No other details provided other than gasoline fired, iron block and two-valve pooprod valve train: The 2020 Ford Super Duty Gets a Giant 7.3-Liter Gasoline V8 (https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a26143094/2020-ford-super-duty-f250-f350-gasoline-v8-specs-info/). The 385hp 6.2L SOHC will remain.
Ford now has FIVE disparate upper trim gasoline engines for its full-size trucks and SUVs (compared to just two for GM (5.3L and 6.2L pooprods) and Ram (5.7L and 6.4L pooprods)):
375 hp TTV6
385 hp 6.2L SOHC 2-vavle V8
395 hp 5.0L DOHC V8
400 hp TTV6
450 hp TTV6
425 hp (?) 7.3L pooprod V8
What's even more interesting is the more powerful Ecoboost motors are not offered in the Super Duty (but not really interesting when examined). Unfocused engine platform strategy hamstrung Ford in the muscle/pony car heyday. We'll see.
This is why they had to stop building cars. They are too busy building truck engines.
Weird move.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2019, 06:54:30 AM
This is why they had to stop building cars. They are too busy building truck engines.
:lol:
That's a pretty crowded engine lineup. Turbos, DI, port, 2/3/4 valve, and now OHV, SOHC/DOHC and power ratings are all pretty similar across engine sizes. I think Cougs is right, Ford is internally worrying about their EcoBust engine and wants something cheaper/easier to build and repair. The Triton was a dumpster fire and now their turbo engines aren't giving them the economy they hoped for so its back to basics.
Sounds like Ford is getting serious about the commercial truck business. Anyways, it will also be available for F Series and, more importantly...2020 F-150 Raptor To Receive Ford's New 7.3L pushrod V8 gas Motor (https://speedtwitch.com/report-2019-f-150-raptor-to-receive-fords-new-7-0l-dohc-v8-motor/).
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDwmqWcJ/raptor-v8.jpg)
You missed one for Chevy. They still offer the 6.0 gas motor in their HD trucks.
Edit: It looks like the 6.0 may getting replaced with a 6.6 gas motor for 2019 in the HD trucks.
Quote from: Submariner on February 07, 2019, 08:05:46 AM
That's a pretty crowded engine lineup. Turbos, DI, port, 2/3/4 valve, and now OHV, SOHC/DOHC and power ratings are all pretty similar across engine sizes. I think Cougs is right, Ford is internally worrying about their EcoBust engine and wants something cheaper/easier to build and repair. The Triton was a dumpster fire and now their turbo engines aren't giving them the economy they hoped for so its back to basics.
In M/T's most recent TOTY competition, both the Expedition and Navigator with the uplevel Ecoboost TTV6 were slower and got same/worse mpg than an Escalade.
I've seen/heard a number of Ecoboost F150s with aftermarket exhaust. That may be enough to revert back.
But yes, a pooprod mill is impossible to beat when it comes to the combo of size+weight+cost+power+durability+repairability.
Jesus, I never realized that the F-150 had that many engine options. I guess in hindsight I should have suspected since every review of an F-150 always mentions it having an engine I've never heard before. I just assumed Ford was constantly replacing one engine with the other, never knew they were offering all of them on top of each other. Like why are there two V8s with practically the same power?
Ford has been on a variety kick for quite some time now. One of the biggest sources of cost on the Focus was the fact that they had like 100x the trim/option/color combos its competition did.
I still get the feeling a pooprod hot V single cross plane turbo V8 would combine the best of all worlds (efficiency, brum, packaging) but what do I know.
Quote from: Xer0 on February 07, 2019, 09:32:21 AM
Jesus, I never realized that the F-150 had that many engine options. I guess in hindsight I should have suspected since every review of an F-150 always mentions it having an engine I've never heard before. I just assumed Ford was constantly replacing one engine with the other, never knew they were offering all of them on top of each other. Like why are there two V8s with practically the same power?
Also a couple of diesel options as well.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2019, 06:54:30 AM
This is why they had to stop building cars. They are too busy building truck engines.
:clap:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 07, 2019, 08:17:34 AM
Sounds like Ford is getting serious about the commercial truck business. Anyways, it will also be available for F Series and, more importantly...2020 F-150 Raptor To Receive Ford's New 7.3L pushrod V8 gas Motor (https://speedtwitch.com/report-2019-f-150-raptor-to-receive-fords-new-7-0l-dohc-v8-motor/).
Shudda had a V8 from the jump! :huh:
Quote from: Submariner on February 07, 2019, 08:05:46 AM
That's a pretty crowded engine lineup. Turbos, DI, port, 2/3/4 valve, and now OHV, SOHC/DOHC and power ratings are all pretty similar across engine sizes. I think Cougs is right, Ford is internally worrying about their EcoBust engine and wants something cheaper/easier to build and repair. The Triton was a dumpster fire and now their turbo engines aren't giving them the economy they hoped for so its back to basics.
:hesaid: Typical Ford.....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 01:11:21 PM
Ford has been on a variety kick for quite some time now. One of the biggest sources of cost on the Focus was the fact that they had like 100x the trim/option/color combos its competition did.
I still get the feeling a pooprod hot V single cross plane turbo V8 would combine the best of all worlds (efficiency, brum, packaging) but what do I know.
Ford Voodoo has shown us flat plane isn't really a good diea. All we all know how it's going with turbos.
Like a lot of things in life, the best thing to do is to keep doing the same thing. Keep refining the pooprod V8 - materials, compression ratio, VE - lots left.
Wow. This is a pretty wild development actually. Ecoboost was supposed to replace EVERYTHING.
And now they're bowing to the pooprod gods
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2019, 09:27:02 AM
In M/T's most recent TOTY competition, both the Expedition and Navigator with the uplevel Ecoboost TTV6 were slower and got same/worse mpg than an Escalade.
I've seen/heard a number of Ecoboost F150s with aftermarket exhaust. That may be enough to revert back.
But yes, a pooprod mill is impossible to beat when it comes to the combo of size+weight+cost+power+durability+repairability.
This is really shocking news. Two vehicles that weigh the same and have roughly the same power get roughly the same fuel economy. And the vehicle with 20 more horsepower is faster.
The 6.2 liter engine is powerful and efficient. The fact that the 3.5TT manages to roughly match it is not a bad thing.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2019, 09:27:02 AM
In M/T's most recent TOTY competition, both the Expedition and Navigator with the uplevel Ecoboost TTV6 were slower and got same/worse mpg than an Escalade.
I've seen/heard a number of Ecoboost F150s with aftermarket exhaust. That may be enough to revert back.
But yes, a pooprod mill is impossible to beat when it comes to the combo of size+weight+cost+power+durability+repairability.
Link?
Odd that the Navigator is selling like hot cakes vs. the Escalade.
The desired characteristics of truck engines are different than passenger cars. Dependability, longevity and high torque make a good truck engine. Added complexity, like twin turbos, affects repair costs and dependability.
High torque can be achieved with turbos, they just artificially increase the engine displacement.
But longevity is better the old way- just make a bigger engine without complex components like twin turbos and a complicated valve train.
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 07, 2019, 02:48:24 PM
This is really shocking news. Two vehicles that weigh the same and have roughly the same power get roughly the same fuel economy. And the vehicle with 20 more horsepower is faster.
The 6.2 liter engine is powerful and efficient. The fact that the 3.5TT manages to roughly match it is not a bad thing.
Then what is the point of haveing a more complicated, more expensive engine?
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 07, 2019, 02:48:24 PM
This is really shocking news. Two vehicles that weigh the same and have roughly the same power get roughly the same fuel economy. And the vehicle with 20 more horsepower is faster.
The 6.2 liter engine is powerful and efficient. The fact that the 3.5TT manages to roughly match it is not a bad thing.
