A radical new engine for the F150?

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Yep, just a name. They keep getting recycled as well. The F150 diesel will also carry the moniker of "powerstroke".

Yes, all current Ford diesels get that "Power Stroke" name, including the V8 in the SuperDuty trucks and the completely unrelated inline-5 in the Transit (and potentially the Ranger). Similarly, all GM light diesels are "Duramax", including the V8 in 2500 and larger trucks, the completely unrelated inline-4 in the Colorado/Canyon, and the recently announced inline-6 in the Silverado/Sierra.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

The Wankel rotary engine made sense and actually went into production, but how many are still on the road today?

AH !:yes the famous rotary engine . Any one who ever owned a snowmobile with a rotary engine will have memories , non of which will be fond. It was a great concept on paper but not in the real world .

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Speaking of the Wankel, I had a 1985 Mazda RX-7 with the new then 13B rotary. It was the last year of the classic RX-7 body style before they ruined it, but the first year with the new 13B instead of the 12A. For this reason it was called a GSL-SE, or special edition. Best car I ever owned, hands down. A total blast to drive, and it loved high revs. A near perfect match of car and engine. Wankels were fine engines. There should be more of them.

Not just a 13B, but a 13B-RESI... an impressive engine for the day, and Mazda's first fuel-injected rotary. Now, of course, not many sports cars or even compact sedans or hatchbacks have only 135 horsepower.

Back then, I competed in autoslalom events. The fastest driver and car combination in the city was an experienced driver in an RX-7 GSL-SE, dead stock other than tires.

Originally Posted by sunrisetrucker

We had a 1974 RX-7 with the Wankel rotary engine. The power was amazing but it had so many other problems including poor mileage that we were happy to see the back of it.

The rotaries in early RX-7's were great for the time, but a basic economy car of today has a more capable engine. Each generation of Mazda rotary was better than before, but they still couldn't keep up with the refinement of conventional reciprocating piston engines.

If the Achates or another update of the opposed-piston theme makes it to production, we'll see whether it can sustain any success.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Not just a 13B, but a 13B-RESI, an impressive engine for the day, and Mazda's first fuel-injected rotary. Now, of course, not many sports cars or even compact sedans or hatchbacks have only 135 horsepower.

True, but for the car it was powering, 135hp was fine. Great power to weight ratio and a true pleasure to drive. I never felt like I lacked power with it. A buddy at the time later modified his GSL-SE with a bigger engine, but I hated it. It ruined the nimble feel of the car.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

True, but for the car it was powering, 135hp was fine. Great power to weight ratio and a true pleasure to drive. I never felt like I lacked power with it.

Expectations change, and have changed a lot in three decades. Robert, if you ever get a chance to drive a GSL-SE again, don't - it may ruin your memory of the car.

• 1985 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SE
  • 3.9 L two-rotor
  • curb weight: 2447 lbs, power: 135 hp, weight-to-power 18.1 lbs/hp, 0-60 mph: 8.3 s
• 2017 Mazda MX-5 (Miata) Retractable Fastback
  • 2.0 L four-cylinder
  • curb weight: 2456 lbs, power: 155 hp, weight-to-power 15.8 lbs/hp, 0-60 mph: 6.1 s
• 2018 Subaru BRZ
  • 2.0 L four-cylinder
  • curb weight: 2785 lbs, power: 205 hp, weight-to-power 13.6 lbs/hp, 0-60 mph: 6.2 s

To be fair to the old RX-7 the current MX-5 is a bit smaller (so nearly matching the RX-7's weight despite all of the safety and emissions equipment now required is a qualified improvement), so I threw in today's somewhat larger RWD sports coupe equivalent, the BRZ (a.k.a. Scion FR-S and Toyota 86)... which has a bonus rear seat for kids or pets. These two comparators are relatively low-powered by today's standards; like the old RX-7, they value responsiveness over acceleration. Both the Miata and the BRZ are regarded by many auto enthusiasts as under-powered by today's standards.

Mazda rotaries have become one of those things which attract an extreme fan base, some of whom (not anyone in this discussion) are quite willing to set aside objective facts in favour of enthusiastic support.

While this may sound like a negative commentary about the Mazda rotary and other unusual engine designs, it is actually a very positive story about the improvements that result from the hard work and huge skill of the many people working in engine development, as well as other areas of automotive engineering. It is very difficult to make something new and develop it to a production level without falling behind the ever-advancing state of technology.

