Two of the world's biggest automakers are squaring off for a multi-year truck engine battle, with one company trying to win by addition, while the other aims for victory by subtraction.
In one corner, Ford Motor Co. is using turbochargers to boost its V6. In the other, General Motors (GM) is deactivating cylinders on its V8s. Both companies want the same outcome -- power plus fuel efficiency. But the two are going about it in dramatically different ways. "No doubt about it, it's a face-off between them," David Cole, chairman emeritus for the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), told Design News. "Both of them have put a lot of emphasis on their decisions."
Indeed, GM has thrown down the gauntlet with the recent rollout of a family of so-called "small block" engines, which includes a 5.3L V8 and a 6.2L V8, as well as a 4.3L V6. The engines offer direct injection, continuously variable valve timing and, most importantly, cylinder deactivation. The EcoTec3 engines are important to GM because they give the giant automaker a clear path to fuel efficiency by combining the fifth-generation of the company's "small block" technology with the ability to shut down cylinders when they're not needed. It's a big step forward for truck engines in the era of CAFE mandates because it enables an eight-cylinder engine to behave like a smaller unit when the power's not needed.
GM's new 5.3L V8 EcoTec engine, left, boosts fuel efficiency by using cylinder deactivation to act as a four-cylinder engine at light loads. Ford's 3.5L EcoBoost engine, right, boosts performance by using twin-turbocharger technology to create a more dense mix of air and fuel in each cylinder. (Source: GMC, left; Ford Motor Co., right)
"In effect, it operates like a four-cylinder engine at light load," Cole told us. "The throttle is fairly open, so they reduce the throttling losses, which is one of the key thermodynamic losses for any engine at light load."
By employing the old "small block" concept, which was originated by GM in 1955, the company hopes to benefit through mechanical simplicity and experience. The engines will be used on the 2014 Silverado 1500 and the GMC Sierra 1500, where GM engineers want to appeal to customers who want to get a half-million miles out of their powertrains. "It's an engine we know well," Tom Wilkinson, spokesman for Chevrolet trucks and SUVs, told Design News. "And it's a technology we know will hold up over the long haul."
Ford, meanwhile, is taking a bottom-up approach with its V6, twin-turbo EcoBoost engine. The 3.5L engine, which has already had significant success, uses its exhaust to spin turbine wheels that create a more dense mix of air and fuel in each cylinder. Ford says the engine offers best-in-class 4x2 fuel economy (16/22 mpg), torque (420 at 2,500 rpm), maximum payload, and maximum towing capacity. In essence, the idea is for the engine to behave like a V6 until the power is really needed. "We say, 'Deactivate those extra cylinders all the time,' " Chris Terry, Ford spokesman, told us. "Don't use them in the first place."
Ford told Design news that the V6 concept has been received enthusiastically by truck buyers, despite initial claims by some that truck consumers wouldn't accept anything smaller than a V8. "They love our V6 engines," Mike Levine, truck communications manager for Ford, told us. "If you want proof, look at our F-150 sales last year. Fifty-three percent of them were sold with V6 engines." In November, the company reached production of 500,000 EcoBoost-equipped vehicles.
Right now, there's no way to fairly compare Ford's and GM's approaches. GM is still awaiting fuel efficiency numbers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and is saying little until those numbers become available. The only statement made by the giant automaker was at the recent Detroit Auto Show introduction of the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette, which will use the 6.2L V8. There, Chevrolet said the engine will deliver 450 HP and 450 lb-ft of torque.
"Both approaches are quite valid," Cole told us. "So it's going to be interesting to see how they'll stack up in terms of performance, cost, and efficiency. This is really going to be a mega-technical issue."
Problem here is that the average American Joe attaches his manhood to the power of his vehicle, thanks to brain neutralizing animal testosterone and stupid brainwashing marketing trickery.
To give you an idea critically analize some (and every one) of the pickup truck advertising pieces. the P O W E R obsession sells to every redneck and his cousin in this country.
When that way of thinking stops (it's going to take SOMETHING) and evolution makes their brains grow beyond that; then the USA average male will consider an electric truck as an everyday vehicle.
They are already a reality... everyday fleet vehicles silently perform their nonpoluting duties, behind the anonimous task of the delivery drivers of big corporations.
Check this guys, THEY ARE DOING IT ALREADY http://www.smithelectric.com/
So on the same note; when the electric trucks, start BEATING THE CRAP of internal combustion engines, same redneck stupid marketing tricks will help to increase the sales of the electric ones...
But before it happens somebody has to come with an electrical motor that MAKES A LOT OF VERY LOUD NOISE ! !
"Aint no good little motor good as a good big motor". A fortiari for trucks. I forgot who said it, I think maybe Max "Old Yeller" Balchowsky. I have a Silverado with the 6 liter motor, best truck I have ever owned, and I am old, owned a lot of trucks.
I would also like to see towing and hauling performance over the long run. Smaller engines tend to wear out faster when put under the stress of towing.
Anecdotally - I had a Ford 4.6L F150 that showed a loss of power much more quickly than its predecessors that had 302 c.i. engines. However, when they were new, the 4.6L and 302 c.i. trucks were very comparable power-wise.