Well, compared to the Navigator, the Escalade is also a bit ahead in both performance and economy - in M/T's SOTY the Navigator didn't even break in to the 14s.
Sure, it's sorta close match up, but TT DOHC vs. a pooprod motor? Lots of expense, complexity, and risk for durability/longevity and expensive repairs to almost pull even?
Doesn't the Navigator have the 450hp/510tq version?
I still like the Navigator more though.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2019, 02:26:31 PM
Ford Voodoo has shown us flat plane isn't really a good diea. All we all know how it's going with turbos.
Like a lot of things in life, the best thing to do is to keep doing the same thing. Keep refining the pooprod V8 - materials, compression ratio, VE - lots left.
Hey, the pooprod is a marvel of engineering, and a bench racer's dream. But I won't stand for the Voodoo slander. It's one of the greatest V8s of all time, and IMO is the best V8 to come out of Detroit, possibly ever.
Plus Ford has been kicking GM's ass in the V8 vehicle game for decades (F-150 > Silverado/Sierra, Mustang > Camaro), even with the messy engines. So they're doing something right. I don't even like to talk this way as I like GM's vehicles but you forced my hand with the Voodoo blasphemy.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 07:27:47 PM
Hey, the pooprod is a marvel of engineering, and a bench racer's dream. But I won't stand for the Voodoo slander. It's one of the greatest V8s of all time, and IMO is the best V8 to come out of Detroit, possibly ever.
Plus Ford has been kicking GM's ass in the V8 vehicle game for decades (F-150 > Silverado/Sierra, Mustang > Camaro), even with the messy engines. So they're doing something right. I don't even like to talk this way as I like GM's vehicles but you forced my hand with the Voodoo blasphemy.
The principal tenet of slander (libel actually) is that the assertion is false. The LS7 is smaller, lighter, less costly, less complicated, and performs just as good or better in a larger, heavier vehicle (i.e., 5G Z/28 vs. S550 GT350). Now add the fact that the he LS7 is a design 10 years older and a person who does not deny facts, data and logic has no choice but to conclude that the Voodoo wasn't really a good idea.
Had Ford invested Voodoo effort into bringing the Coyote up to snuff perhaps with VVL and more cubes, well, Ford would've had a motor that performed better than the Voodoo and perhaps (finally) the LS7. Plus of course, such an effort would have paid dividends elsewhere (F150 and Mustang GT). Such as it was, Ford repeats the same sin with unfocused engine development, ultimately failing to deliver as good or better than the competition.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2019, 01:10:29 AM
The principal tenet of slander (libel actually) is that the assertion is false. The LS7 is smaller, lighter, less costly, less complicated, and performs just as good or better in a larger, heavier vehicle (i.e., 5G Z/28 vs. S550 GT350). Now add the fact that the he LS7 is a design 10 years older and a person who does not deny facts, data and logic has no choice but to conclude that the Voodoo wasn't really a good idea.
Had Ford invested Voodoo effort into bringing the Coyote up to snuff perhaps with VVL and more cubes, well, Ford would've had a motor that performed better than the Voodoo and perhaps (finally) the LS7. Plus of course, such an effort would have paid dividends elsewhere (F150 and Mustang GT). Such as it was, Ford repeats the same sin with unfocused engine development, ultimately failing to deliver as good or better than the competition.
I feel like we've had this conversation before..........
Not everyone worships at the altar of engineering efficiency. As much of an engineer/bench racer's delight as the LS7 is, it's no match for the Voodoo in all the emotional stuff that actually gets people to buy cars. LSx are very good tools whereas the Voodoo is a musical instrument.
Not to mention if the LS7 were so great GM wouldn't have had to cancel it. So clearly there were some things it couldn't do
Quote from: Xer0 on February 07, 2019, 09:32:21 AM
Jesus, I never realized that the F-150 had that many engine options. I guess in hindsight I should have suspected since every review of an F-150 always mentions it having an engine I've never heard before. I just assumed Ford was constantly replacing one engine with the other, never knew they were offering all of them on top of each other. Like why are there two V8s with practically the same power?
Not all of those are available in the F150. That's the gas engine lineup for the entire F series. Also includes some specialty models like the Raptor, which gets the 3.5TT in a higher state of tune.
Ford's current consumer truck/SUV (excluding crossovers) engine lineup up. There are some additional engines if we go up to their commercial grade vehicles (F450+), but I'm not including those at the moment.
F150
3.3V6 - 290 hp
2.7TTV6 - 325 hp
3.5TTV6 - 375 hp
5.0V8 - 395 hp
3.0 Diesel - 250 hp
F150 Raptor
3.5TTHOV6 - 450 hp
Expedition
3.5TTV6 -375 hp
F250
6.2L SOHC - 385 hp
6.7L Diesel - 450 hp
F350
6.2L SOHC - 385 hp
6.7L Diesel - 450 hp
Lincoln Navigator
3.5TTHOV6 - 450 hp
8 engines (and two of them are just different tunes of the same basic engine).
The new 7.3 is slated for the HD line, which means it might go in an F250 or 350, or may be exclusive to their larger, commercial grade trucks. Right now, Ford is still using the Triton 6.8 V10 gasser in their larger (F650+) commercial vehicles. The 7.3 may be a replacement for that aging (debuted in the mid 90s) motor rather than an option for their higher volume, "consumer" level trucks.
Now let's look at GM
Silverado/Sierra 1500
2.7T I4 - 310 hp
4.3V6 - 285 hp
5.3V8 - 355 hp
5.3V8DFM - 355 hp w/ Dynamic Fuel Management
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Silverado/Sierra 2500
6.0V8 - 360 hp
6.6 Diesel - 445 hp
Silverado/Sierra 3500
6.0V8 - 360 hp
6.6 Diesel - 445 hp
Tahoe/Yukon
5.3V8 - 355 hp
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Suburban/Yukon XL
5.3V8 - 355 hp
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Escalade
6.2V8 - 420 hp
That's 7 different engine configurations (with 2 being subtle variations of the same thing). As memory serves, GM was working on a diesel option for their half-ton models for 2019 or 2020, which would put them at 8. Same as Ford. Unless the new 7.3 goes into consumer grade trucks, then Ford will still have one additional engine configuration.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2019, 05:06:21 AM
I feel like we've had this conversation before..........
Not everyone worships at the altar of engineering efficiency. As much of an engineer/bench racer's delight as the LS7 is, it's no match for the Voodoo in all the emotional stuff that actually gets people to buy cars. LSx are very good tools whereas the Voodoo is a musical instrument.
Not to mention if the LS7 were so great GM wouldn't have had to cancel it. So clearly there were some things it couldn't do
You're just making it worse.
Quote from: Submariner on February 07, 2019, 05:48:56 PM
Then what is the point of haveing a more complicated, more expensive engine?
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2019, 06:22:44 PM
Well, compared to the Navigator, the Escalade is also a bit ahead in both performance and economy - in M/T's SOTY the Navigator didn't even break in to the 14s.
Sure, it's sorta close match up, but TT DOHC vs. a pooprod motor? Lots of expense, complexity, and risk for durability/longevity and expensive repairs to almost pull even?
Yes, the EcoBoost motor is more complicated but the turbo does have advantages in high elevations like where I live. The biggest advantage that the Ford EcoBoost would have for me right now is availability. You can't get the 6.2L engine in a Silverado without stepping up to at least a $50,000 LTZ model. Ford will put the EcoBoost in a $45,000 Lariat. The 5.3L Chevy engine is a good power plant but I'm sure that I'm not alone in wishing that GM would make the 6.2L available further down their lineup.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2019, 09:15:42 AM
You're just making it worse.
You're right; I think you've had enough torque tube today.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 08, 2019, 11:20:15 AM
You're right; I think you've had enough torque tube today.
