The engine thread.

[sportyaccordy]

How the hell could you create a balance shaft for that?

I'm no expert, but I would say the answer lies in the motions of Shakira's hips. With my gf's permission I'd gladly investigate

[MX793]

Hmmmm.... so turbocharged cars are more popular in Europe and Japan. I guess it's safe to say they don't have reliability problems with them there....

The Europeans and Japanese don't put nearly the mileage on their cars that Americans do.  The average American drives around 15,000 miles a year.  Europeans only drive 1/3 to 1/2 the number of miles.  They also don't keep their cars any longer than Americans do, the average vehicle lifespan in Europe only being around 13 years.

[MX793]

Thereafter, it was driven to Miami to pull 11,300 pounds of trailer-loaded-with-stock-cars around Homestead Raceway for 24 hours averaging over 80 MPH for the 24 hours and hitting over 95 MPH on the straights.  

Pulling a heavy trailer at relatively constant speed on flat ground does not strain the motor much more than pulling an empty trailer at the same speed.  Once moving, the weight doesn't add appreciably more resistance.  Rolling resistance, which is the only form of resistance that is weight dependent, is a very small component.  How small?  I, at a whole 145 lbs, could push a semi truck and trailer (unloaded, I'm guessing around 20,000 lbs) on flat ground and did so on several occasions when someone would drive their rig too far into our shop to permit the hood or cab to be raised.  I fail to see what this test proved or demonstrated.

[GoCougs]

Hmmmm.... so turbocharged cars are more popular in Europe and Japan. I guess it's safe to say they don't have reliability problems with them there....

You're inventing a strawman argument - no one here said there were reliability problems.

Towards the late 90s, yes, but that's primarily because of the rise(?) of the Yen that wiped out much of the profit margins afforded to the Japanese market. From 95 to 98, the RX-7/Supra/3000GT/300ZXTT all got pulled for being too expensive; Toyota embarked on its transition from quality to cost cutting, yadda yadda... the death of the turbo in the 90s was not due to problems with the hardware
If manufacturers avoid the pitfalls Audi fell into with its 2.7TT, turbo replacements are not that big of a deal. Do you plan on owning a car for 150K miles? Would you drive a car with 150K miles on it? Yes, it's a maintenance item; yes, on a car with 150K a turbo replacement can be a sizeable sum; no, a turbo failure/replacement wouldn't be the end of the world. People still bought Audi 2.7TT vehicles long after the woes became public and they still command a decent sum on the used market... and those turbos are significantly more expensive to replace than say, the turbo hanging off the side of a 4 banger or perched on top of a Subaru flat 4....

Nah, it's because those cars were very expensive and didn't sell worth a hoot which is part of my point.

Again, it's $1,000 - $3,000 problem that will be had with a N/A engine.

Not sure how it was put to bed; no concrete evidence (or even "questionable" evidence such as EPA test results) was brought up to validate said claim

The onus is on those making the claim, actually.

[Nethead]

Pulling a heavy trailer at relatively constant speed on flat ground does not strain the motor much more than pulling an empty trailer at the same speed.  Once moving, the weight doesn't add appreciably more resistance.  Rolling resistance, which is the only form of resistance that is weight dependent, is a very small component.  How small?  I, at a whole 145 lbs, could push a semi truck and trailer (unloaded, I'm guessing around 20,000 lbs) on flat ground and did so on several occasions when someone would drive their rig too far into our shop to permit the hood or cab to be raised.  I fail to see what this test proved or demonstrated.

MX793:  Well then, how about pulling 9,000 pound trailers on uphill grades in the desert?  Or does that fail to prove anything because of some other disqualifier you've not shared with us yet?  This is Motor Trend's take:

Comparison: Ford F-150 XLT vs Chevy Silverado LT vs Ram 1500 SLT
EcoBoosted F-150 has Plenty to Prove on the Davis Dam Grade
December 10, 2010 / By Mark Williams    

The Davis Dam grade in Nevada is where all of the major truck OEs come to make their trucks cry -- it's been where the majority of serious pickup truck trailer testing has been done for decades. Temperatures in this part of the desert just above Laughlin, Nevada, are usually in the triple digits. Add to that a nasty climb out of the valley for several miles and you can see how this might be a problem for an engine and transmission (not to mention a cooling system) pulling a heavy load. For many truck drivers, this is the kind situation to avoid at all costs. For Ford, in desperate need of proving the strength and durability of its new EcoBoost engine, this is where it needs to be to challenge the competition.

For those who haven't been following Ford's EcoBoost marketing plan, Ford pulled a random 3.5L V-6 EcoBoost engine off the line (#448AA), did some dyno testing (for an equivalent of 150,000 miles), then mounted it into a SuperCrew XLT for some towing (11,000 pounds for 24 hours around a NASCAR track) and hauling (26 tons of logs at an Oregon tree mill) and racing (the Baja 1000) situations. But none of those tests pitted the new engine against any of its competitors, like in this Davis Dam grade test. The testing was conducted by a third-party test crew, running a Ford F-150 SuperCrew EcoBoost against a Chevy Crew Cab Silverado 5.3L V-8 and a Ram 1500 Quad Cab 5.7L V-8. All three pulled identically equipped and weighted trailers in two different types of runs-0-60 mph from the start line, as well as a 3.5-mile full run up the course. At the same time, Ford pitchman Mike Rowe had some on-camera time with the lead F-150 engineer, Eric Keuhn, to talk about the F-150 and EcoBoost powertrains. Here's what we saw.

The runs took place on Highway 68, where the local law enforcement occasionally halted traffic so the test drivers could make clean runs up the course. On the day of the test, each truck had an identically equipped 9000-pound trailer hitched to their bumpers. Ambient temperatures hovered around 85 degrees with very little wind, so extreme heat did not come into play. In the 0-60 mph runs against the F-150, the Chevy did slightly better than the Ram off the line, but neither could keep up with the Ford. We're guessing the fact that the Ford's transmission has a lower first gear and axle ratio than the Chevy, and more gears than the Dodge, had a lot to do with that outcome. Next came 4-mile runs up the 5-, 6-, and sometimes 7-percent grade climb.

