displacedtexan

IMO it's because the average American hears V8 and assumes it will be more powerful than a 6 cylinder.

Ilikebikes

That is exactly what I have been pondering recently. It is really a joke. You would think other truck manufacturers would be able to see the stupidly obvious recipe for the sucess of dodge/cummins line: medium/heavy duty inline engine stuffed into a light duty truck. As we all know, Dodge got it right with the Cummins. Why can't other companies figure it out? Its not too difficult. Probably has something to do with a lot of americans being brainwashed into thinking, "V8 GOOD."

For some reason, I can never get the idea of ford putting a DT466 or the baby brother version of it (forgot the name/size) into one of their trucks. That would be an awesome truck, and would give the Cummins some competition!

Oh well. I am anxious to see how this 6.4 will do.

Begle1

V-8's are good, though.

It's just that Ford's aren't...

kelownadiesel

I dunno how they sell those trucks,but you see em everywhere and people still have the opinion that they are the heaviest duty trucks that you can buy.I predict that it will fail miserably and ford will go broke soon enough.Too much fancy stuff on the engine.Simplify it and be done

Begle1

Well, fancy stuff is great when it works. No doubt that today's silicon engines are much more efficient than yesteryears. If you look at the ease of getting performance out of today's HPCR engines, it's hard to fully deride fancy stuff.

Twin turbo's would be capable of ridiculous amounts of power.

But, judging by Ford's track record...

Raspy

Putting a turbo on a big V8 in a pickup is just crazy compared to putting a turbo on an in-line. There's just no good place for it, and all the heat associated, on the V8. And one way to make it seem to make sense is to put one on each bank so you don't have to set it up on top. Twins on a Cummins may make sense for racing but twins on a V8 seem to be just to fit them in. It may sound good to have two on a V8, but I think the real reason is that there is no good place for one.

The in-line is so obviously better for so many reasons.

Unfortunately, Ford is married to the V8 design and they'll either live with it or die with it. They've wasted big bucks cheapening, hot rodding their design and forcing the production schedule. It seems like they still haven't got a clue and are working frantically on the 6.4. Their whole philosophy is to lower costs and cheapen designs as much as possible and make others pay the price for failure. Meanwhile, Cummins goes on year after year with a great design slowly upgraded and perfected. Why would someone buy a brand new design from Ford, especially considering their record, when they could have a Cummins? Are the other parts of the truck really that much better? I don't think so.

Wetspirit

Ilikebikes

I totally agree with the V8 statements above. Heck, I've never owned any V style engines, only inlines. Another concern of mine is user servicability. Even the old, N/A 6.9s looked like a PITA to work on compared to my '93.

Anyone who buys a brand new, first year 6.4 is a fool, in my opinion, especially considering the track record of the 6.0. After pulling apart the bottom end of a '98 12v (all I could say was "WOW" when pulling the crank and rods out), I'll stick with my Cummins til it dies, then get another.

Begle1

If they had to use parallel twins on the 6.4, then you're statement could be valid. However, I do believe the twins are sequential; in which case, shoe-horned as they may be, the performance potential is unmatched by any single turbo Dodge or Chevy are ever going to install.

Inlines of a given displacement will in general have more torque down low; good for hauling or what not (like what a duty-rated truck should be doing). The V-8 is a better design for all around performance, as was figured out back in the 40's when the monstrous I-16's and whatnot were outpaced by the V-8's and V-12's. The V design usually is better for getting up to RPM and provides just the right balance of torque versus horsepower that lets the design dominate most motorsports (everything but Diesel sledpulling and Indycar?). Of course, this only applies to a V-8 engineered to do what a V should do; in the case of all these current and past Diesel V-8's, they are V's pretending to do an I's job.

Currently the world of Diesel dragracing has competitors in I-6 tractor engines modified to be racers and V-8 race-derived engines bastardized into roles as tractor engines. A real, true-blue, engineered-for-the-track Diesel engine is perfectly capable of outclassing any gasoline engine out there, as the R-12 Audi demonstrated at LeMans. (And such an engine is guaranteed to be a V.) But we don't have access to any engines designed for racing; we have non-V-8-ty V-8's and an I-6 that is ironically capable of beating the V-8's at their own game.

But a real V-8 designed to get 4000 pounds down the track instead of 40,000 would defeat all comers. The Powerstroke or Duramax are the closest anybody has come to that yet, which illustrates how far we still are.

There will be a day when we will get an engine that could finally whoop up on the gasser V-8 at the track. That day will come...



And saying that the I-6 is superior due to its smaller footprint is sacrilegious. Is that what Carrol Shelby said when he crammed the Cobra-Jet in the Mustang? Is that what the displaced AMC engineers said when they crammed the 426 in the Charger? Is that what Adolf Hitler said when he put the pancake in the beetle? No sirree, if the engine ain't shoe-horned in tight enough than your body's just got too much unnecessary sheetmetal. (Although some common sense would be advantageous during the shoehorning process, just to make sure you can do something like replace all you're injectors without pulling you're cab off...)