Oh shit.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 07, 2019, 07:27:47 PM
Hey, the pooprod is a marvel of engineering, and a bench racer's dream. But I won't stand for the Voodoo slander. It's one of the greatest V8s of all time, and IMO is the best V8 to come out of Detroit, possibly ever.
Plus Ford has been kicking GM's ass in the V8 vehicle game for decades (F-150 > Silverado/Sierra, Mustang > Camaro), even with the messy engines. So they're doing something right. I don't even like to talk this way as I like GM's vehicles but you forced my hand with the Voodoo blasphemy.
This is untrue! :wtf: Unless you're speaking on sales ALONE! Power wise the LS Motors have put the smack down on Ford since the late 90s.....
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 08, 2019, 09:20:43 AM
Yes, the EcoBoost motor is more complicated but the turbo does have advantages in high elevations like where I live. The biggest advantage that the Ford EcoBoost would have for me right now is availability. You can't get the 6.2L engine in a Silverado without stepping up to at least a $50,000 LTZ model. Ford will put the EcoBoost in a $45,000 Lariat. The 5.3L Chevy engine is a good power plant but I'm sure that I'm not alone in wishing that GM would make the 6.2L available further down their lineup.
I agree it's a bit puzzling why Chevy restricts the 6.2L to the highest trim vehicles - buy you can always be used, too ;).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 08, 2019, 02:58:25 PM
I agree it's a bit puzzling why Chevy restricts the 6.2L to the highest trim vehicles - buy you can always be used, too ;).
I always buy used. The problem is that since it is only in the top trims, there is not much selection on the used market.
Ford just wants to confuse buyers in the showroom more.
Been working this long so.....
Quote from: MX793 on February 08, 2019, 08:18:57 AM
Ford's current consumer truck/SUV (excluding crossovers) engine lineup up. There are some additional engines if we go up to their commercial grade vehicles (F450+), but I'm not including those at the moment.
F150
3.3V6 - 290 hp
2.7TTV6 - 325 hp
3.5TTV6 - 375 hp
5.0V8 - 395 hp
3.0 Diesel - 250 hp
F150 Raptor
3.5TTHOV6 - 450 hp
Expedition
3.5TTV6 -375 hp
F250
6.2L SOHC - 385 hp
6.7L Diesel - 450 hp
F350
6.2L SOHC - 385 hp
6.7L Diesel - 450 hp
Lincoln Navigator
3.5TTHOV6 - 450 hp
8 engines (and two of them are just different tunes of the same basic engine).
The new 7.3 is slated for the HD line, which means it might go in an F250 or 350, or may be exclusive to their larger, commercial grade trucks. Right now, Ford is still using the Triton 6.8 V10 gasser in their larger (F650+) commercial vehicles. The 7.3 may be a replacement for that aging (debuted in the mid 90s) motor rather than an option for their higher volume, "consumer" level trucks.
Now let's look at GM
Silverado/Sierra 1500
2.7T I4 - 310 hp
4.3V6 - 285 hp
5.3V8 - 355 hp
5.3V8DFM - 355 hp w/ Dynamic Fuel Management
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Silverado/Sierra 2500
6.0V8 - 360 hp
6.6 Diesel - 445 hp
Silverado/Sierra 3500
6.0V8 - 360 hp
6.6 Diesel - 445 hp
Tahoe/Yukon
5.3V8 - 355 hp
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Suburban/Yukon XL
5.3V8 - 355 hp
6.2V8 - 420 hp
Escalade
6.2V8 - 420 hp
That's 7 different engine configurations (with 2 being subtle variations of the same thing). As memory serves, GM was working on a diesel option for their half-ton models for 2019 or 2020, which would put them at 8. Same as Ford. Unless the new 7.3 goes into consumer grade trucks, then Ford will still have one additional engine configuration.
Going a bit too deep IMO. If we ignore variants and base motors that no one cares about, and concern ourselves through the 2020 MY, we see the lack of focus is actually worse for Ford than prescribed in the original post:
Ford:
V6TT Ecoboost
V8 2-valve SOHC Boss
V8 4-valve DOHC Coyote
V8 pooprod Godzilla
GM:
V8 Gen V pooprod
I'm guessing that Ford's product development is very silo'd. To create internal competition maybe? I'm not sure sure. But the end result isn't helping.
Except pooprod Godzilla may be a replacement for the old V10 in the F650+ and never be used in the F250/F350.
And the 6L in the HD Chevies is a GenIV. If you left it out because it was a "base motor", you can take the Ford Boss engine off because that's also a base engine.
Is Godzilla the actual name? I can't find it when I Google "pooprod godzilla".
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 09, 2019, 07:33:50 AM
Is Godzilla the actual name? I can't find it when I Google "pooprod godzilla".
Did you try "Pooplod Gojira"?
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2019, 07:39:01 AM
Did you try "Pooplod Gojira"?
I have tried many Gojiras, but that one only got two Google results. Is that a secret hidden bonus track?
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2019, 07:16:26 AM
Except pooprod Godzilla may be a replacement for the old V10 in the F650+ and never be used in the F250/F350.
And the 6L in the HD Chevies is a GenIV. If you left it out because it was a "base motor", you can take the Ford Boss engine off because that's also a base engine.
Note my premise ("concern ourselves through the 2020 MY") - the 6.0L is gone, replaced by the Gen V 6.6L.
The Godzilla pooprod, by reports, will be used in retail Super Duties (F250 and F350) as an upgrade from the 6.2L Boss, and in the 2020 F150 Raptor.
GM has one engine V8 platform for full size (retail) trucks and SUVs, and in response Ford has four disparate platforms.
"Dude, nice truck! What engine are you runnin'?"
Godzilla pooprod"
"Nice!"
:lol: :muffin:
Quote from: shp4man on February 09, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
"Dude, nice truck! What engine are you runnin'?"
Godzilla pooprod"
"Nice!"
:lol: :muffin:
A Clydesdale amongst the Thoroughbreds. Ford is enhancing their Commercial trade.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 09, 2019, 08:24:49 AM
Note my premise ("concern ourselves through the 2020 MY") - the 6.0L is gone, replaced by the Gen V 6.6L.
The Godzilla pooprod, by reports, will be used in retail Super Duties (F250 and F350) as an upgrade from the 6.2L Boss, and in the 2020 F150 Raptor.
GM has one engine V8 platform for full size (retail) trucks and SUVs, and in response Ford has four disparate platforms.
"Through" mean "up to", not "from and beyond". "Through" 2020, the 6.0 continues to be sold.
It's also possible that beyond 2020, the 6.2 Boss V8 goes away in favor of the new 7.3. Seeing as the 7.3 is in response to GM's more potent 6.6L for their HD trucks (to replace the aging gen IV 6.0 currently sold). Which means that the 7.3 would actually be a consolidation, replacing the 6.2 in the retail HD trucks and replacing the 6.8V10 in the commercial line.
Cougs is right though. GM has been developing a single engine line while Ford is scatterbrained and doesn't seem to know what they want.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2019, 12:09:43 PM
Cougs is right though. GM has been developing a single engine line while Ford is scatterbrained and doesn't seem to know what they want.
Of course, GM has the 2.7 I4 turbo and 4.3 V6 that are unique to their half ton pickups. And the now defunct Atlas engines.
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
Of course, GM has the 2.7 I4 turbo and 4.3 V6 that are unique to their half ton pickups. And the now defunct Atlas engines.
Of course. But talking V8s only, Ford doesn't seem to know what they're doing. A little bit of everything. Shotgun shell approach.
It can't continue. Perhaps Ford is gearing up to dump Ecoboost.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2019, 12:42:54 PM
Of course. But talking V8s only, Ford doesn't seem to know what they're doing. A little bit of everything. Shotgun shell approach.
Yup! From day one Fords Turbo motors never provided an advantage (especially MPG) over the Chevy and Dodge V8s. I knew all this Eco Boost crap was gonna back fire. It was only a matter of time!
