Forum Discussion
- MPG has proven to not be an advantage of the Ecoboost engines. Test after test, it gets no better MPG than engines it competes with (Hemi, GM 5.3/6.0). A V8 EB would be WAY too thirsty.
OH48Lt wrote:
The attraction of a V-8 Ecoboost would be fuel mileage. The present 5.0 in the F150 gets almost the same fuel mileage as the 3.5 Eco, only 1 mpg difference. Put turbos on it and put it in a SuperDuty, and you get fuel mileage controlled by your right foot. A SuperDuty that gets 20+ on the highway and 16-18 around town would be a HUGE seller. If you need the extra power, press down on the go pedal. You'll get plenty of power when you need it, and fuel mileage when you want it. You can't get both. I'd be right there in line for one, a 5.0 SuperDuty EcoBeast. BTW, Ford registered that word as a trademark a couple of months ago, and I'm guessing its for a turbo-ed 5.0 V8.
You can already buy a SD that gets that kind of mileage.:h- The attraction of a V-8 Ecoboost would be fuel mileage. The present 5.0 in the F150 gets almost the same fuel mileage as the 3.5 Eco, only 1 mpg difference. Put turbos on it and put it in a SuperDuty, and you get fuel mileage controlled by your right foot. A SuperDuty that gets 20+ on the highway and 16-18 around town would be a HUGE seller. If you need the extra power, press down on the go pedal. You'll get plenty of power when you need it, and fuel mileage when you want it. You can't get both. I'd be right there in line for one, a 5.0 SuperDuty EcoBeast. BTW, Ford registered that word as a trademark a couple of months ago, and I'm guessing its for a turbo-ed 5.0 V8.
- Look at the power output of the Dodge hellcat 710 Hp or the supercharged cts motor or some of the supercharged Mustang. The big 3 already have the motors just need a heavy duty version to hold up to the duty cycle.
I'm happy with what I have, just thinking of what could be possible.
If someone told me 10 years ago they would put a 2.7 motor in a full size pickup I would have laughed at them. Grit dog wrote:
And your Dmax has 650 ft lbs. that's the kind of power that could be easily had out of a direct injection turbo V8. And I bet they could get it to drop 4 cyl while cruising then you got your 2.5L engine back for economy.
I'm not a Ford guy but the Eco and the 5.0 hit it out of the park as far as gassers go.
How many times does it have to be said? I guess one more time: Torque is NOT power! :R
To hold that kind of torque at 400HP would take one of Fords best tranny's made. Think SD tranny. It would also take one hellofa rear end. Think SD rear end.
Oops, there goes your gas mileage. :Blarry barnhart wrote:
colliehauler wrote:
e-light wrote:
A 6.2 ecoboost?
They need an ecoboost for the F250...I'd be interested in one...
Maybe that would really change the need for a diesel engine for many rv'rs. It would for me "maybe"
chevman
No , there will be no 6.2 Ecoboost. Supercharged or turbocharged engine, but no Ecoboost. Torque and FE very different to a Diesel EngineGolden HVAC wrote:
The larger and longer Transit has dual rear wheels and 3.5L 365 HP Ecoboost!
Yes the GCVWR is less than the 3.2 Diesel- And your Dmax has 650 ft lbs. that's the kind of power that could be easily had out of a direct injection turbo V8. And I bet they could get it to drop 4 cyl while cruising then you got your 2.5L engine back for economy.
I'm not a Ford guy but the Eco and the 5.0 hit it out of the park as far as gassers go. fla-gypsy wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
What's with all the obsession with a V8 Ecoboost.
What's the advantage or draw? :h
A 5.0L Ecoboost would be a huge seller in the SuperDuty line and offer some economy when not towing the likes of which we don't usually see and produce 400+HP and 500+ Ft lbs of torque. That's the draw and advantage.
Well that's all well and good if things worked like that.........but it won't.
The Hemi V8 with cylinder deactivation gets only 1 to 2 MPG less than the EB.
When running around in 4 cyl mode it has less cubes than the EB. What do you think a 5.0 turbo engine is going to get just running around?
With the high cylinder pressures the EB runs it has to throw extra fuel at it to keep it out of detonation when thing get hot. This means even more fuel used when things get tough.
BSFC of a turbo engine is worst of ANY engine, even mechanical supercharged engines.
If you want 400 HP why not just jack the boost up a few lbs in the EB and boom, 400 HP with the 6 cylinder. It's already a very light duty engine with a very light duty cycle so 35 HP should not make any big difference.
And do you really need 400 HP? I mean really, my Dmax only puts out 360 HP. What do people tow that they need 400 ponies?
Ford will never put the EB in a F350. The duty cycle is just not there. At lest for the current engine in it's current configuration.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
What's with all the obsession with a V8 Ecoboost.
What's the advantage or draw? :h
A 5.0L Ecoboost would be a huge seller in the SuperDuty line and offer some economy when not towing the likes of which we don't usually see and produce 400+HP and 500+ Ft lbs of torque. That's the draw and advantage.- Remember the old Buick V6 Turbo Regal/Grand National from the mid 80's... That thing stomped all over any N/A V8 of the day... They command a pretty good price from the the more popular auctions today too.. ;)
I had my share of V8 powered vehicles and I can only say my current 2013 3.5L Ecoboost F150 would walk all over any of them... :)
I have to admit, that I would not get the 2.7l if the 3.5l is still available, but that was impressive... But, it was only towing a #7200 flat bed car hauler... ;)
But, he still had to hold back to keep at the speed limit, since that's what they were trying to control in all of their tow tests...
Anyway, it all boils down to if you want a V8 or a not... For me, I was a V8 guy all the way... But, this little 3.5 Eco really puts a smile on my face every time I drive it.. :) :)
Mitch
