Camry to dump V6 for you know what.

[hotrodalex]

Biggest thing I like about the F50 is the Niki Lauda connection, but other than that F40 all the way.

[GoCougs]

Actually I was referring to the 3.5L V6 that debuted in summer 2006 on the MY2007 Camry and the 3.0L V6 that debuted in summer 2002 on the MY2003 Accord (for an average of 10 years old).

[thewizard16]

Actually I was referring to the 3.5L V6 that debuted in summer 2006 on the MY2007 Camry and the 3.0L V6 that debuted in summer 2002 on the MY2003 Accord (for an average of 10 years old).

Well see, specifics matter . Yeah, the 3.5L is a very nice engine and the Accord V6 was definitely a nice balance of power without sacrificing much efficiency... Yeah, I'd have to agree both of those are better overall than the 2.0T.

[AltinD]

What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?

[12,000 RPM]

What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?

Those aren't turbocharged, and unfortunately speak to Cougs point.

The 2.0T can make Camry HP and then some while sacrificing nothing in gas mileage, but that's a pointless discussion as the only evidence Cougs accepts is the engineering theory he makes up.

[Byteme]

Those aren't turbocharged, and unfortunately speak to Cougs point.

The 2.0T can make Camry HP and then some while sacrificing nothing in gas mileage, but that's a pointless discussion as the only evidence Cougs accepts is the engineering theory he makes up.

Not to hijack this thread but Ford has released the engine lineup for the 2015 F150 The below discusses the 2.7 Ecoboost.  In my opinion it's just more evidence of the advantages of turbocharging.

2.7-liter EcoBoost power

The high-output, twin-turbo 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 features an entirely new design that delivers power and performance in a strong, smart package. The engine produces 325 horsepower and 375 lb.-ft. of torque – improving the power-to-weight ratio of the 2015 truck by 15 percent over the 2014 5.0-liter V8-equipped F-150 with similar torque output, thanks to vehicle light-weighting.

The 2.7-liter EcoBoost 4x2 has a maximum payload rating of 2,250 pounds and maximum tow rating of 8,500 pounds, ideal for meeting mid-range capability needs.

Boosting 2.7-liter EcoBoost fuel efficiency is the debut of standard Auto Start-Stop technology for F-150. This technology, specially tuned for truck customers, shuts off the engine when the vehicle is at a stop. When the brake is released, the engine restarts quickly. Auto Start-Stop helps reduce fuel consumption and emissions when the truck is stopped and the engine is off. The technology is off when towing or in four-wheel-drive mode.

The 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine also features Ford's first use of a compacted graphite iron cylinder block in a gasoline engine, the same material used in Ford's 6.7-liter Power Stroke® turbo diesel V8 in Super Duty trucks. The composite CGI/aluminum cylinder block saves weight while providing strength where it's needed most for durability.

Advanced technology, power and efficiency combine to create an engine for F-150 that boasts more than twice the horsepower, torque and towing capability of the Toyota Tacoma midsize pickup truck with identical displacement 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine.

Ford testing shows the 2.7-liter EcoBoost also outperforming Ram 1500 3.0-liter V6 EcoDiesel and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 5.3-liter V8 while towing a 7,000-pound enclosed trailer up Davis Dam in Arizona. This is the same grade the Society of Automotive Engineers

[GoCougs]

What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?

Yes, that's exactly my point . As a companion point however, VW charged an arm and a leg for cars with the 3.6 V6 whereas Toyota stuffed its 3.5L V6 in anything from a $25k Rav 4 to a $25k Camry.

[GoCougs]

Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).

[Byteme]

Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).

That's all you got? 

[12,000 RPM]

Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).

6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?

[12,000 RPM]

Re: 2.7L.... I think it might be another fiasco. Sounds overloaded.

[hotrodalex]

6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?

It's a bigger number. Duh.

[GoCougs]

That's all you got? 

To state an ancient pooprod motor bests this new fangled stuff? Says quite a bit .

[GoCougs]

6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?

All of them.

[12,000 RPM]

All of them.

