Ford Transit 2.2l Diesel

[BCDave]

Impressive! A diseasel that can run at 14:1!!! I've built engines (gasoline) that run higher compression than that!

[rancilio]

Seems comparable to my 1.9 L Jetta TDI wagon get 38.5 miles per gallon as a hostess.

[rancilio]

Originally Posted by rancilio

Seems comparable to my 1.9 L Jetta TDI wagon get 38.5 miles per gallon as a hostess.

Humm, voice recognition isn't always so good. I tried to say, I'm getting 38.5 miles per gallon as I post this.

[Ed Harris]

Originally Posted by rancilio

Humm, voice recognition isn't always so good. I tried to say, I'm getting 38.5 miles per gallon as I post this.

Now that is funny!

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by rancilio

.... as a hostess.

You are obligated to wear your party dress then, you know.

[rancilio]

I have it on already!

[gmw photos]

Originally Posted by rancilio

I have it on already!

Now this is getting scary !!

Regarding the marketing video up there by Mazda....this will be interesting to follow as it comes out. It sounds to me like they are building an engine with all the disadvantages of a diesel, and none of the advantages !

LOL....and not just ONE turbo to fail....but TWO ! We shall see. Color me skeptical. I'm from the "Show-Me" state......

george

[841K9]

Originally Posted by Roger C H

I just shake my head when the Gov't mandates 54 mpg CAFE standards. Despite all the hype, mileage has NOT improved all that much.

Fuel economy for many vehicles has actually gone down due to emissions controls.

Anyone that drove the pre-EGR, UREA and DPF diesels knows what I'm talking about.

[841K9]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

Dunno, I read recently that Ford had copyrighted the T series names, "T-150" and so on. Seems like a shoo-in for the Transits.

The article I read also stated that many fleets and businesses are currently motivated to replace aging vans with more fuel efficient ones. Plenty of companies need the space of a van but don't need to haul or tow heavy loads. Think delivery vans, contractor's vans, that sort of thing.

My insurance company wanted me to use one as a rental instead of my usual 1 ton truck.

Too small and delicate for anything but the lightest work.

[841K9]

Originally Posted by gmw photos

Now this is getting scary !!


LOL....and not just ONE turbo to fail....but TWO ! We shall see. Color me skeptical. I'm from the "Show-Me" state......

george

Twin turbos have been around a while on diesels with pretty reliable results.
CAT Acert, Detroit 8v and DD, Navistar MaxxForce, etc.

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by rancilio

I have it on already!

Glad to see you fully participating.

[Mike Magee]

Actually I'm wondering most about the longevity of the aluminum block. Quite an unconventional approach.

[gmw photos]

Originally Posted by 841K9

Twin turbos have been around a while on diesels with pretty reliable results.
CAT Acert, Detroit 8v and DD, Navistar MaxxForce, etc.

All I am trying to say is that in a general way, we can probably say that turbochargers ( and mechanically driven superchargers ) tend to be an item that often does not last the life of the vehicle. To put it more simply, they are a "wear part", similar to brakes and other parts that are not designed to have a duty cycle that will carry them out for the projected life of the vehicle.

In fairness to the device itself, a turbo is a very precise part that is expected to live in a very difficult environment.
The end result comes down to the fact that ( on average ) many vehicles in the overall fleet are going to have to have an expensive piece replaced before the rest of the vehicle is ready for scrap. Replacing one failed turbo is expensive. Much of the cost is labor in some cases, but the fact remains the part itself ( turbocharger ) is also costly. If you have more than one of them, it's going to cost more money to fix it. Hence my comment about two of them to fail.

Helping a buddy right now replace the twin turbos on an Audi sedan. Lot of work. Labor charge at a shop was going to be very costly.

In general, my feeling on turbos is they are something I'd rather avoid, but on a diesel, you just about have to use them or you have poor performance.
It's going to be interesting to see how the reliability plays out on the new Ford ecoboost V6. The guys are loving them in the F150's, but that love affair may be dimmed somewhat on down the road if they have a post warranty repair of several thousand dollars. A lot of these trucks are being bought by regular working class folks that are financing them for 4 or 5 years. Some of these expensive repairs are going to occur after the warranty runs out, but while the guy is still making a big monthly payment. Multi thousand dollar repairs tend to make folks.....upset....shall we say.
We've been down this road before....small engine for good fuel economy, big boost for power when you need it. Uh huh...sometimes it's worked well, sometimes not.

We had the turbo go on the 6.0 PSTD but at the time it was covered by warranty. EGR contaminating the turbo is generally the agreed cause of early PSTD turbo failures, but again, it's a precise device that spins really, really fast.....so asking for long term reliability may be asking too much.

