1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

I like the fact that two non-truck guys who obviously dont know **** about them are arguing to the death of how wonderful this engine is going to be.

First things first, the Bronco wasnt touted as just an offroad vehicle, the concept looked much more stout than the actual production model. What concept doesnt? Again the Jeep sells good, and the small SUVs sell good. Its not going to sell millions of units/yr but obviously it doesnt take much volume to make it a feaseable vehicle. You think the Raptor, or the Sport Trac sales figures are that great? The Bronco wouldve been based off a current platform so it wouldnt have cost Ford a ton to develope.

Second Ive got real world experience with turbo trucks, and it just so happens that Im a moderator on the biggest performance oriented truck website on the net, I may know a thing or twelve about this subject. You want to use stats that help your point but when someone does the same thing you get pissy. Its the same engine, yes with a different calibration but you can only retune it so much and when you add in the fact that a truck weighs a 1000 pounds more and less aerodynamics than a Taurus Im sorry I just dont see where you can really figure its going to alright. Read
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539185,00.html
Youre flat our wrong about your assumptions, heres a quote from that story that caught my eye "I can't say I was too impressed with my personal average of 18 mpg in the SHO, especially since most of those miles were of the highway variety." Again I dont just read the propaganda put up by the manufacturers to base my assumptions

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Two non-truck guys? So just because our user names don't include Z71 we aren't truck guys?

The Bronco would have sold like ****, period. There was no actual production model, so how the hell can you say the concept looked much more stout?? Sure it would be a good guess that the production model would have been a lot more watered down, but that's just a guess. The small SUV's DON'T sell good, only 158k total for 2010 is not selling good.

When did you ever use real stats? You keep bringing up the SHO, and are using a review to get average MPG with, not what people are getting in the real world. What reviewer has ever got decent MPG when testing a car?

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

Reviewers=not the manufacturer, SHO=same motor, a tune isnt going to magically make a vehicle with the same engine weighing a 1000#s more and less aerodynamic get better mileage. AWD isnt a 5-6MPG hinderance, at best 2MPG.

Im done its like banging my head up against the wall, obviously you two know everything about trucks and engines and I should just shut up.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Same motor, totally different everything else. And I know the reviewers aren't the manufacturer, but neither is the EPA. Looking around, most people that own them are getting low-mid 20s with a 50/50 mix, high teens with more city and high 20s all highway.

vtirocz

Quote of the day: "Second Ive got real world experience with turbo trucks, and it just so happens that Im a moderator on the biggest performance oriented truck website on the net, I may know a thing or twelve about this subject."

You should add that to your resume!

All kidding aside, lets wait for the test reports, fuel economy studies (EPA and otherwise), and hp/torque curve to be published before bashing the new engine. I love GM V8s and their power/torque/efficiency, but also have respect for this technology and glad Ford is pursuing it. I hope GM follows.

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

Direct injection is going to change everything, but its going to be killer for us guys who like to mod since there arent any injector options available at the moment

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I told you what the SHO gets in the real world. It gets pretty close to what it is rated. 22-24mpg highway, 17-19mpg Average in mixed driving.

Here's what I see as the biggest red flag in that review...the Taurus SHO is rated 17/25mpg. The review shows the 420lbft tune version of this motor, in an F150, is projected to get 19/26mpg? If you don't realize right off the bat that that is certified physically impossible, then you don't belong in this argument. AWD does kill MPGs, but not THAT badly. Weight is the number one MPG killer, aerodynamics are right behind. Two things that the F150 loses BIG TIME to the SHO.

All arguments aside, i'm betting on 15-16mpg averages in this truck when not towing, and 12-14mpg when towing. That's right in line with what the major V8's are doing now. Which makes this endeavor a bad idea. Again, I like the motor, but it is just not cut out for a truck.

