Ford V-6 beats v-8's in towing competition

[RobertN]

To keep the horses, live load, over the axles.

Why do the put the axles so far back? Moving them forward 3' or maybe even less would solve all the issues.

Chris

 

[Eric M]

I just had a fun thought, how about putting the TT V6 in the crown vics for the cops or in a mustang or lightning type of vehicle? Keep it looking mild, sleeper if you know what I mean. I bet it would fly. Kind of make think of the Buick Grand Nationals in the 80s. Got my butt kicked by one in a race once.

They already have the ecoboost in the Taurus SHO and the new police interceptor that will replace the Crown Vics has this engine as an option with AWD.

Eric

 

[dstig1]

Eh, the last SHO was built in 1995. At least the real ones, IMHO. After that they got soft and squishy. I had my 1992 for almost 16 yrs from new, and still wish I never sold it. I just wasn't going to deal with maintaining 4 vehicles as I needed the truck and the SHO was the oldest car. The new SHOs are very fast but nowhere near the fun of the early ones - they got huge, heavy and soft - and are automatic only. More sport-luxury than the barnburners the early ones were. Totally different character. Time marches on...

 

[davkir]

I just saw a quick review of the F-150 and they said the turbo V-6 was only a $750 option.
No mileage ratings yet, but Ford said it should be better then the 5.0 V8.

 

[Dmace]

I just saw a quick review of the F-150 and they said the turbo V-6 was only a $750 option.
No mileage ratings yet, but Ford said it should be better then the 5.0 V8.

Ford released the MPG ratings of 16 city /22 hwy this month. It's pretty good but nothing that impressive since all the V8's get around 14/20. Also, many users will see that V6 mileage drop like a ton of bricks while towing or hauling anything vs a V8 which won't drop as much. The reason that V6 gets decent mileage is because of the tall 3.15 rear end ratio and the fact that it's not building much boost while at highway speeds. You put a load on it and that engine will be working so hard I bet you'll see the fuel gauge move as you drive. :laughing:

 

[Diamondpilot]

Ford released the MPG ratings of 16 city /22 hwy this month. It's pretty good but nothing that impressive since all the V8's get around 14/20. Also, many users will see that V6 mileage drop like a ton of bricks while towing or hauling anything vs a V8 which won't drop as much. The reason that V6 gets decent mileage is because of the tall 3.15 rear end ratio and the fact that it's not building much boost while at highway speeds. You put a load on it and that engine will be working so hard I bet you'll see the fuel gauge move as you drive. :laughing:

I am with you on this one. I am pretty disappointed in the fuel economy. The power seems amazing but unless they can get it up over 26mpg I will pass for now.

Chris

 

[Dmace]

I am with you on this one. I am pretty disappointed in the fuel economy. The power seems amazing but unless they can get it up over 26mpg I will pass for now.

Chris

Honestly, once this engine has a few years under it's belt. I bet they will find a way to get that mileage up but it won't be making that crazy amount of torque so low and will probably have a 7-speed transmission.

 

[dstig1]

Ford released the MPG ratings of 16 city /22 hwy this month. It's pretty good but nothing that impressive since all the V8's get around 14/20. Also, many users will see that V6 mileage drop like a ton of bricks while towing or hauling anything vs a V8 which won't drop as much. The reason that V6 gets decent mileage is because of the tall 3.15 rear end ratio and the fact that it's not building much boost while at highway speeds. You put a load on it and that engine will be working so hard I bet you'll see the fuel gauge move as you drive. :laughing:

I am with you on this one. I am pretty disappointed in the fuel economy. The power seems amazing but unless they can get it up over 26mpg I will pass for now.

Chris

Think about the numbers you are tossing around here. It's a 10% gain. For fuel mileage that is a very significant gain, given that the rest of the platform is the same. You don't gain 30-40% in fuel efficiency (like you are asking for, Chris) by swapping out motors. Those sort of gains only come from significant system changes - mostly removing substantial size/mass and drag from the vehicle, or going to a different technology like diesel. All of which come with their own trade-offs. You are fighting physics all the way.

The numbers shown are a significant gain. Next question is what the real world numbers are. Every truck gets notably worse mileage towing. I don't see this one being much different as of now. Time on the road will tell that.

 

[Dmace]

Think about the numbers you are tossing around here. It's a 10% gain. For fuel mileage that is a very significant gain, given that the rest of the platform is the same. You don't gain 30-40% in fuel efficiency (like you are asking for, Chris) by swapping out motors.

My truck with the HEMI 5.7l rated at 345hp/375 lb.ft was rated by the EPA at 13 city/17 hwy. The only major things changed in that motor since 2003 was the addition of MDS (multi-displacement system) and Variable Cam Timing. After that, it was rated 390hp/407lb.ft and EPA estimates 14 city/20 hwy. That's a 3 mpg increase with just minor changes, an almost 20% gain. It can be done.

Now a completely new engine with a MUCH smaller displacement and more efficient turbo-charged direct injected engine should have a much higher gain in fuel efficiency than 10%...

 

[dstig1]

You are aware that EPA changed the entire mileage rating system a couple years back? I stand by my claim that 10% is not peanuts. I know you will argue it to the death but it is engineering and it is not an unknown voodoo science. At this point in the development of the internal combustion engine, a 10% mileage gain is enormous. Facts are stubborn things