6.4 getting a make over or going away?

[SouthTexan]

I don't claim to be an engineer but there's a reason these modern smaller "boosted" engines haven't been offered in heavy duty trucks. I believe testing has proved these smaller engines won't hold up to heavy duty towing. The big 3 would love to get EPA off their a$$ and satisfy customers at the same time by offering an engine that uses less fuel and has more power. If these smaller engines were an option I think we would have already seen them in hd trucks before now.

I worked for various truck and engine manufacturers over the years including Cummins, and you hit the nail on the head. While these engine are great in the duty cycle of a half ton truck, and possibly the duty cycle of an HD truck owner who never tows above 8k lbs, they have to make these engines to with stand the duty cycle of that fleet guy who keeps a 12k trailer hooked up to his truck 90% of the time. That thing would be in heavy to mid boost nearly all of the time.

More boost means more fuel which means more heat. Put that in a small package and you cannot get air in and out quick enough so it starts to dissipate into the oil and coolant causing them to get hot. Put less boost in a larger package and it will move enough air to keep heat in check.

It is like my diesel. High load at low rpms cause the exhaust gas temps to skyrocket because the pistons are not moving fast enough to expel the hot exhaust from all the fuel being dumped(less air displacement per minute). The same load and fuel at higher rpms have a lot lower exhaust gas temps because the engine is moving enough air to keep them low(more air displacement per minute).

 

[rule18]

Gotcha I remember reading about this a while back but never heard mention of it going in HD trucks.

It may be out there but I haven't seen evidence of their intent to drop the Hurricane into the HD lineup.

 

[Docwagon1776]

It may be out there but I haven't seen evidence of their intent to drop the Hurricane into the HD lineup.

There is very little, if any, info "out there" but they've dropped a few hints. I think they are in 'checking which way the wind blows' mode at the moment, but again I can 100% guarantee you they are focus grouping the idea.

NDAs exist, so not all information is freely available online. Make of it what you will.

 

[Fatbob Frank]

I am 100% sure they are focus grouping the concept with potential customers, so they are at least spending money on feasibility studies. If it comes to fruition or not is a different question.

I was one of them...

 

[Scottly]

But hey, if you have more experience with them to say they are an over-rated POS, then by all means.

My 2016 found itself on a flatbed wrecker for the third time in 12k miles after I bought it new. That was all I needed to know.

 

[pacofortacos]

I think a hybrid with a large battery would be a smarter option to pursue since they are going to be forced to go electric in a few years anyways. Ram has already said electric 2500's are coming.

 

[SouthTexan]

My 2016 found itself on a flatbed wrecker for the third time in 12k miles after I bought it new. That was all I needed to know.

My current Ram was on a flatbed wrecker at 7k miles. Using the same standard, does that mean all Ram 2500's are POS's? I don't think so, especially when there are plenty out there who haven't had issues. Judging a whole engine line based on one instance is a bit idiotic. Heck, even in the automotive world, a failure rate of less than 2% is decent which would be around 14k vehicles of the 700k F150s sold each year.

 

[ramffml]

Even Ford, the queen of tiny turbos, doesn't put their ecobooms in their real trucks (super duty). They have that 3.5 on their shelf they could have easily used instead of spending millions developing that 7.3 pushrod. Yet, they spent money on the 7.3, and now again on the new 6.8 as the base engine(!).

The reason of course as others have mentioned, turbos give horrible gas mileage when worked, and can't handle the abuse and heat and duty cycle of a large N/A pushrod that just loafs around with low compression etc.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Even Ford, the queen of tiny turbos, doesn't put their ecobooms in their real trucks (super duty). They have that 3.5 on their shelf they could have easily used instead of spending millions developing that 7.3 pushrod. Yet, they spent money on the 7.3, and now again on the new 6.8 as the base engine(!).

The reason of course as others have mentioned, turbos give horrible gas mileage when worked, and can't handle the abuse and heat and duty cycle of a large N/A pushrod that just loafs around with low compression etc.

This right here, thanks.

I participated in the focus group too. I hope there was enough of us to at least let them know USA is still here and is not Europe.

 

[pacofortacos]

The 3/4 ton pickup is technically a light duty truck the same as the 1/2 ton. ( 1/2 ton is 2a class, 3/4 ton is 2b class)

The EPA has given the 3/4 ton a different emission/mpg standard for years now, but what if the EPA changes course and says all 3/4 ton pickups have to meet the same standards as the 1/2 ton?

If they force 1/2 tons to go electric quickly many people will just jump up to 3/4 ton pickups - and there are already too many 3/4 ton pickups for the EPA to ignore if they choose this route.

If the EPA decides to get stricter with emission and mpg standards, what real options are there for manufacturers?
More power usually equals more fuel use.

I think a lot will be determined by the powers in charge. The stroke of a pen has a lot of power.

I would much prefer a true serial plug in hybrid over all electric. I don't consider the etorque a hybrid lol.

That all being said, if they can lower the peak torque rpm range and bump it up 20-50 ft.lbs from it's current config, I would certainly be happy with it. Imagine if you could get within 10% of peak torque as low as 2200-2400 rpm.