Absolutely not, or NO.................... And besides that, they share nothing else other than the "wanna be" rumors, and some cooperation years ago to do with political things that Cummins had to agree to (share technology) so they could still stay in European market.. ..
But, I'm sure you will get a different answer from others.
I don't doubt Tony's expertise, but what was that thread about a year or two ago regarding the 6.7 liter engines and why FTP got more power out of what I assumed to be the same block as Cummins? The discussion rolled on like it was the same block, but maybe not. Am I losing my mind, did I miss something along the way?
I have to say that this is not entirely true at all.... Sorry.Absolutely not, or NO.................... And besides that, they share nothing else other than the "wanna be" rumors, and some cooperation years ago to do with political things that Cummins had to agree to (share technology) so they could still stay in European market.. ..
But, I'm sure you will get a different answer from others.
I have to say that this is not entirely true at all.... Sorry.
So, IVECO Motors required a new engine platform of a certain displacement and package size to meet future emissions and power demands for their customers. CASE and Cummins had a platform that met some of the requirements but was severely out dated and needed engineering development at a very high level to move into the future (5.9L B mechanical 2 valve engine w/ P and VE Bosch fuel injection). Cummins did not have a fuel systems solution that would provide them with the efficiency required to increase the power density to where it needed to be to remain competitive and to meet future emissions legislation (FIAT Common Rail patent sold to Bosch but under exclusivity at the time). Cummins needed the C.R. fuel system technology but could not develop it in house, and we all remember the "VP 44" issues and the "CAPS" fuel systems nightmares, or at least anyone with any Cummins experience remembers these issues well ! So, IVECO, CASE and Cummins joined forces to share technologies and competencies to benefit all parties, everyone was a winner, Cummins received a 5.9L ISB/QSB that was with 4 valve per cylinder, direct injection over piston center, re-entry piston combustion bowl high efficiency design (by IVECO/Arbon and patented) and most importantly a Common rail fuel injection system to take them into the future. IVECO and CASE received a base engine platform that was of the right physical dimensions to start from to build off and create a 6.7L platfrom that was more desireable and would take them well into the future where we are now and what Cummins has adopted now (although not the same engine). It really had nothing to do with Europe, it had everything to do with a group of companies that were after the same goal, meet future emissions with a high power density small displacement engine, and they all had technologies to share to achieve it in a more efficient, cost effective and timely manner.
I will try to give a slightly more balanced view and at the same time be more economical with keystrokes but it will not be easy.
Back in the 80's Iveco was working with Nissan to develop a whole new range a engines in order to meet coming Euro 3 automotive emissions as their current engine platforms were all time expired. Whilst other engines in the Iveco/Nissan JV which later become Cursor progressed well, the proposed engines in the key 4/6/7 liter node was failing to meet design targets with the Euro 3 deadline looming.
In the same 80's time frame Cummins was spending big $$ on the 'Emerald' program which was a major upgrade of the B & C platforms to meet forthcoming emissions in both Europe and U.S. Major thrust of 'Emerald' program which became ISB/ISC was development of fuel systems and four valve cylinder heads.
Emerald had major issues with fuel systems, home brewed CAPS I used on ISC platform was big heavy expensive and technically a bridge too far. Bosch VP44 to be used on the ISB platform was simply inadequate to take new engine to design power levels as well as being unreliable.
Cummins was working with Bosch on ISB with a Bosch CP2 common rail pump. CP2 was a big complex oil lubricated pump and key to the European market which required four cylinder engines in weight sensitive 7.5tonne truck node, the Bosch CP2 was far from ideal for four pot motors.
The scene was set..........Iveco needed an engine platform on a short lead time, Cummins needed a very competent and cost effective fuel system which Iveco had been gifted as a part of acquisition which they had in turn sold to Bosch named CP3 however retained the right to decide which OEM's should have access to the technology.
In order to bring the new engine to market the EEA (European Engine Alliance) was formed consisting of engineers from Cummins UK and US, Ford Basildon, and Iveco Italy. As a starting point as product delivery time was short an ISB was shipped in from Rocky Mount and used as the design base.
