New model Ford Ranger has 3litre V6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

I did find some data on the crank used in the Powerstroke and the journals are a couple of mm thicker than the LR engine (approx 69mm vs 65mm) but I cannot find it at the moment. It also inferred that because of this the block is slightly different as well, but I suspect all internal stuff.

Assuming that all the sensors etc and basically the same and can be swapped around then maybe there is no issue in swapping a complete long engine across - after all someone has replaced a 3.0 with a 2.7 and did not have major issues.

Garry

---

Found this
Despite the fact that the engine is new for the F-150, it already has its history while was used in other vehicles, back in the past when Ford owned JLR. The 3.0l Power Stroke engine for a reason has new revised crankshaft and bearings. Ford's 3.0L diesel engines had serious problems with bursting crankshafts and quick wear on crankshaft bearings. There are several possible causes - a design mistake, insufficient oil pump performance, improper oil, untimely and incomplete oil change. The reason is most likely a complex of the above factors. Ford has done some work with related components and only time will tell how successful it is.
Ford 3.0 Powerstroke Engine Specs, Problems, Reliability, oil, F-150i

Wont the issue be more of electronics than hard points?

No doubt there will be new injectors and hardware etc. with the requirement of ADblue and such as well as a constant upgrade of the firing of the injector cycle and increasing of pressure of the fuel supply. Maybe if the injectors can be replaced with older engines one, this may give a greater chance of success as to being able to control the correct flow.

Maybe what be of a more interesting point is the oil supply to the crank being able to be used in the existing engines, that is the sump and pump as well as the oil supply to the bottom end of the engine. The top end of the engine as far I can ascertain is pretty unburstable. To my mind it is the bearings that are the issue, lack of oil to these and the heating of metal to metal then onto ultimate fatigue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradC

Curse you. There goes another half an hour : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDfq0S2loVs

---

Love the linishing phase! Thats gold!

FORD has announced a 3.5 litre Ecoboost V6 for next year's F150.
298Kw, 678Nm, Tows 4.5Tonnes, 10 speed auto.

Showing faith in the "V6" concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discodicky

FORD has announced a 3.5 litre Ecoboost V6 for next year's F150.
298Kw, 678Nm, Tows 4.5Tonnes, 10 speed auto.

Showing faith in the "V6" concept.

---

F1 car run V6 engines. Its only internet speculation that keeps the weak V6 design myths going.

There is absolutely no issue with the V design for motors, it's specifically diesel that it's a problem for, and again, specifically high output.

No doubt some are better designed than others, or at least better selected for applications.

The crank in a V engine of any sort USUALLY has less strength.

Think about the length of a "straight 6" 3 litre engine crank compared to a V6 crank.

The V6 is a lot shorter and yet has the same amount of Conrods connected.

Obviously there are ways around the lack of room, less man bearings, narrower journals, making the crank harder, but all of these workarounds can have issues. For instance what happens with harder metal? Yes it's stronger, yes it resists wear better, but it also makes it brittle, which increases the chance of failure.

There will be cranks that have failed in engines simply because of lack of quality control, and crossing the line between hard and brittle. There are also plenty of cranks that have snapped, not because of an inherent weakness in the crank, but because the block has twisted/flexed under load.


In fairness, diesel engines as a whole suffer more crank failures than petrol or gas as they are under so much more stress, employing the V design just increases the stress per CM³ of crank material.

Cheers
James

Can you explain how diesels are different in this regard? I thought F1 cars had high output engines.

Meaningless comparison when an F1 engine is design to last around 3000km.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Meaningless comparison when an F1 engine is design to last around 3000km.

---

No not meaningless at all particularly when some of the lion V6 engines have failed with low kms.

If it looks like a V6, it must be a V6 and therefore have the same design weaknesses.

I don't think anyone have ever got to the bottom of why the lion V6 engines fail. There is lots of speculation about weak cranks, dodgy oil pumps, oil supply issues, no tabs on bearings etc etc but no solid evidence.

What I do know however is that keyboard warriors are very good at speculating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Meaningless comparison when an F1 engine is design to last around 3000km.

---

And spend most of their short life at 12000 rpm....