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2019, 12:42:54 PM
Of course. But talking V8s only, Ford doesn't seem to know what they're doing. A little bit of everything. Shotgun shell approach.
Of course, seeing that it's taken 65 years to get their SMC developed into a reasonably competent engine, GM may have been a bit reluctant to try something new. The old FE series was everything it took GM until the 90s to come close to. Ford has always involved themselves in various engine development from the DFV to the Voodoo and Preadator. Godzilla is an appropriate name for their new commercial truck engine. ;)
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 09, 2019, 02:06:51 PM
Yup! From day one Fords Turbo motors never provided an advantage (especially MPG) over the Chevy and Dodge V8s. I knew all this Eco Boost crap was gonna back fire. It was only a matter of time!
Odd that GM, and most other manufacturers, went the same route. :huh:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 09, 2019, 02:06:51 PM
Yup! From day one Fords Turbo motors never provided an advantage (especially MPG) over the Chevy and Dodge V8s. I knew all this Eco Boost crap was gonna back fire. It was only a matter of time!
The 2.7TT has been shown to best the 5.3 Chevy in performance and real world fuel economy. The 3.5 is much better than the old Triton V8s on all fronts (power, performance, fuel economy), but does lag the big Chevy.
The Dodge Hemis aren't exactly known for being thrifty.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 09, 2019, 12:42:54 PM
Of course. But talking V8s only, Ford doesn't seem to know what they're doing. A little bit of everything. Shotgun shell approach.
Some bright spots here and there but by and large Ford has struggled since the '50s with unfocused engine development, resulting in usually coming in second (usually behind Chevy).
Ford has been here before at least twice - Windsor/Cleveland/Modified and FE/385 in the '60s/'70s and Modular 2-valve SOHC/3-valve SOHC/4-valve DOHC V8 and SOHC V10 n the '90s/2000s.
Perhaps the pooprod Godzilla will become the boilerplate replacement (i.e., focus) for the Coyote and Ecoboost, at least in full-size trucks and SUVs.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 09, 2019, 02:38:33 PM
Some bright spots here and there but by and large Ford has struggled since the '50s with unfocused engine development, resulting in usually coming in second (usually behind Chevy).
Ford has been here before at least twice - Windsor/Cleveland/Modified and FE/385 in the '60s/'70s and Modular 2-valve SOHC/3-valve SOHC/4-valve DOHC V8 and SOHC V10 n the '90s/2000s.
Perhaps the pooprod Godzilla will become the boilerplate replacement (i.e., focus) for the Coyote and Ecoboost, at least in full-size trucks and SUVs.
:lol:
The FE, in all of its variations from durable truck engine to superior race engine was the class of the 50s and 60s insomuch as they wouldn't even let it race in NASCAR because the competition had nothing to compete with it. It was, essential, a medium block, but still bested the big blocks of the competitors. The Windsor, of course, was just a much better version of the SBC of the time, lighter, more compact, better racing potential...and many more trophies. The Windsor block/Cleveland heads of the Boss was best of all. The 335 Cleveland series, came a bit late in the game, but while it lived, it was the small/medium block to beat. The 385 series, once again late in the muscle era, of course, lived on, but in much lesser form; as did all engines after 1970.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 09, 2019, 02:15:58 PM
Odd that GM, and most other manufacturers, went the same route. :huh:
Not in Full Sized trucks......
Quote from: MX793 on February 09, 2019, 02:18:59 PM
The 2.7TT has been shown to best the 5.3 Chevy in performance and real world fuel economy. The 3.5 is much better than the old Triton V8s on all fronts (power, performance, fuel economy), but does lag the big Chevy.
The Dodge Hemis aren't exactly known for being thrifty.
Agreed.
Curiously, the Ram has been cleaning house with 2019 awards, besting both Ford and Chevy in any comparison test I've seen. Ram has been doing class average for MPG.
This from a big test by C&D of MY2019 trucks. Ram 5.7L finishes second in MPG (but won the test). F-150, true to form, finishes last in MPG (but is the quickest what with the $15k higher base price (450 hp motor, lower gearing than the Chevy)): 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 High Country vs. 2019 Ford F-150 Limited vs. 2019 Ram 1500 Limited (https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019chevroletsilverado1500highcountry-vs-fordf150limited-vs-ram1500limited-finalscoringcompletespecsperformancedata-1545396085.pdf).
Another interesting test. This is at extreme elevation (ends at 10,000'), so though the trucks had the same time, the Ecoboost was reported to be punchier. Again, true to form, the Ecoboost got worse MPG. In this test, it was 2-1 in favor of the 5.0L:
You Asked For It! Ford F-150 V8 and EcoBoost V6 Take On The World's Toughest Towing Test (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8CafR1YxqE).
Same channel did some drag racing between the two at near sea level, and it was a tie:
2018 Ford F150 3.5L Ecoboost vs 5.0L V8 Coyote Drag Race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznZdp0RpFw).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 02:16:22 PM
Another interesting test. This is at extreme elevation (ends at 10,000'), so though the trucks had the same time, the Ecoboost was reported to be punchier. Again, true to form, the Ecoboost got worse MPG. In this test, it was 2-1 in favor of the 5.0L:
You Asked For It! Ford F-150 V8 and EcoBoost V6 Take On The World's Toughest Towing Test (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8CafR1YxqE).
Same channel did some drag racing between the two at near sea level, and it was a tie:
2018 Ford F150 3.5L Ecoboost vs 5.0L V8 Coyote Drag Race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznZdp0RpFw).
No doubt the Coyote is a great engine, but the 2 who voted for it liked the sound better.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 02:16:22 PM
Another interesting test. This is at extreme elevation (ends at 10,000'), so though the trucks had the same time, the Ecoboost was reported to be punchier. Again, true to form, the Ecoboost got worse MPG. In this test, it was 2-1 in favor of the 5.0L:
You Asked For It! Ford F-150 V8 and EcoBoost V6 Take On The World's Toughest Towing Test (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8CafR1YxqE).
Same channel did some drag racing between the two at near sea level, and it was a tie:
2018 Ford F150 3.5L Ecoboost vs 5.0L V8 Coyote Drag Race (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznZdp0RpFw).
That hill climb test was a 35-60 rolling acceleration and then steady 60 mph cruise for ~7 miles. Both trucks were able to maintain 60 once up to speed, so the time difference came down to the initial 35-60 acceleration. The Ecoboost did the full climb in 7:58:xx and the V8 was 8:06:xx That means there was a ~8 second difference in the initial 25 mph acceleration. That's pretty significant. And fuel economy on the hillclimb, well, the one capable of pulling in more air is going to burn the most fuel. No surprise there.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 02:02:50 PM
Curiously, the Ram has been cleaning house with 2019 awards, besting both Ford and Chevy in any comparison test I've seen. Ram has been doing class average for MPG.
This from a big test by C&D of MY2019 trucks. Ram 5.7L finishes second in MPG (but won the test). F-150, true to form, finishes last in MPG (but is the quickest what with the $15k higher base price (450 hp motor, lower gearing than the Chevy)): 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 High Country vs. 2019 Ford F-150 Limited vs. 2019 Ram 1500 Limited (https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019chevroletsilverado1500highcountry-vs-fordf150limited-vs-ram1500limited-finalscoringcompletespecsperformancedata-1545396085.pdf).
1 mpg difference between them. And the Dodge is both mild hybrid and has cylinder deactivation. The Ford was far and away the strongest. In the laden acceleration test, it blew the doors off of the others.