The Ford's first runs up the hill against the Chevy started out pretty close; however, as the rpms climbed in the EcoBoost, the F-150 pulled away with authority from the first mile marker, almost making it impossible to see the GM pickup in the Ford's rearview mirror. The Ram was a different story. As expected (after seeing how the Ford and Ram measured up against each other in the 0-60 test) the Ford had an easy time taking the early lead. But once the Ram got into second gear, it pulled hard, not losing any ground for the remainder of the climb. It finished behind the F-150 by a touch under 4 seconds over the three-minute course.

In the end, the tests seemed convincing, although we would have liked to see all the same ring and pinions, and some extreme heat on the hillclimb would have been nice. As to why the Chevy didn't have 3.73:1 axles, test coordinators said GM products in that body style with that engine cannot be ordered with the 3.73:1 or higher axle ratios. But we know those gears fit in those axles, and to keep this test as apples-to-apples as possible, it would have been better to have a more representative axle gear. We have a pretty good idea why GM might decide not to offer that axle ratio and, as you might have guessed, it has to do with CAF? numbers. 3.08:1 or 3.23:1 or 3.42:1 gears will do much better in EPA MPG testing than (numerically) higher gears.

Another consideration is the cooling needs of the smaller twin-turbo engine. From our vantage point, the F-150 had plenty of cool-down time between runs, as well as during the long downhill runs to the start line. It stands to reason EcoBoost longevity is likely to be effected by how often and how long the engine gets a chance to rest. Still, from what we saw, the new EcoBoost did a masterful job of schooling the larger, higher cylindered competition. We're eager to get our hands on one for some real-world testing, but we'll have to wait until the first quarter of 2011, when they're reported to start rolling off the line.

How the Vehicles Match Up

Test Results with 9000 pound trailer.

Chevy Silverado LT 4x4 Crew Cab  *  Ford F-150 XLT 4x4 SuperCrew          * Ram 1500 SLT 4x4 Quad Cab 
Vehicle Specs 
Engine  5.3L OHV V-8 16-valves    * 3.5L DOHC V-6 DI Twin-turbocharger   * 5.7L Hemi V-8 OHV 16-valve 
HP/Torque   315/335                   * 365/420                                         * 390/407 
Trans  6-speed                           * 6-speed                                         * 5-speed 
Axle ratio  3.42:1                        * 3.73:1                                           * 3.92:1 
Tire size  275/65R18                    * 275/55R20                                      * 275/60R20 
EPA MPG, city/hwy  15/21            * 19/26                                             * 13/19 
Actual Price  $38,455                   * $43,170                                         * $40,770 

0-60 mph: Ford EcoBoost beat the Chevrolet and Ram by an average of 12 seconds and an average of 14 seconds, respectively, over three consecutive head-to-head runs.

Full course run: Ford EcoBoost beat both the Chevrolet and Ram by an average of 45 seconds and an average of 3 seconds, respectively, over three consecutive head-to-head runs.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1012_ford_150_xlt_vs_chevy_silverado_lt_vs_ram_1500_slt/engine.html#ixzz17ixVjxPu

[MX793]

^

Straight line acceleration over a handful of runs in no way indicates durability or reliability of an engine, only that it makes a lot of power (or is geared to make better use of its power than other, similarly powerful engines).  The motors in a top-tier tractor-pull rigs can pull all kinds of load awfully fast, but they also need to be torn down and rebuilt every run (or maybe 2 runs) because they lack the durability to sustain that level of performance.

[FoMoJo]

^

Straight line acceleration over a handful of runs in no way indicates durability or reliability of an engine, only that it makes a lot of power (or is geared to make better use of its power than other, similarly powerful engines).  The motors in a top-tier tractor-pull rigs can pull all kinds of load awfully fast, but they also need to be torn down and rebuilt every run (or maybe 2 runs) because they lack the durability to sustain that level of performance.

That's a good point but it would be suicide for a manufacturer not to consider that.  One of the reasons that Ford brought their diesel engineering/production back inhouse.

[AutobahnSHO]

"In the end, the tests seemed convincing, although we would have liked to see all the same ring and pinions, and some extreme heat on the hillclimb would have been nice. As to why the Chevy didn't have 3.73:1 axles, test coordinators said GM products in that body style with that engine cannot be ordered with the 3.73:1 or higher axle ratios. But we know those gears fit in those axles, and to keep this test as apples-to-apples as possible, it would have been better to have a more representative axle gear. We have a pretty good idea why GM might decide not to offer that axle ratio and, as you might have guessed, it has to do with CAF? numbers. 3.08:1 or 3.23:1 or 3.42:1 gears will do much better in EPA MPG testing than (numerically) higher gears. "

I can see their statement, but that's a dumb point.
There's no point in testing "apples to apples" if Chevy won't let you buy anything but an orange.

[Nethead]

Oldsmobile 350cid Diesel = PURE AWESOMENESS

Discuss!

They don't make Oldsmobiles anymore.  The POS 350 CID diesel is where the descent into extinction began.

[FoMoJo]

Well, granted, it can be subjective. Factory stock IMO it was WAY over valved and over carb'd; anything less than 4.30 and those cars; from the first gen Z-28, to Boss 302 or 351; would struggle to break the 15.0 sec 1/4 mile barrier - IOW, they'd be looking at modern Camry V6 tail lights without unstreetable 4.30 rear axle gears.

The Boss 302, as well as Z-28s, were legends as 'road racing' cars in their time.  Granted, they weren't ideal for piddling around in rush-hour traffic but on an open road with lots of twisties, they were perfect.  If you wanted to street race, you'd get the 428 CJ with 'Drag Pack' 4.30 gears and Detroit Locker.  Good for 13s all day.

Opps, a bit of a mistake there. It's not the reciprocating weight that matters. It's the acceleration of the piston that matters (= greater force = greater stress). Guess what is the primarily determinant of that? Yep. Rod length, or more appropriately, what is called rod ratio, which is the ratio of rod length to stroke. Basically, the lower the ratio greater the maximum the rod angle, and the greater the acceleration of the piston which equals greater stresses. See table 3 at this link. Summarized is stroke vs. rod length and corresponding max rod angle and max piston acceleration. As rod length increases, piston acceleration decreases. Owing to a shorter rod and longer stroke the 428 will experience greater piston acceleration:

Good article.  Did you read it?  It pertains to high revving competition engines.  It's more about determining the optimal ratio.  Reciprocating mass (weight) is definately important; needs a bigger bang to move it.  Stress is managed by stronger materials.  That's why the "Super"CJ, with "Drag Pack" has a more durable reciprocating assembly as it will be, likely, turning higher revs.

