No more V8 in F150?

[wawajake]

Sorry, guesses youes buys what's youes can affurd. HS

Wow even when asked gently to stay on topic you find a new arrogant way to continue your ridiculousness

 

[houstonscott]

Wow even when asked gently to stay on topic you find a new arrogant way to continue your ridiculousness

This is the future of pickups in the USA, smaller, much smaller, smaller diesels, well, under current EPA rules. Get use to it, the government is weaning you off your F150. All the changes are driven by government regulation, governments unfounded quest to reduce CO2, based in the hoax of man caused global warming. What a load of sh#t. Oh, by the way check your facts, I didn't start the Subaru crap, someone else strayed from topic, but you'll conveniently miss that fact... HS

 

[orezok]

Meh...

 

[Copperhead]

4.3 tonnes. Metric. Not avourdepous.
The Touareg has air bag suspension and was stock. The tires were over inflated and the test was reportedly done at 5mph. It's a pretty awesome feat.

Even 4.3 metric tonnes is 9479 lb. Not the 15K+ you mentioned.

 

[Copperhead]

4.3 tonnes. Metric. Not avourdepous.
The Touareg has air bag suspension and was stock. The tires were over inflated and the test was reportedly done at 5mph. It's a pretty awesome feat.

Even 4.3 metric tonnes is 9479 lb. Not the 15K+ you mentioned. Yes it is a interesting deal. One does have to wonder if we were fed all the information that went on in accomplishing this, or if there wasn't some slight to hand things going on. But wait, it was on the internet so it must have been scientifically confirmed.

 

[Renze]

Usually coming from the yaris drivers...

hahahaaaa do they even sell those over there ???

 

[Renze]

New VW Amarok is getting the 3.0 V6. Maybe it will be introduced in the US too ?

 

[Sysop]

At the end of the day when you make the same HP out of a smaller engine you are putting more stress on numerous parts in the engine. Sure they can handle it but the V8 can easily handle having mods done to it to increase it's HP while the ecoboost engines are pretty much topped out unless you are willing to reduce engine life. A modern engine should make 200k miles without needing any serious work. A 5.0 V8 should be able to be boosted to 500hp and still make that. I'm not so sure you could get 500hp out of a 3.5 V6 and expect it to make 200k doing everything a truck may do, like towing. Just my opinion. Of course I'm not sure if where engines are now is really needed.

Back when the first 3.5 ecoboost was being released, I remember reading that Ford had actually taken the Duratec lower end and redesigned the engine with more bearing surface area than the V8 engines, providing more support and longevity to the crank and cams. Towing was their goal for the engine, as was replacing the 6.3L V8. Towing needs lots of bearing surface and support on the crankshaft for longevity. Shorter shafts that were designed for the boosted stresses, in addition to more supporting surface area, the EB was designed to last as long as any other stock engine in their stables... Increasing the stock output of any engine will reduce it's lifespan. Boosting a 5L will have the same effect on lifespan...

Folk into heavily modifying vehicles have found with the latest generation of F150s that the main limiting factor for performance on the 5L or Eco is the stock fuel system. The 5L has plenty of existing modifications to get extra fuel into the engine, the Ecoboost does not. That alone is why the Ecoboost is, as you said, "pretty much topped out". It has nothing at all to do with the "stress on the numerous parts" because the parts are overbuilt to handle the power without being stressed.

This is also why a 5L with nothing but a tune doesn't yield as much of an increase as a tune on a fully stock 3.5EB (and percentage-wise, you can coax even better improvements out of the new 2.7EB with just a tune versus the 3.5EB). The stock 5L is already sucking down nearly all the fuel ya can get to the engine, and without more fuel ya can't make more power. With the EB, there is still a little overhead left in the fuel system. More so in the smaller EB.

Note that version two of the 3.5L Ecoboost is adding a second direct injection per cylinder as well as port injection to keep the valves clean. They're not increasing the horsepower, it will remain at 365HP, but torque is increasing from 420 to 450. There will likely be MUCH more overhead in the v2 3.5EB with the additional fueling potentials.

 

[houstonscott]

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

 

[Diamondpilot]

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

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

Chris

 

[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.