[bogeyman]

This is certainly not new (from 2003) but interesting nonetheless: Honda's small block diesel. It's about 11 minutes long, but an interesting video.

If Honda can get a small capacity diesel engine that uses pilot injection with common rail injection (1,600 bar = 26,200+ psi) and can acheive fuel economy scale of 5.6l/100km (= 42mpg) in a small 2.2l package, why can't Navistar get the same level of performance out of a 6.0l engine?

I'm looking forward to seeing the official stats and info on the new 6.4l twin turbo...

 

[Birken Vogt]

One reason is that Navistar has to design their engine to go over 200,000 miles and a much greater percentage of that time is spent at WOT. Different duty cycle and life cycle expectancy.

Birken

 

[vanscooter]

That was an interesting video. Good find. I am not going to knock ford/navistar but they should get it right. I thought I read on here that Navistar had it right but fords programming didn't have it right. The 6.0 was out as early as 1998 in the Internationals and ford starting putting them in the superduties in 2003 but with their own "programming". Honda seems to make really great stuff. I would probaly buy a Honda diesel if it were in a big truck ( I need at least a 1 ton truck ). Ofcourse Honda would need to make it a big 6 or even a V8 for a 1 ton. I am sure fords new motor will get them back on top again.

 

[bogeyman]

[ QUOTE ]
One reason is that Navistar has to design their engine to go over 200,000 miles and a much greater percentage of that time is spent at WOT. Different duty cycle and life cycle expectancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you get that "fact" from. I don't think (in the 700+ hours) on my truck that it's spent more than 10 minutes (if that) WOT. It's done work - towing & hauling. But I don't tow or haul @ WOT.

Given that the target for this engine is a sedan - I'd expect a lot of user abuse in that environment.

 

[psd1234]

Why can't they make what work?

Honda builds a very light duty pick-up that's akin to a Toyota Tacoma.

It get's the same MPG as a 6.0 equipped superduty and less than a Toyota Tacoma which it is akin too.

Even Honda cannot overcome the laws of physics.

 

[Jim Z]

[ QUOTE ]
If Honda can get a small capacity diesel engine that uses pilot injection with common rail injection (1,600 bar = 26,200+ psi) and can acheive fuel economy scale of 5.6l/100km (= 42mpg) in a small 2.2l package, why can't Navistar get the same level of performance out of a 6.0l engine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight- you're comparing a 2.2 liter diesel for compact cars which weigh around 3,000 lb to a 6 liter truck diesel for pickups and medium duties weighing over twice as much? That's not apples and oranges, it's apples and nuclear warheads.

 

[frobozz]

[ QUOTE ]
The 6.0 was out as early as 1998 in the Internationals and ford starting putting them in the superduties in 2003 but with their own "programming".

[/ QUOTE ]

The "conventional wisdom" has the VT365 being used in Navistar trucks long before it appeared as the 6.0L in the Fords, but I must admit that's got to be the record for earliest date I've seen - 5 years!

The truth is that Navistar was building trucks with the VT365 for only a couple of months before Ford sold the 6.0L Superduties, and there weren't a lot of people buying them at first, so even that couple of month headstart didn't really amount to much. When I went to do my first oil change in December of 2002, I had to search long and hard before I could find an International dealer who had the filters in stock - nobody had driven their VT365-equipped truck far enough to need one! (Finally tracked a bunch down at a dealer near Rochester, NY... and TheDieselStop readers immediately wiped them out of their stock after I mentioned it here, heh heh heh...)

I'm not sure we'll ever hear the whole story about the differences in engine control systems and how that affected the peformance and reliability of the respective engines... but it's important to note that the engines both came out at approximately the same time, not years apart.

Duncan

 

[Dr.Evil]

DUNCAN - I think International had the VT-365 available for about 10-12 months before the 6.0L PSD started production. Your correct that there weren't many VT-365's built at that time..... With the DT-466 available why would ANYONE get anything else? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

 

[bogeyman]

No, I'm not comparing them. You're right it's not a valid comparison. I'm asking the question as to why, it seems, Honda can develop a brand new, reliable, high-output (for it's size/capacity) diesel engine and Navistar has trouble.

I think the main thing I got out of that demo was that Honda has successfully implemented pilot injection and Navistar failed... One of my few dislikes of the PSD is it's noise. Pilot injection could help that.

Just a thought, but if you did scale that 2.2l little Honda engine up... what would you have? I don't know the answer to that - but it's an interesting question. How about a nice v8, 5l, Honda developed diesel?

And don't get me wrong... I'm not bitchin'. I like my truck.

 

[Jim Z]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the main thing I got out of that demo was that Honda has successfully implemented pilot injection and Navistar failed... One of my few dislikes of the PSD is it's noise.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the market Navistar serves, noise isn't as much of an issue. Blame Ford for shoving a medium-duty engine in their light truck.

