Didn't know buying a truck was so hard

[dalola]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

OP, I would suggest you test drive the "Big 3" F150 engines (2.7, 3.5, 5.0) While all are excellent engines, and can easily accomplish any 1/2T PU task, they each drive quite differently, with unique characteristics. In the end, pick the one you enjoyed driving the most.

 

[deezler]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

CI (well set up) generally will translate to good torque numbers. More CI = more torque = more HP.

A positive displacement supercharger will make an engine "appear" larger than it really is.

Yeah but turbos do the exact same thing that superchargers do (cram in more air to effectively add displacement), except without the MASSIVE power loss of belt-driving the charger. Top fuel dragster superchargers literally consume hundreds of horsepower (which is acceptable).

Have you seen the HP and torque curves for modern turbocharged engines? They have WAYYY more torque at low RPM vs larger, naturally aspirated engines. Many modern GTDI engines have flat torque plateaus from ~1500-3500 rpm. Precise turbo control along with fast spool and direct injection give you so much room for tuning. I've been dyno testing ford ecoboost engines for my auto supplier employer for the last 10 years. all my old-school hot-rodding colleagues thought there was NO WAY a small turbo V6 could move a pickup reliably. They've all come around to reality now, the 3.5L ecoboost is a reliable powerhouse of a motor. The 2.7L, is more efficient but at the significant risk of long-term reliability (we've blown up dozens of them).

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

A roots is extremely inefficient and the whipple is marginally better. The centrifugal used in turbos and belt drive turbo style super chargers is a much more efficient air pump.

 

[check 6]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

Update bought a F-150 4x4 crew cab withe the 3.5 eco boost engine and towing package plus the normal options. Hope to take delivery the first of the week as they need to do a spray in bed liner and I want them to change out the all terrain tires for Michelin all season ... quieter and smoother ride for my wife . Very satisfied with the deal offered and so far the service of the local Ford Dealer. By the way the Honda dealer just never got his act together and that is two Honda dealers.
I think I will be happy with the engine. One of my neighbors has over 100k on his F-150 with the 3.5 and has had no issues ... he also tows frequently
Thanks to all for the comments

 

[dalola]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

The 2.7L, is more efficient but at the significant risk of long-term reliability (we've blown up dozens of them).

Curious why you would say this? One could easily argue the 2.7 is designed more robustly than the 3.5. And who is "we" that have blown up dozens? What failed? Under what conditions?

check6, congrat's on the new truck! Enjoy!:drink:

 

[the old grind]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

.. who is "we" that have blown up dozens? What failed? Under what conditions? ..

....... I've been dyno testing ford ecoboost engines for my auto supplier employer for the last 10 years. ....

Product testing often requires long-term running until failure. Down at Buick Engineering there was an 'apprenticeable' trade called Experimental Test Mechanic. You might wonder who hooks up and disconnects engines to dynos. This is scientific s__ not deezler's hot rod pals, and notes are taken.

check 6, congrats on your new Ford. :dance1:

 

[dodge man]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

Sounds like a nice truck. Remember it didn’t happen without pictures.

 

[deezler]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

Curious why you would say this? One could easily argue the 2.7 is designed more robustly than the 3.5. And who is "we" that have blown up dozens? What failed? Under what conditions?

check6, congrat's on the new truck! Enjoy!:drink:

What makes you say the 2.7L was designed more robustly? The extremely narrow bearing journals? The higher specific output, requiring more boost and cylinder pressure? Those engines are great for commuter trucks that rarely go WOT, but even Ford specifically directs their dealers to ensure customers AVOID this engine if they plan to tow often. It's just not good at handling sustained full load.

I'm not gonna say who we is, in this instance. I work for a tier 1/2 supplier, testing our OE internal engine parts. They have primarily failed in durability testing (hundreds of hours of full load) due to piston failures (cracked crowns/lands) or spun main/rod bearings. Some dropped valves and random oil leaks also. I'm not saying its a bad engine, as they've proven decently reliable in the trucks. But I'd say: don't abuse them, or try to aftermarket-tune for more power.

Congrats OP on getting a 3.5L Ecoboost! I'd love one of those in a crew cab, alum 6.5' bed, with max payload and max towing. It's darn near a 3/4 ton truck at that point, but with 20 mpg in daily use. My GMC 6.0L struggles to get 14 mpg and can tow less (but carry more).

 

[deezler]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

Product testing often requires long-term running until failure. Down at Buick Engineering there was an 'apprenticeable' trade called Experimental Test Mechanic. You might wonder who hooks up and disconnects engines to dynos. This is scientific s__ not deezler's hot rod pals, and notes are taken.

Dude, I already said I work in a R&D dyno lab. Scientific sh__, as you note. Often on irreplaceable prototype engines with millions of dollars of potential business on the line.

 

[dnw64]

Re: Didn稚 know buying a truck was so hard

Dude, I already said I work in a R&D dyno lab. Scientific sh__, as you note. Often on irreplaceable prototype engines with millions of dollars of potential business on the line.

FWIW, I took The Old Grind's message to be in support of the fact that you DO work in a scientific environment, NOT just with your "hot rod pals".