2017 Gas 2500 Changes

newdude · July 8, 2016

cool -

opposed piston opposed cylinder (OPOC) engine

Opposed Piston video ...

cool stuff

...A two cycle four cycle engine??? Heck they may as well eliminate the spark plug seeing as the pistons approach each other and make it a compression ignition two stroke engine. Its definitely running (per that first video) intake and compression in one stroke, then power and exhaust in the other stroke, except that there are two pistons in one cylinder, and one piston does intake, one does exhaust, and both are meeting for the combustion/power segments.

Hockeylover86 · July 8, 2016

What valve timing? The OPOC doesn't use valves or any similar associated stuff like a typical inline or V engine. It is similar to two stroke design. Did you even see the video or look up anything about the OPOC before commenting? The horizontally opposed engines like the Subaru boxer don't have the oil issues you describe. Turning the corner and filling one cylinder with oil while starving another? What, you think that the cylinders are splash fed oil instead of oil pump? And why would pistons "slap" in this design worse than anything else?

And the "proven" V8.... let's look at that one. V8 diesels were tried in heavy commercial trucks in the past. Not a single HD commercial V8 diesel can be found anymore except as a collector engine. Not one OEM is producing a V8 commercial HD diesel larger than the little pickup diesels. All are inlines. So I guess the V8 wasn't so proven. Sure, there are smaller V8 diesels, but the designs are such that the OPOC could easily compete.

The V8 diesel is apples to pears, we are talking consumer level gasoline powertrains. Commercial/Industrial applications do favor the inline engines and always will.

So if this concept is so good, build one and run it through all the durability and required emission testing and see how it stands up?

I would think any OEM would jump on something more efficient, cheaper, and more powerful, it should sell itself I would think...

Cowpie · July 8, 2016

Eco motors already has done all the heavy lifting... Gas, diesel, NG, propane varieties. Now a matter of getting OEM's to get the Amish horse blinders off and bring out some models.

Same problem with the E85 EBDI engine being put in vehicles. A 3.6L V6 running solely on $1.60 E85 fuel putting out same HP and Torque as a 6.6L Dmax with diesel like fuel economy also. Been tested in several GM 3500 pickups by Ricardo, the engine designer. Even Cummins has a 2.8L E85 inline 4 ready to go that will take on a 5.3L Ecotec and kill it. Same torque but reaches it at only 2000 RPM and better fuel economy.

The OEM's somehow don't want to move into 21st century.

Hockeylover86 · July 8, 2016

I just find it odd with all the statements they make there isnt any test data shown along with it.

Pop it into a pickup truck, pass all the testing, durability and emissions and prove the concept.

30mpg, 600hp/600tq, coming in at 30% less weight even for the same cost would put everyone else out of business.

Cowpie · July 8, 2016

Well, everything I mentioned is out for anyone to look up online. The pickup OEM's somehow feel trying to do goofy stuff with ancient technology is the way to go.

Hockeylover86 · July 8, 2016

Well, everything I mentioned is out for anyone to look up online. The pickup OEM's somehow feel trying to do goofy stuff with ancient technology is the way to go.

I think the difference is risk management. In this day and age, nobody wants the risk.

I would like to see a full DVP&R from the E85 EBDI engine following the same test plan the current engines do.

We do need something new, who will be first to take the risk?

Cowpie · July 9, 2016

Cummins did 2.5 years of on road testing with both federal and state (specifically California CARB) in the loop in commercial Freightliner delivery vans with test gross weights of 14,000 lb, so more than adequate for the pickup market. The 2.8L E85 engine is ready for regular production. Was combined with Allison 2000 transmissions in the testing. 450 lb torque out of the engine and exceeded the goal of reducing CO2 by 50% and delivered diesel equivalent fuel economy. Totally blows out the 2.8L Dmax in the Colorado / Canyon platform and doesn't need any of the SCR / DPF nonsense the diesel engine does. The engine uses diesel equivalent compression ratios with turbo charger boosting which can be done when using E85 compared to gasoline.

The Ricardo engine is 3.2L ( I misspoke earlier and said 3.6L ), it puts out 450 hp and 665 lb torque using E85. Has gone thru real testing phases that included mountains, deserts, arctic winter conditions, etc. Equivalent mpg numbers in GM 3500 dually pickups that the 6.6L Dmax delivers yet overall production weight reduced 500 lb with the 3.2L engine, again, with none of the SCR / DPF nonsense. Ricardo was hoping to have engine in vehicle production for 2015, but no OEM picked up on it. GM should have, as Ricardo has been a GM partner in engine design and building for quite some time.