Quote from: MX793 on February 10, 2019, 03:33:09 PM
That hill climb test was a 35-60 rolling acceleration and then steady 60 mph cruise for ~7 miles. Both trucks were able to maintain 60 once up to speed, so the time difference came down to the initial 35-60 acceleration. The Ecoboost did the full climb in 7:58:xx and the V8 was 8:06:xx That means there was a ~8 second difference in the initial 25 mph acceleration. That's pretty significant. And fuel economy on the hillclimb, well, the one capable of pulling in more air is going to burn the most fuel. No surprise there.
Well, if you must. As you know, I'm always here to help when asked.
See the C&D test above. Using the 395 hp Ram as a proxy, which in that test weighed ~500 lbs more and was towing ~1,200 lbs more vs. the F-150, was only 0.8 seconds slower in the 30-50 mph towing test. Also keep in mind that the C&D test was of a $70k F150 with the 450 hp Ecoboost, not the 375 hp F150 used in the video. Sure, the C&D test wasn't at extreme elevation, but the "12-seconds-slower" premise is literally impossible.
The trucks accomplished the same task in the same time and Ecoboost, true to form, got worse mpg.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 04:04:23 PM
Well, if you must. As you know, I'm always here to help when asked.
See the C&D test above. Using the 395 hp Ram as a proxy, which in that test weighed ~500 lbs more and was towing ~1,200 lbs more vs. the F-150, was only 0.8 seconds slower in the 30-50 mph towing test. Also keep in mind that the C&D test was of a $70k F150 with the 450 hp Ecoboost, not the 375 hp F150 used in the video. Sure, the C&D test wasn't at extreme elevation, but the "12-seconds-slower" premise is literally impossible.
The trucks accomplished the same task in the same time and Ecoboost, true to form, got worse mpg.
Two different tests, two different sets of conditions (temperature, altitude, etc)... I'm dealing specifically with the TFL hill climb video, as that was a same day, same conditions, 1-for-1 test. Once 60 mph was reached, both the Coyote and EcoBoost trucks were able to maintain 60 mph. Since they weren't allowed to violate the speed limit, any difference in times is in the initial 35-60 mph acceleration at the bottom of the hill. There was an 8 second difference in times, ergo, the 5.0 was 8 seconds slower on that initial acceleration from 35 to 60 mph at the bottom of the hill. That is significant. The 5.0 tested was a 2WD model that was also 700 lbs lighter than the 3.5TT used in the same test (the trailer being pulled was the same weight for both trucks). So not only was the V6TT much quicker in the TFL test, it did so with a sizable weight handicap. Of course, the combination of more weight and much harder acceleration will consume more fuel.
Quote from: MX793 on February 10, 2019, 03:40:47 PM
1 mpg difference between them. And the Dodge is both mild hybrid and has cylinder deactivation. The Ford was far and away the strongest. In the laden acceleration test, it blew the doors off of the others.
Percentages. It's all about percentages. Oh, and again, the premise. Plus don't forget that hybridization and cylinder deactivation doesn't really work. Plus, in finality, note that the Ram in that test weighs ~500 lbs more and was towing ~1,200 lbs more vs. the F150.
1 mpg in with these vehicles is 6-9%. It's not going to be a deal breaker for buyers but the faint damnation is actually quite extreme. Turbos and intercoolers and OHCs and all the rest of it, and Ecoboost almost always trails the competition's positively ancient pooprod mills when it comes to mpg.
Ecoboost, in total, underperforms, and has caused Ford more problems than it solved. Ergo, my moderate hunch that the pooprod Godzilla family could eventually be a replacement across the board, rather than in just the Raptor.
Quote from: MX793 on February 10, 2019, 04:12:31 PM
Two different tests, two different sets of conditions (temperature, altitude, etc)... I'm dealing specifically with the TFL hill climb video, as that was a same day, same conditions, 1-for-1 test. Once 60 mph was reached, both the Coyote and EcoBoost trucks were able to maintain 60 mph. Since they weren't allowed to violate the speed limit, any difference in times is in the initial 35-60 mph acceleration at the bottom of the hill. There was an 8 second difference in times, ergo, the 5.0 was 8 seconds slower on that initial acceleration from 35 to 60 mph at the bottom of the hill. That is significant. The 5.0 tested was a 2WD model that was also 700 lbs lighter than the 3.5TT used in the same test (the trailer being pulled was the same weight for both trucks). So not only was the V6TT much quicker in the TFL test, it did so with a sizable weight handicap. Of course, the combination of more weight and much harder acceleration will consume more fuel.
12 seconds literally cannot exist.
The 5.0L in the video does not weigh 700 lbs less. According to Ford, curb weight difference is ~320 lbs for 2WD 5.0L XLT vs. 4WD Ecoboost Lariat. Towing 8,900 lbs with ~5,000 lb trucks means +/- 320 lbs literally also does not exist. But again, even if it, did, it's damnation by comparison - all this Ecoboost complexity and drama, only to equal the N/A V8? Ouch.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 04:45:54 PM
12 seconds literally cannot exist.
The 5.0L in the video does not weigh 700 lbs less. According to Ford, curb weight difference is ~320 lbs for 2WD 5.0L XLT vs. 4WD Ecoboost Lariat. Towing 8,900 lbs with ~5,000 lb trucks means +/- 320 lbs literally also does not exist. But again, even if it, did, it's damnation by comparison - all this Ecoboost complexity and drama, only to equal the N/A V8? Ouch.
What 12 seconds are you talking about? There was an 8 second difference between the V6 and V8 trucks in the TFL test.
The guys in TFL said that between the 4WD and other options, the trucks they tested had a 700 lbs difference is actual as-tested weight.
EDIT:
Here, let me post the video right at the pertinent timestamps since you apparently didn't really watch or pay attention.
Time for the Ecoboost (7:58.88):
https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=392 (https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=392)
Time for the Coyote (8:06.99):
https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=681 (https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=681)
Specifically, they started accelerating hard from 35 mph at ~4:21 in the video and stopped by ~4:34 in the Ecoboost. And that was with some wheelspin on snow/ice. They started accelerating ~9:07 in the video and hit 60 at ~9:29 (roughly 21-22 seconds) in the Coyote.
Discussion on the weight difference:
https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=230 (https://youtu.be/k8CafR1YxqE?t=230)
Quote from: MX793 on February 10, 2019, 04:49:16 PM
What 12 seconds are you talking about? There was an 8 second difference between the V6 and V8 trucks in the TFL test.
The guys in TFL said that between the 4WD and other options, the trucks they tested had a 700 lbs difference is actual as-tested weight.
Perhaps the Ecoboost truck had the optional stereo.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 10, 2019, 04:45:54 PM
12 seconds literally cannot exist.
The 5.0L in the video does not weigh 700 lbs less. According to Ford, curb weight difference is ~320 lbs for 2WD 5.0L XLT vs. 4WD Ecoboost Lariat. Towing 8,900 lbs with ~5,000 lb trucks means +/- 320 lbs literally also does not exist. But again, even if it, did, it's damnation by comparison - all this Ecoboost complexity and drama, only to equal the N/A V8? Ouch.
You are right, of course. 12 seconds can not exist, nor can any other quantity of any unit of time. Time has either already happened, or is going to happen; it either previously existed, or is going to exist. The present existence of any amount of time is literally impossible. The present moment is not even a real thing. The instantaneous moment is immeasureable, and therefore unable to be proven or even defined. The present can only exist as an idea of a consecutive quantity time that has passed and will occur, but can never actually exist.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 10, 2019, 05:57:30 PM
You are right, of course. 12 seconds can not exist, nor can any other quantity of any unit of time. Time has either already happened, or is going to happen; it either previously existed, or is going to exist. The present existence of any amount of time is literally impossible. The present moment is not even a real thing. The instantaneous moment is immeasureable, and therefore unable to be proven or even defined. The present can only exist as an idea of a consecutive quantity time that has passed and will occur, but can never actually exist.