440: 6.76" rod/3.75" stroke = 1.80
428: 6.5" rod/3.98" stroke = 1.63

A longer stroke definately produces better low-end torque.  This has been know for decades.

And apropos to the demise of the FE, when Ford finally got around to replacing it with the 385, guess what the new rod ratio was, now wait for it...:

429: 6.61" rod/3.6" stroke = 1.83

Ford perfectly knew that a higher rod ratio was better, and why the designed the 385 so. The 428 was a compromise engine - Ford needed big cubes in a hurry and had no choice but to greatly increase the FE stroke. The block wouldn't take a bigger bore very well and the low deck height wouldn't take a longer rod.

Ford perfectly knew that the FE displacement limitation had been reached.  As stated previously, it was a thin-wall casting to save weight (and materials).  The 427 was the limit and was not casted in a "production" environment.  The 428, reduced the bore and increased the stroke and, therefore, was able to be mass-produced as casting tolerences were less critical. 

The "385" series engines were born in the throws of competition (horsepower wars) when it was seen that displacement was the cheapest way to get bigger horsepower.  Therefore, they had to come up with a bigger engine as Chevy now had its 454s; similar to when the "Y" blocks had reached their displacement limitions and were replaced by the FE series.

It is a myth that stroke contributes to power band. Both the 3,500 rpm GM Duramax diesel (4.06" x 3.90") and 8,000 rpm Honda S2000 (3.35" x 3.21") feature virtually identical bore/stroke ratios. What matters is rod ratio, and cam and head design, primarily.

Once again, it has been know for decades that a longer stroke contributes to low-end torque.  Bear in mind that virtually all modern diesels are turbo-charged.

Well first, I hate to be a stickler, but it's not exactly a muscle car. And it was so rare color me unconvinced as to the widespread knowledge of it at the time. Betcha an impromptu poll would find a big block Buick or Olds intermediate to be the more/most underrated.

Not for those who know.

No, at least from the factory, both the 440 Magnum and Sick Pack featured the exact same cam throughout their entire run. Again, coming back to superior power band. The Mopar big block ran less duration and less lift to make equivalent or better power at a lower RPM, which is a much better power band for street use. This was accomplished through the steeper ramp on the cam lobe and superior rod ratio.

Once again, longer stroke made better low-end torque; all else being equal.

Of Chevy, Ford and Mopar big blocks, it was the only engine with shaft-mounted rockers.

Let's see your proof of that.

Oops, something else I guess you didn't know. Mopar designed the intake manifold such that there was an air gap under the carb plenum and intake runners. This let (relatively) cooler air cool somewhat the A/F mixture. Here, you can slide your hand completely underneath the carb from front to back (440 Magnum pictured):

You mean like the 427 medium and high-riser heads/manifolds that NASCAR banned from competing against the Hemi?

Nah, it's a myth that racing is backfed into manufacturer's retail products. That's what they say to sell cars (remember, "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" you championed?). Race technologies; cams, heads, carbs, etc., simply are not fit for street use.

Many of the 427 race-bred technologies were fed back to the production FE engines; heads, intake manifold, etc.  Can't imagine many of the Hemi race-bred technologies were fed back to the B/RB engines.

Sorry, the FE had too many inherent detriments to keep pace with the Mopar B/RB and Chevy big block, and why Ford replaced it in '69. Again, you have real issues explaining why the FE was dumped in '68.

Face it man.  The 428CJ was more than a match for anything on the street back then.  It had reached its displacement limitations and the series "385" was developed; only to see the horsepower wars go down in flames because of the energy crisis. 

[GoCougs]

The Boss 302, as well as Z-28s, were legends as 'road racing' cars in their time.  Granted, they weren't ideal for piddling around in rush-hour traffic but on an open road with lots of twisties, they were perfect.  If you wanted to street race, you'd get the 428 CJ with 'Drag Pack' 4.30 gears and Detroit Locker.  Good for 13s all day.

Sure, they were meant as Trans Am racers. You'd never see 13 sec 1/4 miles in those cars though.

Lots of other big block cars could run 13s all day without suffering the abject unstreetabilty of 4.30 gears and still have a top speed of 120+ mph.

Good article.  Did you read it?  It pertains to high revving competition engines.  It's more about determining the optimal ratio.  Reciprocating mass (weight) is definately important; needs a bigger bang to move it.  Stress is managed by stronger materials.  That's why the "Super"CJ, with "Drag Pack" has a more durable reciprocating assembly as it will be, likely, turning higher revs.

The optimal ratio for superior power band and durability. Again, weight isn't the issue, it's force - weight just sitting there does not impart a force. It's when it is accelerated or decelerated that is the issue; a small weight accelerated very quickly can result in a high imparted force where as a moderate weight accelerated only moderately can result in a moderate imparted force. A lower rod ratio results not only in great acceleration but a larger max rod angle importing more side loads onto cylinder walls. You will see that today engines have higher rod ratios than in the days of old.

A longer stroke definately produces better low-end torque.  This has been know for decades.

Again, a misnomer. Lots of long stroke engines are high RPM screamers. One of the relatively longest stroke engines made today is the also one of the highest revving: Lambo V10: 5.0 V10 - 3.25" ? 3.65". What you will find is this engine will have a monster rod length. There is virtually zero correlation between stroke and torque. Feel free to Google just about any modern engine you can think of; low RPM, medium RPM, and high RPM; you'll find virtually zero correlation between bore x stroke vs. power band.

The "more stroke = more torque" misnomer got traction from experiments exactly like the 428. Sure, take a 390 and do nothing but increase the stroke and torque increases and the power band moves down. The increased torque comes from the increased displacement and the power band moving down comes from a decreases rod/stroke ratio. However increase rod length and install a hotter cam and bigger heads and THEN increase displacement and torque will theoretically stay the same and move up in the RPM range.

Nowadays automakers are infinitely more capable at designing the engine from a holistic perspective; no automaker today will do what was done with the 428 by just adding stroke and doing nothing else - to get more displacement in the same engine block stroke, rod length, cam, heads, etc., will ALL be addressed to get the desired torque curve.