Or, blame them for not using the Cummins 5.9 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Birken Vogt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One reason is that Navistar has to design their engine to go over 200,000 miles and a much greater percentage of that time is spent at WOT. Different duty cycle and life cycle expectancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you get that "fact" from. I don't think (in the 700+ hours) on my truck that it's spent more than 10 minutes (if that) WOT. It's done work - towing & hauling. But I don't tow or haul @ WOT.

Given that the target for this engine is a sedan - I'd expect a lot of user abuse in that environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was referring to is that that 6.0 was designed primarily for International's commercial medium duty trucks which with a big un-aerodynamic box, a heavy load, and a disinterested immigrant/high school dropout behind the wheel, see a lot of WOT operation.

In today's horsepower wars you are starting to see more of this high horsepower density that you speak of. But still the engine must be able to survive with a hotshotter's trailer behind it and you can bet that I have no qualms about driving mine with the pedal to the metal if I have a load on. Those kind of people need an engine that will still last.

With a sedan, on the other hand, even if you find the steepest, longest hill around and bury the throttle, you will still have to back out of it before long otherwise you will fly off the road. So the sedan engine designers have the luxury of assuming that their engine CANNOT be used at max horsepower for longer than x amount of time and y duty cycle. The truck engine manufacturers have no such luxury. They have to assume unlimited time and 100% duty cycle.

Birken

 

[psd1234]

Cummins??


My Cummins 325/610 gets worse mileage than both my 04 and 05 6.0's both did.

It get's 13 towing the same load that my 6.0 squeezed out 14 with.

 

[Sparkydm]

Or, THANK them for not using the Cummins 5.9L. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

 

[Seafarer12]

[ QUOTE ]
Cummins??


My Cummins 325/610 gets worse mileage than both my 04 and 05 6.0's both did.

It get's 13 towing the same load that my 6.0 squeezed out 14 with.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would still rather have a cummins.

 

[psd1234]

Why would you still rather have the Cummins?

Dodges transmission shift programming and lock-up strategy sucks.

My engine intermittently knocks. Air in the fuel system maybe?

Tow/Haul mode doesn't brake for crap compared to the 6.0.

I wanted something different so I traded from the 6.0's to the Dodge and I am just not impressed with this engine.

The truck itself is very quiet and handles very well, although I am making a trip to the dealer to fix a steering wheel that has been off center since delivery.

Interior fit and finish is well behind that of the Ford. Looks like a bunch seperated hunks of plastic afterthoughts to fill the cab.

The sheet metal is much thinner than that used on the Ford. The paint quality is lower.

(The Dodge quad cab weighs in at 6800 at the dump, and 6.0 and 7.3 extracab shorties weighed in at 7200.

In my opinion, the Cummins is the worst engine of the three with the Duramax coming in as #1.

Ford would completely slaughter if they gave the Duramax a VGT (for engine braking) and put the LBZ/Allison in the Ford.

 

[Birken Vogt]

The Duramax has a VGT. All EGR diesels for the most part have one form or another.

Birken

 

[Seafarer12]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you still rather have the Cummins?

Dodges transmission shift programming and lock-up strategy sucks.

My engine intermittently knocks. Air in the fuel system maybe?

Tow/Haul mode doesn't brake for crap compared to the 6.0.

I wanted something different so I traded from the 6.0's to the Dodge and I am just not impressed with this engine.

The truck itself is very quiet and handles very well, although I am making a trip to the dealer to fix a steering wheel that has been off center since delivery.

Interior fit and finish is well behind that of the Ford. Looks like a bunch seperated hunks of plastic afterthoughts to fill the cab.

The sheet metal is much thinner than that used on the Ford. The paint quality is lower.

(The Dodge quad cab weighs in at 6800 at the dump, and 6.0 and 7.3 extracab shorties weighed in at 7200.

In my opinion, the Cummins is the worst engine of the three with the Duramax coming in as #1.

Ford would completely slaughter if they gave the Duramax a VGT (for engine braking) and put the LBZ/Allison in the Ford.

[/ QUOTE ]
For one, I would never buy a diesel truck with an auto behind it after owning a powerstroke with one, Most of you other comments are opinions and everyone knows what they are like.

 

[Jim Z]

he was talking about noise. That's what I responded to. The common-rail 5.9 is much quieter than the PSD, and in that respect it rivals many of the Japanese medium-duty diesels.

 

[psd1234]

[ QUOTE ]
The Duramax has a VGT. All EGR diesels for the most part have one form or another.

Birken


[/ QUOTE ]


Didn't know the new one did.

Either way, dropping that powertrain into the Superduty would be hooootttt.

 

[560TURBO]

The VT365 has been in the works since 2001 according to my source (International Trucks, By Fred Crimson). Who is to say that they haven't already been testing them long before 2001? Usually these things are 5-10 years ahead of production. International had trucks on the road in 2001 with the 6.0 testing already. I know I mentioned this before. Now that is the truth.