Ford Fn Ranger-Who is this competing with?

[JExpedition07]

I think he was including a properly utilized traction motor to minimize the intense heat load events.

No offense meant here at all Samson, but throw a 15,000 pound skid steer on a flatbed trailer and get back to me on how long that tractive motor gives any sort of assistance to the ICE after 10 minutes straight on a 5-7% grade incline. You guys are looking at a single moment in best case operation, not the global operation of the vehicle and what it is designed to accomplish.

Now a 7.3 Liter hybrid? More feasible, at least when the tractive motor taps out you still have 7.3 liters of displacement and large bores to dissipate all that heat and keep a nice AFR that won’t nosedive your fuel efficiency to 1 or 2 MPG lol.

Sponsored

 

[Snakebitten]

Love the engineering on the forum.
I don't know why Ford (or GM/Ram) doesn't just build the trucks that we have collectively designed for them.

I personally want an F350 KingRanch with 35's, that when empty has the electronic damping of a 1/2 ton. It could have the Godzilla with DI/Port and cylinder deactivation combined with a 250HP traction motor and a battery big enough to get me 24mpg or more.
Then when it's time to climb mountains and tow parachutes, switch over to packmule-mode for both electronic suspension and engine management and combine all 8 of those torque developing cylinders and the extra 350ftlbs of torque that traction motor can provide for at least a few minutes.
Pure Jekyll/Hyde truck.

Oh, and since Ford is listening, make dang sure you include 7.2 KW of ProPower 240V ac.

Charge me whatever you want.

 

[Samson16]

No offense meant here at all Samson, but throw a 15,000 pound skid steer on a flatbed trailer and get back to me on how long that tractive motor gives any sort of assistance to the ICE after 10 minutes straight on a 5-7% grade incline. You guys are looking at a single moment in best case operation, not the global operation of the vehicle and what it is designed to accomplish.

Now a 7.3 Liter hybrid? More feasible, at least when the tractive motor taps out you still have 7.3 liters of displacement and large bores to dissipate all that heat and keep a nice AFR that won’t nosedive your fuel efficiency to 1 or 2 MPG lol.

None taken. I am impressed that we may have found the one little area that the 5.0 actually outperforms my PB! Above 75mph over flat ground for distance. It’s not by much but it’s something.

 

[amschind]

No offense meant here at all Samson, but throw a 15,000 pound skid steer on a flatbed trailer and get back to me on how long that tractive motor gives any sort of assistance to the ICE after 10 minutes straight on a 5-7% grade incline. You guys are looking at a single moment in best case operation, not the global operation of the vehicle and what it is designed to accomplish.

Now a 7.3 Liter hybrid? More feasible, at least when the tractive motor taps out you still have 7.3 liters of displacement and large bores to dissipate all that heat and keep a nice AFR that won’t nosedive your fuel efficiency to 1 or 2 MPG lol.

Consider that the ICE only 3.5 makes 35 lb-ft more torque at 3500 RPM than the 7.3 at 4000 RPM. The thing that the 3.5l can do that the 7.3 can't is go back to being a 3.5l once you crest the hill. You're absolutely right that the electric motor wont be pulling all the way up, and that's why ultimately series hybrids, like EMD locomotives, will eventually take over. But the benefit in a parallel hybrid is that the electric motor can help with gear shifts and getting the #20k load moving (particularly if you start from a stop on the hill).

Transmission fluid cooler size, turbo coolant and oil flow rates, oil cooler size and radiator size are fairly simple variables to adjust (read: "dramatically improve for very little additional cost"), and those upgrades take the shackles off of the 3.5 or 3.0. Heat rejection is the limiting factor, and overcoming that limitation is pretty straightforward.

