A radical new engine for the F150? - Escape Trailer Owners Community

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-31-2018, 01:18 AM   #1
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
A radical new engine for the F150?

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news...un-at-reality/
__________________

__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 09:53 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Fremont, California
Trailer: 2016 21. '15 Ford Explorer V-6
Posts: 1,482
Let’s keep our fingers crossed on the beta sites. With those efficiency numbers, coupled with reliability, and emissions, it could be the future....
__________________

__________________
Steve and Debbie
2016 - 21'

“Get out the map and lay your finger anywhere down” -Indigo Girls
Steve Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 10:07 AM   #3
Site Team
 
Donna D.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Trailer: 2014 Escape 5.0 TA
Posts: 8,553
ooooh sounds most interesting! Fingers crossed this pans out. About the time I'm ready to replace my current F-150, I hope this new engine has been tested over time as a winner.
__________________
Donna D.
Ten Forward
2014 Escape 5.0TA
Donna D. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 10:13 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Notasulga, Alabama
Trailer: 2010 EggCamper (#083); 2017 Escape 21 (#053); 2016 F-150 5.0L FX4
Posts: 1,744
Two-cycle?!? Would one have to mix oil with the gas like a chainsaw?
War Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 10:27 AM   #5
Site Team
 
cpaharley2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Trailer: Escape#4, 2019 Escape21 DejaView pulled by 2014 Ram Hemi/8sp
Posts: 19,790
Most two cycles these days have automatic mixing, you fill both tanks and it handles it, I have had several 2 cycle motorcycles that did it this way.
__________________
Jim
"Never in doubt,..... often wrong!"
cpaharley2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 11:38 AM   #6
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Eagle View Post
Two-cycle?!? Would one have to mix oil with the gas like a chainsaw?
2 cycles, but not in the same way as a chainsaw. No mixing. Not even spark plugs.

The big idea here, as the article points out, is to increase thermal efficiency. A jump from 25 percent efficiency to 45 is pretty dramatic. I would not mind 35 mpg at all with a similar power curve and torque. The elimination of valves and plugs also has the potential to dramatically reduce maintenance and increase durability.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 12:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North of Hertel, Wisconsin
Trailer: TBD
Posts: 2,163
If this new engine runs as good as my Stihl chainsaw , I for one will be thrilled
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:15 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 11,980
There seems to be a tendency for some online authors to extrapolate from one test installation to an actual plan for Ford to use this engine; that's wildly inappropriate. To Cooley's credit, he has resisted this silliness; others have not.

Also, the jump from 25% to 45% thermal efficiency is neither realistic nor sufficient. Conventional gasoline engines have long been past 25%, and Mazda has demonstrated comparable performance to the Achates claims in an engine which is well on it's way into production: Skyactiv-X using Spark Controlled Compression Ignition or "SPCCI". Skyactiv-X has been demonstrated in near-production prototypes, and is due in the 2019 model year (so, coming off the production line later this year) Mazda 3.

Novel engine designs are fascinating, and I want them to succeed, but in reality they usually have problems which prove insurmountable in production use. In this case, the design isn't even novel: there have been many opposed piston engines, not just in labs but in production... mostly powering aircraft. The video sort of touches on this, but suggests that previous opposed-piston engines never made production; Achates - to their credit - clearly acknowledges the earlier engines in the text on their website. These designs certainly have issues - one of them is fitting in an effective spark plug, so a compression-ignition opposed-piston engine makes sense. It made sense when Junkers made their diesel Jumo 205 engines starting in 1932; that's what Achates has copied.
Brian B-P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:19 PM   #9
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
There is a big difference between concept and production, for sure. But, I do find the potential to dramatically increase the economy without sacrificing capability to be very interesting. We'll see.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 11,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Eagle View Post
Two-cycle?!? Would one have to mix oil with the gas like a chainsaw?
No, that is a result of specific details of the design of lightweight all-position 2-strokes which do not apply to most large 2-stroke engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpaharley2008 View Post
Most two cycles these days have automatic mixing, you fill both tanks and it handles it, I have had several 2 cycle motorcycles that did it this way.
It isn't really mixing, it's oil injection in addition to fuel delivery (carburetion or injection). A Mazda rotary does this, too. Anyway, putting oil into the intake air is not required for this or most large 2-strokes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan4 View Post
2 cycles, but not in the same way as a chainsaw. No mixing.
Right. The reason that small 2-stokes need that oil is that the intake air goes through the crankcase, so that the bottom of the piston can be used to pump the fresh air-fuel mixture in and the exhaust out (which is called "scavenging")... the two things that a 4-stroke engine does on the extra two strokes. Since the intake air can't go through a crankcase full of oil, there must be some other way to lubricate the engine, and that's where in the mixed or injected oil comes in.

The alternative, used on all large 2-stroke engines, is external scavenging, which means to use an external air pump or blower to push the air through. This leaves the crankcase alone, so that conventional (wet-sump or dry-sump) lubrication can be used for the crankshaft, piston wrist pins, and cylinder walls.

The external scavenge blower is usually a mechanically driven supercharger; in the Achates design, both a turbocharger and a mechanical supercharger are used, which is the combination which should be expected in a modern 2-stroke compression-ignition design. It's also possible to use just a turbocharger, but with an electric motor on the turbo shaft as well to get it spinning and blowing before the engine starts.