Ford perfectly knew that the FE displacement limitation had been reached.  As stated previously, it was a thin-wall casting to save weight (and materials).  The 427 was the limit and was not casted in a "production" environment.  The 428, reduced the bore and increased the stroke and, therefore, was able to be mass-produced as casting tolerences were less critical. 

Yes, I understand.

The "385" series engines were born in the throws of competition (horsepower wars) when it was seen that displacement was the cheapest way to get bigger horsepower.  Therefore, they had to come up with a bigger engine as Chevy now had its 454s; similar to when the "Y" blocks had reached their displacement limitions and were replaced by the FE series.
Once again, it has been know for decades that a longer stroke contributes to low-end torque.  Bear in mind that virtually all modern diesels are turbo-charged.

Yes, the FE couldn't hold the line, but not only in its moderate lack of displacement.

Not for those who know.

I'd take that bet, but we'll never know.

Let's see your proof of that.

Proof is pretty easy - Google the heads of the engines under discussion. Only one will have shaft-mounted rockers - the Chrysler B/RB.

You mean like the 427 medium and high-riser heads/manifolds that NASCAR banned from competing against the Hemi?

Nah, that's not the same - aftermarket manifolds of that type have been around a long time. The issue there is it's such a tall piece the "air gap" is a matter of manufacturing compromise to cut down on weight. It was also one piece which transferred the entire head load from the hot oil from the lifter valley. The Chrysler riser manifold was actually TWO pieces. There was a separate pan that covered the lifer valley. This pan was not bolted to the manifold proper, preventing the heat transfer from the lifter valley oil bath. So in short, the two are completely different pieces, with the air gap being of a different genesis.

Many of the 427 race-bred technologies were fed back to the production FE engines; heads, intake manifold, etc.  Can't imagine many of the Hemi race-bred technologies were fed back to the B/RB engines.

Again, "race-bred" technologies have no business on the street, most certainly in the context of 1960s technology (where "race" simply meant bigger carbs, valves, heads, etc., which were lousy on the street).

Face it man.  The 428CJ was more than a match for anything on the street back then.  It had reached its displacement limitations and the series "385" was developed; only to see the horsepower wars go down in flames because of the energy crisis. 

I never said it wasn't a good engine. The FE just wasn't as good as either the Chevy big block or Chrysler B/RB.

Beyond that I'm not sure what else can be said. When it came to go NASCAR and drag racing Dodge built a race-dedicated motor from the ground up, ergo, changing NASCAR and drag racing forever.

When it came to developing engine platforms both Dodge and Chevy settled on one big block and one small block family each and ran with it, greatly focusing their resources. Throughout the '60s and '70s Ford had two big block (FE, 385) and 2.5 small block (Windsor, 335 + M) families. And it showed, with Ford being at best third fiddle to both Chevy and Mopar when it came to engines.

[Cobra93]

Proof is pretty easy - Google the heads of the engines under discussion. Only one will have shaft-mounted rockers - the Chrysler B/RB.

Oddly enough, your original post doesn't show up, but if the Ford FE series was one of the engines under discussion, it also has shaft mounted rockers.

[ChrisV]

Yes, I pretty much agree with all that save for Ford only having to maintain status quo. The Escort, Ranger, Explorer, Mustang and Taurus all once upon a time absolutely dominated their segments but now none of them do. It wasn't necessarily engines that sunk these marques but Ford got caught looking as it were being happy with "good enough."

Here's a quote that really pioints out the myopic idiocy with anthropomohizing a corporation as an individual. Ford has been run by numerous people and committees over the years. The time period you talk about it was run by Jaques Nasser who didn't really care about the Ford car lines and instead concentrated on reducing the bottom line (make everything cheaper) in order to buy up "premium" foreign car manufacturers, sending 2 billion dollars to Jaguar that could have improved domestic products. Not saying it isn't good for Jaguar and the world that the marque was both saved an improved, but it was one man's dream to do so and the rest of the company felt the pinch until the Ford family stepped in and put a stop to it.

So saying Ford under Alan Mulally will act one way because Ford under Jaques Nasser did is a logic fail.

[FoMoJo]

Sure, they were meant as Trans Am racers. You'd never see 13 sec 1/4 miles in those cars though.

Depends on your preference.  If you wanted to street race, get the drag pack (4.30 gears with Detroit Locker).  Do you understand the concept?  However, if you were a serious street racer you'd get a big-block with locker and high ratio differential.

Lots of other big block cars could run 13s all day without suffering the abject unstreetabilty of 4.30 gears and still have a top speed of 120+ mph.

If you were a serious street racer or week-end track rat, you'd have either 4.11, 4.30 or 4.56 gears.  Guys with big blocks and high gears that street raced were suckers.

The optimal ratio for superior power band and durability. Again, weight isn't the issue, it's force - weight just sitting there does not impart a force. It's when it is accelerated or decelerated that is the issue; a small weight accelerated very quickly can result in a high imparted force where as a moderate weight accelerated only moderately can result in a moderate imparted force. A lower rod ratio results not only in great acceleration but a larger max rod angle importing more side loads onto cylinder walls. You will see that today engines have higher rod ratios than in the days of old.

Weight just sitting there does not impart a force?  If course not.  You need an explosion.  However, a heavier weight requires a larger explosion which is why a lighter reciprocating mass is desireable; if you want to go fast.  There are a number of dynamics associated with rod length/stroke ratio and if you read the article carefully, you'll see the advantages of a lower rod ratio (shorter rod).

Again, a misnomer. Lots of long stroke engines are high RPM screamers. One of the relatively longest stroke engines made today is the also one of the highest revving: Lambo V10: 5.0 V10 - 3.25" ? 3.65". What you will find is this engine will have a monster rod length. There is virtually zero correlation between stroke and torque. Feel free to Google just about any modern engine you can think of; low RPM, medium RPM, and high RPM; you'll find virtually zero correlation between bore x stroke vs. power band.

The "more stroke = more torque" misnomer got traction from experiments exactly like the 428. Sure, take a 390 and do nothing but increase the stroke and torque increases and the power band moves down. The increased torque comes from the increased displacement and the power band moving down comes from a decreases rod/stroke ratio. However increase rod length and install a hotter cam and bigger heads and THEN increase displacement and torque will theoretically stay the same and move up in the RPM range.