[War Eagle]

Ya, but regardless of its rust through holes and busted down, worn out parts and relatively poor performance by today's standards, I'd love to have my old '71 VW Super Beetle back - but PLEASE don't run an emissions test on it!

[rbryan4]

Since you mentioned the Miata Brain, I could go into another story about another great Mazda I had - a 2004 Mazdaspeed MX-5. Great little turbo. Lost that to make room for my current tow vehicle.

[Eggscape]

I agree that turbos have been around for a long time and so have different ways to inject fuel into an engine but to do it in such a way that gets 470 foot pounds out of a 6 cylinder gas engine is in my mind a technology and not just a stick on sign. Most manufacturers can’t even get that kind of torque out of 8 cylinders at their peak let alone across the power band.
I am not hear to sell Fords but I would like people if they are looking for a new truck or engine technology to do the research and check out the numbers for themselves.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Eggscape

I agree that turbos have been around for a long time and so have different ways to inject fuel into an engine but to do it in such a way that gets 470 foot pounds out of a 6 cylinder gas engine is in my mind a technology and not just a stick on sign. Most manufacturers can’t even get that kind of torque out of 8 cylinders at their peak let alone across the power band.

It's straightforward to get those torque and horsepower numbers by turbocharging, but only if you can run a high enough compression ratio and manage the preignition (knock). Diesels have no preignition issue, which is why they work well with turbocharging. Modern direct fuel injection is the key to success with gasoline and spark ignition. Ford deserves a lot of credit for developing that, as do the several other companies which have delivered similar engines with similar performance... although Ford is the only one to use direct injection and turbocharging on such a large engine in mass-production vehicle.

Those eight-cylinder engines with lower output are typically not turbocharged.

Achates Power's choice of the F-150 for a demonstration vehicle makes sense. That doesn't mean that Ford is interested; Ford must certainly have a good idea of whether the claimed performance is any better than what they expect to get in their coming engines.

[escape artist]

Hi: All... In 1972 I think my 65 yr. old boss bought a Mazda 2 Dr. RX 2 5 spd. stick Coupe. It had a nasty back fire when wound up and unwound again. I let 'er rip off the line and when I saw him walking in the park I backed off. BANG BANG BANG it went as I cruised on past. When I got back I parked the car and handed in the keys saying "It's been nice working with every one here". When the boss got back from his walk... he smiled and said "Fast isn't it"!!! Alf p.s. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread about radical F150 power plants!!!
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Defenestrator]

Interesting design, but I"m not exactly sure I'd call it radical. Opposed-piston engines aren't all that new, but a few drawbacks have kept them from being used in cars. It adds a lot of complexity and a lot of height. The scavenging effect of the turbo will probably help emissions even though it's a 2-cycle, but that plus the supercharger (and whatever control system they're using to regulate the resulting airflow/pressure) add even more complexity and size. The extra height's OK for a truck or large SUV, but not for anything smaller. Not sure about power output - the large linkage to get to the crankshaft will limit RPM pretty badly, but twincharging and high compression might more than make up for that.

I'd give it maybe a 5% chance of making it to a production car. They're combining a couple of neat but relatively untested and poorly-understood technologies, and that last bit of refinement is the hard part. Getting it to work for tens or hundreds of thousands of miles. Keeping throttle response consistent. Maintaining that efficiency and emissions even with sudden throttle changes and through the rev range. Not backfiring when someone suddenly lets off the gas. Mazda's been working on HCCI/SPPCI for years and is just now getting it to be production-ready. This one's years away from ready, and the clock is ticking until electric takes over.

[rbryan4]

You're right Elliott. Opposed pistons aren't really radical, but I'm using the phrase in the sense of a "radical departure" from the traditional engine you'd find in an F150. You're also right about the clock ticking before electric vehicles take over, but I think it's ticking a bit slower for vehicles designed to tow and haul. I've often thought a hybrid approach would be a quicker way to market for an F150 with dramatically better fuel economy. It's a technology that is already in wide use, and could scale or be refined more quickly.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

I've often thought a hybrid approach would be a quicker way to market for an F150 with dramatically better fuel economy. It's a technology that is already in wide use, and could scale or be refined more quickly.

FCA is obviously thinking the same way, as the recently introduced Ram 1500 has an optional mild hybrid system: eTorque.

