Word is out on L4 as standard full size pickup engine for GM

jerem0621 wrote:
I'm pretty excited about this motor. The new Ranger will also be getting a Turbo 4 Ecoboost. That will be the only engine option for that truck.

The tech in our vehicles are changing for sure.

I am excited to see what the tow specs are for these 4 cyl trucks. These things have more power and TQ than my 97 F150 with a 5.4l rated for 8,000 lbs towing.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

You sum it up well. In the end it is all about HP, torque and powerbands and not about displacement.

I'm pretty excited about this motor. The new Ranger will also be getting a Turbo 4 Ecoboost. That will be the only engine option for that truck.

The tech in our vehicles are changing for sure.

I am excited to see what the tow specs are for these 4 cyl trucks. These things have more power and TQ than my 97 F150 with a 5.4l rated for 8,000 lbs towing.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.

I don't know what the percentage is but it's enough for the EPA to specify a new oil rating of SN Plus to combat the problem.

hone eagle wrote:


Isn't that what DI prevents -detonation- because they can have the injection event after top dead centre?
after all these compression ratios are in the 10/1 range,well into detonation territory?

DI injects a mist of fuel during the exhaust stroke to cool the cylinder which "reduces" detonation, but does not eliminate it.

I was referring to detonation from having too high of fuel pressure squirting too fine of a mist that it detonates before it is suppose to. This is the reason why you cannot have the 25-30k psi fuel pressures that a diesel has on a GDI engine. DI creates a lot of particulate matter because the fuel being injected does not have enough time to fully mix with the air and burn which produces particulate matter.

The port injection on the Ecoboost is always running and accounts for 5-10% of the engine's fuel delivery from what I have read, but the DI only kicks in at mid to high loads. When the DI is not working you have wore fuel economy, but once it does kick in then you have higher PM.

Duty cycle big issue for me too, as I tend to keep vehicles till they rather old. Kind of like why I think Ford doesn’t put the eco boost V6 in F250, at least yet. The trucks I use at work are 2017 Ford 550’s with powerstrokes and Ram 5500’s with Cummins. We run them hard all day and night. Typically 7,000 to 9,000 miles we month per truck

Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.

Back in the day I refused to run oil with graphite in it because of detonation issues. Looking back I'm glad I didn't join in on the graphite trend because I had turbocharged engines back then and even with good pump fuel, detonation was an issue.

Just a side talk. One day I was pulling a mountain with my 6.5 diesel when it was well over a 100 degrees out. My WT was about 265. Everything was in the red. All of a sudden my engine sounded like it was pinging. Just like a gas engine does. I'm like what the???? Is this thing detonating??

I can't really find anything to this day if that is even possible. I think my engine got so hot the diesel fuel started to detonate in the combustion chamber. Only a guess though.

As far as the little 4 banger goes. I just hope they get the duty cycle up on it. They have the power; it's the duty cycle I'm worried about.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:
DI mitigates detonation but does not prevent it.

They can't have the injection event after TDC because there is not enough time the inject the amount of fuel that is needed. (Not at this time anyway)

This is the reason manufactures recommend premium fuel when towing ect…..

There's a new API spec motor oil SN plus which reduces calcium to reduce LSPI in DI engines.

DI mitigates detonation but does not prevent it.

They can't have the injection event after TDC because there is not enough time the inject the amount of fuel that is needed. (Not at this time anyway)

This is the reason manufactures recommend premium fuel when towing ect…..

hone eagle wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before they put particulate filters on these engines due to how much PM they produce.

They will add port injectors like Ford did before particulates filters are added.

While that reduces them at idle and under low load(especially in emission testing scenarios) it doesn't eliminate them once the DI kicks in at mid/high load. If the EPA testing gets more strict(just like it always does) to include these mid/high load scenarios then a PM filter will be needed eventually.

And they'll increase fuel pressure to improve atomization. I doubt we'll see a exhaust filter anytime soon.

Easier said than done for gasoline without running into detonation issues. Although it is the better atomasition of gasoline than diesel that makes finer particulate matter. Not saying it will come in the next five years or so and it will mainly depend on the political climate. It may happen in Eurpoe or Claifornia first.

Isn't that what DI prevents -detonation- because they can have the injection event after top dead centre?
after all these compression ratios are in the 10/1 range,well into detonation territory?

Your correct... As a matter of fact Yamaha just released the first DI outboard engine with fuel pressure at 2,900 psi. I don't know what the fuel pressure on this new L4 engine is, but I bet it's pretty high.

In addition I think the new Ecoboost engines can actually inject fuel from both DI and Port simultaneously or individually.

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before they put particulate filters on these engines due to how much PM they produce.

They will add port injectors like Ford did before particulates filters are added.

While that reduces them at idle and under low load(especially in emission testing scenarios) it doesn't eliminate them once the DI kicks in at mid/high load. If the EPA testing gets more strict(just like it always does) to include these mid/high load scenarios then a PM filter will be needed eventually.

And they'll increase fuel pressure to improve atomization. I doubt we'll see a exhaust filter anytime soon.

Easier said than done for gasoline without running into detonation issues. Although it is the better atomasition of gasoline than diesel that makes finer particulate matter. Not saying it will come in the next five years or so and it will mainly depend on the political climate. It may happen in Eurpoe or Claifornia first.

Isn't that what DI prevents -detonation- because they can have the injection event after top dead centre?
after all these compression ratios are in the 10/1 range,well into detonation territory?