Why hasn't anyone released a HD truck with a Turbo V8?

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I would love to see the old cast iron Ford 300 (4.9L) straight six brought back, but turbocharged. Bring it up to the modern age with variable valve timing, variable ignition, 4 valves per cylinder, and direct injection. About 380 hp and 500 lb-ft at a low 2,000 or 2500 rpm would be ideal for a gasoline Super Duty.

Those engines were some real turds and I doubt that the head gaskets would live a long life with those power levels.

Funny being that they were regarded by many to be one of the most reliable engines of all time.

FORD 4.9L (300 CI) STRAIGHT 6

Top 10 Engines of All Time (#4): Ford 300 I6

How many did you have issues with that were personally your own? Did you ever blow head gaskets?

My dad ran the office of a local natural gas company (Entex)and he would track the cost of repairs on each truck and back in those days the service men could choose which brand of truck they drove which promoted them to care for their truck as well. Two of the Fords with this I6 either had cracked heads or head gasket failures and oil consumption was another problem. These trucks were always overloaded, idled for hours a day but were serviced on a proper PM schedule.

An even bigger turd was the slant six... Ask me how I know!

So we are not to believe the thousands upon thousands of people saying that this engine is one of the most reliable engines of all time (including me who owned four of them in various equipment and trucks) and instead believe you, a person who is known in this forum to extremely exaggerate problems of another straight six engine that you also have a disdain for..... hmmm, I think I am going to take my chances in believing the thousands upon thousands of people along with my own experiences with the engine.

Let me guess, next you are going to associate head gasket failures with all straight six engines because something tells me that is probably where this is headed.

Being a turd and being reliable are two different attributes... Don't confuse the two.

BTW... This includes the fuel injected version as well.

You did. Thanks for taking the time. Sorry OP If we drifted too far off topic.

nohurry wrote:
Which brings us to the aspect of CAFE. I will admit ignorance on this (big surprise), so enlighten me. Is it true that the CAFE standard is an average of all the vehicles they build? i.e. If they build enough fuel efficient cars, and hybrids, they can get away with more on the trucks/SUV's? Or does each model have to meet certain standards? If the former, they could compensate for the trucks with enough other fuel sipping econo boxes. Or am I way off base here?

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy and goes off the average of what each automaker sells. It uses the "footprint"(not to be confused with carbon footprint) of a vehicle to determine what mpg that vehicle should be at per the regulation. The footprint is basically how large the vehicles is. It then takes how many of that vehicle is sold and compares it to other models that manufacturer sells and averages them out to come up with the corporate average footprint. It does the same for each vehciles fuel economy to get an average. Every manufacturers average will be different depending on the make up of what vehicles they sale.

For instance, say a manufacturer sales 125,000 trucks with a footprint of 60ft^2 that get 15 mpg, 125,000 medium sized SUVs with a foot print of 45ft^2 that get 25 mpg, and 50,000 small cars with a footprint of 30ft^2 that get 30mpg. The average footprint in this particular case is 73ft^2. Then you take the average EPA fuel economy for all vehicles sold which in this case is 32.5 mpg and compare it to the regulation chart below.




That is the basic form of it.

You can see how each manufacturers numbers may be different depending on the type of vehicles they sale and how many. A manufacture that mainly sells big vehicles will have a large average footprint numbers and a lower average mileage number to meet while a company that sales mostly small vehicles with a low footprint, but have to meet a higher average mpg.

Currently, 3/4 and 1 ton trucks were exempt from being applied to a manufacturers CAFE. That will be changing in the next few years.

Hope I explained it well enough.

Which brings us to the aspect of CAFE. I will admit ignorance on this (big surprise), so enlighten me. Is it true that the CAFE standard is an average of all the vehicles they build? i.e. If they build enough fuel efficient cars, and hybrids, they can get away with more on the trucks/SUV's? Or does each model have to meet certain standards? If the former, they could compensate for the trucks with enough other fuel sipping econo boxes. Or am I way off base here?

Grit dog wrote:

nohurry wrote:
And Ford has kicked themselves in the butt a million times since for not partnering with Cummins. Apples to oranges though in your example, as in the gasser realm Ford DOES have a smaller turbo'ed engine that they are very high on.

But Ford owns Cummings......

No, Cummins sold Ford years ago.

Ford has a knack for updating powertrains a few years after a model change to spruce up sales for those that have to get the latest and greatest. I have no doubts they will do the same with the new Superduty. Then again, why would Ford mess up a good thing if most of their sales are Powerstrokes and they make more money on them........ Oh wait, that's right. 3/4 and 1 ton trucks are about to be a part of CAFE regulations in the coming years meaning Ford (and all other makes) will have to make them more fuel efficient or take a hit.

A little surprising they didn't do it with the 2017 redesign, but I guess they want to squeeze as much out of the 6.2 as they can. You don't see a lot of them around though. Probably 80% diesels in the SD.

nohurry wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

nohurry wrote:
And Ford has kicked themselves in the butt a million times since for not partnering with Cummins. Apples to oranges though in your example, as in the gasser realm Ford DOES have a smaller turbo'ed engine that they are very high on.

I was talking more about the mindset of the people thinking that a smaller turbocharged straight six could not compete with a larger N/A V8 rather than what engines Ford currently has.

Yes, and I agree with you there. It's that same mindset today that I think keeps Ford from putting an ecoboost in the Superduty (Yet).

Well, that and the fact that they don't have an engine yet since they couldn't use the 3.5L Ecoboost in its current aluminum block form and would have to design a whole new iron block engine.

ShinerBock wrote:

nohurry wrote:
And Ford has kicked themselves in the butt a million times since for not partnering with Cummins. Apples to oranges though in your example, as in the gasser realm Ford DOES have a smaller turbo'ed engine that they are very high on.

I was talking more about the mindset of the people thinking that a smaller turbocharged straight six could not compete with a larger N/A V8 rather than what engines Ford currently has.

Yes, and I agree with you there. It's that same mindset today that I think keeps Ford from putting an ecoboost in the Superduty (Yet).

Grit dog wrote:

nohurry wrote:
And Ford has kicked themselves in the butt a million times since for not partnering with Cummins. Apples to oranges though in your example, as in the gasser realm Ford DOES have a smaller turbo'ed engine that they are very high on.

But Ford owns Cummings......

:E Oh that's right, I forgot!! :B