If anyone has heard of a "6-71 blower" used on drag racing engines, that is the blower (mechanically driven scavenge pump) of a Detroit Diesel 6-cylinder (and 71 cubic inches per cylinder) two-stroke diesel engine, used as a supercharger on a four-stroke engine. Those Detroit Diesel Series 71 engines were produced from 1938 through 1995, included both the blower and a turbocharger in higher-output versions, and were common in many types of vehicles but were probably best known as bus engines. They were two-strokes with no oil mixing or injection.
Brian B-P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:43 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Eggscape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Kelowna, British Columbia
Trailer: 2018 Escape 19
Posts: 1,258
I am glad they keep thinking on the edge and in Fords case putting into production. I am sure there was lots of negative comments about the Ecoboost before it came out. Here we are now with a reliable 6 cylinder gas engine that produces 470 foot pounds of pure pleasure....something only 10 years ago was dream for the common person...and is still a dream for other truck manufacturers to match.
__________________
So many modifications...so little time.

http://www.escapeforum.org/forums/f8...ape-12918.html
Eggscape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:44 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Notasulga, Alabama
Trailer: 2010 EggCamper (#083); 2017 Escape 21 (#053); 2016 F-150 5.0L FX4
Posts: 1,744
The Wankel rotary engine made sense and actually went into production, but how many are still on the road today?
War Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:46 PM   #13
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggscape View Post
I am glad they keep thinking on the edge and in Fords case putting into production. I am sure there was lots of negative comments about the Ecoboost before it came out. Here we are now with a reliable 6 cylinder gas engine that produces 470 foot pounds of pure pleasure....something only 10 years ago was dream for the common person...and is a dream still for other truck manufacturers to match.
True enough. The key to staying on top in any industry is to never stop in innovating. In this case however, it wasn't really a Ford initiative. Time will tell if it's a good match, but I for one am always intrigued by new ideas, despite the obvious obstacles in bringing them to market.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:50 PM   #14
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Eagle View Post
The Wankel rotary engine made sense and actually went into production, but how many are still on the road today?
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.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:54 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Notasulga, Alabama
Trailer: 2010 EggCamper (#083); 2017 Escape 21 (#053); 2016 F-150 5.0L FX4
Posts: 1,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggscape View Post
I am glad they keep thinking on the edge and in Fords case putting into production. I am sure there was lots of negative comments about the Ecoboost before it came out. Here we are now with a reliable 6 cylinder gas engine that produces 470 foot pounds of pure pleasure....something only 10 years ago was dream for the common person...and is still a dream for other truck manufacturers to match.
I think the catchy environmental friendly-sounding name, "Ecoboost" is what makes it seem new. So credit the marketing folks at Ford for coming up with that one. The basic technology involved in forcing more air into each cylinder, not so new. Even my 1999 F-250 has twin-turbos - marketed under another awe-inspiring name if you're in the work truck business, "PowerStroke". Ya gotta love those marketers for always figuring out ways to make us want what they have to sell.
War Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:56 PM   #16
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Eagle View Post
I think the catchy environmental friendly-sounding name, "Ecoboost" is what makes it seem new. So credit the marketing folks at Ford for coming up with that one. The basic technology involved in forcing more air into each cylinder, not so new. Even my 1999 F-250 has twin-turbos - marketed under another awe-inspiring name if you're in the work truck business, "PowerStroke". Ya gotta love those marketers for always figuring out ways to make us want what they have to sell.
Yep, just a name. They keep getting recycled as well. The F150 diesel will also carry the moniker of "powerstroke".
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Notasulga, Alabama
Trailer: 2010 EggCamper (#083); 2017 Escape 21 (#053); 2016 F-150 5.0L FX4
Posts: 1,744
I think Mercedes is calling their new 577 HP racing engine a "Hot V" because the exhaust manifolds are on top of the cylinders to more directly drive the top-mounted turbochargers. Now who wouldn't be willing to spend 6 figures on a "Hot V" powered Mercedes AMG GT?
War Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:08 PM   #18
Site Team
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canyon Lake, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2018 F150 2.7L Ecoboost
Posts: 9,480
"Cobra Jet", "Ram Rod", "Super Commando", etc. Detroit has a pretty long history too when it comes to cool engine names.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:15 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 11,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Eagle View Post
The Wankel rotary engine made sense and actually went into production, but how many are still on the road today?
A reasonable fraction - given their age - of the later rotary models are still driven, in part because they are speciality cars with enthusiastic owners. Still, the fraction is probably not as high as for non-rotary models of the same vintage and type, due to the problems of those rotaries.

The last Mazda rotary model was the RX-8, and it has been out of production for six years... and it was a specialty model of limited appeal even then. I talked to a Mazda dealership sales rep about the RX-8 when it was new, and even he wasn't impressed, probably because he had no idea how to drive the car to appreciate it.

Wankel/Paschke engines - the design which Mazda bought and developed - were doomed by poor efficiency and high emissions due to a very awkward combustion chamber shape. Their advantages of high-speed operation and high output for their weight and external package size were lost as conventional piston engines improved. You can now make an RX-8 faster, more efficient, and more reliable - without hurting weight or handling - by swapping in a current conventional engine... and quite a few people have done that.

The Achates Power engine is relatively conventional in mechanical design, compared to a Wankel/Paschke/Mazda rotary. In some ways - particularly sealing the combustion chambers - the opposed-piston design is much less of a challenge.
Brian B-P is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:18 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
sunrisetrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Nanaimo Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Trailer: 2015 17b "Shelly"
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan4 View Post
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.
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. You obviously had the new improved version.
__________________

__________________
Like a lot of fellows, I have a furniture problem. My chest has fallen into my drawers
"Billy Casper"
sunrisetrucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Escape Trailer Industries or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.
×