Second year in a row, Ford Engine of the Year.

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: EType
Cast iron block for faster warm up.

Where does it state cast iron? Why would cast iron warm faster than thin aluminum so many use? The question comes from the Toyota side. The newer ford engines generally don't burn any oil, most Toyotas do. Toyotas have a thin aluminum blocks. The consumption problems are the pistons, oil flashing, heat. So I'm thinking cast iron dissipates heat better, why the fords don't see the oil consumption. Cooler pistons.
Cast iron dissipates heat "better"...???? I guess that's why heat sinks on electronic devices are all ......aluminum.

Good point, I should have thought to compare the heat sink on my cpu to an engine with oil and a piston.
And how is that different than moving heat away from a hot chunk of semiconductor.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Miller88

I recently took a 250 mile trip with the parents in their Escape. I was able to average 27.5 MPG. Not as good as I had hoped for, but still not terrible for a heavy AWD SUV.


That's not bad at all when you consider the previous generation AWD Escape V6 barely topped 22 or so on the highway. The wife's 03 will go about 300-325 miles on a tank of gas.

 

[astronomy]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Cast iron heas more evenly than aluminum- that's why cast iron pans are some of the best. Aluminum is cheaper and ligher. Think how heavy a cast iron CPU cooler would be- that's why we don't use them. It would weigh a ton, and would put a lot of stress on the motherboard.


CPU heatsinks are made of aluminum (or copper/aluminum) because they dissipate heat VERY quickly. A modern CPU gets hot very quickly-there's no time for a slow heating metal like cast iron to absorb the heat. Weight aside, cast iron would make a poor CPU heatsink.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: gofast182

However I really think your optimism is misplaced based on current offerings. Here's why:
If you start paying close attention to reviews you will find that when a NA V6 is mixed in with Turbo I4s in a comparison, the V6 is always appreciated for its smooth power delivery. Sure it's subjective but you will find that point made in every such review.
But here's the part that's of paramount importance; when you look at the (stupid, inadequate) EPA test methodology these engines don't really see any significant level of boost. Once boost comes on it is physically impossible for one of these smaller engines to do the work it needs to without altering the fuel-air mixture in a way that a naturally aspirated engine doesn't need to, they cannot maintain a stoichiometric mixture under load where a NA engine can for a period of time. Here's a chart I typed up from Consumer Reports who did a good article on this; their numbers make a lot of sense as real-world figures and the physics back it up.


I really don't trust much of what CR prints as I've found them to have quite a bit of bias, especially in car reviews. And that article is no different. If you look at the vehicles the Trubo 4's replace, they are getting better real world and EPA fuel economy than their predecessors. And that's the point. But it doesn't make for a controversial article which is what CR wants.

I do know in my car with the Ecoboost 3.5, I get very close to what the EPA says: around 19-20 in mixed driving and 25-26 on the highway. Not bad considering the car is 2.5 tons and AWD!

And the poor fuel economy has nothing to do with stochiometry. All engines strive for stochiometric combustion. That's why we have O2 sensors - they work to keep the mix constant. The reason for poor fuel economy under boost is simple. For a given amount of power you need to burn a set amount of gasoline and use a set amount of air. That will be constant as the BTU output of gas is fairly constant. If you do that by pumping 5 liters of air every crankshaft revolution at atmospheric pressure or do it by compressing 2.5 liters of air at 2x atmospheric pressure, you are still going to need to burn ~ 2x the amount of gas. Theory is you will only be on boost during acceleration while at cruise you can lessen boost back to lower levels.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: astronomy
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Cast iron heas more evenly than aluminum- that's why cast iron pans are some of the best. Aluminum is cheaper and ligher. Think how heavy a cast iron CPU cooler would be- that's why we don't use them. It would weigh a ton, and would put a lot of stress on the motherboard.


CPU heatsinks are made of aluminum (or copper/aluminum) because they dissipate heat VERY quickly. A modern CPU gets hot very quickly-there's no time for a slow heating metal like cast iron to absorb the heat. Weight aside, cast iron would make a poor CPU heatsink.

Not to ignore HerrStig, these are 2 different applications, what may be true for a heat sink may not apply for something large and hot like an engine.

 

[gonefishing]

Cast iron probably does a better job of retaining the heat in the engine block vs. aluminum. With a small engine block like this made of aluminum, it would probably displace the heat on it's own in addition to liquid cooling system. The strength of iron might be an additional reason they went that route because of the high power density.

I also wouldn't think that this small of a block would weigh that much more in an iron form vs. aluminum. A large displacement V8 would have a greater difference between iron and aluminum.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: gofast182

However I really think your optimism is misplaced based on current offerings. Here's why:
If you start paying close attention to reviews you will find that when a NA V6 is mixed in with Turbo I4s in a comparison, the V6 is always appreciated for its smooth power delivery. Sure it's subjective but you will find that point made in every such review.
But here's the part that's of paramount importance; when you look at the (stupid, inadequate) EPA test methodology these engines don't really see any significant level of boost. Once boost comes on it is physically impossible for one of these smaller engines to do the work it needs to without altering the fuel-air mixture in a way that a naturally aspirated engine doesn't need to, they cannot maintain a stoichiometric mixture under load where a NA engine can for a period of time. Here's a chart I typed up from Consumer Reports who did a good article on this; their numbers make a lot of sense as real-world figures and the physics back it up.