Now before you all flame me with "well I've got a turbo-super-zoomy-xyz-brand and it's been great...." .....save it ! I'm talking about overall fleet averages. Talk to the guys that work in a shop that deals with this stuff. My son's best buddy is a wrench in the local Detroit-Allison shop. He makes a good living working on big rigs. He and I have had this conversation, and he tells me all about how often he is fixing this stuff. Class 8 trucks have engines that designed as "million mile motors".....but all too often, the turbo is a part that has to be replaced before the rest of the engine needs attention.

Anybody buying a turbocharged engine in anything needs to know what they are getting into.

Again, this new Mazda will be fun to watch.....but as I said, I'm a skeptic. I wanna see what these things do in the real world. Expect the repairs to be expensive.

george

[841K9]

Originally Posted by gmw photos

All I am trying to say is that in a general way, we can probably say that turbochargers ( and mechanically driven superchargers ) tend to be an item that often does not last the life of the vehicle. To put it more simply, they are a "wear part", similar to brakes and other parts that are not designed to have a duty cycle that will carry them out for the projected life of the vehicle.

In fairness to the device itself, a turbo is a very precise part that is expected to live in a very difficult environment.
The end result comes down to the fact that ( on average ) many vehicles in the overall fleet are going to have to have an expensive piece replaced before the rest of the vehicle is ready for scrap. Replacing one failed turbo is expensive. Much of the cost is labor in some cases, but the fact remains the part itself ( turbocharger ) is also costly. If you have more than one of them, it's going to cost more money to fix it. Hence my comment about two of them to fail.

Helping a buddy right now replace the twin turbos on an Audi sedan. Lot of work. Labor charge at a shop was going to be very costly.

In general, my feeling on turbos is they are something I'd rather avoid, but on a diesel, you just about have to use them or you have poor performance.
It's going to be interesting to see how the reliability plays out on the new Ford ecoboost V6. The guys are loving them in the F150's, but that love affair may be dimmed somewhat on down the road if they have a post warranty repair of several thousand dollars. A lot of these trucks are being bought by regular working class folks that are financing them for 4 or 5 years. Some of these expensive repairs are going to occur after the warranty runs out, but while the guy is still making a big monthly payment. Multi thousand dollar repairs tend to make folks.....upset....shall we say.
We've been down this road before....small engine for good fuel economy, big boost for power when you need it. Uh huh...sometimes it's worked well, sometimes not.

We had the turbo go on the 6.0 PSTD but at the time it was covered by warranty. EGR contaminating the turbo is generally the agreed cause of early PSTD turbo failures, but again, it's a precise device that spins really, really fast.....so asking for long term reliability may be asking too much.

Now before you all flame me with "well I've got a turbo-super-zoomy-xyz-brand and it's been great...." .....save it ! I'm talking about overall fleet averages. Talk to the guys that work in a shop that deals with this stuff. My son's best buddy is a wrench in the local Detroit-Allison shop. He makes a good living working on big rigs. He and I have had this conversation, and he tells me all about how often he is fixing this stuff. Class 8 trucks have engines that designed as "million mile motors".....but all too often, the turbo is a part that has to be replaced before the rest of the engine needs attention.

Anybody buying a turbocharged engine in anything needs to know what they are getting into.

Again, this new Mazda will be fun to watch.....but as I said, I'm a skeptic. I wanna see what these things do in the real world. Expect the repairs to be expensive.

george

Most of the turbos that I end up replacing are due to driver error and poor maintenance. Things like a bad air filter, contaminated oil, and not letting the truck idle before shutting it off so that the turbo can spin down with sustained oil pressure.

Yes, they do eventually wear out. But, it should outlast a transmission and transmissions are far more costly.

You must be lucky with that 6.0 to only have turbo and EGR issues. The factory head gaskets and studs are garbage. Even with those issues, its still a pretty good engine. And I would gladly take that over the 6.0 gas in my 2010 Chevy 1 ton. Its the first time that I've been happy to have a truck totaled.

[gmw photos]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

Actually I'm wondering most about the longevity of the aluminum block. Quite an unconventional approach.

Yes, and I'd like to know about the cylinder liners.

They state in their fluff ad that they "SLASHED the weight by 10% !".......uh....10%......come on, that's hardly 'slashing'. Consider just for comparison that a V8 Ford PSTD weighs 966 pounds. The V10 gas motor weighs about 400 pounds less. So let's say that Ford 'slashed' the weight of the PSTD by 10%. The diesel would still weigh 300 pounds more than it's gas counterpart.

You watch, this Mazda turbo is gonna run huge turbo boost. That's where they are going to gain back the efficiency lost to the lower compression. Big boost means you darn well better have crossed all your T's and dotted all your I's when engineering things like the head gaskets and head bolts or studs. And yep, they are bragging about their super high pressure injectors.....again, great in theory, and fine in application, as long as everything is working totally correctly. Better have darn good fuel filtration and ultra reliable fuel pump, or that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not against technology, and certainly all for advancing the state of the art, and getting clean emissions, etc, but I am saying that a lot of this stuff is essentially being tossed out there into the marketplace without having all the bugs worked out. So the consumer has effectively been conned into paying good money to be beta testers.

