She's Real Fine, My 409....

[Bruce Amacker]

From lmtruck.com:

 

Ford Motor Co. released horsepower and torque ratings for the all-new diesel and gasoline engines that will power its forthcoming 2011 Super Duty models, and also released payload and towing capacities for the trucks.

 

 

 

The new Power Stroke diesel, a turbocharged 6.7-liter unit that was designed in-house by Ford, has a maximum torque rating of 735ft.-lb. at 1,600 rpm, and 390 horsepower at 2,800 rpm. Those figures mark improvements of 85 ft.-lb. and 40 horsepower over the outgoing, Navistar-built 6.4 liter diesel.

 

 

 

Ford said the new engine also delivers an average fuel economy improvement of 18 percent for pickups and up to 25 percent for chassis cab Super Duty models. The new engine is also capable of operating on B20 biodiesel, Ford said.

 

 

 

Ford and Navistar ended their long-standing diesel engine supply agreement last year after an acrimonious battle over engine warranty claims.

 

 

 

Ford is also introducing a new 6.2-liter V-8 gas engine with 385 horsepower and 405 ft.-lb. of torque – 85 more horsepower and 40 ft.-lb. of torque more than the current 5.4-liter V-8 gas engine. Ford said the engine will average 15 percent better fuel mileage that the 5.4 liter. The new engine is also compatible with E85 fuel

 

 

 

Maximum available towing capacity for Super Duty pickups is 24,400 pounds, and 26,400 for chassis cab models. Maximum payload is 6,520 on pickups, and 12,711 on chassis cabs.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the 6.7 is 409cid...

[Shlep]

Pretty impressive numbers all in all, but lets see what happens in the real world..... say after the first 2 years.

[Jim Warman]

What is interesting....

 

Ford appears to be sticking with fuel being injected during the exhaust stroke for active regen. That a regen is being done in an "active" manner would suggest that combustion chamber temps are cooler than optimum.... which would suggest that wet stacking could be a factor... and this might also suggest that the fuel injected into a somewhat cool cylinder might evaporate.... (now... evaporation is an endothermic change of state. As our liquid changes state from a vapour to a gas, the surrounding area must "give up" latent heat during the process... I'll muddle this up at the end)...

 

What this all boils (gratuitous pun) down to is trying to save money and I firmly believe that this will bite Ford in the ass.

 

Mack (for one, at least) and I am unsure of how many others, use a dedicated fuel injector... Macks appears to be downstream of the turbo... to supply the heat required to initiate an active regen... This downstream injector can't possibly interfere with cylinder thermodynamics.

 

So... WTF is this "endothermic" bullshit?

 

For a "mild" demonstration, spill some gasoline or brake clean on your skin... As the liquid evaporates (i.e. changes state from liquid to vapour), you will notice the "endothermic"... Warming the liquid takes little from your skin in the way of latent heat... making the liquid change state from liquid to vapour... major heat absorption. If you can understand "wind chill factor" properly, you have a handle on it...

 

So.... one of the problems we have seen with the 7.3..... with the 6.0... with the 6.4... has been wet stacking... With the 6.4 and the 6.7... we are going to give the opportunity to further cool an already cool combustion chamber - and wonder why we have a motor that "makes oil".

 

But... me being a high school drop out, I wouldn't have the foggiest notion about some of this stuff - and I sure wouldn't pretend to offer an opinion that I expected anyone to consider.

 

Sidebar... in the early 80's we saw Escort mufflers freeze off in cold weather... In the early 21st century, we saw history repeat itself with the Escort... There are many ways to spell "DUH" - are any of them right?

 

Anyway... something you might consider "scarey".... The Chevy 409 was rather unique for its day... The cylinder head casting was flat and the combustion chambers were cast into the piston.

 

technology has, once again, taken a serious step... (do I dare say 'forward'? or do I say in "A" direction?). Ladies and gentlemen.. welcome to the new era...

[robp823]

Yea the new duramax's use there own separate injector for regen as well.In my eyes a way better design.

[Aaron]

That's "She's REAL fine my 409", Bruce.

[Jim Warman]

Shifting the focus back to the blue oval here.... does anyone recall (IIRC it was called ) "The Ballad of Stroker McGurk"?

 

'I was stopped at a red light in my 406

Runnin' 3 two barrels and a 4 speed stick

 

I glanced in the mirror and comin' up behind

Was a loud red Chevy with a 409.'

