals of 120°. This still has some balance and secondary vibration problems. When Buick designed a 90° V6 based on their 90° V8, they initially used a simpler three-throw crankshaft laid out in the same manner as the V8 with pairs of connecting rods sharing the same crankpin, which resulted in firing intervals alternating between 90° and 150°. This produced a rough-running design which was unacceptable to many customers. Later, Buick and other manufacturers refined the design by using a split-pin crankshaft which achieved a regular 120° firing interval by staggering adjacent crankpins by 15° in opposite directions to eliminate the uneven firing and make the engine reasonably smooth.[3] Some manufacturers such as Mercedes Benz have taken the 90° design a step further by adding a balancing shaft to offset the primary vibrations and produce an almost fully balanced engine.
Some designers have reverted to a 60° angle between cylinder banks, which produces a more compact engine, but have used three-throw crankshafts with flying arms between the crankpins of each throw to achieve even 120° angles between firing intervals. This has the additional advantage that the flying arms can be weighted for balancing purposes.[3] This still leaves an unbalanced primary couple, which is offset by counterweights on the crankshaft and flywheel to leave a small secondary couple, which can be absorbed by carefully designed engine mounts.[4]
I would love to see something smaller offered. I dont know why they all dont run turbo I-4's. A 3.0L with 220hp and 400ftlbs would probably work well with the new 6 speeds and you could see 25mpg or better. If they have to run allison type transmissions and rear ends the mpg gains will be completely wasted by the heavier components and the $6000 option price of the diesel/transmission. That would make an extended cab Z-71 type type truck sticker for 41-42K. A less powerful option could be offered for alot less like $3000 and give the few extra mpgs we will all need when the next hurricane makes diesel $5-6 a gallon.
04-14-2008, 09:20 PM
#12
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
04-14-2008, 09:49 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
That'd be roughly equal to the Vortec 350 in my truck (well, the powerband would be narrower, with less area under the curve, but the 6sp trans would go a long ways towards compensating for this). I imagine that'd be more than enough motor for 90%+ of half-ton buyers (if you really need more motor than this, start thinking about a 3/4-ton).
