New Ford F150

[daugen]

Ford Invests $500 Million to Build 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6

half a billion dollars on that little engine?
Sounds like a great start for a hybrid truck, but all by itself?
Seems like a really good engine for a 3500 pound sedan.

Maybe it will have the chops to get the basic truck rolling.
Look at the Mustang V6, that went from utter dog to yes sir right now in one model year.
But light weight allowed that.
If that truck goes over 5000 pounds, no way Jose.

In the new modern world, trucks should not be used for commuting. Ecologically irresponsible in some ways, if there are better alternatives, and if one never uses the bed. Hatchbacks would accomplish many of the same chores performed by a very light duty truck. And likely get double the mpg.
But that doesn't fly with a whole lot of folk who want to do what they want to do***, and Ford apparently is responding to the demand. And maybe not look so bad versus the new Ram diesel. Little puffed up gas engines vs slightly larger puffed up diesels. Sure is a new world out there...

***as in like the higher driving position, added safety, whatever, lots of good reasons, just not green.

 

[sld]

Hey daugen, the 80's are calling and they want your understanding of engines back. :laughing:

Just kidding and I too have a hard time with accepting engines of this displacement. All that matters is the dyno chart.

You hear nothing but praise for the old 300 I6. This 2.7L is way more powerful and way more efficient. There are lots of base trucks with V6's sold. This will be a good performer in that category.

 

[daugen]

Hey daugen, the 80's are calling and they want your understanding of engines back. :laughing:

Just kidding and I too have a hard time with accepting engines of this displacement. All that matters is the dyno chart.

You hear nothing but praise for the old 300 I6. This 2.7L is way more powerful and way more efficient. There are lots of base trucks with V6's sold. This will be a good performer in that category.

of course you are right, if we get to 60 in 7 seconds or whatever we feel is adequate and even shall we say, satisfying, do we care how we do it?

I think we both do if we repeat older mistakes. Remember when emission control hit hard in the early 70s? I had access to a brand new Malibu or whatever it was called back then, a big white ugly whale of an alleged mid size company car, with a 305 V8. I think it made 130hp the way it ran. What a slug. And then the catalytic converter started to plug on it and it sounded like a huge vacuum going down the road. It's that wheezy sound, or maybe a puffing sound today, whooshing? as the new little puffers of this world perform far beyond their size. Such is our future. And then come the electric motors.

I think I'm going to buy a big three diesel or a Hemi before they do away with them...it will certainly outlast me.
That GM 6.2 is a seriously sweet gas motor too.
Since I'm a low mileage user, the difference in real world mpg is just not a big factor for me when I look at my
total costs at the end of the year. Well, I'm already putting 85 bucks in the Suburban easily, well over a hundred with premium, which
it doesn't need.Though I've always wondered if you feed a modern fully electronic engine, with all its instantaneous analyzers, feed it some
old fashioned Sunoco 260 (another memory i think now) or 93 octane and they perk up a bit. Allegedly noticeably. But then I think folks imagine a lot
based on what they are hoping to find out. Like all those engine additives we used to dump in. Which likely made no difference whatsoever.
But octane is measured, and I'm talking about a regular fuel spec, not a premium requirement where you feed it regular.
Kind of makes you wonder what's "hiding" in there if you feed it better fuel. My understanding is that there is little value in doing so.
But that never stopped us...

 

[batwing]

It seems when I changed oil, wash and waxed my old cars they ran better, or put premium fuel in it would run better. well when we put premium (Ethyl) with all them great additives in the fuel all we were doing was slowing down the controlled burn in the engine, back in the day with high compression engines that could make a big difference but with todays cars, boats, chainsaws and motor bikes unless specified it can turn into harmful carbon.
Ron

 

[daugen]

Jimmy Fallon chooses Ford - Pop Culture - Road & Track

well, no more need be said ,boy will Ford make hoopla out of this.

 

[DeereMann]

daugen,

agree up to a point. in a perfect world, i'd have a somewhat safe econobox commuter for work plus a truck for my projects & outdoors work. In a perfect world, I'd be a billionaire too. Since neither is happening, I resort to the best compromise vehicle for most of my needs, and that ends up being a half ton truck that has better fuel mileage than years of yore. That doesn't make the mileage good by econobox standards, but neither am I 'anti-green' or whatever by consuming more of the earths resources & energy to own TWO vehicles to attain minimal fuel consumption perfectionism.

Anyway, I try to be at least somewhat responsible - I never did drive a big, honkin' big block just for the halibut.

I think if you drove a HEMI you'd buy one on the spot. The HEMi torque curve, for a naturally-aspirated engine, is really strong all the way through the rpm range. No extra cost or gizmos for turbochargers, and decent mileage too. Not to mention a very reliable & durable engine. Go drive one!

 

[Code54]

Have a Hemi for work and it is a good motor with very good power. In the past I had a 5.7 Tundra and the power on it was excellent also. Slightly different power curves and such but I can't say anything negative about either of them. Only wish they got 30 mph.... Oh well so much for that perfect world/motor