On the other hand, GM built first a mild hybrid and then an excellent full-fledged hybrid system (the "Two-Mode") and put it in full-size pickups and SUVs for a while (the 2-mode was 2008-2013). The 2-mode worked well, but was so expensive to build (and difficult to sell even at a price too low to be profitable) that GM dropped it for the next generation of those vehicles. The system is still sold for larger trucks, and perhaps some variation will return to light trucks.

[thiggins]

Originally Posted by Defenestrator

Interesting design, but I"m not exactly sure I'd call it radical. Opposed-piston engines aren't all that new, but a few drawbacks have kept them from being used in cars. It adds a lot of complexity and a lot of height. The scavenging effect of the turbo will probably help emissions even though it's a 2-cycle, but that plus the supercharger (and whatever control system they're using to regulate the resulting airflow/pressure) add even more complexity and size. The extra height's OK for a truck or large SUV, but not for anything smaller. Not sure about power output - the large linkage to get to the crankshaft will limit RPM pretty badly, but twincharging and high compression might more than make up for that.

I'd give it maybe a 5% chance of making it to a production car. They're combining a couple of neat but relatively untested and poorly-understood technologies, and that last bit of refinement is the hard part. Getting it to work for tens or hundreds of thousands of miles. Keeping throttle response consistent. Maintaining that efficiency and emissions even with sudden throttle changes and through the rev range. Not backfiring when someone suddenly lets off the gas. Mazda's been working on HCCI/SPPCI for years and is just now getting it to be production-ready. This one's years away from ready, and the clock is ticking until electric takes over.

But, there are no valves, no cams, no heads, no timing chains, no electronic ignition system, no spark plugs, etc,... They also claim nearly double the fuel and combustion efficiency, so emissions are greatly reduced.

That all seems less complex, not more. We already have twin turbo's on the EcoBoost engines, complete with direct injection and all theose computers needed to make it work...very complex.

They do claim they can build direct replacements for the existing engines, which implies packaging and fitment isn't an issue.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Defenestrator

... Opposed-piston engines aren't all that new, but a few drawbacks have kept them from being used in cars. It adds a lot of complexity and a lot of height. ...

They just need to lay the new engine over on its side. My old '71 VW Beetle had a squatty little opposed-piston engine in the back. And haven't Subaru and Porsche both garnered some acclaim for their flat-lying opposed-piston engines? I believe Subaru boasts an 8.7" ground clearance in large part because they can raise their flat opposing cylinder engine higher on the chassis without raising the height of the hood. It seems the main difference here is that prior opposed piston engines have had one central crank shaft with pistons pushing it from both sides. It appears this new design has centrally-located "double pistons" with two outside crank shafts that then need to, in combination, deliver power back to a central flywheel-like gear. So again, it seems like they just need to lay it over on its side, like Subaru and Porsche, and it wouldn't add height.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

I believe Subaru boasts an 8.7" ground clearance in large part because they can raise their flat opposing cylinder engine higher on the chassis without raising the height of the hood.

Now that's making lemonade when given lemons! The input shaft of the traditional transaxle for this layout had to pass over the differential, forcing the engine to be mounted higher than desired. Even in modern designs, with the differential off to one side, the input shaft is still stuck over the front axle line. Given a choice, Subaru would mount the engine lower, as they do in the BRZ (which is rear-wheel-drive... with a Toyota transmission).

Originally Posted by War Eagle

It seems the main difference here is that prior opposed piston engines have had one central crank shaft with pistons pushing it from both sides. It appears this new design has centrally-located "double pistons" with two outside crank shafts that then need to, in combination, deliver power back to a central flywheel-like gear.

In this general design the output can be taken off of anywhere along the chain of gears from one crank to the other. In a horizontal engine, that would be from a reasonably central gear. In the vertical layout, Junkers used the top crankshaft to drive the propeller. In the current "F-150" version (as shown in the video) Achates uses the bottom crankshaft to drive the transmission, and a single large idler gear to connect the cranks; in a version shown on their website, three gears are used between the crank gears and the one adjacent to the lower crank is the output.

Originally Posted by War Eagle

... it seems like they just need to lay it over on its side, like Subaru and Porsche, and it wouldn't add height.

The use of "flat" engines by Subaru has given them two problems:

• in the front-wheel-drive and AWD configurations, the entire engine hangs out beyond the front axle, which is why all Subarus are a little too front-heavy and typically have an awkward nose, and
• even in the BRZ (which is rear-wheel-drive and places the engine further back) they are forced to use strut front suspension by the excessive engine width (they could use suspension mounted almost entirely within the wheelbase, like Porsche, but that could be awkward, too).