:lol:
This is surprisingly similar to my reaction when I read that statement.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 10, 2019, 05:57:30 PM
You are right, of course. 12 seconds can not exist, nor can any other quantity of any unit of time. Time has either already happened, or is going to happen; it either previously existed, or is going to exist. The present existence of any amount of time is literally impossible. The present moment is not even a real thing. The instantaneous moment is immeasureable, and therefore unable to be proven or even defined. The present can only exist as an idea of a consecutive quantity time that has passed and will occur, but can never actually exist.
thosearethefacts.gif
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 10, 2019, 05:57:30 PM
You are right, of course. 12 seconds can not exist, nor can any other quantity of any unit of time. Time has either already happened, or is going to happen; it either previously existed, or is going to exist. The present existence of any amount of time is literally impossible. The present moment is not even a real thing. The instantaneous moment is immeasureable, and therefore unable to be proven or even defined. The present can only exist as an idea of a consecutive quantity time that has passed and will occur, but can never actually exist.
Perhaps you just need the right bottle. :huh:
Some have theorized that just as there is a a quantum level of matter- a point at which matter cannot physically get smaller and remain matter, there is also a quanta of time: the basic unit of time- the "tick" of the universe if you will. Hypothetically, this might be something on the order of 10 to -80 power of one second.
If this is true, and if multiverse theory is true, and if at any one moment there is a minimum of 12 x 10 to the 80th power universes, then there is in fact 12 seconds in existence at any one moment.
I also get the feeling that none of y'all have ever towed something up a mountain before.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 12:41:44 PM
Some have theorized that just as there is a a quantum level of matter- a point at which matter cannot physically get smaller and remain matter, there is also a quanta of time: the basic unit of time- the "tick" of the universe if you will. Hypothetically, this might be something on the order of 10 to -80 power of one second.
If this is true, and if multiverse theory is true, and if at any one moment there is a minimum of 12 x 10 to the 80th power universes, then there is in fact 12 seconds in existence at any one moment.
That seems very complicated. If an occurrence can be a measure of time and given the relationship of time to the speed of light, the universe is full of 12 second events which continue to travel towards us. Of course, once we view them, they continue on towards whatever the infinite bounds of the universe are.
Actually, if I may be so bold, I think you guys are overthinking it. Twelve seconds does not exist, and it's not ethereal - it's concrete - whether under the guise of GR&R, control loop theory, logic or data.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 12:43:40 PM
I also get the feeling that none of y'all have ever towed something up a mountain before.
I have, but only the small mountains they call the Rockies.
So Ecoboost is a dead cat bounce, but at least we are in all agreement that diesel F-150 is even a worse idea - at $4k upcharge or otherwise. Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDY8obTyN9A
Quote from: RomanChariot on February 11, 2019, 01:06:16 PM
I have, but only the small mountains they call the Rockies.
Well, you've not said anything dumb on that matter yet either.
One time I towed 65,000 lbs with my Ferd Ranger diesel up Pikes Peak. Only took 12 seconds.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 11, 2019, 01:51:12 PM
One time I towed 65,000 lbs with my Ferd Ranger diesel up Pikes Peak. Only took 12 seconds.
Would have been faster with a Guerilla Pooprod. :lol:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 01:38:57 PM
Well, you've not said anything dumb on that matter yet either.
Give me time.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2019, 01:04:48 PM
Actually, if I may be so bold, I think you guys are overthinking it. Twelve seconds does not exist, and it's not ethereal - it's concrete - whether under the guise of GR&R, control loop theory, logic or data.
I fail to see what GRR Martin has to do with any of this.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 02:12:11 PM
I fail to see what GRR Martin has to do with any of this.
Exactly my point.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "12 second difference" that he keeps on about. Where did the number come from? What, from any of the posted videos or articles, shows a 12 second difference and what was it a difference between?
Quote from: MX793 on February 11, 2019, 06:04:19 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "12 second difference" that he keeps on about. Where did the number come from? What, from any of the posted videos or articles, shows a 12 second difference and what was it a difference between?
Between his ears? :huh:
Here's a video with a direct, same day comparison of the 2019 GMC Sierra 6.2, F150 3.5EB, and Ram 5.7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtBH2xOObE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtBH2xOObE)
The Ford got the worst mileage, but was far and away the quickest up the hill. Over 6 seconds quicker than the GMC and more than 10 seconds better than the Ram.
The Ram reported the best fuel mileage by a pretty large margin (4.7 vs 3.8 vs 3.3). That said, and this was true of the other test comparing Ford vs Ford, they use the truck's digital MPG readout for their fuel economy value. IME, those can be pretty inaccurate. Though I'm not sure how one would accurately determine fuel mileage on such a short jaunt with the basic equipment TFL has (they'd have to meter how much fuel was in the tank at the bottom of the hill, then drain the tank at the top, which they weren't set up to do).
Best towing truck is K1500 4.3 with Electronic Fuel Injection.
Oh, man! If you must. But first, here we are, the Ram wins another overall test.
As much as we love 12SECONDSSpin, the trucks had the same time. Please watch the video again, and other such videos by the channel - whether it's traffic or admission that any of these trucks have reserve power and can easily hold 60 mph.
On-board MPG is extremely accurate for it uses the PWM control of the fuel injectors. Whatever the method, Ecoboost almost always finished last in MPG, onboard calculation or less accurate methods.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 11, 2019, 06:40:43 PM
Oh, man! If you must. But first, here we are, the Ram wins another overall test.
As much as we love 12SECONDSSpin, the trucks had the same time. Please watch the video again, and other such videos by the channel - whether it's traffic or admission that any of these trucks have reserve power and can easily hold 60 mph.
No, they did not get the same times. They accelerate from a lower speed to 60, then hold 60 the whole way up the hill (assuming the truck has the power to do so, which all of these do). If one has a lower time, it's because it accomplished that initial acceleration faster.
QuoteOn-board MPG is extremely accurate for it uses the PWM control of the fuel injectors. Whatever the method, Ecoboost almost always finished last in MPG, onboard calculation or less accurate methods.
Then why does every vehicle I've ever owned with such a readout read at least 5% off compared to what I get when I fill the tank and then do the math on fuel in vs miles driven?
Miles driven doesn't include reverse and idle time. For any given trip, from start to stop, modern on board fuel economy readouts should be very accurate. Older systems might not be.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 06:54:22 PM
Miles driven doesn't include reverse and idle time. For any given trip, from start to stop, modern on board fuel economy readouts should be very accurate. Older systems might not be.
The vehicle's dash readout will decrement the trip MPG while sitting and idling in traffic. At least on my cars it does. Like if I gas up, then drive two miles down the road and hit a red light, I can watch the readout tick down about 1 mpg per second while I'm sitting there. I have records for my first couple of years with the current Mustang. It's dash readout has averaged over 4% higher than what I get when I divide the gallons put in by the miles driven on the trip meter (resetting also resets the MPG readout). I've seen over a 7% difference on some fillups. Obviously, some of that error can be my filling, but that will be no more than 1%.
"I want my twelve seconds." That kid on the bike would be angry I think.
Anyway, the reason why the gas pump method is off is because the tank-is-full shutoff is a rather crude process and thus terrible measurement device.
As stated prior, onboard MPG calculation takes into account the PWM pulses of the injectors (resolution to the milli gallon or better) and other things not mentioned prior, such as idling and and even gasoline volume changes due to temperature fluctuation.
On the last vehicle I paid attention to this on, it seemed to adjust for idle time in drive, but not in park.
It could also be using the nominal diameter of your tires, and not accounting for squish and the effective diameter.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 07:10:56 PM
On the last vehicle I paid attention to this on, it seemed to adjust for idle time in drive, but not in park.
It could also be using the nominal diameter of your tires, and not accounting for squish and the effective diameter.
Manual transmission doesn't have "park".