Eco Motors has already finalized contracts with Zhongding Power in China to build OPOC engines, with initial production of 150,000 per year. Yet again, American OEM's failed to pick up on the technology from a Detroit based engine designer, so it had to go off shore to get the ball rolling. So not sure the risk management thing really in play. More like Corporate incompetence. But in keeping with our departure from the innovation and corporate foresight of the mid 20th Century. To their credit, Navistar has shown interest and developed a relationship with Eco Motors to start testing of OPOC engines for commercial truck use. Shows the the new leadership at Navistar is getting the corporate dead wood cleared out. They realized that 1.1 HP per 1 lb of engine weight power density, combined with 50% component reduction, add in 15-50% better fuel efficiency, lower cooling requirements, etc was worth jumping on board and getting testing out of the way. The OPOC engine that they are testing is electro turbo charged diesel variety putting out 325 hp at 3500 RPM with 664 lb torque at 2100 RPM, and total dry weight of the engine is 229 lb, with dimensions of 18.5" high, 41" wide, and 23" long. Compare the Navistar test engine to a Dmax 6.6.....

Meanwhile, we will deal with our naturally aspirated, asthma sucking gas engines and bloated, heavy Dmax engines while the rest of the world takes a lead.

Sirspeedy · July 9, 2016

How readily available is E85? Don't see it available in southeastern mass.

LongrangeLauber · July 9, 2016

How readily available is E85? Don't see it available in southeastern mass.

I have 1 station I know of in my area, about 50 mile radius or so. I'm in northern VA, clearly not as popular as the Midwestern states

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Cowpie · July 9, 2016

It is going to be a regional thing currently. We have it all around us at usually 50-60 cents a gallon lower than regular gas, and currently 80-90 cents a gallon less than diesel. In a 20 mile radius of me, I can get it at 5 locations at least. When diesel hit the peak a few years ago, E85 was a full $2 less per gallon. Sure enough though, it E85 specific engines started in production, then fuel network for E85 would expand and become more available in many places.

kstruckcountry · July 9, 2016

Without government subsidies and corruption, corn ethanol wouldn't exist. Manufacturers aren't keen to put a motor into production that could be rendered a boat anchor without the ethanol lobby. All it would take is the swipe of a few pens and e85 and the like would go the way of the dinosaurs. Most people aren't very excited about a vehicle that only takes e85 for that reason.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Hockeylover86 · July 9, 2016

Alcohol fuel itself itsn't the issue, its the fact we choose to make it from corn, or rather have it pushed from the lobby groups.

There are better sources out there.

As has been said, without the 50 plus cents a gallon subsidy nobody would buy the stuff.

Here in MI its not much cheaper than E10 so its kind of a push right now as the cost savings is offset by the mpg penalty.

Ethanol used in an engine designed for it is a great thing, too bad this technology isnt moving forward faster.

The huge domestic oil reserves and oil prices below $50 bbl will keep ethanol from moving forward very fast...

Cowpie · July 9, 2016

True, based on using E85 is our lame naturally aspirated engines, it is not very practical. Being made from corn is a non issue and the arguments against doing so are a ruse based in agenda hype. Corn, even on an inflation adjusted basis is below the market value as it was the Billy Bob Clinton was being serviced by Monica. 20 years and corn market prices are actually lower in value on an inflation adjusted basis. The devaluing of the dollar due to inflation has been higher than the rate of price increase of corn over the last 20 years, so making ethanol from it sure isn't hurting the supply as some would suppose. There haven't been ethanol subsidies since 2011. They ended with the 2011 Farm Bill which caused them to expire in December 2011. Only 15% of the entire cropland of the U.S. is irrigated, and most of that has nothing to do with corn. The major irrigation needs are based in table vegetable farming and tree nut farming. In fact, it takes almost as much water to make a gallon of gasoline as it does to make a gallon of corn based ethanol. Little tidbits that the anti-ethanol folks conveniently overlook. And it is well known among those that actually crunch the numbers, for every BTU of energy to make a gallon of ethanol..... from planting, harvesting, transportation, production, all of it... there is 32% net gain in energy on the back end. Substantially well documented by the Argonne National Laboratory research team. And for every bushel of corn used for ethanol production comes, plastics, corn oils, high protein feed supplements, etc. 17 lb of other products from a bushel of corn used for ethanol production, that would be more costly to obtain from corn any other way. Bet most folks don't know that the insulators on spark plugs, they use a corn derived base to make them.

But take a engine that is designed specifically to use E85, and nice things can happen. Like running 15-16:1 compression ratios, boosting them up, etc which ethanol fuels can comfortably deal with. Then we can see ethanol putting out diesel equivalent power numbers and diesel equivalent fuel economy. When one can put out more torque from a 2.8L E85 inline 4 engine than a 5.3L V8, and even give a 6.2L ecotec a run for it's money in torque rating, and do it at half the RPM of either V8, that should say something. And do it while blowing both of them out of the water on mpg.

On pricing, diesel like performance and economy from E85 which is $1.65 in my area, while diesel is $2.45 right now. A 80 cent spread in fuel price, yet the same performance. Yeah, I would take one of the ethanol engines over gas or diesel in a heart beat. Oh Wow! GM claims to be the heartbeat of America! Let's see some heart beat GM!