I really don't trust much of what CR prints as I've found them to have quite a bit of bias, especially in car reviews. And that article is no different. If you look at the vehicles the Trubo 4's replace, they are getting better real world and EPA fuel economy than their predecessors. And that's the point. But it doesn't make for a controversial article which is what CR wants.

I do know in my car with the Ecoboost 3.5, I get very close to what the EPA says: around 19-20 in mixed driving and 25-26 on the highway. Not bad considering the car is 2.5 tons and AWD!

And the poor fuel economy has nothing to do with stochiometry. All engines strive for stochiometric combustion. That's why we have O2 sensors - they work to keep the mix constant. The reason for poor fuel economy under boost is simple. For a given amount of power you need to burn a set amount of gasoline and use a set amount of air. That will be constant as the BTU output of gas is fairly constant. If you do that by pumping 5 liters of air every crankshaft revolution at atmospheric pressure or do it by compressing 2.5 liters of air at 2x atmospheric pressure, you are still going to need to burn ~ 2x the amount of gas. Theory is you will only be on boost during acceleration while at cruise you can lessen boost back to lower levels.


Yes you're right about the mixture engines strive for and that cruising is not an issue. But as load or duration under load increases the turbo needs to dump a lot more fuel (plus the inherent torque curves of engines like that don't help, either) and the flawed EPA test method doesn't account for this. No it's not a 25% difference, but all is not as it seems the way it's being done now and those numbers (I'm usually skeptical of CR, too) seem very realistic.

 

[Smokescreen]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
C'mon, "most Toyotas burn oil"? I seriously doubt the majority of them do. Sure they made some lemons, but they are the only ones you hear about.

Most Toyota owners aren't on BITOG complaining about their oil consumption issues.

Also note that just because a block is aluminum there is no reason to assume it is somehow thin. I love my iron blocks, especially when seeking higher power levels, but some of the highest powered engines in the world are all aluminum!

Back OT, I agree with above where it was said we need to learn more about the longevity of these setups. New tech is not always good tech. Our three Ebooster V6's in this family averaged just a tick over 17 mpg which is not impressive IMO.


+1

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
And the poor fuel economy has nothing to do with stochiometry. All engines strive for stochiometric combustion. That's why we have O2 sensors - they work to keep the mix constant. The reason for poor fuel economy under boost is simple. For a given amount of power you need to burn a set amount of gasoline and use a set amount of air. That will be constant as the BTU output of gas is fairly constant. If you do that by pumping 5 liters of air every crankshaft revolution at atmospheric pressure or do it by compressing 2.5 liters of air at 2x atmospheric pressure, you are still going to need to burn ~ 2x the amount of gas. Theory is you will only be on boost during acceleration while at cruise you can lessen boost back to lower levels.



There is a lot wrong in the above paragraph:
1. Poor fuel economy has everything to do with stoichiometry. Lean burn engines are more efficient than stoichiometric engines, which are in turn more efficient than rich burn engines.
2. Not all engine strive for stoichiometric combustion. Ever hear of diesels?
3. O2 sensors only maintain gasoline engines at stoichiometric A/F up to a set manifold pressure, above which, enrichment is used to make full power and to protect engine parts, turbos, and cats from overheating. This is where downsized turbocharged engines may have a downside: if the small-displacement engine in the heavy car has to be in enrichment just to push it down the road at 70 mph, to climb gentle grades, or to pull a trailer, the fuel economy is not going to be very good.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^ X2

There's so many misconceptions in this thread I cannot take the time to correct them all.

But you hit the proverbial nail on the head that fuel being used as cylinder coolant is a bad way to get economy!!!

 

[KrisZ]

I think the major reason why small turbocharged engines don't get good fuel economy in NA is our emission laws and in particular NOx levels. In Europe engines can burn much leaner and therefore those little turbocharged engines get very good gas mileage.
In NA these same engines have to run much richer under all conditions to combat NOx.

 

[astronomy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^ X2

There's so many misconceptions in this thread I cannot take the time to correct them all.



That may be true, but what an incredibly arrogant way to put it. I do hope you find the time to "correct" them, though, seeing as how your views are apparently the final word on these issues.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
All engines strive for stochiometric combustion.


This is not correct. The very premise of many modern engine technologies is to run the engine leaner than stochiometric. Heck, even back in the 1970s, Chrysler was working on lean burn engines. The "lean burn" article on Wikipedia gives a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

There is a lot wrong in the above paragraph:
1. Poor fuel economy has everything to do with stoichiometry. Lean burn engines are more efficient than stoichiometric engines, which are in turn more efficient than rich burn engines.


