No more V8 in F150?

[Snobdds]

If Ford made the V8 Ecoboost, it would be too comparable to their 6.7 diesel and cannibalize sales...

 

[Renze]

If I'm not mistaken it is because E85 has much hotter exhaust gasses and can cause issues with the BorgWarner turbos being used.

Here in Holland we cant even get pure fossile fuels anymore at the pump. The only problems we have with hotter burning fuels is with liquified petroleum gas (LPG) Older engines needed a head job at 200.000km because the valves and seats would be burnt, modern engines all have hardened seats and valves, with hydraulic adjusters to make up for the faster wear so burnt valves hardly occur. Only on turbo engines converted to LPG you can count on a lower than average life span.

 

[houstonscott]

You guys are complaining about issues with cylinder deactivation systems on V8 engines: Cylinder deactivation is a cure to the problem of throttle vacuum losses of spark ignition engines. Diesels suck air without restriction, it has a variable air/fuel ratio. Air is constant (on an atmospheric engine) power is controlled by the amount of fuel injected. On carbureted SI engines, power is controlled by squeezing the amount of air thats sucked in by the pistons, whilst the carburettor keeps the air/fuel ratio more or less constant. At idle (lets say 800rpm) a 5 liter engine would create, lets say, a 0.95 bar vacuum with the throttle body. it would suck 5 liter / 2 (four stroke) x 800rpm is 4000 liter per minute of air through the throttle valve. at a 0.95 bar vacuum this would mean it would take 4000 liter x 0.95 / 600 is 6.33 kilowatt, or 8.61 horsepower to choke the engine at an 800rpm idle against the vacuum created by the throttle valve. Cruising at highway speeds at a 25% load at 3000rpm, the throttle valve vacuum would consume 0.75 bar (1 bar is atmospheric pressure) x 5 liter displacement /2 (four stroke) x 3000rpm / 600 is 9.375 Kw or 12.75 horsepower. Cylinder deactivation is a means to reduce the throttle losses, because the deactivated cylinders dont take part in creating a vacuum between the piston and the throttle valve anymore. Now, Ecoboost is using a smaller displacement that creates less vacuum at idle or partial load conditions, and adds the air with a turbo when its needed. Its like cylinder deactivation, but without the stepped power transitions, and without the extra friction of the larger engine. Next to that, modern turbo technology is giving the opportunity to give a much more desirable torque curve. Really, its not a bad solution !

Not a bad solution to what? More displacement ? HS

 

[Sysop]

Not a bad solution to what? More displacement ? HS

That is essentially, technically, and factually what boost does; creates more displacement/displaces more air/fuel mix upon demand.

 

[Snobdds]

Physics says... that at 1 bar, which equals 14 psi, the volume of air forced into an engine doubles it's displacement. So an engine that displaces 3.5l normally aspirated will be equal to 7 liters at 14 psi of turbo boost. That's why the 6.2 v8 was replaced with a v6.��

 

[Renze]

Not a bad solution to what? More displacement ? HS

To the vacuum losses created by the throttle valve at partial load conditions.

BMW 's formula one engine of the 80s displaced 1.5 liter and put out 1500hp. The block was from a production engine which block was set and cured by 60.000km on the testbench as a standard engine

Modern formula one engines do about 850hp

 

[Renze]

Physics says... that at 1 bar, which equals 14 psi, the volume of air forced into an engine doubles it's displacement. So an engine that displaces 3.5l normally aspirated will be equal to 7 liters at 14 psi of turbo boost. That's why the 6.2 v8 was replaced with a v6.��

For psychological reasons they could have gone the 3.5 liter V8 ecoboost route. Then less people would be bothered about the downsizing because it would not sound like the entry level engine of yesterday...

Today i'm driving a Sprinter 313 of my employer. Wonderful lugging ability for a 2.2 liter four cylinder. It picks up better than the old 2.7 liter inline 5 of the pre 2006 Sprinter. It is quite well up to the tank as well, compared to the 2.0 TDI Volkswagen puts in the nearly identical Crafter

 

[houstonscott]

To the vacuum losses created by the throttle valve at partial load conditions. BMW 's formula one engine of the 80s displaced 1.5 liter and put out 1500hp. The block was from a production engine which block was set and cured by 60.000km on the testbench as a standard engine Modern formula one engines do about 850hp

My point is you wouldn't put that engine a train locomotive just because it produces 1500hp. I'm a BMW fan and have followed F1 since about 1966, BMW had a version of that engine for qualifying, meant to last about 25 laps, and a race version meant for the race about 70 laps. Each engine being replaced each race. HS

 

[Diamondpilot]

I wouldn't tow anything bigger than a canoe with a 6 cylinder half ton truck, maybe a lawn mower. Why not tow with a Honda Accord it's a V6 half ton vehicle. Lol. HS

You have no clue then. I guarantee my 2012 Ecoboost 4x4 with 3.73 gears tows every bit as well as my 99 7.3 PowerStroke 4x4 with 3.73 gears.

Time to get your head out of the sand or wherever you bury it.

Chris

 

[Sysop]

Clue-free indeed. :laughing:

Lots of Tim-the-toolman-Taylor type attitudes about Ford's EB engines.