88blackgt

You don't have a clue do you? It's the complete opposite of your made up "facts"

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

It makes more torque at 2500rpm than the Chevy 6.2 makes anywhere, I don't think it will have any problem keeping up with the V8s ha. I think this is a pretty good engine looking at the specs, it's hard to say how the down low torque is without driving one though.

96RamAirTA

iTrader: (6)

[QUOTE=1slow01Z71;14225169
And to all those that think Im a Ford hater I bought my wife a Lincoln Aviator[/QUOTE]


i bought my wife an aviator last year.... and i think its funny how no one mentions the dodge that was in the test to....

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Really? Are you really saying that the Ecoboost makes more torque at 2500rpm than the L92 makes overall?! Did you take the time to think that through before you posted it? FYI, the Ecoboost makes less than 250lbft at 3000rpm. The L92 beats that number all the way down to 2000RPM. At both engines' peak, the L92 is outputting damn near 100lbft more than the Ecoboost.

Stick to comparing the Ecoboost to the 5.3. Ford never intended this motor to go up against the likes of the L92, it's just not going to fare well in that arena.

texas94z

Ecoboost trucks will not sell.

Who will pass up on owning a 5.0 truck, which is nearly a grand cheaper than the Ecoboost? Gas is still affordable, then v8s are affordable. Ford lovers will pass on the Ecoboost and stick to the v8s. I still believe that Ecoboost was designed to attract new buyers to the Ford brand. So far they are not attracting the buyers as planned.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

The Ecoboost makes peak torque at 2500rpms with 420ft/lbs, that's more than the 6.2 makes ANYWHERE. This isn't the SHO we are talking about here, this ones tuned for a truck.

Here, since you are to lazy to look stuff up and prefer to pulling it out of your ***-

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09...s-durable.html

"The EcoBoost V6 is rated at 365 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque, with 90 percent of that torque available from 1700 – 5000 rpm"

So from 1700-5000rpm it is making 378-420ft/lbs, THAT is impressive, and beats out the 417ft/lbs rating for the 6.2.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I'm talking about the production version of the motor. Not the specially tuned test motor.

Furthermore, THAT engine is going to be EVEN WORSE on gas mileage than the standard production version.

This endeavor has fail written all over it at this point.

Shackleford

iTrader: (12)

They probably just made it to sell it to the green jackasses.

IZRED

That's strange, I have a 2008 GMC Sierra Crewcab and it came with 3:73 gears. I like my 3:73 gears for it's off the line get up-n-go, but the MPG suck.

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

The rear end option didnt change until 09 if you have a crew cab, and 2010 for all the others as those were the years the 60e was replaced by the 6l80e in the trucks. The 6l80e have a 4.X vs a 3.06 first gear fo the 60e so there isnt such a need for a steep rear gear.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Yes, the production version of the motor IN A CAR! That's not apples to apples, don't call out specs from a car because you think it's going to be the same as the truck. Just like your MPG figures, one is a truck the other is an AWD car, stop using that as your data.

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

Yeah because the same engine is going to get such better gas mileage in a heavier less aerodynamic vehicle

I havent been able to find an actual dyno chart of this truck ecoboost motor...

Irunelevens

They didn't make a new Bronco because they like making money. Bronco wouldn't sell enough.

vtirocz

I can't believe so many people are bashing the Ecoboost. It's putting out excellent performance numbers and will likely have much better fuel economy ratings than the V8 counterparts w/ simiilar peak ratings (although would have better torque curve, which is what matters!). Anyone bashing this technology, clearly without any data or good understanding of the benefits, will claim it has "bad turbo lag" or "worse reliability", but similar technology is used on the optional diesels and no one is complaining there.

