Second Gen 3.5 EcoBoost and 10 Speed Transmission

[FishOnOne]

Same horse power and torque is up to 450ft/lbs. Also a duel fuel system and a servo controlled waste gate.

This engine appears to raise the bar on pulling performance and fuel economy could raise the bar on gas engines.

The 10 speed appears to be equally an impressive piece that is a very compact package.

Link

[carringb]

RWDIII wrote:

I looked up the ratios on the new 10 speed and the ratios of my 6sp(Ford) and in 10th speed I would be going 109 rpm slower 1740 vs 1850
at 68 mph(garmin) 70mph speedo.
Wont be trading the Ford soon:h

They will most likely run taller gear ratios as well, which will make use of the lower gears in the new transmission, and also result in an even taller effective overall ratio.

[mich800]

RWDIII wrote:

hemismith wrote:

mtofell1 wrote:
At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if they'll skip gears under light load.

I looked up the ratios on the new 10 speed and the ratios of my 6sp(Ford) and in 10th speed I would be going 109 rpm slower 1740 vs 1850
at 68 mph(garmin) 70mph speedo.
Wont be trading the Ford soon:h

There is only so much OD a vehicle can carry before there is a lack of power to hold that gear or downshift. But now you can get lower starting gears and closer differentials between gears helping to keep the vehicle in the powerband or sweet spot for fuel economy.

[RWDIII]

hemismith wrote:

mtofell1 wrote:
At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if they'll skip gears under light load.

I looked up the ratios on the new 10 speed and the ratios of my 6sp(Ford) and in 10th speed I would be going 109 rpm slower 1740 vs 1850
at 68 mph(garmin) 70mph speedo.
Wont be trading the Ford soon:h

[hone_eagle]

I bet the 10 gears are to cover as many conditions as possible,light /heavy/ loaded / different speeds /hills etc .
Doubt if if will run through every gear every time.

[fireman41]

hone eagle wrote:

hemismith wrote:

mtofell1 wrote:
At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if they'll skip gears under light load.

Skipping/ starting in a higher gear would not be surprising ,my 12 speed starts in third (load sensing) then 5.7.10 .12.

Better than freightliner, even Bob tailing the highest gear they start in is 2nd.


How many over drive gears is the Ford 10 speed going to have? If it's more than two I think would be prone to hunting more.

[noteven]

Sport45 wrote:

Fordlover wrote:
... But turbos do not an engine make...

Turbos make all the diesel owners proud. 🙂 Without them the oil burners would be the wheezing pigs they used to be.

Personally, I'd like to see Ford add a couple of cylinders to the 3.5 and make a 4.6 ecoboost. With 15# of boost it would have the sea level performance (and gas consumption) of the old 460 at any elevation while maintaining the unloaded economy of a small block.

V10 EcoBoost 600HP!

[hone_eagle]

hemismith wrote:

mtofell1 wrote:
At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if they'll skip gears under light load.

Skipping/ starting in a higher gear would not be surprising ,my 12 speed starts in third (load sensing) then 5.7.10 .12.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Sport45 wrote:

Fordlover wrote:
... But turbos do not an engine make...

Turbos make all the diesel owners proud. 🙂 Without them the oil burners would be the wheezing pigs they used to be.

Personally, I'd like to see Ford add a couple of cylinders to the 3.5 and make a 4.6 ecoboost. With 15# of boost it would have the sea level performance (and gas consumption) of the old 460 at any elevation while maintaining the unloaded economy of a small block.

Why on earth would you want to downgrade to the HP of a 460? The Ecoboost makes 100 to 150 more HP then that old boat anchor. In fact the Ecoboost already makes more HP then almost any big block ever put in a truck.

[hemismith]

mtofell1 wrote:
At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

That's what I was thinking. I wonder if they'll skip gears under light load.

[hemismith]

Sport45 wrote:
Turbos make all the diesel owners proud. 🙂 Without them the oil burners would be the wheezing pigs they used to be.

Personally, I'd like to see Ford add a couple of cylinders to the 3.5 and make a 4.6 ecoboost. With 15# of boost it would have the sea level performance (and gas consumption) of the old 460 at any elevation while maintaining the unloaded economy of a small block.

Agreed.

[mtofell1]

At some point does the high number of gears in a tranny become an annoyance due to gear hunting? I've heard a few complaints on the Ram 8spd for this. I'm currently in a 6sp which, when I was a kid, was 3 more gears than the best tranny 🙂 10 just seems ridiculous.

[Sport45]

Fordlover wrote:
... But turbos do not an engine make...

Turbos make all the diesel owners proud. 🙂 Without them the oil burners would be the wheezing pigs they used to be.

Personally, I'd like to see Ford add a couple of cylinders to the 3.5 and make a 4.6 ecoboost. With 15# of boost it would have the sea level performance (and gas consumption) of the old 460 at any elevation while maintaining the unloaded economy of a small block.

