Ford's Twin-Fuel 'Bobcat' Engine Could Replace Power Stroke Diesels - Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum
Powerstroke.ORG News News related to Ford Diesels as well as site news. Only Administrators may create new threads in this section.

Powerstroke.org is the premier Diesel Truck Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2009, 10:33 AM
Administrator
 

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,149
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Ford's Twin-Fuel 'Bobcat' Engine Could Replace Power Stroke Diesels


At a recent engineering conference Ford representatives gave a presentation on secret new engine the company is developing. Code named "Bobcat" the new twin-turbo 5.0-liter V8 engine is seen more as an alternative truck engine, although as it is similar to Ford's EcoBoost engine, passenger car applications are possible.

The Bobcat engine is a twin-fuel engine, using both conventional gasoline and E85 ethanol. Both fuel systems even have their own tanks and fuel injectors. Here's how it works:

Turbochargers work to compress the air, while conventional port-injection of gasoline is used to get fuel into the cylinders. Then ethanol is sent into the combustion chambers through direct-injection, eliminating knock by cooling the air/fuel mixture. Ethanol is only added under high-load conditions, otherwise the engine operates like a conventional gasoline engine. By injecting ethanol, it also raises the fuel octane rating from 87-91 to 150 - allowing for extremely high compression. As a result, an engine the size of the 5.0-liter one can make 500hp and 750 ft-lbs of torque, while getting 25 to 30 percent better fuel-economy than a conventional gasoline engine.

Ford developed the technology alongside Ethanol Boosting Systems of Cambridge, Mass., which calls its trademarked process DI Octane Boost. The Bobcat engine would be comparable to Ford's 6.4-liter Power Stroke diesel, which makes 350hp and 650 ft-lbs of torque, but would cost one third the price to make as no exhaust treatment systems would be necessary.

The system is also 5 to 10 percent more fuel-efficient than Ford’s new EcoBoost engine.

The down-side is that as there are two fuel-tanks, both would need to be filled up separately. No worry says Ford, the 5.0-liter Bobcat V8 would get 528 miles on a 26-gallon tank, while a 10-gallon tank of E85 would last anywhere from 100 miles to 20,000 miles depending on how much heavy-load conditions the truck is driven under. And if no E85 is available, the engine can still run on just gasoline, albeit at reduced power.

The Bobcat engine may just be Ford's answer to recent increase in the fleet fuel-economy rating for light trucks and SUVs, which will go from the current 23.1 mpg to 30 mpg by 2016.

More: Ford's Twin-Fuel 'Bobcat' Engine Could Replace Power Stroke Diesels on AutoGuide.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 06-10-2009, 10:37 AM
Compression Ignition Addict
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 457
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Boy I dunno sounds really interesting but I think diesel is still the way to go. I would have to experience it before I could pass any judgment on it. Way cool though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 06-10-2009, 10:48 AM
Compression Ignition Addict
 

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,196
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I think the person whom wrote " Ford's Twin-Fuel 'Bobcat' Engine Could Replace Power Stroke Diesels" Has never pulled a 14k trailer up a hill.

As far as the "Bobcat" goes, Cool idea. We need companies thinking outside the box.
Way to go ford. Thanks for staying ahead of the game instead of falling behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 06-10-2009, 10:54 AM
rdc rdc is offline
Grumpy Non-Socialist

 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lexington, OK
Posts: 2,623
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Sounds complex. Fuel pump for gasoline, fuel pump for E85, port injection for gasoline, direct injection for E85, computer to control it all, lots of parts to break, ...

I guess the KISS principle is a fading memory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 06-10-2009, 10:56 AM
Banned

 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bryan/College Station/Tyler, TEXAS
Posts: 26,361
Thanks: 8
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
theres only one prob with that engine.







it doesnt run on diesel. so it will be fine in a gasser situation, but the diesels need to stay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 06-10-2009, 11:03 AM
rdc rdc is offline
Grumpy Non-Socialist

 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lexington, OK
Posts: 2,623
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Here's one I like ...

Inside Bruce Crower’s Six-Stroke Engine: AutoWeek Magazine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 06-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Banned

 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bryan/College Station/Tyler, TEXAS
Posts: 26,361
Thanks: 8
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdc View Post
thats a good potential engine. but ford or gm might buy it to keep the competition off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 06-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Compression Ignition Addict
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Paramount, CA
Posts: 954
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
IDK about trying to fill two tanks. I know I'd always be running out of e85. There really isn't any spots that sell e85 and there are supposed to be a lot in Ca.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 06-10-2009, 11:34 AM
Compression Ignition Addict
 

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Morristown, TN
Posts: 189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I like the concept......but I dont think it could ever FULLY replace the need for a Ford diesel truck. I guess I would just have to drive one and have alot of specs & real world testing before I could say it would REPLACE the Powerstroke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 06-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Compression Ignition Addict
 

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 856
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Sounds good, BUT, slap that engine in the F150s and SUVs, not the Super Duty. Or let it replace the 5.4 triton in the superdutys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Garage Plus, Vendor Tools vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.

vB.Sponsors