A Boxer Engine In A Class C??? Yes/No?

valhalla360 wrote:

Chum lee wrote:
Overcoming established corporate engineering group think can be difficult.

It goes something like this.

What market advantages will we gain by spending billions of dollars reconfiguring our currently highly successful existing platform with older technology? Does anyone have any extra budget dollars, personnel, or spare time they would like to spend on this? Keep in mind, your head will be on the chopping block, as well as your professional career/future if it doesn't show any promise and turns out to be a loser. Any takers? . . . . . No? Well then, get back to work and just keep doing what you're doing. (pretend this never happened)

Chum lee

What advantage? Seriously, an engine that doubles the MPG and puts out big HP would be a game changer. The manufacturer who came out with that would own the 1/2 ton pickup market for the life of the patents.

We do have an example of a company doing just this type of investment. Ford took that big risk with the eco-boost line of engines and it was for much smaller MPG improvements.

Of course, no one realistically things this engine will double the MPG while putting out big HP.

We're not talking about a Ford F150 with an small displacement Eco boost engine here. My take to the OP was to consider using a 2.7 liter boxer type engine in a much larger, heavier vehicle like a Ford E/F 450/53/550 hauling a Class A/C motor home at or close to maximum gross weight. An F150 is a half ton light duty pickup truck. Not the same thing at all. My compliments to Ford on getting a small displacement engine to work in the F150. I'm not holding my breath waiting to see when the engineers at Ford are going to drop one (eco boost) into a much heavier duty platform. That's a project for RCG's (recent college graduates) with stars in their eyes and no engineering experience.

Chum lee