No more V8 in F150?

[Sysop]

There is no substitute for more displacement or increasing the number of cylinders. HS

LOL! And the Earth is flat and the Sun circles the flat Earth... :laughing:

 

[houstonscott]

It's not 1970. I have owned 6 turbo vehicles since 1999 and all outperformed the bigger displacement options and gave excellent service. Chris

I can assure you as the truck gets bigger and the amount of work to be done increases so does displacement and the number of cylinders to do the work, it's also the least expensive and most reliable way to do more work. HS

 

[fordmantpw]

I can assure you as the truck gets bigger and the amount of work to be done increases so does displacement and the number of cylinders to do the work. HS

Interesting how the Ford 6.7L PowerStroke can do so much more work than the older, larger 7.3L PowerStroke....

Not to mention, the 6.7L makes nearly twice the HP and torque of the old 7.3L.

 

[Snobdds]

HS lacks clear understanding of simple physics...

 

[houstonscott]

Interesting how the Ford 6.7L PowerStroke can do so much more work than the older, larger 7.3L PowerStroke.... Not to mention, the 6.7L makes nearly twice the HP and torque of the old 7.3L.

Look at a mining dump truck, locomotive, or ship. To put it simple for dumb dumbs, bigger job, bigger engines, more cylinders. Hate to be so direct, but some people will argue anything. HS

 

[aczlan]

Look at a mining dump truck, locomotive, or ship. To put it simple for dumb dumbs, bigger job, bigger engines, more cylinders. Hate to be so direct, but some people will argue anything. HS

Yes some people will (especially when they think they are right even if they are wrong)...
Adding a turbo on a properly designed engine will increase torque/hp over a NA engine of the same size and will not noticeably decrease the expected lifespan.
Take the 7.3L engine.
The IDI version started with 185/338 (hp/torque), then was bumped to 358ft/lb of torque. After that, they added a turbo and got 190hp and 388ft/lb of torque.
They then kept the same displacment but switched to the T444E based engine which put out 210hp and 425lb-ft of torque. Over time, that was increased to 275hp and 525lb-ft of torque.
That's 1.5x the HP out of the same displacement and number of cylinders

As for more cylinders being needed: While thats true at a point (ie ships, trains and mining trucks), you have to get bigger than a semi truck before you need more than 8 cylinders (with the current engines) and Cummins fans would say that you only need 6 cylinders.

Aaron Z

 

[fordmantpw]

Look at a mining dump truck, locomotive, or ship. To put it simple for dumb dumbs, bigger job, bigger engines, more cylinders. Hate to be so direct, but some people will argue anything. HS

Yeah, let's compare a truck capable of towing 30k lbs to one capable of hauling millions of lbs. That makes sense to show that you HAVE to have more displacement and more cylinders to get more power.

Technology has made it possible to get more power, more torque, and better longevity out of smaller engines. If you can't see that, then none of us here can help you.

Wow. I give up.

 

[Renze]

Yes some people will (especially when they think they are right even if they are wrong)...

Its called the Dunning-Kruger effect. What Dunning and Kruger described is that the least knowledgeable have the strongest opinions, because they lack the basic understanding to realise there might be more to the subject than they can comprehend.

in the 70's Diesel engines in passenger cars were a big mistake, and a V6 engine was too small to run some mileage in a full sized car. Well that was what the general public thought. Reason was the Oldsmobile 88 diesel engine, getting only 120hp out of 5.7 liter of engine displacement, was using a gasoline engine bottom end, not able to take the twice as big compression load of a Diesel (the equally strong Mercedes OM 352 engine had about the same displacement, was also built on the tooling of the Opel Blitz gas engine of WW2, and also non-turbocharged.
The OM 352 however, was a very reliable engine, used in commercial vehicles, not in a passenger car.

The V6 engine not big enough for a passenger car, was an idea that occured when the oil crisis led manufacturers to put their entry level cheap compact V6 engines, into full size cars. It wasnt the lack of displacement that made these engines not last, but it was because these engines were designed as a cheap entry level engine, with a lower design life.

Ecoboost is the same thing: Its all about design life. The technology is there to design and build an engine that will last the same as the 5 liter V8. But turbocharging the old Cologne 4 liter V6 of the 60s (which was a bored out version of the 2.3 liter V6 in the German built Taunus) would lead to premature engine failure.

 

[Green Power]

I wonder if/when Ford drops the v8 option (far later than 2017 im sure) if they would modify the ecoboost to be capable of burning E85 from the factory. That is one of the major flaws of the eb in my opinion.

 

[Snobdds]

Its called the Dunning-Kruger effect. What Dunning and Kruger described is that the least knowledgeable have the strongest opinions, because they lack the basic understanding to realise there might be more to the subject than they can comprehend.

in the 70's Diesel engines in passenger cars were a big mistake, and a V6 engine was too small to run some mileage in a full sized car. Well that was what the general public thought. Reason was the Oldsmobile 88 diesel engine, getting only 120hp out of 5.7 liter of engine displacement, was using a gasoline engine bottom end, not able to take the twice as big compression load of a Diesel (the equally strong Mercedes OM 352 engine had about the same displacement, was also built on the tooling of the Opel Blitz gas engine of WW2, and also non-turbocharged.
The OM 352 however, was a very reliable engine, used in commercial vehicles, not in a passenger car.

The V6 engine not big enough for a passenger car, was an idea that occured when the oil crisis led manufacturers to put their entry level cheap compact V6 engines, into full size cars. It wasnt the lack of displacement that made these engines not last, but it was because these engines were designed as a cheap entry level engine, with a lower design life.

Ecoboost is the same thing: Its all about design life. The technology is there to design and build an engine that will last the same as the 5 liter V8. But turbocharging the old Cologne 4 liter V6 of the 60s (which was a bored out version of the 2.3 liter V6 in the German built Taunus) would lead to premature engine failure.

You do know that the 3.5 ecoboost block has 6 bolt mains and it supports the forged crankshaft with a girdle...right?

I wonder if/when Ford drops the v8 option (far later than 2017 im sure) if they would modify the ecoboost to be capable of burning E85 from the factory. That is one of the major flaws of the eb in my opinion.

I think everyone is trying to get away from anything ethanol...let alone E85.