Worth noting at this point that the EEA agreement covered derivatives of the ISB was to include three, four, five as well as six cylinder derivatives for all markets not just automotive. I was particularly excited about the five cylinder platform for bus applications, however it came to nothing.
Within two months of EEA start up it was apparent that Iveco engineers were desperate to gain more displacement out of of ISB, however Phillip Jones who originally designed the B packaged the crank throw and cam real close creating a real clearance problems for anybody wanting to increase crank throw. There was a high level meeting early on when engineers from Turin wanted to change position of the camshaft to permit greater stroke. Cummins rejected the proposal to change camshaft position on the basis of huge tooling costs.
Slight digression suspect Peter's memory has become a little blurred with the passage of time, however Case were sadly just observers in what was for them a slow motion train wreck. Cummins were talking to Iveco long before Case was acquired and subsumed into Ford New Holland becoming CNH. A good friend at Case said Cummins doing a deal with Iveco was like a dagger though the heart. Case were producing their own B engines at their German plant as well as purchasing engines from Darlington. The purchase of Case was a master stroke as it gave Iveco a bang up to date B Series production line for very little expenditure and they wasted little time in tearing it out.
Moving on, the EEA agreement gave Iveco responsibility for materials sourcing, during due diligence process Iveco identified component cost reduction as being a key area of competence. Cummins had traditionally sourced components from suppliers in U.K, U.S, Germany and Japan. Under the EEA agreement Iveco took control and most long term suppliers to Cummins had the door shut on them.
There were many examples of Iveco purchasing policy, however let me illustrate just one. Concentric pumps from Birmingham U.K originally designed and produced the engine coolant pump for the B Series, very simple robust design with a very very low failure rate. Iveco purchasing looked at the Concentric pump, realised that patents had expired so had supplier in Italy reverse engineer it. Critically the Concentric water pump had a premium U.S John Crane seal which was eliminated as part of the cost reduction by the Italian supplier. Water pump leaks had never before seen on the warranty radar started to occur with pumps from the new source. As most reasonably pointed out by Peter Cummins suffered from other issues with engines using Iveco sourced components.
Finally returning to the two paths to 6.7.....Cummins had zero affection for the compromise 104mm X 132mm displacement increase even though under EEA agreement they had access to it. Cummins delayed development of their own 6.7 until expiry of the EEA agreement and made sure it was heavily patented, they had been burned by their experience with Iveco failing to pay a Cent in previously agreed royalties for use of original ISB platform.
Yes, they shared the same 5.9L block, yes, there was a short period of time for RV applications in the U.S. where Cummins used as 6.7L block that was also an FPT block. Now they use their own 6.7L block.This was a simple question with a simple answer of yes or no. I don't know why some have chosen to put a spin on it for some perceived advantage. Let me break it down to two questions:
1) Does Iveco and Cummins share the same 5.9L block?
2) Does Iveco and Cummins share the same 6.7L block?
Not true, Artemis you are not directly tied to any development any longer and haven't been for sometime and you are speaking way out of bounds, and based off of "hear say"! NEF is very successful in meeting EPA Tier 4b and Euro 6 targets, there are many OEM's using this platform for their equipment because of that success in Europe and in U.S..... All engine manufacturers battle with emissions, it isn't easy for any of them. FPT is not having issues meeting targets while remaining high in power density and low in fuel consumption with their emissions abatement strategy.Just to clarify the alleged 'gift' of piston with magic emissions competence.
Cummins had vast experience of re-entrant combustion chambers as the design was used on Euro 1 and 2 mechanical B Series as well as some US ISB applications with centrally mounted injector.
As a direct result of EEA work a trial was run with piston design from Cummins CPE Combustion Performance Emissions group in Columbus and Iveco design. I reviewed the results of the trial and whilst both re-entrant bowl designs were well able to meet emissions target the Iveco design had superior Bsfc. People in Columbus were a little put out by the results particularly when the Iveco piston was chosen for production.
All part of shared development, certainly not gifted as inferred.
Today Iveco NEF emissions strategy at Euro 6 is a shambles, not according to me but the European truck industry. If one plots market share of Iveco Truck Europe their declining share and substantial losses over the last ten years tell the whole story.