GM first offered cylinder deactivation in 1981 on the Cadillac L62 V8. They have had plenty of time to develop that system, I think. I believe most of the problems GM experienced in the past were in the electronics and not the mechanical parts of the engine. Time will tell whether customers like the system or not and I believe that may be the main issue.
I have always been a Ford guy (and GM hater) but have concerns about Ford's approach. For anyone who remembers the early days of production turbo vehicles, reliability was a huge issue that should not be overlooked.
Granted, turbos have come a long way in terms of reliability (i.e. modern turbo diesels on 1 ton trucks), but they are still a bit costly. When you consider that a lot of these trucks will be used for work and play off road, the more conventional (and reliable) 'multi-displacement' technology seems better. The dust, vibration, and shock of off road driving are very hard on vehicle components. With the twin turbo Ford V-6 you will have twice the number of expensive turbo units exposed to it.
The question of 'turbo lag' is whole other conversation; but can these new turbos overcome the bad taste gasoline turbo powertrains left consumers with last time around?
Disclaimers -My 2007 Dodge Ram 1500 has a multi-displacement 5.7L V-8 that has been very reliable and gets me around 15 mph highway (10 mph towing a 3 horse trailer). My uncle has one of the new Ford turbo F150s and is very pleased with the mileage (over 20 mph highway) and power, but he doesn't tow and rarely goes off road.
The light truck is as American as burgers and fries. Competition from overseas and new emissions requirements are putting a strain on the domestic manufacturers. It's nice to see our favorite trucks are in good hands.
GM has finally rolled out DI on the small block. I think they had variable valve timing and displacement on demand technologies on the previous generation with the exception of the 4.8L. GM's small block is very light and compact, produces exceptional power from idle to redline and has proven it can go the distance. If the updated small block can maintain that and produce the desired efficiency and emissions, then GM will be well equipped to satisfy customers who like V8s. You gotta love the sound of a well tuned V8.
US manufacturers have been shy about offering turbocharged gasoline engines for some time. There have been plenty of successes, but drivability concerns, fuel efficiency and insurance costs have limited the market. Modern turbochargers, engine management systems and traction control have resolved nearly all of the drivability concerns and the availability of DI for gasoline engines (DI has been used on diesel engines for decades) has changed the image of turbocharged gasoline engines from gas hogs to efficient and reliable compact powerhouses. The success of Ford's Echo Boost engines proves that the market is there. Time will tell if these modern small displacement turbo powerhouses can go the distance.
In the end both approaches are great solutions to the same problem. If variety adds spice to life, then the American light truck will continue to satisfy the palettes of truck buyers for years to come.
Call me a "DOUBTING THOMAS", and I qualify that to state that battery technology is NOWHERE in my expertise, BUT I believe that there would be many obstacles to mounting a large set of batteries into a truck chassis. One of these would be that since many trucks are weight-limited, there would be a liability to its ability to carry cargo, since GVW would be affected negatively. Furthermore, UNLESS there is a paradigm shift in battery chemistry, I don't see this energy storage device as being viable for ANY vehicle, outside the limited use casual vehicles presently on the market.
It made the news reports in the past week or so that even the principal engineer responsible for the TOYOTA PRIUS admitted that the ICE will be the primary power source of vehicles for decades to come. However, I DO believe that the chemical, mechanical, electrical engineers will find a satisfactory solution to increasing the overall efficiency of the modern transportation vehicle such that this discussion may become a moot point.
Finally, I also believe that the governments SHOULD NOT be so adamant in their prescriptions for the future. There is NO doubt among rational-thinking people that when governments overbear, the results ARE almost always disasterous.
I would add longevity. If those turbos start going out at 100K then Ford will have a reputation problem. GM must also prove that cylinder deactivation can really save fuel. I am sure there is some savings, but how much? Then the question is how does cylinder deactivation affect the V8's longevity?
If these issues come up and it affects the truck user, the manufacturer will be pounded for under-developed technology and reputation will be at stake.
Charles, I think automobile/mechanical engineers are the best peoples to judge about these changes. From user point of view, better power and high mileage are the concern points and any changes for attaining these two goals may get widely accepted..
Cabe, that is a good idea. A good solution for trucks might be something like a diesel electric locomotive (this is what all diesel locomotives are now, so we generally don't put in the electric). Diesel locomotives have been evolving to hybrids with batteries. This sllows them to recover energy in breaking, for example, and to respond more quickly to speed and load changes. The engine (ICE or microturbine) still provides the main source of electricity. They tend to be more expensive to build, but easier and cheaper to maintain.
For 3D printing to make the jump from rapid prototyping to manufacturing, engineers will need to find easier ways to move products from their CAD screens to their printers.
Gigabit and PoE are two networking technologies moving ahead in tandem as industrial users power remote Ethernet devices such as IP security cameras at 1,000 Mbps over existing CAT5 cable.
New versions of BASF's Ecovio line are both compostable and designed for either injection molding or thermoforming. These combinations are becoming more common for the single-use bioplastics used in food service and food packaging applications, but are still not widely available.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
2 