Nowadays automakers are infinitely more capable at designing the engine from a holistic perspective; no automaker today will do what was done with the 428 by just adding stroke and doing nothing else - to get more displacement in the same engine block stroke, rod length, cam, heads, etc., will ALL be addressed to get the desired torque curve.

You're talking through your hat man; especially if you think that the "what was done with the 428 by just adding stroke and doing nothing else".  If you had any knowledge of that motor, you would know that much more was done than just having a smaller bore and longer stroke.

Proof is pretty easy - Google the heads of the engines under discussion. Only one will have shaft-mounted rockers - the Chrysler B/RB.

Perhaps you are not reading beyond your MOPAR findings.  If you search properly, you'll find that the old Cadillic 331 (1949) as well as the Oldsmobile "Rocket" (1949) had shaft-mounted rockers as well as the Ford FE and MEL engines (1958).  Some engines didn't as the rockers were staggered.

Nah, that's not the same - aftermarket manifolds of that type have been around a long time. The issue there is it's such a tall piece the "air gap" is a matter of manufacturing compromise to cut down on weight. It was also one piece which transferred the entire head load from the hot oil from the lifter valley. The Chrysler riser manifold was actually TWO pieces. There was a separate pan that covered the lifer valley. This pan was not bolted to the manifold proper, preventing the heat transfer from the lifter valley oil bath. So in short, the two are completely different pieces, with the air gap being of a different genesis.

The "low-riser", "medium-riser" and "high-riser" head/manifolds were stock parts.  It was more to do with the length and direction of the fuel mixture path.

Again, "race-bred" technologies have no business on the street, most certainly in the context of 1960s technology (where "race" simply meant bigger carbs, valves, heads, etc., which were lousy on the street).

If that's your knowledge of "race-bred" technologies you have much to learn.

I never said it wasn't a good engine. The FE just wasn't as good as either the Chevy big block or Chrysler B/RB.

They were all decent engines that evolved over the decade.  As Ford had a much more far reaching racing programme, their technologies developed at a faster pace.  By the time the "335" and "385" series came out, they were at least a couple of steps ahead of the competition.

Beyond that I'm not sure what else can be said. When it came to go NASCAR and drag racing Dodge built a race-dedicated motor from the ground up, ergo, changing NASCAR and drag racing forever.

The FE, when it came out in '58, was designed with racing in mind.  It obliterated the 426 RB "Max Wedge" on the track and, ultimately, did the same to the Hemi; even though NASCAR disallowed the higher technology FE 427s.

When it came to developing engine platforms both Dodge and Chevy settled on one big block and one small block family each and ran with it, greatly focusing their resources. Throughout the '60s and '70s Ford had two big block (FE, 385) and 2.5 small block (Windsor, 335 + M) families. And it showed, with Ford being at best third fiddle to both Chevy and Mopar when it came to engines.

That's simply hillarious . 

Ford's FE series came out in '58 to compete with Chryslers B and RB big-blocks; also arriving in '58.  When Chrysler saw that their engines were getting blown off the track by both the Fords and Chevys - Chevy did well at NASCAR with their Pontiacs - Chrysler resorted to introducing their elephantine "Hemi".  Ford upped the stakes by innovative 'go fast' technologies on their FE 427; that were ultimately banned by NASCAR when Chrysler couldn't keep up anymore.  Chrysler eventually went to aero and wing technologies to try and get an edge.  Just as things were getting interesting again, all the manufacturers pulled the plug due to the energy crisis.  The "385" series was meant to replace the FE as the FE had reached its displacement limit with the 427.  Sadly, it never saw its day on the track and saw duty only as strangled monsters lurking beneath the hoods of pedestrian Fords, Lincolns, Thunderbirds and Mercurys; except for the glorious few that wear the "Boss" signature and still rule the musclecar wars against all pretenders whose reputations were built on folklore.

As for GM, they had big-blocks coming out of their wazoos; at least one for each of their model lines and sometimes more.  They did well until '62 but then gave up when the going got too tough; mainly from the FE 427 and, to a degree, from the Hemi.  Their big problem was that their bottom end was vulnerable.  Up the power and it blew out.  At least Chrysler followed Ford's lead with deep skirted blocks and cross-bolted mains.  It took GM a while to catch on.

[GoCougs]

Depends on your preference.  If you wanted to street race, get the drag pack (4.30 gears with Detroit Locker).  Do you understand the concept?  However, if you were a serious street racer you'd get a big-block with locker and high ratio differential.[/url]

The implication in my comment was a car that needs only 3.73 to run 13s will likely break into the 12s with 4.30. Meaning, it will likely best the car that needs 4.30 to break into the 13s.

If you were a serious street racer or week-end track rat, you'd have either 4.11, 4.30 or 4.56 gears.  Guys with big blocks and high gears that street raced were suckers.

Sure, you did, but again, reference the previous statement regarding relativity.

Weight just sitting there does not impart a force?  If course not.  You need an explosion.  However, a heavier weight requires a larger explosion which is why a lighter reciprocating mass is desireable; if you want to go fast.  There are a number of dynamics associated with rod length/stroke ratio and if you read the article carefully, you'll see the advantages of a lower rod ratio (shorter rod).

That's all false. Again, Google rod/stroke ratios of just about any engine today - you'll find rods are MUCH longer today than in those days for EXACTLY the reason why Ford upped the rod/stroke ratio when replacing the FE.

You're talking through your hat man; especially if you think that the "what was done with the 428 by just adding stroke and doing nothing else".  If you had any knowledge of that motor, you would know that much more was done than just having a smaller bore and longer stroke.

Regarding performance attributes, the 428 had the same cam and heads as the 4bbl 390. (I was not talking of the 428 CJ.)

Perhaps you are not reading beyond your MOPAR findings.  If you search properly, you'll find that the old Cadillic 331 (1949) as well as the Oldsmobile "Rocket" (1949) had shaft-mounted rockers as well as the Ford FE and MEL engines (1958).  Some engines didn't as the rockers were staggered.

I already knew about the Caddy and Olds but they weren't in the discussion. The newer Caddy motors used shaft-mounted rockers as well. I was indeed mistaken on the FE however.

The "low-riser", "medium-riser" and "high-riser" head/manifolds were stock parts.  It was more to do with the length and direction of the fuel mixture path.

