Ford Ecoboost

BenK wrote:
PS...the whole point of higher MPG is when running as a 'normal' V6 and not
on the turbo...

Those who are 'on their turbo' will have less MPG...even running empty with
no load whatsoever

Why some naturally aspired V8's can get higher MPG, as on the high end, betcha
that small V6 eats or gets stuffed with more air than a bigger V8

The Ecoboost almost makes 1 atmosphere of pressure so under full boost the 3.5 liter is almost a 7.0 liter engine. And since turbocharged engines are less efficient than N/A engines the 3.5 Ecoboost will use more fuel than a N/A 7.0 liter engine while under full boost.

PS...the whole point of higher MPG is when running as a 'normal' V6 and not
on the turbo...

Those who are 'on their turbo' will have less MPG...even running empty with
no load whatsoever

Why some naturally aspired V8's can get higher MPG, as on the high end, betcha
that small V6 eats or gets stuffed with more air than a bigger V8

Again, the dew point issue has been known for decades by boy racers who had
inter-coolers

A tiny 1/64" dia hole at the bottom of the 'tank' on the cold side normally
does the trick or go with Turtle's suggestion

Again, known to boy racers and is all over most of their forums for decades...

Have been asked why larger crank journals on this architecture...a small
V6 being stuffed with large displacement V8 volumes of air/fuel will
have WAY more forces on the power stroke.

That power stroke turns the crank via the rod journal on the crank
bearing surface

If the V6 crank journal is not large enough...the higher forces *WILL*
squeeze out the oil film that floats the two metal parts from going
metal on metal

Why this architecture has a spray system for the bottom of the pistons
and other rotation parts. Both to cool (main reason) and to make sure
there is lube 'up' there

Then if the crank sees V8 level forces...does the block also have the
meat to handle that long term?

Ditto beefiness for all the other parts, as this is not a 'normal' V6

I worked at a chevy dealer from 1975 to 1981 It was a different world then everybody from sales to service knew customer base by first name. Today there are somany choices it seems and with the internet you get a bidding war on buying a new vechile and never leave your easy chair. Seems sad I still deal with the same dealership for the last 20years. They take good me and my family but it to be rare that they have repeated customers

As a whole people are not emotionally attached to vehicles like in 1965.

Who hangs out at the dealership waiting to watch their new vehicle be unloaded today?

Bet there are fewer than 50 years ago when the population was much smaller.

Clickies...

Flashman wrote:
Just saying:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

Flashman wrote:
Well Heck!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22462597/dc-ambulance-breaks-down-while-transporting-shooting-victim-to-hospital#axzz2UpTOswiX

Well Heck!

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22462597/dc-ambulance-breaks-down-while-transporting-shooting-victim-to-hospital#axzz2UpTOswiX

gijoecam wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Ford has the number one Series truck only because they add all the F-series vehicles together. Note the ad they say Ford F-Series trucks not F-150 but F-series.

Care to cite your statistics to back up that claim? The numbers don't support it.

Here's mine (for 2012):
Motor Trend Article

Ford F-series: 645,316
Chevy Silverado: 418,312
GMC Sierra: 157,185

Admittedly it's been a while since I took an arithmetic class, but last time I checked, 645,316 was still more than 575,497. By a lot.

The margin was only about 20,000 trucks in 2011, but still in Ford's favor. First quarter this year, and the margin is already more than 15,000, again in Ford's favor.

What has happened in domestic vehicle sales. None of these top sellers nowadays even approach the heady days of the 1960's. For example...the 1965 Chevy Impala sales were:

"Totally redesigned in 1965, the Impala set an all-time industry annual sales record of more than 1 million units in the U.S., which has never been bettered." *1

These '65 Impala sales are even more impressive...considering that this was only...Impala sales and didn't even consider the Biscayne and Bel Air...which were essentially the same car as the Impala...but with different trim. Wonder what the total sales of the full size Chevy were back in '65....wouldn't be surprised if they were double those of the F 150.

I don't know about you...but I'd love to be able to buy a 340 HP / 409...or the 396 Rat motor...425 HP....new...in a '65 Impala SS...or a 365 hp/ 426 wedge in a Mopar....or a 345 hp/ 428 in a Mercury or Ford Galaxy....right now. ;)

Now you can't live in the past....but the 1960's were the days of the big, full sized, V8, RWD cars....Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc.

I'm convinced that the reason for modern day pickups being at the top of sales all the time...is because North Americans want...full sized vehicles...loaded with options..powered by V8 (or turbo V6's or diesels)....and RWD or 4WD.

For the most part....pickups are the only game in town with these features for domestics...aside from a few current Mopar cars.

*1 Wikipedia

Just saying:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

gijoecam wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Ford has the number one Series truck only because they add all the F-series vehicles together. Note the ad they say Ford F-Series trucks not F-150 but F-series.

Care to cite your statistics to back up that claim? The numbers don't support it.

Here's mine (for 2012):
Motor Trend Article

Ford F-series: 645,316
Chevy Silverado: 418,312
GMC Sierra: 157,185

Admittedly it's been a while since I took an arithmetic class, but last time I checked, 645,316 was still more than 575,497. By a lot.

The margin was only about 20,000 trucks in 2011, but still in Ford's favor. First quarter this year, and the margin is already more than 15,000, again in Ford's favor.

That's a whole lot of BLUE KOOL-AID drinkers if you ask me!!! :B