If only Ford would build this...

[LoneStar1]

Turbo 6.2L Ford Super Duty (Ecoboost 6.2L)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1345900-twin-turbo-build-3.html
285 RWHP Stock 305 pound-ft of torque*
545 RWHP 7psi boost 575 max torque*
675 RWHP 10psi boost torque more than 700(off the chart)*

*Please note that car manufactures generally measure HP and Torque on an engine dyno and these are the numbers that they publish. A chassis dyno gives a more real measure of a vehicles performance because the readings are taken from the drive wheels. These readings will be about 20% less than those taken from an engine dyno because of the drag placed on the engine by the transmission, differential, and accessories. The above readings were taken on a chassis dyno.

Compare with a stock 2009 6.7L Dodge diesel that puts down approximately 270 HP and 532 pound-feet of torque at the rear wheels on a chassis dyno.
http://www.dieseltruckresource.com/forums/3rd-gen-high-performance-accessories-6-7l-only-170/6-7l-dyno-numbers-243069/

[colliehauler]

RobertRyan wrote:

Hannibal wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

fuel usage under load would be horrendous

My V-10 is always horrendous fuel usage. When not under load a small motor would do better.

[Hannibal]

That's what I'm thinking Marty. My F250 is my wife's commuter while I use my 52mpg Prius for my work truck. A 3.5L Ecoboost has more torque and horsepower than my 5.4L V8. I think it would be a good engine for an F250 used as we use ours.

[blt2ski]

RobertRyan wrote:

Hannibal wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

fuel usage under load would be horrendous

At the end of the day, it takes a certain amount of energy to move an item, so be it a BIG engine, or little engine, it will take the same amount. BUT, if the little engine will net me less fuel used while commuting, suck it up working, I commute 90% of the time.....At the end of a year, I am better off.

Not a right or wrong answer, only one that is best for me or you!

Marty

[Hannibal]

RobertRyan wrote:

Hannibal wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

fuel usage under load would be horrendous

I'm sure it would be. But, I'm used to it.:B

[RobertRyan]

Hannibal wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

fuel usage under load would be horrendous

[valhalla360]

spoon059 wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Finally, there is the big question: Who needs a pickup with 675hp? Other than to make your ego feel better, it is completely unnecessary for a tow vehicle.

You answered your own question there. How many people have big engines because they NEED all the power from it? Now, how many people have big engines so that they can feel better about themselves by putting down people that have "grocery getters" or gas engines?

How many people actually haul 15K lbs up the Rocky Mountains? How many people do it more than once?

How many OTR truckers hauled massive amounts of goods over those mountains with an anemic gas engine back in the 60's and 70's?

That's what makes Ford's ecoboost line interesting. They are trying to sooth the egos of grocery getter buyers with a big HP rating while giving them the economy of a smaller engine.

But trying to take HP up above 600hp is just getting silly.

[blt2ski]

Hannibal wrote:
To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

I would add a 2nd to this. A small disp high hp motor like this with todays 6 and 8 sp trannies would probably suit a lot of us with 25 series trucks, that tow up to around 10K lbs, need to haul upwards of 2 tons in there trucks when not towing, and get us 15-20 mpg maybe a bit more when empty. I'd be happy with the 300HP GM 4.3 V6 with the 6l90E, 4.10 or better yet for me 4.33 gears.......Most of my driving is at 50 mph or less, so a perfect setup for me. For those that drive a lot int hee 60-70 mph range, 3.73's would work well for them.

Marty

[mich800]

Kampfirekid wrote:
Just give us a reliable 25-30mpg daily driver motor that tows 10k AND, I said AND, the payload to pull it. Does it have to be that difficult?

How far back do we need to look when small automobiles were happy to get that? So yes, high mpg with high towing capacity will take some time and experimentation. I left out one variable, price. I am sure the OEM's could give us everything we want simultaneously but at what price/cost?

[Kampfirekid]

Just give us a reliable 25-30mpg daily driver motor that tows 10k AND, I said AND, the payload to pull it. Does it have to be that difficult?

[spoon059]

valhalla360 wrote:
Finally, there is the big question: Who needs a pickup with 675hp? Other than to make your ego feel better, it is completely unnecessary for a tow vehicle.

You answered your own question there. How many people have big engines because they NEED all the power from it? Now, how many people have big engines so that they can feel better about themselves by putting down people that have "grocery getters" or gas engines?

How many people actually haul 15K lbs up the Rocky Mountains? How many people do it more than once?

How many OTR truckers hauled massive amounts of goods over those mountains with an anemic gas engine back in the 60's and 70's?

[Hannibal]

To be honest, I'd be happy as a puppy with two tails if I could slip a 3.5L Ecoboost engine in my 2010 F250. A 5.0L Ecoboost would be great!

[RobertRyan]

valhalla360 wrote:
It undermines their diesel market while fighting the stereotype that you must have a diesel to do heavy hauling.

Plus the engine isn't designed for that kind of power. If you push 675hp out of that block for significant periods of time, things will break. Ford would have to start from the ground up to build an engine that could handle that kind of power.

Finally, there is the big question: Who needs a pickup with 675hp? Other than to make your ego feel better, it is completely unnecessary for a tow vehicle.

Might as well put in Engine from a 1980's F 1 series, they were good for 1200hp, but a little bit fragile for Commercial use

[valhalla360]

It undermines their diesel market while fighting the stereotype that you must have a diesel to do heavy hauling.

Plus the engine isn't designed for that kind of power. If you push 675hp out of that block for significant periods of time, things will break. Ford would have to start from the ground up to build an engine that could handle that kind of power.

Finally, there is the big question: Who needs a pickup with 675hp? Other than to make your ego feel better, it is completely unnecessary for a tow vehicle.

[Golden_HVAC]

Ford probably could not afford all the warranty claims on the transmissions and for broken crankshafts!

They might bring out a 5L Ecoboost. Someone stated seeing a new casting of the 5L has a place to install a direct fuel injection on the heads. That engine would be much more powerful than the diesel, and cut into the diesel sales a lot, so that might be why they are waiting so long.

I always wondered why Ford did not make a larger gas engine. The F-650 can come with a 6.8LV10 at about $10,000 less than the diesel versions. For a city who might have natural gas trucks, it makes a lot of sense as they can get the CNG fuel for $2.25 for 115,000 Btu's. This compares very favorably with gasoline prices. Oil changes are much less expensive, and the engine runs extremely clean. A V12 CNG engine with 10:1 compression (CNG is about 110 octane) would have plenty of HP and get fairly decent mileage for what it is doing.

Fred.