 

Ahhh... the old days. Dirt was white and my pet dinosaur played fetch with me.

[Bruce Amacker]

Anndddd, just what makes you think I was plagiarizing a well known Beach Boys song? Maybe I was just commenting on how nice the new 6.7 is?

 

 

[Bruce Amacker]

PS I hear the coffee table book will be out in a couple of weeks. I saw the preliminary copy and it looks similar in format to what we're used to.

 

 

[Aaron]

This Stroker McGurk, Jim?

 

 

 

Those cartoons were awesome.

[Jim Warman]

That be the one....

 

An interesting side note... The magazine was called CARtoons, published by (IIRC) Petersen Publishing... T'would be circa 1962 and some kid wrote a letter to the editor promising he would one day jump the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle...

 

Evel himself publicly stated that the idea came to him in 1966... me? I'm not so sure....

 

Your pic is (another IIRC) an AMT offering from that period...

 

Ed "Big Daddy" Roth (along with guys like Dean Jefferies, Bill Cushenberry, Sam Barris and Gene Winfield) turned the automobile into an art form. The stylized RatFink was born ....

 

 

And a whole generation of young gear heads knew exactly what "Where's Von Dutch?" was all about...

[Keith Browning]

Suddeenly I feel a lot younger!

[DamageINC]

WOW. These are some very, VERY aggressive power and torque figures. I hope to God that the new 6R140 can withstand all of that punishment from a daily-driven dragster aspect, because you know people are gonna spend a good deal of time with their right foot to the floor, lol..

 

Way to go though, really.. for Ford to come out with a publicly in-house designed engine and smash the competition from a preliminary performance outlook, this is only going to help bolster things even further for the blue oval I think.

 

Not only is the 735 TQ rating a huge number from a light-duty (or even medium duty) truck, but the fact that it comes in at only 1600 RPM is enough to make even the most staunch 7.3 junkie out there get a little excited in his pants.

 

Very excited to see the reviews on this thing in another 6 months.

 

Dave

[mchan68]

Not only is the 735 TQ rating a huge number from a light-duty (or even medium duty) truck, but the fact that it comes in at only 1600 RPM is enough to make even the most staunch 7.3 junkie out there get a little excited in his pants.

 

Yeah, but have you seen the price of these things?

[jw33]

Trans is rated for 1200 ft lbs is what they told us in kentucky, the thing is a monster,goona drive heavy duty trans jacks sales up, not many jacks in dealers now are going to be able to hold it.It has the sae bellhousing on it

[Keith Browning]

Trans is rated for 1200 ft lbs is what they told us in Kentucky, the thing is a monster,goona drive heavy duty trans jacks sales up, not many jacks in dealers now are going to be able to hold it.It has the sae bellhousing on it

 

Good heads up in the trans jack. Time to start buggin the boss about it... a lot of our shop equipment is getting old and a little ragged.

[mrbudge]

Doesn't the 140 in 6r140 mean 1400 lb-ft torque capacity? And doesn't a torque convertor multiply torque 2x? Not trying to be a downer, but some things aren't adding up. (2x735=1470)

[Jim Warman]

Back in the day... the 4 speed trans from a Vega would bolt up to the bellhousing of a 396/427. This didn't make it a smart choice but, as long as you didn't hit the rev limiter and then drop the hammer, the trans might live a long and fruitful life...

 

Today, we have things that can help exacerbate much...

 

The first realization is that the 6R140 is also slated for the 650/750 trucks...

 

The second realization is that the 6.7 is most likely going to have a pretty sophisticated traction control/torque limiting system... with the secondary realization that we may be making a lot of folks unhappy when their chip sends their transmission to transmission heaven...

 

Getting back to the Vega/396 trans implant... adding power smoothly is much different than shock loading a drivetrain... Aaron will tell you that there are cars that can wheelstand gracefully.... and there are cars that wheelstand in a most expensive manner..

[mchan68]

The first realization is that the 6R140 is also slated for the 650/750 trucks...

Really? And where did you hear this? Is Ford actually continuing production of the F-650/F-750? I thought they were going to a solenoid actuated manual transmission setup. Is the 5.9L Cummins ISB to be the lone engine choice for these trucks?

 

Originally Posted By: Jim Warman

Back in the day... the 4 speed trans from a Vega would bolt up to the bellhousing of a 396/427. This didn't make it a smart choice but, as long as you didn't hit the rev limiter and then drop the hammer, the trans might live a long and fruitful life...