Sure; a completely different design intent as I had stated.

If that's your knowledge of "race-bred" technologies you have much to learn.

Again, prove me wrong.

They were all decent engines that evolved over the decade.  As Ford had a much more far reaching racing programme, their technologies developed at a faster pace.  By the time the "335" and "385" series came out, they were at least a couple of steps ahead of the competition.

Sure they were decent. They just weren't as good overall as the Chevy and Mopar engines. The 385 was relatively the better motor than the Cleveland/M motor; and precisely why Ford dumped the C/M after such little time production in favor of staying with the more proven Windsor.

The FE, when it came out in '58, was designed with racing in mind.  It obliterated the 426 RB "Max Wedge" on the track and, ultimately, did the same to the Hemi; even though NASCAR disallowed the higher technology FE 427s.

The FE was designed as a led sled motor (Ford Edsel). The 413 and 426 Max Wedge, and Chevy 409, were better performers from the factory. The 426 Hemi was a better race motor than on all accounts than the 427 FE.

That's simply hillarious .  

Ford's FE series came out in '58 to compete with Chryslers B and RB big-blocks; also arriving in '58.  When Chrysler saw that their engines were getting blown off the track by both the Fords and Chevys - Chevy did well at NASCAR with their Pontiacs - Chrysler resorted to introducing their elephantine "Hemi".  Ford upped the stakes by innovative 'go fast' technologies on their FE 427; that were ultimately banned by NASCAR when Chrysler couldn't keep up anymore.  Chrysler eventually went to aero and wing technologies to try and get an edge.  Just as things were getting interesting again, all the manufacturers pulled the plug due to the energy crisis.  The "385" series was meant to replace the FE as the FE had reached its displacement limit with the 427.  Sadly, it never saw its day on the track and saw duty only as strangled monsters lurking beneath the hoods of pedestrian Fords, Lincolns, Thunderbirds and Mercurys; except for the glorious few that wear the "Boss" signature and still rule the musclecar wars against all pretenders whose reputations were built on folklore.

As for GM, they had big-blocks coming out of their wazoos; at least one for each of their model lines and sometimes more.  They did well until '62 but then gave up when the going got too tough; mainly from the FE 427 and, to a degree, from the Hemi.  Their big problem was that their bottom end was vulnerable.  Up the power and it blew out.  At least Chrysler followed Ford's lead with deep skirted blocks and cross-bolted mains.  It took GM a while to catch on.

 The chronic error in your logic IMO is forcing "racing" to be this be-all and end-all. Sorry, it wasn't. Even the undisputed favorite, most powerful, and overall "best" (though not very streetable) motor of the era, the 426 Hemi, wasn't much of a cash cow to Chrysler. It simply wasn't very usable on the street. Its "race technologies" were more or less useless to Chrysler's bottom line and to its street products.

Again, there's not much more I can say. Ford played third fiddle to Chevy and Mopar when it came to engines as discussed ad naseum. Had Ford adopted a more focused strategy as did Chevy and Mopar maybe things would have been different. Heck, even when Ford did focus (as with the Modulars) it STILL had issues. The V10 was a monster but man the 4.6L and 5.4L just didn't cut it.  And now, finally in 2011, with the new 5.0L and 6.2L V8s, things are looking the best for Ford engine-wise since the days of the Flathead.

[FoMoJo]

The implication in my comment was a car that needs only 3.73 to run 13s will likely break into the 12s with 4.30. Meaning, it will likely best the car that needs 4.30 to break into the 13s.

Providing it didn't spew its guts all over the strip or pop a couple of push-rods through the valve cover.

That's all false. Again, Google rod/stroke ratios of just about any engine today - you'll find rods are MUCH longer today than in those days for EXACTLY the reason why Ford upped the rod/stroke ratio when replacing the FE.

The original discussion concerned a bore/stroke ratio not a rod length/stroke ratio as in; with its longer stroke, the 428 CJ produced better low-end torque.  I'm not sure why you brought up rod length/stroke ratio other than that you discovered that the RB engine had a longer rod .  Concerning long stroke/torque, this reference...The old adage that a long stroke is good for torque is true. The longer the stroke, the more offset the crankshaft pin has from the centerline of the crankshaft. This means the connecting rod can exert more leverage to turn the crank as the piston descends on the power stroke...explains why a longer stroke (bore/stroke ratio) produces better torque than a shorter stroke (bore/stroke ratio) engine of similar displacement.  Better leverage.

Regarding performance attributes, the 428 had the same cam and heads as the 4bbl 390. (I was not talking of the 428 CJ.)

The pedestrian 428 was not a performance engine.  We were comparing the 440 Magnum to the 428 CJ.  The CJ had special heads (larger ports) and a tougher bottom end.

I already knew about the Caddy and Olds but they weren't in the discussion. The newer Caddy motors used shaft-mounted rockers as well. I was indeed mistaken on the FE however.

Then why are you so opposed to an engine series that you know so little about?

Sure; a completely different design intent as I had stated.

Still a street engine albeit passed down from race-bred technology.

Again, prove me wrong.

I don't have to.  You are proving yourself wrong by making incorrect assertions about the FE engine as well as the Windsor and the "335" series.

Sure they were decent. They just weren't as good overall as the Chevy and Mopar engines. The 385 was relatively the better motor than the Cleveland/M motor; and precisely why Ford dumped the C/M after such little time production in favor of staying with the more proven Windsor.

Any Chevy or MOPAR fan might make the same assertion if they had little knowledge of the engines.  Once again, you are making comments about engines which you have proven you have little knowledge of.  It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

The FE was designed as a led sled motor (Ford Edsel). The 413 and 426 Max Wedge, and Chevy 409, were better performers from the factory. The 426 Hemi was a better race motor than on all accounts than the 427 FE.

Once again, conjecture.  The results of the competitions prove otherwise.

  The chronic error in your logic IMO is forcing "racing" to be this be-all and end-all. Sorry, it wasn't. Even the undisputed favorite, most powerful, and overall "best" (though not very streetable) motor of the era, the 426 Hemi, wasn't much of a cash cow to Chrysler. It simply wasn't very usable on the street. Its "race technologies" were more or less useless to Chrysler's bottom line and to its street products.

