Ecoboost engine question

Oh dear - my Dad taught me to drive a truck in our Super Duty tanker. 3500 rpm and nice power in a 2 axle / 32,000lbs truck. 5 spd trans with a close 4th, 2 spd rear axle. Juice brakes. MPG? It burned all the regular gas we put in it.

If a spark ignited engine is built to "diesel duty cycle" standards like those old Super Duty's, high block 427's, Chev V6's, Dodge 413's, IH 404 and 549's, Rolls-Royce Merlins, Pratt&Whitney - wouldn't they "cost the same to fix" because they have some metal in them?

Well I got to learn something today! I guess the "Super Duty" moniker has it's roots way back in Buddy Holly's day...

Wonder what kind of MPG that 534cu/in beast got fully loaded?!

Of course, gas wasn't $3+/gal back then either...

I must be getting old, I remember riding to school in IH buses with manual transmissions and gasoline engines.

Hey, let's revive the 534 block, convert it to direct injection, turbo it, and see what we've got...this is an Ecoboost thread after all...

Maybe Ford should bring these back!

"The Ford Super Duty engine was a truck engine from Ford Motor Company.

The Super Duty was introduced in 1958, the same year as the FE and MEL series V8 engines, as a replacement for the Lincoln Y-block in truck applications. The Super Duty was available in displacements of 401 cu in (6.6 L), 477 cu in (7.8 L), or 534 cu in (8.8 L). These engines appeared in heavy duty trucks of the time and were large, heavy, low speed, high torque engines. They were never designed as automobile engines and were commonly found in large, industrial use vehicles including dump trucks, garbage trucks, concrete mixing trucks, and large buses. The Super Duty engine was built in Ford's Cleveland engine plant number 2.

When introduced in 1958, the 401 produced 226 hp (169 kW) at 3800 rpm and 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) of torque at 1800-2300 rpm. The 477 produced 260 hp (194 kW) at 3600 rpm and 430 lb·ft (583 N·m) of torque at 1800-2300 rpm. The 534 produced 277 hp (207 kW) at 3400 rpm and 490 lb·ft (664 N·m) of torque at 1800-2300 rpm. A marine version, commonly referred to as the "Seamaster" was also available starting in the late 1950s. The Seamaster was available with twin turbochargers, and weighed over 1,300 pounds (590 kg) installed."

Chris

"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."

And what diesel goes in the F650? That's right a midium duty Cummins 6.7. Both the PS and Duramax are consided light duty engines.

Chris

IMO there's no substitute for cu.in. Yes the 3.5 is a great little engine, but Ford knows it won't work in their SD line or it would be there. There are lots of high HP/TQ engines in cars. Look at some of the 600+ HP motors like what's in the new Mustang. 662hp and 631tq. Why not put that motor in a truck? Probably cause it won't last for someone towing 10-15,000 miles a year. There's no difference between what the 5.8 Mustang engine and the 3.5 EB are asked to do. Each is designed for it's own application.

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.

johndeerefarmer 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?

There are guys with 40k tuned miles and no issues other than having to change spark plugs. How's that? :)

That's nothing. About 6 months of driving around my house between my wife and I. 40k miles proves nothing. :D

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

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?

Cubic dollars. Or expressed another way....... How fast can you afford to go?

Speed. Reliability. Low cost. Choose any two.

Engineer9860 wrote:
Now let me get this right..........

A direct injection turbo Diesel engine is workable in a heavy duty pick-up truck, but a direct injection turbo gas engine is not?

As far as I can tell, no engine MFR has put a high-boost gasoline engine into a heavy-duty spplication...so the answer to your question at this point is "You are correct".