[GoCougs]

Re: 2.7L.... I think it might be another fiasco. Sounds overloaded.

There's been a number of industry articles on the block - it's actually iron with some sort of AL cradle. Pretty interesting. The short block will be plenty durable it's just that all the turbo stuff is gonna not be so good after 5-7 years.

[12,000 RPM]

The turbos will be fine, just as they have been for the past 40 or so years. Most turbo engine problems are issues with components that have nothing to do with the turbos themselves (and are issues that non-turbo engines have too).

[GoCougs]

The turbos will be fine, just as they have been for the past 40 or so years. Most turbo engine problems are issues with components that have nothing to do with the turbos themselves (and are issues that non-turbo engines have too).

Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...

[GoCougs]

More power, better acceleration, same mpg, cheaper, and vastly simpler (= more reliable/durable/longer lived).

[12,000 RPM]

A rebuilt turbo + install is like $1500-2000. If u are buying a car new and driving it into the ground, fuel economy savings will pay for that a few times over compared to a similarly powerful NA engine from the same manufacturer.

You keep pointing to the Camry/Accord V6 vs other manufacturers' 2,0Ts. But that's not an apples to apples comparison. Fords never got great gas mileage. Neither did Hyundais. Both of their respective mainstreamers saw real world gas mileage increases in the 15-25% range going turbo over V6s, with either the same or better performance. I can cite Cougs approved sources if you like. Toyota's not stupid... I'm sure their 2.0T will do even better than the V6 as well, while retaining Toyota levels of reliability. You might not know this, but they make turbo engines too.

More power, better acceleration, same mpg, cheaper, and vastly simpler (= more reliable/durable/longer lived).

Same mpg? Measured by whom?

[GoCougs]

C'mon, this is just getting  . Turbos at best get the same (and usually worse) mpg on top of worse reliability and durability and higher repair/maintenance bills. The lawsuits re: Ecoboost and Hyundai and the EPA are just the beginning. Just as hybrid market share is now on the decline same will happen with turbos too (and had happened in the past, after the turbo experiment of the '80s) after a bit of time.

[SJ_GTI]

I am thinking GoCougs simply has a bit of FI envy. You guys should take it easy on him. 

[MX793]

C'mon, this is just getting  . Turbos at best get the same (and usually worse) mpg on top of worse reliability and durability and higher repair/maintenance bills. The lawsuits re: Ecoboost and Hyundai and the EPA are just the beginning. Just as hybrid market share is now on the decline same will happen with turbos too (and had happened in the past, after the turbo experiment of the '80s) after a bit of time.

IIRC, the Hyundai lawsuit stems from them not following the EPA test procedure.  They were outright cheating, not just exploiting a loophole in the system.  And many (most if not all) of the affected vehicles were naturally aspirated.

[Char]

Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...

Absolutely true.

[FoMoJo]

Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...

Motors have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities...until they improved them. 

[GoCougs]

Motors have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities...until they improved them. 

Turbos have been around pretty much as long as motors have...

[GoCougs]

Superchargers, the roots/screw style (not the quasi turbo centrifugal type), are a much better bet than turbos - much more durable/reliable, more drivable (i.e., throttle response). Audi has done great work with their 3.0T, as have GM and Ford with their hi-po cars. N/A is still better but supercharging I can live with.

[FoMoJo]

Turbos have been around pretty much as long as motors have...

So have batteries, but there has been no great effort at improving them until hybrid and electric vehicles became popular.

[GoCougs]

So have batteries, but there has been no great effort at improving them until hybrid and electric vehicles became popular.

Batteries really haven't been improved tons either - they're still chemistry based, they still take a long time to charge, they still don't last all that long, and they are still heavy and bulky.

[Onslaught]

Superchargers, the roots/screw style (not the quasi turbo centrifugal type), are a much better bet than turbos - much more durable/reliable, more drivable (i.e., throttle response). Audi has done great work with their 3.0T, as have GM and Ford with their hi-po cars. N/A is still better but supercharging I can live with.

You give me the choice and I'll take SC over turbo too.