Again, there's not much more I can say. Ford played third fiddle to Chevy and Mopar when it came to engines as discussed ad naseum. Had Ford adopted a more focused strategy as did Chevy and Mopar maybe things would have been different. Heck, even when Ford did focus (as with the Modulars) it STILL had issues. The V10 was a monster but man the 4.6L and 5.4L just didn't cut it.   And now, finally in 2011, with the new 5.0L and 6.2L V8s, things are looking the best for Ford engine-wise since the days of the Flathead.

Ad naseum is right.  You have factual information presented to you and you still repeat the same old fallacies.  You're like a broken record.

Of course, the Modular V8 and the Duratec V6 are other success stories for Ford; for not only refined pedestrian use but for the race track as well.  There are many stories about them that you likely don't know about; based on your lack of knowledge of other engines.  We can have a long discussion about them as well.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to go back to the beginning of the OVH V8 era and discuss the advantages that the Lincoln and Ford Y-blocks had over the competition of the era; Cadillac, Olds "Rocket" and the Fire/Power, etc. domes from Chrysler.  That the Lincoln Y-blocks ruled the PanAmerican race in that era should be proof enough of their superior design to most but I expect you'll argue about it.

[sportyaccordy]

[omicron]

I'm rather enjoying the discussion, too. Keep it up, gentlemen!

[GoCougs]

Providing it didn't spew its guts all over the strip or pop a couple of push-rods through the valve cover.

And why would it?

The original discussion concerned a bore/stroke ratio not a rod length/stroke ratio as in; with its longer stroke, the 428 CJ produced better low-end torque.  I'm not sure why you brought up rod length/stroke ratio other than that you discovered that the RB engine had a longer rod .  Concerning long stroke/torque, this reference...The old adage that a long stroke is good for torque is true. The longer the stroke, the more offset the crankshaft pin has from the centerline of the crankshaft. This means the connecting rod can exert more leverage to turn the crank as the piston descends on the power stroke...explains why a longer stroke (bore/stroke ratio) produces better torque than a shorter stroke (bore/stroke ratio) engine of similar displacement.  Better leverage.

Sorry, that's just not true. Basic thermodynamics tells us displacement and volumetric efficiency is your deciding factor on the amount of torque produced. WHERE that torque occurs is a practical function of the induction system and to a lesser extent rod/stroke ratio. Again Google just about any engine you'd and you'll not find a relationship between stroke and peak torque - the Lambo V10 is no better an example.

As to the two engines under discussion, with its longer stroke the 428 CJ produced less torque and had a higher RPM power band even whilst having a much longer stroke than the 440:

428 CJ
335 hp @ 5,200 RPM
445 lb-ft @ 3,400 RPM

440 Magnum
375 hp @ 4,600 RPM
480 lb-ft @ 3,200 RPM

As to the issue in general, more examples showing approximately equivalent displacement and states of tune (i.e., peak hp) yet no relation between peak torque nor the RPM it is produced, nor stroke length:

Engine, peak torque @ RPM, bore x stoke:

M-B 5.5L V8: 391 lb-ft @ 2,800 RPM, 3.9" x 3.6"
Dodge 5.7L V8: ~400 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm, 3.92" x 3.58"
GM 6.0 LS2: 400 lb-ft @ 4,400 RPM, 4.0" x 3.62"
Toyota 5.7L V8: 401 lb-ft @ 3,600 RPM, 3.70" x 4.02"
Nissan 5.6L: 417 lb-ft @ 4,400 RPM, 3.9" x 3.6"

The pedestrian 428 was not a performance engine.  We were comparing the 440 Magnum to the 428 CJ.  The CJ had special heads (larger ports) and a tougher bottom end.

Okay, far enough, but only the 428 SCJ had the tougher bottom end. The 428 CJ only had the heads.

Then why are you so opposed to an engine series that you know so little about?
Still a street engine albeit passed down from race-bred technology.
I don't have to.  You are proving yourself wrong by making incorrect assertions about the FE engine as well as the Windsor and the "335" series.
Any Chevy or MOPAR fan might make the same assertion if they had little knowledge of the engines.  Once again, you are making comments about engines which you have proven you have little knowledge of.  It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.
Once again, conjecture.  The results of the competitions prove otherwise.

I'm gonna have to lump these all together. Sure I know what I'm talking about. The FE has limitations in deck height and otherwise as origins as a led sled motor. The Windsor had limitation in the heads (too small). The Cleveland and M had limitations in the heads (too large). Ford in general had too many engine platforms to focus.

Ad naseum is right.  You have factual information presented to you and you still repeat the same old fallacies.  You're like a broken record.

Of course, the Modular V8 and the Duratec V6 are other success stories for Ford; for not only refined pedestrian use but for the race track as well.  There are many stories about them that you likely don't know about; based on your lack of knowledge of other engines.  We can have a long discussion about them as well.  Also, it wouldn't hurt to go back to the beginning of the OVH V8 era and discuss the advantages that the Lincoln and Ford Y-blocks had over the competition of the era; Cadillac, Olds "Rocket" and the Fire/Power, etc. domes from Chrysler.  That the Lincoln Y-blocks ruled the PanAmerican race in that era should be proof enough of their superior design to most but I expect you'll argue about it.

Sorry, the V8 Modular just wasn't as good as GM's pooprod V8 motors. It should have been better - pooprod motors are inherently limited as discussed ad naseum elsewhere. I think you take the criticism as a personal insult, and presume that by a person saying thing 1 is better than thing 2 is equivalent to saying thing 2 is a bad. That's not my intent here. Just as I don't think you can ever prove the FE and Windsor motors were as good as GM and Mopar engines of the same era, I don't think you'll ever prove the Modular was as good or better than GM's LT/LS/Vortec engines.

[Nethead]

The F-150 3.5L EcoBoost V6 that pulled a trailerload of stockcars at over 80 MPH around Homestead Raceway for 24 hours, dragged logs uphill in Oregon, outpulled GM & Ram V8s on a hillclimb in Nevada, and then ran the Baja 1000 has now been torn down for inspection at the North American International Automobile Show to see how much wear occurred where.  This stinkin' browser can't copy the excellent photos, but here's the text:

PickupTrucks:  What the Inside of a Tortured Ford EcoBoost V-6 Looks Like
Posted by Mike Levine | January 16, 2011

Photos and Words by Jim McCraw

Ford Motor Co. made some history over the weekend when it did a complete engine tear-down and inspection of a "torture tested" 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V-6 used in the latest F-150 at the 2011 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

Auto shows, like NAIAS, typically showcase the latest metal in fancy displays bathed in brilliant lights and staffed with beautiful spokesmodels. They?re about as far as you can get from the garages that all cars and trucks will eventually require a visit to for service and maintenance. But for an hour Saturday, Ford turned part of its spotless blue and white display space inside Detroit?s Cobo Hall into a service bay for the last chapter of the F-150 EcoBoost torture test.