Smkndzl

Guys, gotta remember Cummins has quite a few V engine in the High Horsepower engine. up in the 2500h.p. range

Sint

Ford Cleveland is preparing for a change to the hightech engineblockmaterial CGI used in most Nascar-racingengines and they have been winners last year and this year by GM-teams. A proper CGI-equipment was installed in Cleveland last year.

Compacted Graphite Iron, CGI, thatīs the same material wich will be used in the coming GM V8, as annonced last August, and the mentioned "R-12 Audi demonstrated at LeMans." Audi is using CGI in all their V-dieselengine blocks. 12-cyl , 8-cyl and 6 cyl with heavy power and torque in order to improve durability and make is possible for extensive power output simultainesly as the engines are getting lighter. Blow-by will also be minimized with the rigid blocks and seats for bearings, sealing, and injectors are easier to make with better precision. Ford is using CGI in their european V8 and V6-diesels and those experiences is now leading to a US-breakthrough. Navistar will use CGI in their 11 and 13 litre BigBores coming in 2007 and so will Paccar.

The local union in Cleveland is now writing: "This new work includes additional D-35 Engines for CEP #1 and potentially 350K Units per year and Diesel Blocks using CGI Technologies for CCP. Again discussions will begin soon on CEP #2. "

http://www.uawlocal1250.org/recsec.htm

FORD plans to spend 900 million USD on new engine programmes over the next few years.

Raspy

There's no doubt the V8 is a great design. One of the best ever. Balanced, high reving, durable, compact. I would never say otherwise, in general. But the point I'm trying to make is concerning what goes on under the hood of a modern pickup with Diesel engines. Not some racing Cobra or a gasser, or in NASCAR.

If you want low end torque, serviceability, a proven service history from a great engine manufacturer, and under hood heat management, the Cummins wins hands down. It drives in a way that makes me think it's not doing much work as it goes about it's day pulling aroung 7,000 or 8,000 lbs. with no drama. Those are the values I appreciate in a truck.

Now, as far as performance cars go, and racing, that's another story and I'm very glad there is a lot of Diesel development going on. The performance vehicles of the future will be Diesel and I am all for it.

Meanwhile, back to the everyday performance of the work truck, and the service on that truck, and the calm nature of the Cummins while it goes about it's job. Oh, and that beautiful locomotive roar as it pulls over the mountains in OD.

It may not howl like a V8 but it also doesn't bring the baggage of being the latest thing that I have to take the risk of proving will hold up. Especially when that latest thing is something from a company known for poor designs and cheapened good designs.

Wetspirit

Sint

I think that the new tech will rewrite the map. Remember that Audis V12 in LeMans was a diesel. Itīs just the beginning. The silent engine was an obstacle for the photographers. The didnīt hear the car coming before it had passed.

FAY

The Audi V12 is a competition engine powering a light vehicle. Engine internal parts are never stressed from acceleration Gs in a like manner as if the competition vehicle's weight was 10k to 20k pounds. Even a hill climb event does not stress an engine as much as it would if the unit weighed much more. When comparing V8 diesels with I-6 engines it would be best to test the engines' durability under comparable load situations. The sled pulls are what tests an engine's durability to be a working truck engine.

Yes, the future advanced materials developed will eventually make the light connecting rods and less crankshaft main bearing support in the V8 actually no handicap when it produces the same low end torque as the Cummins engine at present, and the V8 will still have the supeior ability to rev higher and faster than the Cummins that is handicapped by the weigh of the internal materials inside the engine. Unfortunately for the V8 designers, the I-6 will also have the same materials available.

Stronger and lighter materials will allow the Cummins to not be such a negative dead weight burden for the Dodge's front end suspension. Those materials will allow the I-6 engine to produce much more low end torque and attain greater high rpms faster. Less weight will lessen the effects of centrifugal and inertia forces on internal engine parts in the I-6 that will then have to be connected to a stronger drive or power train to use its increased output power to do much harder work.

The bottom line is that the V8 configuration can never be designed as sturdy and productive, in the torque department, as the I-6 configuration if the same materials for construction are available in each configuration. I just do not care what propaganda the Ford and GM truck designers feed the motoring public, I am sticking with the I-6 diesel engine. I sure like that I-6 gasoline engine with twin turbos in the BMW.

Sint

Well , Audi is now revealing their new V 12 diesel for the SUV Audi Q7. 500 hp and raw 1000 Nm..so itīs not just for racing.

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publi...cle_1832.shtml

Although destined for the Q7 where it will be teamed with the powerful 4.2-litre V8 diesel, the new V12 could be a lifesaver for Volkswagen where it may replace the old V10 in the VW Touareg SUV and VW Phaeton. 500 HP..

Cummins is looking at CGI just as the others so I will not be surprised if you are right in your predictions that they already have CGI avvailable. The inlines needs it later that the V-configs so maybe some years from now, but in 1999 a 5,9 litre CGI I-6 for Cummins cast at Tupy Brazil was displayed at GIFA-the world leading foundry exhibition.Thatīs some 6-7 years ago.......

steelblitzkrieg

2008 Ford Super Duty

This engine bay is like "Where's Waldo?"