Wheel diameter shouldn't matter. The odometer counts rotations and the computer bounces that against the factory wheel size. Since I use the odometer reading for my hand-calculations, the car and I are both using the same value for miles. Now, if I was tracking mileage with an independent device, that might make a difference.
I can go into the settings on the vehicle (I think I have to engage diagnostic mode, but that's just a matter of hitting a couple of buttons in the right sequence) and adjust the fuel mileage readout on the Mustang. Basically introduce a scaling factor to correct it if it's consistently wrong. Haven't bothered to try it.
Stop using the pump.
I also don't run the pump at wide-open until it kicks off and then call it full. After it kicks the first time, I trickle fill until it kicks a second time. Also almost always use the same station (only station that has non-ethanol) and usually the same pump. I can pretty much guarantee the fill variability is within .1 gallons. And pumps are also checked monthly for accuracy by the state. On a typical 11-12 gallon fill up (I don't let it drop below 1/4 tank), fill error isn't more than 1%.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 07:10:56 PM
On the last vehicle I paid attention to this on, it seemed to adjust for idle time in drive, but not in park.
It could also be using the nominal diameter of your tires, and not accounting for squish and the effective diameter.
I know my car does register MPG whenever the engine is on. In other words, my MPG drops even if I'm in park.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 11, 2019, 06:54:22 PM
Miles driven doesn't include reverse and idle time. For any given trip, from start to stop, modern on board fuel economy readouts should be very accurate. Older systems might not be.
The G, Z and Kia were all off by as much as 10% for average FE
Maybe the instantaneous reading is accurate, but that's not of much use to me.
Breaking news, Ford powertrain engineer spills the secrets for transitioning to pooprod motors - smaller, lighter, better powerband: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a26306469/ford-super-duty-73-v8-engine-details-specs/
Quote from: GoCougs on February 12, 2019, 08:18:12 PM
Breaking news, Ford powertrain engineer spills the secrets for transitioning to pooprod motors - smaller, lighter, better powerband: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a26306469/ford-super-duty-73-v8-engine-details-specs/
"Beltramo pointed out that most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of under 8500 pounds cruise around without carrying or towing much weight at all. That means they don't use much sustained horsepower. By contrast, vehicles with a GVWR over 8500 pounds tend to tow and haul a lot, which means they're using a lot of their horsepower a lot of the time."
Translation: pushrods are better for poseurs who daily drive their trucks for no reason.
It was designed as a truck engine. They don't have the EPA breathing down their backs on F-250's and bigger.
Quote from: Laconian on February 12, 2019, 08:30:10 PM
"Beltramo pointed out that most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of under 8500 pounds cruise around without carrying or towing much weight at all. That means they don't use much sustained horsepower. By contrast, vehicles with a GVWR over 8500 pounds tend to tow and haul a lot, which means they're using a lot of their horsepower a lot of the time."
Translation: pushrods are better for poseurs who daily drive their trucks for no reason.
Oh, it's a good thing my daily has pooprods. But wait. I use a lot if its horsepower a lot of the time. Should I install an overhead cam?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 12, 2019, 09:25:43 PM
Oh, it's a good thing my daily has pooprods. But wait. I use a lot if its horsepower a lot of the time. Should I install an overhead cam?
I'm pretty sure you can get a stick-on DOHC head at Pep Boys
Quote from: Laconian on February 12, 2019, 09:28:29 PM
I'm pretty sure you can get a stick-on DOHC head at Pep Boys
If not DOHC stickers are like $2.99 on Amazon.
Oh man, I don't think I can afford DOHC. SOHC stickers should be half the price.
Quote from: Laconian on February 12, 2019, 08:30:10 PM
"Beltramo pointed out that most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of under 8500 pounds cruise around without carrying or towing much weight at all. That means they don't use much sustained horsepower. By contrast, vehicles with a GVWR over 8500 pounds tend to tow and haul a lot, which means they're using a lot of their horsepower a lot of the time."
Translation: pushrods are better for poseurs who daily drive their trucks for no reason.
I took it the opposite - pooprod was proving better with legit truck use (i.e., driving around with heavy loads most of the time).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 12, 2019, 09:58:49 PM
I took it the opposite - pooprod was proving better with legit truck use (i.e., driving around with heavy loads most of the time).
I like this translation better. My heavy tow rig has 12 poorods, and I believe it only gets stronger the more I beat on it.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 12, 2019, 09:58:49 PM
I took it the opposite - pooprod was proving better with legit truck use (i.e., driving around with heavy loads most of the time).
Oh whoops, yes.
Quote from: Laconian on February 12, 2019, 10:12:38 PM
Oh whoops, yes.
That won't stop "Them" however (probably will still favor diesel though).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 12, 2019, 08:18:12 PM
Breaking news, Ford powertrain engineer spills the secrets for transitioning to pooprod motors - smaller, lighter, better powerband: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a26306469/ford-super-duty-73-v8-engine-details-specs/
More torque at low rpm to carry heavy loads. Sounds perfect for those fat-assed Chevy drivers in their Camaros. :huh:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 13, 2019, 11:08:49 AM
More torque at low rpm to carry heavy loads. Sounds perfect for those fat-assed Chevy drivers in their Camaros. :huh:
Perhaps the Mustang would benefit then? Versus the Camaro, in general, the Mustang is both heavier and slower.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 13, 2019, 11:37:47 AM
Perhaps the Mustang would benefit then? Versus the Camaro, in general, the Mustang is both heavier and slower.
If only anyone cared....
A couple of tenths to 60 is not worth the huge losses in practicality and livability. The Rustang is 97% as fast as the Camaro while being about 300% nicer to live with. That is why the Rustang is the top selling coupe in Germany (!) while the Camaro is nowhere to be found in Europe.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 13, 2019, 11:37:47 AM
Perhaps the Mustang would benefit then? Versus the Camaro, in general, the Mustang is both heavier and slower.
No doubt for the average Mustang owner as well. Semi-exotics like the GT 350 excluded of course. Then again, the new GT 500 will soon put an end to the fractional lead in speed that Camaro fanboys seem to think exists. Chevy engineers are currently scrambling to make their pooprods work a little faster without flying out of the engine.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 13, 2019, 12:31:40 PM
No doubt for the average Mustang owner as well. Semi-exotics like the GT 350 excluded of course. Then again, the new GT 500 will soon put an end to the fractional lead in speed that Camaro fanboys seem to think exists. Chevy engineers are currently scrambling to make their pooprods work a little faster without flying out of the engine.
Well, the GT500 does look interesting though the DCT-only tack is quite odd. Either way it's shaping up to be a rehash of the past - the GT500 is quicker in a straight line than the ZL1, but underperforms everywhere else. Perhaps this will comfort Mustang fans from playing second fiddle the last decade, but I sorta doubt it. Of course, should Chevy drop the ZR1's 755 hp LT5 into the ZL1 1LE, well, Mustang fans will be back to having Bad Days.
??????????
The GT500 hasn't even come out yet :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 13, 2019, 01:59:24 PM
??????????
The GT500 hasn't even come out yet :lol:
That's the beauty. We can speculate all we want. Besides, it has killer sound; and it's called Predator. :lol:
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 13, 2019, 12:31:40 PM
No doubt for the average Mustang owner as well. Semi-exotics like the GT 350 excluded of course. Then again, the new GT 500 will soon put an end to the fractional lead in speed that Camaro fanboys seem to think exists. Chevy engineers are currently scrambling to make their pooprods work a little faster without flying out of the engine.
Chevy engineers are too busy readying the C8 to go Ferarri/Lambo/McClaren hunting to worry about the GT 500........
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 13, 2019, 04:54:48 PM
Chevy engineers are busy readying the C8 to go Ferarri/Lambo/McClaren hunting to worry about the GT 500........
