Ecoboost engine question

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

otrfun wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

johndeerefarmer wrote:
3.5 eco is not maxed out power wise. Lots and lots of guys are running tunes with 80 or more extra hp and 120 ft lbs of torque.
Ford overbuilt the 3.5 block so it can handle this extra power. I have heard of no tranny's failing but one guy lost a rear end probably becaus he towed 15k

That's like saying my blown SBC is not maxed out at 600 HP. I could always go 40% over on the blower and make 1,000 HP. :R

This is an easy formula:

When power goes up, duty cycle goes down.
When power goes down, duty cycle goes up.

How high of a duty cycle do you want? How much power you want?

Good point. But, I think most would agree truck manufacturers tend to engineer their OEM products from a very conservative position to keep the MTBF high (or, as you put it, duty-cycle down). IMO, with hundreds of thousands of 3.5 Ecoboosts on the road, if there was a big worm in this engine it would have crawled out screaming by now.

I can see why Ford might be hesitant about putting the 3.5 Ecoboost in their F250/350 trucks. There's certainly the impression with a lot of folks that somehow 420 ft. lbs. of torque at 2500 RPM from a turbo-charged V6 is somehow mechanically inferior to the 6.2's 405 ft. lbs. of torque at (a much higher) 4500 RPM. Ford knew they were taking a HUGE risk even coming out with the 3.5 Ecoboost in their smaller 1/2 tons to begin with. Not from an engineering perspective, but from a marketing perspective. IMO, many of the concerns expressed here and elsewhere about the 3.5 Ecoboost were already on the Ford's marketing department's list of concerns long before the Ford engineers ever made their first prototype 3.5 Ecoboost engine.

Most of the people that buy 150/1500 trucks use them as grocery getters and people movers. If you put a tune on it and haul a couple of bags of dog food and some mulch, it won't even come close to using up the duty cycle.......even with a hot tune in hot weather.

Now leave that same hot tune on it and hang a 32' TT off of the bumper and tow in 100 degree weather up a 12 mile 9% mountain and see what happens. Hear that sizzle under the floor? That would be your cats melting out of your pipes.. :B

There's certainly the impression with a lot of folks that somehow 420 ft. lbs. of torque at 2500 RPM from a turbo-charged V6 is somehow mechanically inferior to the 6.2's 405 ft. lbs. of torque at (a much higher) 4500 RPM.

Let me ask you this. I have a turbo 2 litter that puts out 375 HP. I also have a 454 that puts out 375 HP. Which is more than likely going to have the higher duty cycle in a pickup that tows a lot? Which is going to live longer? Which do you want in your truck that tows 14K all of the time in hot weather?

Do you have any idea why Ford does not put their big beast 400 freeking HP fire breathing 6.7 in a class 8 truck? I do. It's called duty cycle............or lack there of. :B

Valid concerns. These are the same issues and concerns that were brought up when the 3.5 Ecoboost was first revealed by Ford a number of years ago. Ford did their homework (marketing and engineering) and now have a best-seller on their hands. As the old saying goes it's hard to argue with success.