Around the barn, we've got a little old Ford ( Shibaura ) tractor from the late eighties. It's got the cutest little 3 cyl non-turbo simple, basic diesel that you've ever seen. This thing is stone cold reliable, and a large part of it because it's just ..... simple. Smokes a lot under load, and only makes 24 hp though !

And it's made out of iron, buddy.....iron..... !

[gmw photos]

Originally Posted by 841K9

Most of the turbos that I end up replacing are due to driver error and poor maintenance. Things like a bad air filter, contaminated oil, and not letting the truck idle before shutting it off so that the turbo can spin down with sustained oil pressure.

Yes, they do eventually wear out. But, it should outlast a transmission and transmissions are far more costly.

You must be lucky with that 6.0 to only have turbo and EGR issues. The factory head gaskets and studs are garbage. Even with those issues, its still a pretty good engine. And I would gladly take that over the 6.0 gas in my 2010 Chevy 1 ton. Its the first time that I've been happy to have a truck totaled.

We've had other issues too with 6.0 PSTD. But having said that, generally speaking the head bolts are "ok" on them if the power level is left stock. But yeah, chip it up and you're guaranteeing trouble. The serious guys pull them down and replace the head bolts with aftermarket studs.
I have been told that Ford now with the 6.7 actually derates the engine when it's installed in the F450 chassis ( as compared to the F350 ). That leads me to believe they are trying to buy a little more life out of it in the heavier trucks because they "know" those F450's are gonna be used hard almost 100% of the time.

Ford claims you don't have to jump thru all the hoops about cooling down the turbo after a hot run, but I'm with you, I think smart money says to treat it like you care about it. Another problem with turbo failure I suspect is folks using inadequate oil, poor oil filters and trying to do extended oil change intervals. False economy in my opinion. Extended oil drains are suicide on the 6.0 PSTD, but that has more to do with the HPFP. Anyway, this discussion of the Ford offering has gone off topic.

[841K9]

Originally Posted by gmw photos

We've had other issues too with 6.0 PSTD. But having said that, generally speaking the head bolts are "ok" on them if the power level is left stock. But yeah, chip it up and you're guaranteeing trouble. The serious guys pull them down and replace the head bolts with aftermarket studs.
I have been told that Ford now with the 6.7 actually derates the engine when it's installed in the F450 chassis ( as compared to the F350 ). That leads me to believe they are trying to buy a little more life out of it in the heavier trucks because they "know" those F450's are gonna be used hard almost 100% of the time.

Ford claims you don't have to jump thru all the hoops about cooling down the turbo after a hot run, but I'm with you, I think smart money says to treat it like you care about it. Another problem with turbo failure I suspect is folks using inadequate oil, poor oil filters and trying to do extended oil change intervals. False economy in my opinion. Extended oil drains are suicide on the 6.0 PSTD, but that has more to do with the HPFP. Anyway, this discussion of the Ford offering has gone off topic.

Yes, it has gone off topic.
The lower power output in the heavier chassis is standard practice that started with the DT444/7.3. Its a way of protecting the engine from fleet drivers. (Same thing done with the old gas 300L6)

The official Ford doctrine is that the only "acceptable" modification to the newer diesels is a turbo timer.
Ever try explaining that to a customer after they destroy their engine with a cheap tuner? Tons of fun there. One even went so far as to threaten me.

[floyd]

Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel will keep me in a gasolne engine, at least for the forseeable future.
The blowers on Detroit two stroke diesels have been reliable since 1937. Surely they would still be making them if emissions hadn't killed them off.

BTW; it is a totally different application but I turbocharged a 1981 RX7 in 1982. Last I heard, it was still working great.(the owner sold it in good shape about 7 years ago) That's a lot more longevity than I would have expected from a stock rotary.

[841K9]

Originally Posted by floyd

Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel will keep me in a gasolne engine, at least for the forseeable future.
The blowers on Detroit two stroke diesels have been reliable since 1937. Surely they would still be making them if emissions hadn't killed them off.

ULSD doesn't cause problems so long as you use additives like Slick Diesel.

I have a Detroit 4-53t waiting installation in a Chevrolet 1 ton. Nothing beats an old 2 stroke as long as you have plenty of gears and keep the foot to the floor.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by 841K9

ULSD doesn't cause problems so long as you use additives like Slick Diesel.

I have a Detroit 4-53t waiting installation in a Chevrolet 1 ton. Nothing beats an old 2 stroke as long as you have plenty of gears and keep the foot to the floor.

Was that engine out of a truck or an industrial application?
Sounds like a great choice, should be a neat rig, What transmission?