[Fordlover]

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

mich800 wrote:

transamz9 wrote:
I think it's funny they felt the need to completely redesign a motor that is still fairly young and new and suppose to be indestructible. I like the transmission though. I would love to see a ten speed in the HD line ups with a 2 speed rear axle option.

Take a truck like my 2013 Ram. It would be the cat's meow if I could have 3.42:1 for my everyday ventures and then when I hook to my rig push a button and have 4.11:1.

Not sure why you consider making improvements on an engine that has been vehicles for over decade is funny. I would think it would be more funny or odd for a manufacturer in this technology driven age to wait for the competition to pass them and react.

The 3.5 Ecoboost has been in the F150 towing heavy loads (for a 1/2 ton series truck) for decades? Huh, new one for me. I thought it was an all new engine and technology for the F150.

🙂 Hi, I believe that he said for over a decade, which could mean eleven years. "for decades? Huh, new one for me." This engine started in the Taurus before the F-150.

It's not the same engine that was in the Taurus. Same displacement and has turbos yes but not the same.

🙂 Hi, other than having less torque, and being in a front wheel drive vehicle, what makes this a different engine? As far as I'm concerned, a few minor differences doesn't make it a different engine.

You are correct. The 3.5 had a few beefed up internals to handle the extra abuse expected in a pickup, but largely is the same engine in the Taurus. The heads flow a bit more and turbos are different. But turbos do not an engine make... As I understand it the only reason the sho was limited to 365 ft lbs was to save the driveline downstream of the engine.

[transamz9]

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

mich800 wrote:

transamz9 wrote:
I think it's funny they felt the need to completely redesign a motor that is still fairly young and new and suppose to be indestructible. I like the transmission though. I would love to see a ten speed in the HD line ups with a 2 speed rear axle option.

Take a truck like my 2013 Ram. It would be the cat's meow if I could have 3.42:1 for my everyday ventures and then when I hook to my rig push a button and have 4.11:1.

Not sure why you consider making improvements on an engine that has been vehicles for over decade is funny. I would think it would be more funny or odd for a manufacturer in this technology driven age to wait for the competition to pass them and react.

The 3.5 Ecoboost has been in the F150 towing heavy loads (for a 1/2 ton series truck) for decades? Huh, new one for me. I thought it was an all new engine and technology for the F150.

🙂 Hi, I believe that he said for over a decade, which could mean eleven years. "for decades? Huh, new one for me." This engine started in the Taurus before the F-150.

It's not the same engine that was in the Taurus. Same displacement and has turbos yes but not the same.

🙂 Hi, other than having less torque, and being in a front wheel drive vehicle, what makes this a different engine? As far as I'm concerned, a few minor differences doesn't make it a different engine.

This is what I copied from Popular Mechanics webpage:

"While it might be convenient to think that this is simply the Taurus SHO engine turned 90 degrees and dropped into the truck's cavernous engine bay, that would be completely wrong. The aluminum block is all new because it bolts to a different transmission from the front-wheel-drive applications. The engine also has stronger main bearings. Like all 2011 F-150 powertrains, the 3.5 liter is matched to Ford's six-speed automatic. Additional major differences between the engines include unique heads that feature individual cam phasers for both intake and exhaust; the fixed-geometry turbochargers flow more and produce more boost (13 psi versus 10.5 psi); the main cooling system is upgraded.

These changes enable the F-150's version of the EcoBoost to deliver:

• 365 horsepower at 5000 rpm (on regular fuel)
• 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2500 rpm (up to 90 percent of peak torque from 1700 rpm to 5000 rpm)
• 11,300 pounds maximum trailer-towing capacity "


From my own understanding the ecoboost in the F150 had to be built "stronger" for the increased duty-cycle or durability for the truck that would not be seen in the car.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

transamz9 wrote:

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

transamz9 wrote:

mich800 wrote:

transamz9 wrote:
I think it's funny they felt the need to completely redesign a motor that is still fairly young and new and suppose to be indestructible. I like the transmission though. I would love to see a ten speed in the HD line ups with a 2 speed rear axle option.

Take a truck like my 2013 Ram. It would be the cat's meow if I could have 3.42:1 for my everyday ventures and then when I hook to my rig push a button and have 4.11:1.

Not sure why you consider making improvements on an engine that has been vehicles for over decade is funny. I would think it would be more funny or odd for a manufacturer in this technology driven age to wait for the competition to pass them and react.

The 3.5 Ecoboost has been in the F150 towing heavy loads (for a 1/2 ton series truck) for decades? Huh, new one for me. I thought it was an all new engine and technology for the F150.

🙂 Hi, I believe that he said for over a decade, which could mean eleven years. "for decades? Huh, new one for me." This engine started in the Taurus before the F-150.

It's not the same engine that was in the Taurus. Same displacement and has turbos yes but not the same.

🙂 Hi, other than having less torque, and being in a front wheel drive vehicle, what makes this a different engine? As far as I'm concerned, a few minor differences doesn't make it a different engine.