I hope Ford puts this engine in the Mustang and that GM comes out with a similar engine.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Bottom line is that either way, it's a bad idea. IF they take the same engine that averages 17-19 mpg in a car and throw it in a truck that weighs over 1000lbs more, you're going to be looking at 15-16mpg at best. That's V8 fuel mileage in a V6...bad for sales. IF you take that engine and dump MORE FUEL into it to increase torque (as in the test motor), now you are looking at sub-15mpg...now you have a V6 that gets WORSE gas mileage than the competition's V8's. Disaster.

So what would YOU do if you were calling the shots at Ford? You're trying to introduce a V6 as a contender in a ring that's been dominated by V8's since the beginning of time. There's got to be one hell of an argument for that V6. As i'm seeing it, there's a great argument for the power of the Ecoboost, but it just doesn't deliver the level of efficiency that it needs to win the fight.

People tend to forget the end result in situations such as this. The goal is max power with good efficiency. Everyone forgets that and just thinks "wow this V6 is doing what a V8 can do". That's nothing new. It's been proven in the aftermarket over and over that you can always make a V6 perform like a V8...if you are willing to deal with the tradeoffs. It takes a given amount of fuel to make a given amount of power...period. Doesn't matter if it's done with 4, 6, or 8 cylinders.

I, for one, am not "bashing the Ecoboost". I love this engine. It just doesn't belong in a truck at this time.

Diesels are an entirely different ballgame. You can't even start to compare this V6 to a diesel simply because they both have turbos.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Again, you are talking about two different vehicles. Sure the truck is a truck not a car like the SHO, but it doesn't have the AWD to deal with. You also keep pulling up what people who only drive in stop and go traffic are getting with the SHO, not real world numbers of mixed driving. In that situation a V8 truck would be getting around 10-12 so 15-16 would still be a pretty good jump. The only time dumping more fuel into it happens is when you are going WOT, that wouldn't change average unless you are beating the **** out of it all the time. How about you wait until it's actually into production before you start bashing it with your fairy tail numbers?

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

Yeah because small midsize SUVs dont sell right? The Jeeps dont sell right? The first gen broncos dont have a cult following and arent one themost popular SUVs ever and started teh SUV craze right? You do realize the Bronco line was a precursor to the Explorer that started the huge SUV craze in the early 90s right? I know youre young but you should really do some research.
Dude you need to shut up, every post you make, makes you look more and more retarded. Boosted vehicles in town do not get good gas mileage in heavy vehicles. Heavy weight puts the engine into boost sooner, boost sucks gas. Awd sucks for gas mileage but weight and bad aerodynamics is even worse. Hell there are guys with SSS's getting 14-15 around town with a tune and exhaust. Maybe you should wait until these trucks are actually in production before you ride its nutts so hard...

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

I'm the retard? You're using the worse average you can find on an engine with a different tune in a different vehicle to compare this too, and you think an offroad only toy is going to be a good seller, but clearly I'm the retarded one right? You can't say it's going to get this much MPG based on what you think because LIKE YOU SAID, it's not in production yet. Contradict much?

SUVs don't sell like they used to, and the concept Bronco was nothing more than a toy. I don't know how anyone would think that would sell good. Here's some sales data-
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/pag...autosales.html
Twice as many cross-overs sold than all size SUVs combined, over four times more than mid-size SUVs. But sure, it would totally be a record seller because you think it looks cool.

vtirocz

I was comparing the similar technology such as direct injection and turbocharging to get the desired torque curve and fuel economy/BSFC map targets. The comments in this thread were that the turbo lag and durability are deal breakers for the ecoboost and I disagree with this.

I will bet that the BSFC map of the 3.5 ecoboost will look much better than a comparably powered NA V8. This engine belongs in trucks and also belongs in the mustang. The only reason Ford has the 5.0 in the lineup is because of public perception, not because of power/torque or fuel economy benefits over the Ecoboost.

In order to meet fuel economy and power targets in the future, I suspect all manufacturers will be going to smaller dispacement, direct injected, turbo engine platforms.

Irunelevens

Having a "cult following" is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that it's gonna sell. There is no market for a full-sized two door SUV on a truck platform.
Pretty much this.