Ecoboost 5.0 coming

[hone_eagle]

On another thread this question came up "do you have a link to fords new V8 ecoboost"

Its 5.2 actually, likely done with a stroker crank,but built alongside the 5.0 . Curious if the plant has the volume for all the trucks it could go into.

The V10 is year to year and the 6.2 is not going to be built much longer ....so this will be it.

So much for "never going to happen - end of story " eh Robert?

[vortec22]

I'm not saying that a 5.0-5.2 turbo engine won't happen, but the current 5.2 is a flat plane crank engine as mentioned above, and not something that would be all that much fun in a tow vehicle.

[Bedlam]

Let's not get into a diesel verses gasoline discussion - We know there is more energy is in diesel and expect that much better mileage.

[IdaD]

tragusa3 wrote:
In 30,000 miles, I haven't had a tank yet (not towing) that I've gotten less than 18.0. My mixed commute to work gets me 18.6 mpg. Freeway gets me a few tenths under 20. I admit, I'm slower than average in driving habits.

Not trying to argue or split hairs...I just think it is outstanding mileage for the performance available on tap.

Sorry to take us off topic some.

You're in South Carolina and we're in Idaho. I suppose elevation and mountains play a big role. Even our flat country isn't very flat. I've driven thru SC several times and I think the biggest elevation changes I saw were overpasses. I get substantially better mileage than him with my Cummins.

[tragusa3]

In 30,000 miles, I haven't had a tank yet (not towing) that I've gotten less than 18.0. My mixed commute to work gets me 18.6 mpg. Freeway gets me a few tenths under 20. I admit, I'm slower than average in driving habits.

Not trying to argue or split hairs...I just think it is outstanding mileage for the performance available on tap.

Sorry to take us off topic some.

[Samsonsworld]

No worse than any v8 I've ever driven. Better in town.

[IdaD]

tragusa3 wrote:
3.5 a fuel hog? It can be, but doesn't have to be.

A good friend has owned two - an '11 and now a '14. Both CC/6.5 4wd models. Best tank ever 18ish, 14-15 typically. Towing lower obviously but that's to be expected. He's what I'd call a average driver - neither fast nor slow. About like me actually.

[shepstone]

Of course if you were to lop 2 cylinders of the 6.7 you would end up with a 5.0 ltr V6 ... diesel

[Bionic_Man]

patperry2766 wrote:
5.2 L Voodoo V-8

The 5.2L in NOT a Ecoboost engine.

OP, is this the engine you are talking about? Doesn't look like an EcoBoost to me.

It would be a tremendous achievement to make a V8 EcoBoost that will reach the needed MPG to satisfy CAFE numbers.

[tragusa3]

3.5 a fuel hog? It can be, but doesn't have to be.

[hone_eagle]

IdaD wrote:

hone eagle wrote:

APT wrote:
The OP mentioned V10 and 6.2L. I assume if there were a 5.0L Ecoboost like motor, it would be for the Superduty, not half tons.

exactly
Its not the voodoo which is a flat crank engine ,its not a 1/2 ton engine. This is the workhorse for F250 and up all the way to F450 and motorhomes ,note the year , the same time the V10 is discontinued. 1/2 motor ? very unlikely sorry guys not for the mall cruiser. The power will be set at where the V10 left off.

My comment was with regard to the statement that the 3.5 Eco would bump up to 500+ lb-ft of torque. If that's the case I'm just curious how much the drivetrain will be upgraded to handle the torque.

A V8 Ecoboost could be a game changer in the HD truck world. Near diesel power at a lower price point with no emission issues to deal with. I suspect the Achilles heal will going to be the real world fuel economy, though. I'm not sure how the 2.7 is doing real world, but the 3.5 is a gas hog. Add two cylinders, bump the displacement and put it in a 7000 lb truck and I can see it having trouble passing gas stations without stopping.

I imagine the fuel economy will be directly related to the power output, at light loads a bit better then the V10 - or why bother if you can't brag on it .
Gaming a modern engine to look good under the EPA lamp is a given .

[RinconVTR]

carringb wrote:

SouthpawHD wrote:

Now that's the worst news I've heard in a long time - an American muscle car icon not having a V-8. Yuk!
.

The Ford GT is most definitely not a muscle car.

Argh! You beat me. Same comment here...

[IdaD]

hone eagle wrote:

APT wrote:
The OP mentioned V10 and 6.2L. I assume if there were a 5.0L Ecoboost like motor, it would be for the Superduty, not half tons.

exactly
Its not the voodoo which is a flat crank engine ,its not a 1/2 ton engine. This is the workhorse for F250 and up all the way to F450 and motorhomes ,note the year , the same time the V10 is discontinued. 1/2 motor ? very unlikely sorry guys not for the mall cruiser. The power will be set at where the V10 left off.

My comment was with regard to the statement that the 3.5 Eco would bump up to 500+ lb-ft of torque. If that's the case I'm just curious how much the drivetrain will be upgraded to handle the torque.

A V8 Ecoboost could be a game changer in the HD truck world. Near diesel power at a lower price point with no emission issues to deal with. I suspect the Achilles heal will going to be the real world fuel economy, though. I'm not sure how the 2.7 is doing real world, but the 3.5 is a gas hog. Add two cylinders, bump the displacement and put it in a 7000 lb truck and I can see it having trouble passing gas stations without stopping.

[carringb]

SouthpawHD wrote:

Now that's the worst news I've heard in a long time - an American muscle car icon not having a V-8. Yuk!
.

The Ford GT is most definitely not a muscle car.

[Bedlam]

The 3-valve V10 is used all the way up to the F750. It will be interesting if this new Eco motor makes it all the way up into the Class 7 application or only to the Class 4 like you alluded.

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/