So you agree with my statement?
You cant get something from nothing. I agree, huge power means huge heat=less engine life, no doubt. All other things being equal.
Cummins releases first gas engine
- Thread starter Bryanccfshr
- Start date
You cant get something from nothing. I agree, huge power means huge heat=less engine life, no doubt. All other things being equal.
In a roundabout way yes.
"10 percent better versus comparable gas engines"
The beauty of turbo vs N/A w/same power outputs. Very important for many commercial businesses which is why Ford probably didn't bother with a turbo 7.3L since it's going into smaller trucks. However, still disappointing that it doesn't seem to be going into any 1 ton trucks & I'm not buying a Kenworth T180 anytime soon.
The beauty of turbo vs N/A w/same power outputs. Very important for many commercial businesses which is why Ford probably didn't bother with a turbo 7.3L since it's going into smaller trucks. However, still disappointing that it doesn't seem to be going into any 1 ton trucks & I'm not buying a Kenworth T180 anytime soon.
I like the idea of this going into box trucks and school busses.
For my current work world Diesel used to be king in the arctic, until DPF. (Used to run off road diesel for a long time) Now gas options are more attractive.
This is a good looking truck engine for work.
For my current work world Diesel used to be king in the arctic, until DPF. (Used to run off road diesel for a long time) Now gas options are more attractive.
This is a good looking truck engine for work.
A good estimate would be 25% greater fuel consumption vs diesel.
dnewton3
Staff member
Actually, my 2006 LBZ was 360hp and 650 ft-lb; class leading stock numbers in the day back then. Paltry by today's diesel standards.
I see no reason the Godzilla would "grenade" at 300hp/650t-lb. Folks are getting WAY more than that in tuned, forced induction applications. Without destruction.
But if you don't think the Godzilla would suffice (I disagree), then by all means, Ford could take the 6.7L PSD and convert it to gas, just like Cummins did with the 6.7L. And Ford would get the same HP and torque numbers, all day long, with the same expectations for durability and longevity.
My point is that converting a well-seasoned diesel engine design to gasoline, and then only asking for (approximately) half the HP and torque of the diesel engine, won't really task the architecture much at all. What Cummins did to the 6.7L could easily be done to Ford and GM's diesels as well.
Was getting gas and an up fitted, new school bus was gassing up next to me. Asked the driver what was under the hood and why gas. V10 Ford gas and reliability was all that mattered. Bus is used to shuttle miners to a new gold mine 2 hours north of the city, might see - 40F at times.
Perfect candidate for this new Cummins engine.
Perfect candidate for this new Cummins engine.
i remember it being 300/520 pre 2006.
it was meant as a joke, kind of
which is hotter at the same power?
dnewton3
Staff member
The LB7 was lower. Then the LLY (short production run) was more. Then the LBZ came along in 2006; 360 and 650. That ran until the LMM and LMLs came to be.
OK - it caught me off guard. I accept your explanation. No harm done.
Generally gas engines run higher EGTs. So all other things equal, the gas engines will run hotter, because they waste more energy in heat loss. Diesel fuel has about 25% more BTUs per pound of fuel than gasoline, but diesels also run more efficiently (they lose less waste heat).
However, if you're asking an engine (formerly designed to live with 400+HP and 1000+ ft-lb) to now run on a much lower power levels using gasoline (say 300hp and 650 ft-lb), it may well be not an issue for the gas application. Probably a wash given the significant drop in mean power levels. Gas runs hotter but you're producing way less energy conversion, so the result is likely negligible change in total heat experienced. The cooling systems which served the diesel would easily serve that same engine using gas in its state of lower power, IMO.
That is exact what I was thinking, and is IMO beyond doubt.
What will determine how good or not this engine is, will be how well and what practices are used with in its design, if its built like most are now it will just be another failure.
Diesel combustion actually has higher in-cylinder temperature than gasoline. But because it is more efficient, i.e. power out, and also a lean combustion process, more heat gets extracted before the exhaust leaves the cylinder. That means you end up with lower exhaust temps by the time it is leaving the engine.
Not sure with the later roller lifter/cam ISB...But before that they were largely the same besides Injectors & Calibration.
The Allison 1000 used by GM was also largely the same as a Allison sold 1000/2000. Different Torque Converter & Bellhousing bolt pattern.....The latest 10L1000 is GM engineered based on the GM/Ford 10 speed joint venture.
Also limited by RPM, Can't rev a ISB rotating assembly much past 3,800 or so.
Pistons are likely to be much lighter, so the redline could be higher.
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes; this is correct.
The higher efficiency of the diesel combustion process leads to a lower EGT, relative to gas.
But, given that the very high torque/power of the 6.7L diesel engine far exceeds the power of the 6.7L gas engine, it's likely that the cooling system of the diesel would easily cover the EGTs of the gas engine.
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
can’t wait to see this swapped into 3/4 ton pickups
It does look to calculate out to 300 horsepower at 5252 RPM.
Similar threads
