Turbo small displacement - displacement on demand- a winner?
Boy Ford's new 2.7 liter turbo truck engine....375 HP out of 2.7 liters(Correction....325 HP -** Thanks Fast Mopar.).....that's about 168 cubic inches. I did the conversion in my head....so that's just an approximate...I'm sure I'm out a few cubes ...+/-.
The correct cubic inches is 168.** Thanks ib516,
That's an awful lot of power being squeezed out of a relatively tiny engine....in a heavy truck that has a significant payload and towing capacity.
I think somewhere there has to be a balance...between cubic capacity....HP/torque being produced...purpose of the HP/torque.....general durability and long term longevity of certain high stress components. In this case the...high rpm, bearing cooling, capacity of the turbocharger(s).
I'm not a mechanical engineer and I'm sure Ford would have these questions resolved, before production.
But they are things that I would have in the back of my mind, if I owned a 2.7 turbo engine in a truck.
Another question is how low....cubic inch capacity....truck duty....will Ford go ?
They started with the 3.5 turbo V6 in the F 150. Now a 2.7 liter turbo V6 in an F 150 and this 2.7 puts out more HP/Torque than the original 3.5 Truck turbo V6.
How small an engine can Ford go to, in a full sized truck, with full size cargo/tow ratings ?
Where is the bottom line...for cubic inches ?
I'm not being critical, just inquiring.
GM seems to be going with larger cubic capacity, more cylinders...ie; 5.3 liter regularly aspirated (no turbo forced induction)... but with displacement on demand with 6 to 8 cylinders....than cutting out 2 to 4 cylinders under light load.
Which is better ?
Both Ford and GM are looking at the same way of achieving efficiency / improved fuel economy, while maintaining very good HP/Torque output. Same way being with reduced displacement....either permanent (fixed engine capacity, but forced induction- Ford) or varying displacement (displacement on demand, non forced induction- GM).
As with most things, eventually and probably....only one technology will win out.
Which will it be and why ?
The correct cubic inches is 168.** Thanks ib516,
That's an awful lot of power being squeezed out of a relatively tiny engine....in a heavy truck that has a significant payload and towing capacity.
I think somewhere there has to be a balance...between cubic capacity....HP/torque being produced...purpose of the HP/torque.....general durability and long term longevity of certain high stress components. In this case the...high rpm, bearing cooling, capacity of the turbocharger(s).
I'm not a mechanical engineer and I'm sure Ford would have these questions resolved, before production.
But they are things that I would have in the back of my mind, if I owned a 2.7 turbo engine in a truck.
Another question is how low....cubic inch capacity....truck duty....will Ford go ?
They started with the 3.5 turbo V6 in the F 150. Now a 2.7 liter turbo V6 in an F 150 and this 2.7 puts out more HP/Torque than the original 3.5 Truck turbo V6.
How small an engine can Ford go to, in a full sized truck, with full size cargo/tow ratings ?
Where is the bottom line...for cubic inches ?
I'm not being critical, just inquiring.
GM seems to be going with larger cubic capacity, more cylinders...ie; 5.3 liter regularly aspirated (no turbo forced induction)... but with displacement on demand with 6 to 8 cylinders....than cutting out 2 to 4 cylinders under light load.
Which is better ?
Both Ford and GM are looking at the same way of achieving efficiency / improved fuel economy, while maintaining very good HP/Torque output. Same way being with reduced displacement....either permanent (fixed engine capacity, but forced induction- Ford) or varying displacement (displacement on demand, non forced induction- GM).
As with most things, eventually and probably....only one technology will win out.
Which will it be and why ?
