Why not put turbos on 2500 gas trucks

[evanrem]

I hear all these great reviews on the Eco-Boost engine and all the power it creates. Somewhere I read a few years back it had more HP and torque then my 2500 HD gas. Why doesn't Ford or Chevy offer that engine on a 3/4 ton truck or put the twin turbo's on the V8 gas engines?

[arkie_guide]

I would be afraid the drive train would not not hold up. Even the ford 460 ci engines would spin the rear end in the housing.

[mich800]

rhagfo wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

RinconVTR wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

BenK wrote:
Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Perhaps not using pictures of 10+ year old engines may be worth even more words..... The 6.0 went out of the Ford trucks in 2007. The Duramax and Cummins have also changed a lot in 10 years.

Extremely poor comparison...even below a typical marketing gimmick!

Not only is that image drastically outdated but look at the stroke length differences! Of course the longer connecting rod is significantly beefier. The people who produced that image are idiots.

Think about this:

I have a 8 cylinder engine that puts out 400 HP. (50 HP/ cylinder)Then I have a 1 cylinder that puts out 400 HP. (400 HP/ cylinder)

Which rod do you think is going to have to be bigger? :B

True that Cummins puts out as much as the V8's with two less cylinders, so some parts are naturally larger. It is a far more stout engine than the other two, just compare the overall weight of the other two.

What surprised me was i saw a cutaway of the Ford 6.7 diesel at the Homestead NASCAR race last year. The rocker arms were Stamped flat steel!

I would not necessarily classify it as more stout. They are all the about the same displacement and power levels just one has to shoulder more load per cylinder than the others. It is no different than a tug of war between two 300 pound football players and four 150 pound baseball players. On the surface the football players look more stout but as a package the lighter team has just as much power and individually do not need to work nearly as hard for the same outcome.

[itguy08]

2112 wrote:
The F250 weighs over 2000lbs more than an F150. I get 20.5 MPG running empty on the highway in my EB. If I dropped 1 ton of payload in my bed I would get probably about 12 MPG. Hitch a trailer to it and it would only get worse.

According to Google, a F150 Supercrew's curb weight is 4,487 to 5,238 lbs. A F250 Supercrew's curb weight is 5,683 to 6,695 lbs. Maybe comparing a light F150 to a Diesel F250 would get that 2k lbs difference but not gas engine to gas engine.

Should you drop 1 ton in the bed of your truck as, say dirt or gravel your MPG wouldn't be that bad at highway speed. The aerodynamics is mainly what kills MPG.

I tow a 11' tall, 35' bumper to hitch, 9900 lb GVWR trailer with a F150 EB. Highway I can get 10-13MPG if it's flat. 5-9 in the hills. About the same as a V8 but with more power.

None of us really knows the MPG of this mythical engine. Probably wouldn't be worse than the current 6.2 unloaded and about the same towing.

[rhagfo]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

RinconVTR wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

BenK wrote:
Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Perhaps not using pictures of 10+ year old engines may be worth even more words..... The 6.0 went out of the Ford trucks in 2007. The Duramax and Cummins have also changed a lot in 10 years.

Extremely poor comparison...even below a typical marketing gimmick!

Not only is that image drastically outdated but look at the stroke length differences! Of course the longer connecting rod is significantly beefier. The people who produced that image are idiots.

Think about this:

I have a 8 cylinder engine that puts out 400 HP. (50 HP/ cylinder)Then I have a 1 cylinder that puts out 400 HP. (400 HP/ cylinder)

Which rod do you think is going to have to be bigger? :B

True that Cummins puts out as much as the V8's with two less cylinders, so some parts are naturally larger. It is a far more stout engine than the other two, just compare the overall weight of the other two.

What surprised me was i saw a cutaway of the Ford 6.7 diesel at the Homestead NASCAR race last year. The rocker arms were Stamped flat steel!

[ib516]

Likely the fact that they would get horrid MPG. Look at the 3.5L EcoBoost. V8 like power (or better) with V8 like fuel economy.

[blt2ski]

2112 wrote:
The F250 weighs over 2000lbs more than an F150. I get 20.5 MPG running empty on the highway in my EB. If I dropped 1 ton of payload in my bed I would get probably about 12 MPG. Hitch a trailer to it and it would only get worse.

The turbos load up at about 1800 RPM and I can see it happening on the instantaneous fuel usage indicator. The turbos on a 3.5EB F250 would always be loaded, 100% duty cycle and would suck the gas. Forget 4WD. That would only make it worse.

An F250 with a 3.5EB would get horrible gas mileage empty.

That would remove the incentive of owning the truck.

This is one of them yes no reasons. NOT ALL 25 series trucks weigh 2000 lbs more than a 15 series. My C2500 weighs in at 4800 lbs empty! Yeah granted it is a reg cab with literally 3 chargeable options....None the less, we are talking maybe 300-500 lbs more than an equal 15 series truck depending upon motor and trans options. Same could be said with larger trucks, I've seen upwards of 700+ lbs differences between a stripped crew cab and a fully loaded leather diesel crew cab in dually!