The horizontal package would be especially awkward in the F-150 demonstration. The entire engine would likely need to sit above the frame (because the frame rail spacing isn't wide enough), and even then there might be suspension interference.

There have been lots of horizontal engines, even with inline cylinders. They were usually used under the floor of a bus, but a car or light truck typically doesn't have the underfloor space for this. The most recent light vehicle example that I can think of was the first-generation Toyota Previa van of the 1990's - in that one the engine was under the front seats, so width wasn't a problem.

With the huge bulk of modern double overhead camshaft valve systems, a vertical opposed-piston engine might not be any taller than a conventional alternative. In a typical current pickup truck, height isn't a big issue anyway, since the hood height is determined by styling to look "tough" rather than any functional purpose. The same engines found under that tall F-150 hood are also found under the hood of a Mustang.

[SFDavis50]

Ford does have a hybrid F 150 in the works for 2020 although whether it will be good for towing long distances vs. locally hauling work trailers while also getting power to a job site is unclear to me. I can't imagine having enough battery power to haul a trailer up to the Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado although if paired with the 2.7 or 3.5 it will still get up there.

Many years ago a lot of effort was expended trying to develop ceramic engines and components. With turbines it worked well but the mean time between a stress fracture and catastrophic failure of the engine could be measured in milliseconds. A ceramic piston drove itself thru the bottom of the engine because there was essentially no damping of the forces involved; along with many other engineering issues. Seems like this Achates engine, if proven, could also lend itself to being built with more exotic materials like titanium and ceramics. The lower operating temps. and dividing the pressure and vibration between two crankshafts would allow smaller pistons and lighter weight. Who knows what another ten years of development can do.

Right now I am impaled on the horns of another dilemma. My 2010 F 150 with 115k miles on it needs brakes, new tires a crack in the windshield fixed and the heater mixing box fixed. It works OK in the winter because it is always pushing out hot air but in the summer it will be a problem. Expensive to have fixed and bloody knuckles if I try to do it myself. I'm trying to decide between fixing everything or just trading it in on a new 2018 with a 6.5 box. I made the decision already but my wife doesn't mind if i have bloody knuckles so she has a different opinion. Also, she's cheap.

[thiggins]

Originally Posted by SFDavis50

...
Right now I am impaled on the horns of another dilemma. My 2010 F 150 with 115k miles on it needs brakes, new tires a crack in the windshield fixed and the heater mixing box fixed. It works OK in the winter because it is always pushing out hot air but in the summer it will be a problem. Expensive to have fixed and bloody knuckles if I try to do it myself. I'm trying to decide between fixing everything or just trading it in on a new 2018 with a 6.5 box.

I have a 2012, and after looking at what I would now have to spend to replace it with a similar but new F150, I was totally shocked. I just received a 4-wheel brake kit ( Power stop ) to give it new brakes, and will be keeping this old truck for a LONG time to come. I've also figure out an F-250 would be a better deal for all the stuff I really want in a pickup truck. They've really gone off the deep end in their F-150 pricing IMHO.

[Eggscape]

Not sure what pricing your looking at but I found what is stuck to the window or on the internet is way higher than what can actually be had talking to the dealer here in Canada.
Sounds like time to move on...who knows what’s going to break next.

[Tin]

Originally Posted by SFDavis50

Right now I am impaled on the horns of another dilemma. My 2010 F 150 with 115k miles on it needs brakes, new tires a crack in the windshield fixed and the heater mixing box fixed. It works OK in the winter because it is always pushing out hot air but in the summer it will be a problem. Expensive to have fixed and bloody knuckles if I try to do it myself. I'm trying to decide between fixing everything or just trading it in on a new 2018 with a 6.5 box. I made the decision already but my wife doesn't mind if i have bloody knuckles so she has a different opinion. Also, she's cheap.

Funny my 2011 5.0 w/3.73 is in for a brake job right now 70,000 plus miles on first set of brakes and I have been very happy with its performance and reliability. Brakes ,tires ,windshields,ect. are just maintenance items that all vehicles require . The cost to replace my trucks configuration is crazy, If your truck still runs good save your money and keep on trucking. Just my two cents.
If you have not already change out your shocks try a new set of Bilstein, man what a difference.
Tin.