(Photo caption: The front of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 prior to the start of the teardown in front of an estimated audience of more than 1,000 people at the 2011 Detroit auto show.)

In case you?re one of the three or four people who haven?t been following the F-150 EcoBoost torture test story online, here?s a recap:

A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford?s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

(Photo caption: The front engine cover, intake manifold and heads are removed from the engine to expose the valvetrain.)

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty?s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy?s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

(Photo caption: A close-up photo of three pistons still inside their cylinders. Note the carbon buildup on the piston crowns.)

McCarthy said the engine?s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.

A leakdown test was performed to measure how well the engine?s 24 intake and exhaust valves and piston rings were still able to seal the cylinders. One cylinder was found to have a cautionary 13 percent air loss past the combustion chamber?s seals, while all other cylinders were acceptable with single digits of air leakage.

(Photo caption: Pistons and crankshaft displayed on a parts table.)

Oil pressure at idle on the dyno was normal, in the mid-40 psi range.

After the dyno, engine 448AA, which had never been opened or inspected, was shipped to the Detroit auto show where, on Saturday, it was torn down for inspection in front of a live audience of more than a thousand Ford engine enthusiasts and their families.

The teardown was narrated for the audience by Jim Mazuchowski, Ford?s chief engineer for V-6 engines. Powertrain engineer Phil Fabien explained the advantages of things like turbocharging, direct fuel injection and twin independent variable cam timing while engine technicians Chris Brown on the right bank and Chris Rahill on the left bank took the engine apart using a pair of air wrenches and hand tools.

(Photo caption: The engine's four camshafts - two per cylinder bank to control intake and exhaust valve timing.)

As they went, the engine parts were laid out on three huge tables so that when the tear-down was complete, the engineers and the audience could take a closer look. During the tear-down, engineers Steve Matera, Kirk Sheffer and Jeanne Wei organized the parts and made some key measurements.

Valve lash, which measures valvetrain clearance between the camshafts and valves, was checked at 0.17 mm on the intakes and 0.38 mm on the exhausts. That?s well within normal range for both, according to Ford. Crankshaft end play was measured at 0.12 mm, also acceptable.

The timing chain, which controls valve timing and synchronizes engine operation, was still within normal tolerances. With age, a timing belt loses tension, and a hydraulically operated timing chain tensioner is used to compensate for slack. The tensioner has 10 teeth that work like a ratchet to maintain tension. The EcoBoost V-6 used three teeth, well within the timing chain?s operating specs.

(Photo: Exhaust side view of one of the engine's two turbo assemblies.)

We didn?t get a photo of the valves, but they had carbon deposits similar to that found (and seen in pictures) on piston combustion surfaces.

Visual inspection of the cylinder heads, twin turbos, piston crowns, ring lands, rod bearings and cylinder bores by the engineers and your correspondent showed no major signs of anomalous wear after 163,000 miles of endurance testing. The main bearings showed cosmetic grooves but not excessive wear through the metal.

Engineer Wei said each and every part would be taken back to Ford?s labs to be checked with scales, cameras, lasers, micrometers and other measuring tools to get the final details on the rich, full life of EcoBoost V-6 engine 448AA.

You can see the disassembled engine with your own eyes until Jan. 23 at NAIAS.

[S204STi]

Wow, an engine built by Ford lasted 163,000 miles. Big Wow!

[giant_mtb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0dIJgPW8-s

[S204STi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0dIJgPW8-s

Is that the latest engine from Ford?  Should be a step up from the Power Joke.

[giant_mtb]

No, but it's probably done a shitload more miles than any Ford engine.

[FoMoJo]

Wow, an engine built by Ford lasted 163,000 miles. Big Wow!

Watch it buddy.

[Onslaught]

Wow, an engine built by Ford lasted 163,000 miles. Big Wow!

That is a big deal!

[GoCougs]

Meh - a PR stunt to make Nethead types feel better about buying a Ranger or Focus. ALL automakers rigorously test their engines. This is a bit of an odd bird in that the Ecoboost V6 has only rare and expensive applications, and ultimately means nil to Ford's bottom line.

[FoMoJo]

Meh - a PR stunt to make Nethead types feel better about buying a Ranger or Focus. ALL automakers rigorously test their engines. This is a bit of an odd bird in that the Ecoboost V6 has only rare and expensive applications, and ultimately means nil to Ford's bottom line.

It's worth a lot to them in marketing value.  Most people don't have a clue about how it works but still recognize EcoBoost as smaller engine with better fuel economy and more power than a bigger engine without EcoBoost.  It's a big win for Ford.

[GoCougs]

It's worth a lot to them in marketing value.  Most people don't have a clue about how it works but still recognize EcoBoost as smaller engine with better fuel economy and more power than a bigger engine without EcoBoost.  It's a big win for Ford.

"EcoBoost" (turbo charging) has been around almost as long as the I/C engine itself.

The only "win" for Ford is no other automaker dared try marketing an expensive high-performance twin-turbo engine as "eco."

[sportyaccordy]

"EcoBoost" (turbo charging) has been around almost as long as the I/C engine itself.

The only "win" for Ford is no other automaker dared try marketing an expensive high-performance twin-turbo engine as "eco."

They may not have outright called the new turbo motors "eco", but much of the press releases for BMW, MB and Audi's various boosted new engines talk a lot about the improvements in fuel economy & CO2 emissions over their older NA counterparts...

Why you are so almost compulsively anti-turbo escapes me

If turbochargers weren't effective at making engines more efficient, manufacturers like BMW etc would NOT be resorting to using them to deliver competitive power and remain complaint with increasingly stringent emissions & fuel economy standards

Something tells me they know more about fuel efficiency than GoCougs of CarSpin fame