2016 Ford Superduty - Aluminium

Fordlover wrote:

parkersdad wrote:

N-Trouble wrote:

Fastfwd75 wrote:

What I am surprised of os that they use the heavy 6.2L engine on the raptor when they could use a much lighter engine with turbos.

The ecoboost v6 is far from a light engine...

It's not a heavy duty engine either. If you see an eco-boost in a heavy duty truck it will probably be 5.0 or something bigger.

What (exactly) makes an engine heavy duty? Ford put the 300 inline 6 in heavy duties for years, along with the 302, 351, etc. but I don't think any of those engines can hold a candle to the 3.5 ecoboost by any metric. The 300 and 302 were pretty decent engines, but I'd take the 3.5 eco over them any day, and aparently so would many new truck buyers.

In the diesel world, heavy-heavyduty-diesel engines mean a serviceable wet liner, robust bottom end crank, along with rebuild intervals between 300k and 400k miles with a projected total life of 1.2 million miles in severe service applications. The Cummins ISB/6.7 is a medium-heavyduty-diesel motor. It doesn't have the serviceable/wet sleeves and has a projected rebuild interval of 300k+ miles in severe service. The ISL is a heavy-heavyduty-diesel engine. Some argue that the Ford Scorpion Diesel and the current GM Duramax meet the medium-duty definitions, however I think they fall short with their projected life being only 250,000 miles before the engine will most likely fail (in severe service and according to Ford's and GM's projected engine life testing). But it seems like Ford is going to prove that their Scorpion motor is up to snuff for medium heavy duty work by putting it in the medium-duty trucks showing that it's a straight up competitor to the Cummins ISB.

For others, a heavy duty engine is an engine with design parameters to move vehicles with GVWR's north of 14,000 lbs day in an day out. As robustly built as the 3.5 ecoboost is, I don't think it has within it to pull 14k GVW + whatever that vehicle may tow for 300,000+ miles.

Also, in the grand scheme of things for the majority of consumers, a heavy-light duty motor would do perfectly fine.

ib516 wrote:
:B:B:W

Too funny!:p

parkersdad wrote:

N-Trouble wrote:

Fastfwd75 wrote:

What I am surprised of os that they use the heavy 6.2L engine on the raptor when they could use a much lighter engine with turbos.

The ecoboost v6 is far from a light engine...

It's not a heavy duty engine either. If you see an eco-boost in a heavy duty truck it will probably be 5.0 or something bigger.

What (exactly) makes an engine heavy duty? Ford put the 300 inline 6 in heavy duties for years, along with the 302, 351, etc. but I don't think any of those engines can hold a candle to the 3.5 ecoboost by any metric. The 300 and 302 were pretty decent engines, but I'd take the 3.5 eco over them any day, and aparently so would many new truck buyers.

hone eagle wrote:

Campfire Time wrote:

BB_TX wrote:
Every pound saved in the body adds a pound in payload, with the same suspension.

Yes, but from Ford's standpoint, every .10 of a gallon per mile saved get them that much closer to CAFE compliance.

Is CAFE even applied to this class of vehicle ?

It is now. Our esteemed EPA has so decreed.

most cars could shed lots of weight if they didn't require 37 position electric adjustable seats with heating and air conditioning, enough nanny electronics to avoid stuff any driver actually paying attention could avoid and enough sound deadening so you cant hear the hazards around you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying lets go back to the days of trucks being the most uncomfortable thing possible. But when the carpeting weights nearly 100#, I think its getting excessive on how quiet things need to be inside any vehicle.

1 lbs weight loss would equal 1 lbs payload gained with the same suspension. .. however it's not that simple. Ford will have to change the suspension calibration to be within their acceptable limits for ride quality. Losing that much weight would reduce ride quality significantly. That's very important to Ford as many many trucks never haul anything other than passengers. So while you may lose 700lbs, you won't gain 700lbs of payload.

5.0 eco boost!:B Forged rods and pistons like they did on the SVT Cobras!!

N-Trouble wrote:

Fastfwd75 wrote:

What I am surprised of os that they use the heavy 6.2L engine on the raptor when they could use a much lighter engine with turbos.

The ecoboost v6 is far from a light engine...

It's not a heavy duty engine either. If you see an eco-boost in a heavy duty truck it will probably be 5.0 or something bigger.

hone eagle wrote:

Campfire Time wrote:

BB_TX wrote:
Every pound saved in the body adds a pound in payload, with the same suspension.

Yes, but from Ford's standpoint, every .10 of a gallon per mile saved get them that much closer to CAFE compliance.

Is CAFE even applied to this class of vehicle ?

Not yet but I thought I read it will be. The problem with CAFE is that the total number of vehicles you sell will need to achieve a harmonic average of 25 mpg which will require pulling out all the stops (new tech, old tech and some extreme fuel savings measures including electric cars) to meet this goal.

The big 3 will be the most challenged by this goal because they sell so many full size trucks with Chrysler at a big disadvantage right now due to the Dodge brand not having a strong fuel efficient car line up and the Fiat brand does not have a strong presence in the US.

Fastfwd75 wrote:

What I am surprised of os that they use the heavy 6.2L engine on the raptor when they could use a much lighter engine with turbos.

The ecoboost v6 is far from a light engine...