Hockeylover86 · July 10, 2016

True, based on using E85 is our lame naturally aspirated engines, it is not very practical. Being made from corn is a non issue and the arguments against doing so are a ruse based in agenda hype. Corn, even on an inflation adjusted basis is below the market value as it was the Billy Bob Clinton was being serviced by Monica. 20 years and corn market prices are actually lower in value on an inflation adjusted basis. The devaluing of the dollar due to inflation has been higher than the rate of price increase of corn over the last 20 years, so making ethanol from it sure isn't hurting the supply as some would suppose. There haven't been ethanol subsidies since 2011. They ended with the 2011 Farm Bill which caused them to expire in December 2011. Only 15% of the entire cropland of the U.S. is irrigated, and most of that has nothing to do with corn. The major irrigation needs are based in table vegetable farming and tree nut farming. In fact, it takes almost as much water to make a gallon of gasoline as it does to make a gallon of corn based ethanol. Little tidbits that the anti-ethanol folks conveniently overlook. And it is well known among those that actually crunch the numbers, for every BTU of energy to make a gallon of ethanol..... from planting, harvesting, transportation, production, all of it... there is 32% net gain in energy on the back end. Substantially well documented by the Argonne National Laboratory research team. And for every bushel of corn used for ethanol production comes, plastics, corn oils, high protein feed supplements, etc. 17 lb of other products from a bushel of corn used for ethanol production, that would be more costly to obtain from corn any other way. Bet most folks don't know that the insulators on spark plugs, they use a corn derived base to make them.

But take a engine that is designed specifically to use E85, and nice things can happen. Like running 15-16:1 compression ratios, boosting them up, etc which ethanol fuels can comfortably deal with. Then we can see ethanol putting out diesel equivalent power numbers and diesel equivalent fuel economy. When one can put out more torque from a 2.8L E85 inline 4 engine than a 5.3L V8, and even give a 6.2L ecotec a run for it's money in torque rating, and do it at half the RPM of either V8, that should say something. And do it while blowing both of them out of the water on mpg.

On pricing, diesel like performance and economy from E85 which is $1.65 in my area, while diesel is $2.45 right now. A 80 cent spread in fuel price, yet the same performance. Yeah, I would take one of the ethanol engines over gas or diesel in a heart beat. Oh Wow! GM claims to be the heartbeat of America! Let's see some heart beat GM!

Agree 100% on the alcohol fueled engines advantages if specifically designed for it, good things can really happen if you don't need them to operate on gasoline too.

I still disagree on the subsidies though, maybe they aren't direct to the industry, but they still tell us our gasoline needs to contain 10% of it, so that in a way is a subsidy if they mandate use.

Back on topic, I am still hoping for a new gasser with a good bump in torque to replace my diesel.

I suppose we will know soon, I wonder if they are waiting for Ford to release specs on the 17 SD powertrains or if certification isn't done yet...

Remove that 10% from gasoline and you do get some benefits in the gasoline fueled vehicles.

Cowpie · July 10, 2016

Really? They mandate we use ethanol? I can buy ethanol free fuel any day of the week, any time of the year, at almost any town around me. I have a minimum of 6 ethanol free pump locations within a 15 mile radius of my house. And I live rural, 11 miles outside of the nearest town! While the EPA does mandate a certain amount of ethanol be used, it does not say that ethanol free cannot be used, nor does it say that ethanol has to be used only one way, like in E10. It can be E10, E15, E20, E30, on up thru E85. There isn't even enough ethanol being made or brought in that can spike every gallon of gasoline if they wanted it to. And ethanol free gas availability is a state issue, not a federal mandate one. I live in ethanol central and the corn lobby rules the state government. Iowa is the largest producer of both corn and ethanol in N. America. I am surrounded by 46 ethanol plants just within the state boundaries. Yet, I have ethanol free readily available any time I want it, right along side E10, E15, E20, E30, and E85.

They mandate many things about gasoline also, so does that mean an oil subsidy also. They specify variances in butane levels in gasoline depending on time of the year. That is way folks generally get less mpg in the winter than they do in the summer. Sounds like an oil company subsidy using your logic so they can sell more volume of cheaper to make gasoline. Let's be honest... they have mandated all kinds of stuff about automobiles that feather the nest of component manufacturers. I don't like some stupid chime going off about my seat belts, but I have to pay for it. I don't want or use daytime running lights, but I have to pay for it. I don't want TPMS on my vehicles, but it is mandated and I have to pay for it. Using your logic regarding some mandate about ethanol being a subsidy, the entire nation is on a subsidy to some degree. And that would be a valid argument. But what it really comes down to is the people involved. They will pitch a fit about ethanol because for some reason their choices are limited by their state hired help, but they have no problem with government wasting of their money to study why monkeys have poop fights at the zoo, among hundreds of other wasteful items.

The mandate is a subsidy argument is only valid if addressed in the larger context. And Ethanol barely rates a blip on the radar compared the what we have to pay for because of government mandates.