According to http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stoichiometric-combustion-d_399.html

Stochiometric combustion is where you use all the fuel you put into the system. Which in a gas engine is 13:1 (14.7:1 because of the cats). At that point, you are at maximum efficiency. You are getting the most power for your gas - you are not wasting it as unburnt or robbing yourself of power because of lean burn.

Lean burn engines are a way to overcome pumping losses in gasoline engines. At part throttle openings and under low load you can feed it less gas to increase the MPGs but you are not going to run lean burn at WOT or anywhere near that as power will be lost.

Quote:
2. Not all engine strive for stoichiometric combustion. Ever hear of diesels?


Diesles are a different breed. They have a stochiometric point too. And they also widely vary the A/F ratio. The issue with Diesels is at the stochiometric ratio there is lots of soot and smoke so we dial it back.

[quote[3. O2 sensors only maintain gasoline engines at stoichiometric A/F up to a set manifold pressure, above which, enrichment is used to make full power and to protect engine parts, turbos, and cats from overheating. [/quote]

And I believe I read where the EPA is cracking down on the enrichment at WOT and coaxing manufacturers to stay closed loop and stochiometric at all engine speeds. I know you rarely see the puff of black smoke anymore when someone "gets on it".

I also think that Direct Injection helps with a lot of these issues as it does help to reduce detonation (cooling effect), and seems to be more precse as far as getting gas to the cylendars.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: astronomy
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^ X2

There's so many misconceptions in this thread I cannot take the time to correct them all.



That may be true, but what an incredibly arrogant way to put it. I do hope you find the time to "correct" them, though, seeing as how your views are apparently the final word on these issues.


You know, normally I do not pay any attention to these type of posts, but I have nothing better to do... wait, my dog is scratching at the door...

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: astronomy
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^ X2

There's so many misconceptions in this thread I cannot take the time to correct them all.



That may be true, but what an incredibly arrogant way to put it. I do hope you find the time to "correct" them, though, seeing as how your views are apparently the final word on these issues.

He assumes that everyone is assuming based on knowledge he won't disclose. In my case he assumes I assume because a block is made of aluminum, its thin. I have torn down, assisted in online teardowns, read every word of multiple manuals before making that comment. I can easily provide info, here's just a taste sparing hokeyfld and the rest of you..

EG-36 ENGINE — 2AZ-FE ENGINE MECHANICAL (Page 4)
"The cylinder block is made of aluminum alloy. Producing the thin cast-iron liners and aluminum alloy cylinder block as a unit realizes a compact design. The liner is thin, and reboring is not possible."

So thin you can't rebore? cast Iron liners cooling the pistons? Why cast iron, thought aluminum was the way to go? Why liners at all? If I added pics of the skeletal lightweight block with details of 50-100k stripped headbolt block thread failures, bolts just outside of the liner, would you believe me that the block is thin then? How about tens of thousands of oil consumption complaints? No, Probably not, so why bother. Probably get some lax minimal effort answer like we see now.

How does this apply to the conversation? Re: Second year in a row, Ford Engine of the Year--->Why is Ford bragging about a Cast iron block-->How can a cast Iron block warm an engine 50% faster-->You can't heat a large object faster without a large amount of heat--->the entire internet says aluminum dissipates heat faster than cast iron, why is ford bucking the internet?-->The majority of engine heat comes from combustion-->why do most Toyotas burn oil, mainly from the combustion area--->why do most Ford NOT burn oil.-->???

Sorry if it seems I'm hijacking, but if you put the title claim in context, who wouldnt want a non-oil burner. If Cast Iron makes a difference, wouldn't that be a criteria for purchase? If the case, this engine is a winner for oil consumption alone. I can deal with problems, but I hate constantly having to worry about oil level. If Ford inadvertently fixed that with a cast iron block, I will buy one tomorrow. That is all.

 

[morris]

back in the 60s we would joke "ford-engine of week"

 

[morris]

steve dont worry its not your job. thats why i read only about 10% of the posts. and very very seldom say someone is wrong. i try to stick to what KNOW that i KNOW. but i might say, "i think" or "if i remember right".

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: itguy08


And I believe I read where the EPA is cracking down on the enrichment at WOT and coaxing manufacturers to stay closed loop and stochiometric at all engine speeds. I know you rarely see the puff of black smoke anymore when someone "gets on it".


'bout time. I started noticing the gassers that would smoke when someone got on them, right after I got my TDi and started being concious of such things. Seemed very hypocritical: my high mpg diesel was "bad" but these low mpg gassers could blow a plume just as bad as mine did...

 

[supton]

Cast iron reflects heat better, doesn't it? Should retain heat better. Any chance they are using various coatings to further that cause (did not read the links)? I mean, less heat into the walls means less lost heat.

Of course, thinner means less time to get to the water jacket. Heat the water up fast, then if you could figure out how to leave the water as hot as possible... Cast iron would be stiffer than aluminum, so again thin.