Many of us that drive these moderately loaded reg cabs in the construction trades would find these smaller motors to work when empty, yes, they will suck the fuel when loaded! Even my 350 V8 sucks fuel when loaded. 12-17 mpg. 12-22 or so loaded vs empty would be better. As most of the time I am empty vs loaded to max gvw or gcw. Even the GM 4.3 V6 with 300 ponies would be better than my 255hp 350 V8.

Marty

[2112]

The F250 weighs over 2000lbs more than an F150. I get 20.5 MPG running empty on the highway in my EB. If I dropped 1 ton of payload in my bed I would get probably about 12 MPG. Hitch a trailer to it and it would only get worse.

The turbos load up at about 1800 RPM and I can see it happening on the instantaneous fuel usage indicator. The turbos on a 3.5EB F250 would always be loaded, 100% duty cycle and would suck the gas. Forget 4WD. That would only make it worse.

An F250 with a 3.5EB would get horrible gas mileage empty.

That would remove the incentive of owning the truck.

[PDX_Zs]

NVM.

It seems I was late to the party and no need to pile on...

🙂

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

RinconVTR wrote:

itguy08 wrote:

BenK wrote:
Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Perhaps not using pictures of 10+ year old engines may be worth even more words..... The 6.0 went out of the Ford trucks in 2007. The Duramax and Cummins have also changed a lot in 10 years.

Extremely poor comparison...even below a typical marketing gimmick!

Not only is that image drastically outdated but look at the stroke length differences! Of course the longer connecting rod is significantly beefier. The people who produced that image are idiots.

Think about this:

I have a 8 cylinder engine that puts out 400 HP. (50 HP/ cylinder)Then I have a 1 cylinder that puts out 400 HP. (400 HP/ cylinder)

Which rod do you think is going to have to be bigger? :B

[RinconVTR]

itguy08 wrote:

BenK wrote:
Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Perhaps not using pictures of 10+ year old engines may be worth even more words..... The 6.0 went out of the Ford trucks in 2007. The Duramax and Cummins have also changed a lot in 10 years.

Extremely poor comparison...even below a typical marketing gimmick!

Not only is that image drastically outdated but look at the stroke length differences! Of course the longer connecting rod is significantly beefier. The people who produced that image are idiots.

[itguy08]

BenK wrote:
Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Perhaps not using pictures of 10+ year old engines may be worth even more words..... The 6.0 went out of the Ford trucks in 2007. The Duramax and Cummins have also changed a lot in 10 years.

[BenK]

Pictures worth a 1,000 words... :B

Generally speaking...crank size makes a big difference...add metallurgy and production methods (science of the two). Stuff like offset bolt angles, how many bolts, fracture of mating surfaces, etc, etc

Add other stuff like...whether the crank is cast iron, cast steel...to forged...



connectingrodcomparison

[itguy08]

Sure Diesel will give you better fuel economy - it has more energy per gallon. Around here it's considerably more expensive than gas.

I'd say the reason the hotshotters run Cummins is because when you're out in the middle of nowhere and it needs service you can pull into any truck stop and find a Cummins guy to fix it.

U-Haul probably runs the largest fleet of gas engines - mainly Ford V10 and GM big blocks. Has for a while. Many of those vehicles have considerable miles on them with lots of abuse. I'm sure they are not replacing engines left and right.

Diesels tend to run at low RPMs which probably contributes greatly to their life. Look at a turbo gas engine like the Ecoboost - while it will rev, it makes plenty of power down low - the RMPs are there for HP which most Diesels lack.

I'd love a good turbo gas engine in a bigger truck - there is no reason it can't be done with today's technology. My guess is it will face an uphill battle with the Diesel guys as well as the companies need to recoup their $$ on Diesel development.

[blt2ski]

burningman,

Issue is as noted. Many of us only drive 10-15k miles a year, the little additional cost in fuel, ie gas is not going to get us a payback in what I would call a reasonable amount of time, just in fuel cost savings. For me that is 2-3 years, maybe 4 max. Maybe over the life I keep the truck I might get a payback due to the generally speaking increased used cost of a diesel vs gas. But 10-20 years later and 200+K miles......Truck chassis is usually dead. Same reason I got an IDI 7.3 in my MDT, being as that motor is was a 100K mile throw away motor, vs the DT360 at the time, being a 500K mile motor, With a $5-7K addition....takes a long time to pay off that option. Only have 150K on original motor from 92. Yeah it is a bit used....but still runs!
I'm not driving 25-35K miles a year like I did, I paid off those diesels in 80-120K miles or 3-4 years in fuel cost savings. Will not pull it off today with $7-8K differences vs $2-3K back in the mid 90's......