Irunelevens

All we can do is wait and see... speculation is masturbation.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

just give it time.

justin455

You feed horses, not inches. If you understand physics and how IC engines work you'll realize the ecoboost engine won't outshine V8s making similar power in MPGs. If you actually believe this you must think F1 cars get the same 30 MPG that your accord does because they have similar displacements. The ecoboost F150 WILL return mpgs around 15/20. Its not like there's ford magic involved...its simple science that has been understood (obviously not by all) for decades. Account for weight, aerodynamics, gearing, and power characteristics and you'll get a good idea of what mileage you'll get because its all been done before. Automakers can only refine designs and ideas anymore, they can't reinvent the wheel here.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

HAHA...what?! Not sure i've heard that one before!

vtirocz

Not quite. You need to look at the BSFC map of each engine being compared (which takes into account pumping losses, combustion efficiency, etc), then gage where on the map the customer will spend the majority of time (which varies based on drive cycle primarily, then gearing, aerodynamics, drivetrain losses, etc), and then you can start to compare fuel economy. Don't take my word for it though, study up on this "simple science" as you called it. It hasn't all been done before and we will see innovative technology in the near future to meet the upcoming CAFE standards.

I'll let the official performance and fuel economy #s speak for themselves once they have been tested, but if Ford did their part, I think you'll be impressed with the torque curve and fuel efficiency. Generally speaking, if you're trying to meet a given torque curve target and maximize fuel economy, smaller displacement direct injection turbo engines will be "best." But manufacturers need to consider cost, durability, customer perception among other things.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I disagree. BSFC is only useful for studying environmentally specific IC engine applications. It is not nearly as useful for consumer vehicles. You would need ALL KINDS of control data to run a BSFC test that would generate any kind of useful data, and then you would find that none of the data actually applies in the real world because of the wide range of environmental variables that exist where the engine is being used. BSFC is generally more useful for applications that involve a long-term duty cycle or electrostatic generation (since the engine is generally in a controlled environment and receiving consistent quality fuel).

IF you were ambitious enough to try a BSFC comparison involving the Ecoboost, I suspect your quest for positive results would be derailed by fuel-quality issues and the fact that the Ecoboost has to deal with exponentially higher backpressure caused by the turbines in the exhaust stream.

justin455

vtiroc- yes, we will see when the numbers start coming in, but don't be suprised when my guess shows fairly accurate. Sure small things like AF ratios, fuel atomization, and overall engine efficiencies make a big difference. But, especially given the refinement of modern engines, those differences are just a minute drop in the bucket for overall, day to day, real world mileage.
Sorry buddy, you can over analyze it all you'd like, but its generally the biggest things that make the biggest difference. Oh, and these new exciting technologies are just refinements of century old inventions...you know, move the injector here instead of there and eureka!

AronZ28

iTrader: (2)

NICE

I think the Ecoboost engine is going to be an unreliable and expensive to fix POS over the long term IMO. There are just a lot more parts to break, and if you're running at full boost any time you're working it hard, it doesn't bode well for longevity.

Now I know people will say all the big turbodiesel trucks last, but this thing is different. We're shoving a car engine into a truck, and its made for the "LIGHT DUTY", noncommerical market. I'm just saying that a lot of Japanese turbocharged gas motors have a bad rap of generally being finicky, expensive to fix, and unreliable.

4G63T in the DSM and Evo
VG30DETT in the 300ZX
Any turbochargerd Rotary
1JZ-GTE and 2JZ-GTE in the Supra

Irunelevens

Actually, many people value those engines (Rotary being the exception) for their strength, reliability, and longevity.

vtirocz

This isn't true. All manufacturers run these mapping tests (full map of speed & load) for their automotive engines and select trans/rear end gear ratios based on the data among other things. Obviously, this data is not made public. Fuel quality meets a certain spec so that the data are comparable from test to test.

The results will speak for themselves once they are available.

1slow01Z71

iTrader: (36)

Dyno testing doesnt equate to good real world results all the time. Just ask anyone who has a vehicle with a 4l60e

Element

iTrader: (5)

Ford talked all kinds of **** about their new diesel 3/4-ton and 1-ton trucks being the badasses of the bunch; said truck then got its *** soundly whipped by a GM diesel truck (in all categories) in a third-party test.

I'll wait to see what it does in real life before I make a decision on it. Ford's marketing typically doesn't live up to reality, though, so I don't expect too much.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Ok i'm confused. Isn't this just about exactly what I said? My point was that BSFC tests are not useful for real world comparisons between platforms. In very tightly controlled tests within one platform, I could certainly see useful information being obtained.

I think we are both saying the same thing here, essentially.