 

[Samson16]

I’m not sure why we’re fixing Super Duties, but I find the engineering discussion fascinating.
I lean toward @JExpedition07 in that there isn’t a great substitute for a large block of metal for heat dissipation. The series hybrid addresses that, but can it be scaled down to something smaller than a freight train while remaining efficient? Yes says the two cycle diesel generator and magic battery bank scenario, but I think that solution is still off in the distance. Perhaps the RamCharger will leap us forward.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

The better thing you reference is very likely a direct injected, higher compression 7.3 V8 with a parallel hybrid for HD application . It’s cheap to manufacture, easy to service, compact width, and will get great loaded efficiency and have excellent heat management. That’s all I’m getting at here. A 3.8 EcoBoost is not better for this use case, Ford all ready tested out EcoBoost in the Super Duty chassis and it did not pass their duty cycle testing or end goals analysis. Their engineers dive into why they chose the 7.3 N/A for future of HD application in several interviews available for public view and efficiency/longevity was the name of the game. I think you are letting your emotions get you a little too riled up. Your suggestion is COOL! But it’s just not the tool for the job!

The 7.3 all ready has dimples in the head to migrate the casting to direct injection when the time comes. This powertrain was designed with the future of ICE HD trucks in mind, Ford was not short sighted .

Any resources on a super duty ecoboost? First I'm hearingof it.

I was a little surprised at pushrod vs DOHC when the 7.3 was announced. Pushrod motors aren't really efficient.

 

[Samson16]

I think the 7.3 is pretty good at not overheating.

 

[amschind]

Any resources on a super duty ecoboost? First I'm hearingof it.

I was a little surprised at pushrod vs DOHC when the 7.3 was announced. Pushrod motors aren't really efficient.

Only hint of an Ecoboost in a Superduty is my wish list. WRT pushrods vs overhead cams, my understanding is that most valvetrain losses come from compressing the valve springs, which are common to OHV/SOHC/DOHC engines. I think that any differences in valvetrain losses between any engine with valves would be minimal compared to an opposed piston engine (which doesn't have valves so much as ports.....the pistons more or less are the valves).

 

[JExpedition07]

When we are talking efficiency, there are two types. You have volumetric efficiency (in which the 5.0L excels) and actual fuel efficiency (in which an 4.8 or 5.3 LT excels). Pushrods are fine for fuel efficiency, but they do not make as much power and are not as volumetrically efficient. Pushrods also don’t make an engine inefficient by way of valve actuation, it’s only that they are generally used in 2V per cylinder configuration. The 6.7 PowerStroke utilizes 4V/ Cylinder with pushrods so it flows as well as a DOHC. Top pic is a 7.3 Godzilla cylinder head, bottom is a 5.0L Coyote head. The 5.0 has more intake valve surface area and can phase when the intake/exhaust banks open independently of one another, which is why it makes 70 HP more than the 7.3 Godzilla in its HO configuration. This is also why the 5.0 can effortlessly make 800, 900, even 1000 HP on stock internals and the 7.3 can’t. There are other things, such as that the 5.0 has sodium filled exhaust valves, the 5.0 is really built boost ready from the factory. The 7.3 really isn’t. BUT, the 7.3 has a compact footprint, it has less moving parts, and is cheaper to manufacture, and is light for a cast iron block motor. It’s also great at resisting heat distortion. Sounds like a great HD engine right!

 

[Forumlurker24]

I liked my 2020 Ranger, but not as much as my F150. The size was great for parking, etc., but practicality was an issue at times. The cab felt cramped, the bed was smaller, and there wasn't much interior storage or tech goodies.

The 2024 Ranger solves some of that, but I couldn't wait for them to arrive. The Ranger Raptor could be pretty fun though, but I'd still have some of the same grievances with the size. And, I think I'm officially an F150 guy now. ?‍

I was getting my f150 services so I checked out the new ranger. Gotta say the storage under the seat and the backseats in general are pretty lackluster. I checked and I the maverick has way more space+ storage in the back. Coming from someone who considered a Colorado zr2 and a ranger raptor, I cannot for the life of me rationalize getting a midsize anymore.

Sponsored