 

Really? But I thought the General's four banger RWD engines (Chevette, Vega/Astre, Monza/Sunbird/Starfire/Skyhawk) had unique bellhousing bolt patterns, unlike their bigger engine cousins that either had "BOPC" or Chevy bellhousing bolt patterns, or are you referring to the bellhousing itself, not the engine block? Actually, now that I think of it, it's pretty scary to think that a Chevy Monza with a 305 V8 shares the same bolt pattern as a Chevy 5 ton truck 366/427 if I'm not mistaken, or do the 5 ton trucks have a unique pattern too? Not to stray to far off topic.

[Jim Warman]

If you watch the video that is part of the NMT for SuperDuty, the statement about the trans is made.... I mentioned it HERE .

 

For the 396 transmission swap.... "the 4 speed trans from a Vega would bolt up to the bellhousing of a 396/427" is a pretty simple statement. While I may be mistaken about the source, it was true that a trans from some pissy assed little 4-banger would bolt up to a big block with little more than a clutch disc change.... T'would be around 1974 when I last was part of such a feat. The memory is a little vague... but I think you'll find that the aluminum clutch housings from that era (for the V8s) was double drilled (while the cast iron housings weren't).

 

The 396/402/427/454 and the 366/427 are two different motors. Heads will interchange but precious little else (cranks too unless I'm getting senile). The 366/427 was a tall deck motor - the taller deck was to accomodate a fourth piston ring. These engines were built to accept heavy truck transmissions rather than automotive transmissions and were not available in trucks smaller than the C50.

 

Quiz time..... what was the biggest difference between the 221/260/289 and the 289/302?

[Keith Browning]

The 6R140 was designed for the new Ford diesel in part to handle the high toque output of the 6.7L. Since it a stout unit it also can, and will be used in the 650/750 trucks. I was told this by the Gents from Ford that came down to our dealer for the in dealer training.

 

Another benefit of this is that we no longer have to deal with Allison whom are worthless with when it comes to support when you are not a certified Allison dealer. They didn't even want to speak with me when I had 5 trucks in the lot with problems. Even more shocking was the cat that my FSE and the engineers back at Ford had little technical information available to them nor did they have much leverage in getting any.

 

Keeping everything "in house" may prove to be better... provided the products are better. Time will tell.

[LARRY BRUDZYNSKI]

Quiz time..... what was the biggest difference between the 221/260/289 and the 289/302?

Stroke..... 289/302 IIRC has a 3.00 stroke with shorter rods.

[mrbudge]

Didn't the old Windsors use a 5 bolt bellhousing, and the new ones 6 bolt. It is good to find someone who is older than I am. I seem to recall some deck height differences to, but that may be a memory thing.

[Aaron]

Early chevy 4 bangers small blocks and big blocks shared the same bellhousing pattern.

 

The 90 degree V6's (4.3(fuel hog), 3.3(garbage), 3.8(garbage) Chevy) share the same bolt pattern also. Buick/Olds/Pontiac have a different pattern all of their own.

 

So, you can put a 200C metric from a 3.3 V6 from an early 80's car, behind a 572/720R crate motor. It won't live very friggin' long, but it'll bolt together.

[DamageINC]

Doesn't the 140 in 6r140 mean 1400 lb-ft torque capacity? And doesn't a torque convertor multiply torque 2x? Not trying to be a downer, but some things aren't adding up. (2x735=1470)

Yes, that's the modern "translation" for transmissions nowadays.. with the number in the middle signifying the torque rating if you put another "zero" at the end of it. Each company has their own designations for certain things (4R100 = 4 speed, "R"ear wheel drive, 1,000 lbs/ft), or a 4L80E is 4 speed, Longitudally mounted, 800 lbs/ft, "E"lectronic shift.. So the 6R140 would be "6 Speed, Rear drive, 1400 lbs/ft"

 

I don't know that a torque converter always multiplies by 2x, however.. ?

 

Dave

[jimmy57]

Torque converters don't have the same torque amplification rate. 2.0 is actually on the high end. The 6.0's had higher stall speed which also means higher torque multiplier. The 6.7 making its torque down low (where Rudolph Diesel intended it) doesn't need a high stall/higher torque multiplier T/C so the 1400 lb-ft rating may be way above what gets twisted onto the input shaft.