Ford already did that in 1966 :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 13, 2019, 05:07:35 PM
Ford already did that in 1966 :huh:.
With a modified Lola Mk 6, yeah.
Quote from: Submariner on February 13, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
With a modified Lola Mk 6, yeah.
DAMN YOU BEAT ME TO IT!!! :lol:
Or was it a modified AC Ace?
Quote from: Submariner on February 13, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
With a modified Lola Mk 6, yeah.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 13, 2019, 10:03:02 PM
DAMN YOU BEAT ME TO IT!!! :lol:
Ford learned early on that to be competitive in international races it was important to bring on board the experts in the specific class. Most of the expertise, at the time, was in Britain; to a degree, it still is. In their venture into F1, they commissioned Messrs. COStin and DuckWORTH to build an engine for Lotus, having a partnership of sorts with Colin Chapman at the time. The result, of course, was the remarkable Ford/Cosworth DFV which dominated F1 for years. This partnership also extended into Indy racing where a Ford Windsor powered Lotus, driven by Jim Clark, changed the structure of Indy race cars. Of course, the Windsor went on to dominate the series for years powering various entries.
Regarding GT/prototype racing, at the time, Eric Broadly, another Brit, had developed the Lola Mk 6 which used the small block Windsor and was surprisingly quick so Ford put a team together and contracted Broadly as a collaborator to build the Ford GT. The first year of racing 1964, was not successful so Ford brought in Shelby to manage the team. We all know what happened after that.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 14, 2019, 10:56:03 AM
Or was it a modified AC Ace?
Another remarkable partnership with Ford. "Powered by Ford" was legendary.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 14, 2019, 05:28:41 PM
Another remarkable partnership with Ford. "Powered by Ford" was legendary.
Now Mustangs are running around with LS Motors in them.......
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 14, 2019, 06:12:48 PM
Now Mustangs are running around with LS Motors in them.......
Junkers :nutty:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 14, 2019, 06:30:15 PM
Junkers :nutty:.
Agreed! Waste a perfectly good motor......
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 14, 2019, 06:48:34 PM
Agreed! Waste a perfectly good motor......
Some guys have no class :huh:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 14, 2019, 05:28:41 PM
Another remarkable partnership with Ford. "Powered by Ford" was legendary.
Hng, I love those "POWERED BY FORD" valve covers... :wub:
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on February 14, 2019, 06:48:34 PM
Agreed! Waste a perfectly good motor......
I actually haven't followed 'The Drags' for quite a while, but as torque is king at the strip, it would make a bit of sense to use a push-rod engine. I can see that the Godzilla engine would be a popular swap for a lot of quarter mile racers.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 14, 2019, 07:06:36 PM
Some guys have no class :huh:.
When starting from the ground up (replicas, hot rods, kit cars, etc.) many just want a compact, light, simple, powerful, usable and mod-friendly engine - the GM LS/LT pooprod motor wins that competition 100 times out of 100 vs. any Ford motor ever built.
Yeah, an LS is just more manageable than a Coyote. If you've got a big Galaxy 500 or something, a Coyote would be fine. But if it's a Cobra kit, I'm gonna use an LS.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 15, 2019, 07:31:47 AM
I actually haven't followed 'The Drags' for quite a while, but as torque is king at the strip, it would make a bit of sense to use a push-rod engine. I can see that the Godzilla engine would be a popular swap for a lot of quarter mile racers.
Actually, power is king at the drag strip.
Since this is an all-new engine, aftermarket support for parts needed (hi-po heads, cams, etc.) is a long way off, if ever. If a variation of this motor gets rolled out to the Mustang, that would greatly speed the development of such parts.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 15, 2019, 09:17:41 AM
Yeah, an LS is just more manageable than a Coyote. If you've got a big Galaxy 500 or something, a Coyote would be fine. But if it's a Cobra kit, I'm gonna use an LS.
Well, to be fair, if I wanted to do a Cobra replica or modified Ford product in general, I'd go for Ford's closest approximate of an LS/LT - a Windsor with modern stuffs - stroker crank, roller cam, FI. It's not as good a motor as the LS/LT, but it's pretty good and more than enough.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 15, 2019, 10:52:02 AM
Well, to be fair, if I wanted to do a Cobra replica or modified Ford product in general, I'd go for Ford's closest approximate of an LS/LT - a Windsor with modern stuffs - stroker crank, roller cam, FI. It's not as good a motor as the LS/LT, but it's pretty good and more than enough.
I'll go with a 3.8 Essex V6 with the improved intake of 99+
Quote from: GoCougs on February 15, 2019, 10:52:02 AM
Well, to be fair, if I wanted to do a Cobra replica or modified Ford product in general, I'd go for Ford's closest approximate of an LS/LT - a Windsor with modern stuffs - stroker crank, roller cam, FI. It's not as good a motor as the LS/LT, but it's pretty good and more than enough.
I'd stick with carbs. FI is for pansies.
I might do a carb'd LS3 in the El Camino if I don't just rebuild the current engine when the time comes.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 15, 2019, 11:19:59 AM
I'd stick with carbs. FI is for pansies.
I might do a carb'd LS3 in the El Camino if I don't just rebuild the current engine when the time comes.
But FI is so reliable and accurate. I mainly dislike the throttle response and limitations of throttle by wire.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 15, 2019, 09:17:41 AM
Yeah, an LS is just more manageable than a Coyote. If you've got a big Galaxy 500 or something, a Coyote would be fine. But if it's a Cobra kit, I'm gonna use an LS.
You could be the first to squeeze a Godzilla into a Cobra kit :ohyeah:.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 15, 2019, 10:52:02 AM
Well, to be fair, if I wanted to do a Cobra replica or modified Ford product in general, I'd go for Ford's closest approximate of an LS/LT - a Windsor with modern stuffs - stroker crank, roller cam, FI. It's not as good a motor as the LS/LT, but it's pretty good and more than enough.
Lots of Windsor crate engines available for reasonable prices. Stroker 347 is a great idea.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 15, 2019, 11:19:59 AM
I'd stick with carbs. FI is for pansies.
I might do a carb'd LS3 in the El Camino if I don't just rebuild the current engine when the time comes.
A brace of four duel throat Webers with short chrome velocity stacks would be perfect.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 15, 2019, 10:46:54 AM
Actually, power is king at the drag strip.
Since this is an all-new engine, aftermarket support for parts needed (hi-po heads, cams, etc.) is a long way off, if ever. If a variation of this motor gets rolled out to the Mustang, that would greatly speed the development of such parts.
We've had this discussion before. Low end torque to get off the line. This is why the 428 CJ cleaned up at the '68 Winternationals. The 428 used the 406 block, biggest production bore, and 410 crank, longest production stroke in order to achieve a lot of low end grunt. It was also a great stop light racer.
Quote from: FoMoJo on February 15, 2019, 12:22:28 PM
We've had this discussion before. Low end torque to get off the line. This is why the 428 CJ cleaned up at the '68 Winternationals. The 428 used the 406 block, biggest production bore, and 410 crank, longest production stroke in order to achieve a lot of low end grunt. It was also a great stop light racer.
Winning drag races starts by revving up against a high stall converter or clutch dump and holding the revs high and tight through the gears till the end - this means lots of RPM and lots of power, preferably in a light car and/or car with good weight transfer (Mopar B-body). This is why the solid-lifter (high revving) Chevy L-88, ZL-1 and LS-6 and the ginormous breathing Mopar 440-6 and 426 Hemi rule the Pure Stock Muscle Car class: https://www.psmcdr.com/all-time-lists.
The "torque monster" GM 400/455s or 429 CJs make only the rare appearance. Fun to cruise around town and to play around and the like, but they're winning few drag races, all else equal (factory stock vs. factory stock), vs. the solid lifter/high RPM or ginormous breathing big blocks of the era.