I'm not sure if we've covered this before:
I think we did and it was found to be a truck motor not a put it in a mustang motor (but I am sure some one will).
I think it's the replacement for the V10 in truck chassis and motorhome F53 chassis.
This is not GTR related. In any way.
dean1484 said:I think we did and it was found to be a truck motor not a put it in a mustang motor (but I am sure some one will).
Superperformance got you
In reply to dean1484 :
Brian Wolfe, former head of some vehicle development arm in Ford, plus one of the pioneers of Mustang drag racing in the 80's and early 90's, has one. Last I heard they have ran it out to 7k and 1400hp on a stock shortblock. Team Z Motorsports is involved too.
pirate said:I think it's the replacement for the V10 in truck chassis and motorhome F53 chassis.
Very much so.
It was designed to run WOT with no enrichment- which is good for emissions and fuel economy- the latter being VERY important for motorhomes.
Ranger50 said:In reply to dean1484 :
Brian Wolfe, former head of some vehicle development arm in Ford, plus one of the pioneers of Mustang drag racing in the 80's and early 90's, has one. Last I heard they have ran it out to 7k and 1400hp on a stock shortblock. Team Z Motorsports is involved too.
Brian was in charge of powertrain product development. When we last were discussing this, the engine you speak of was being "unveiled" via a YouTube page. I'm sure that can be found.
I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
Hmm...it sounds like it'll physically fit in my van, making it run happily might be a challenge though.
I still want to see what this sucker has for exhaust valves and catalysts if they are running it stoich all the time.
The exhaust valves/cooling, anyway, would make it accept turbocharging very readily. I assume the bottom end is engineered more towards utter bulletproofness, like the old Super Duty engines, so it may make a poor drag engine compared to a quicker-revving small block, but it'd probably rock for tractor pulling...
Streetwiseguy said:I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
"All new heads with port injection for simple maintenance and high airflow?" What's next are they gonna take away my Dual clutch trans?
Pete. (l33t FS) said:I still want to see what this sucker has for exhaust valves and catalysts if they are running it stoich all the time.
The exhaust valves/cooling, anyway, would make it accept turbocharging very readily. I assume the bottom end is engineered more towards utter bulletproofness, like the old Super Duty engines, so it may make a poor drag engine compared to a quicker-revving small block, but it'd probably rock for tractor pulling...
The engine was designed around some pretty specific emissions requirements- mostly for HD dyno cert systems, where the testing revolves around the engine capability instead of an actual drive cycle. In those cases, a low speed, large displacement engine ends up being a more effective solution. The bonus is that it's even better for real world use.
There was an interview with one of the project guys at an auto show last year and it was very interesting. People have already pushed them to 700 hp NA with ported stock castings. Someone stuffed one in a fox before I saw one in the real world. Im not a ford guy, but I think this is going to be an excellent engine, and I hope they become common enough to be available for swaps and for the aftermarket to embrace them.
I think this will make a great candidate for swaps, for the same reasons an LS is. Lots of cubes in a small and simple package.
I really want them to make this available as an option in an F150. I doubt it will happen due to MPG regulations by platform, but I'd love to see it as a top-drawer option next to the 3.5EB. Make it available in connection with the big tow package and/or the big payload package.
ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:I really want them to make this available as an option in an F150. I doubt it will happen due to MPG regulations by platform, but I'd love to see it as a top-drawer option next to the 3.5EB. Make it available in connection with the big tow package and/or the big payload package.
Why would they though? The Raptor already shows that they could turn up the wick on the 3.5 if they wanted to.
Honestly, this is one of those engines that as cool as it is, I don't quite see the purpose of it. For the big trucks, if they wanted tons of torque and more power, they could have just stuck some turbos to the existing 6.2 (or the 5.0, or even a cranked up 3.5). But truck buyers are conservative, so they probably would have been scared of a turbo gas engine. Hence why people still buy F-150s with the 5.0 in them (I've known some who did because they were either scared of turbos, or they think it's not a real truck unless it has a V8).
rslifkin said:ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:I really want them to make this available as an option in an F150. I doubt it will happen due to MPG regulations by platform, but I'd love to see it as a top-drawer option next to the 3.5EB. Make it available in connection with the big tow package and/or the big payload package.
Why would they though? The Raptor already shows that they could turn up the wick on the 3.5 if they wanted to.
Honestly, this is one of those engines that as cool as it is, I don't quite see the purpose of it. For the big trucks, if they wanted tons of torque and more power, they could have just stuck some turbos to the existing 6.2 (or the 5.0, or even a cranked up 3.5). But truck buyers are conservative, so they probably would have been scared of a turbo gas engine. Hence why people still buy F-150s with the 5.0 in them (I've known some who did because they were either scared of turbos, or they think it's not a real truck unless it has a V8).
Turbo GDI motors like the ecoboost go rich under heavy load, and thermal efficiency and economy tank. A big NA motor under WOT and near WOT will use less gas than a downsized and boosted motor.
In reply to rslifkin :
I'd agree with your assessment of truck owners, especially if it's a company truck with multiple drivers. The lack of mechanical empathy of many drivers would make simplicity a good selling point for fleet vehicle
I'm one of those people who would probably go with the V8 if I was buying a new F150. Not because a truck has to have a V8, but the simplicity, or at least the perception of simplicity, and potential lower ownership costs when looking at vehicle that will be kept for multiple decades.
In reply to rslifkin :
I think the 5.0 truck is the better truck compared to the 3.5EB. The 5.0s are much easier to repair and more reliable in my experience. The 3.5s like to leak coolant from pretty much all of the quick connects and the turbo fittings. The inboard turbo fittings require turbo removal to replace which is not an inexpesive repair.
Having a bunch of experience with both engines, for my money, 5.0 all day.
Go to a coyote shootout and see how ridiculous some of the 5.0 trucks are. A SCSB coyote truck is the best drag vehicle ford currently makes
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:Streetwiseguy said:I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
"All new heads with port injection for simple maintenance and high airflow?" What's next are they gonna take away my Dual clutch trans?
I think he means your other right.
iansane said:Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:Streetwiseguy said:I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
"All new heads with port injection for simple maintenance and high airflow?" What's next are they gonna take away my Dual clutch trans?
I think he means your other right.
I was trying to call out the additional backpedaling they were doing in the ad.
But I am pretty famous for mistaking right and left. Usually at the beginning of a 'drivers choice' slalom.
Whats old is new again?
Going back to pushrods is really interesting. Im guessing that was decided early on for packaging reasons. Im curious how the variable timing works. Does the cam have multiple profiles or does it shift everything (intake and exhaust)? And cooling jets to cool the pistons? Thats oil I assume, just never seen it phrased that way.
It does seem to be right in line with the auto journalist chatter about small turbo motors being less efficient in the real world than larger NA motors. My experience has mirrored this, especially if you like to keep up with traffic around here. The average since covid is around 80mph. At that speed my old Speed3 (older, different beast, yea i know) would get low 20s. Ouch.
With talk of the 5.0 Vs 3.5EB in F150's. What's the hives view for towing? I've got friends with both engines, two of them are here on GRM. The 5.0 owner went that rout as their 'commute' as such is only a couple of miles and they had concerns about frequent short trips with a turbo. The EB owner has had many many trucks over the years and loves the EB for it's fuel econ and towing compared to V8's (Windsor, Mod motors and Coyotes). If I ever get a truck/Expedition it will certainly be a tow vehicle so I'd go for the EB.
spandak said:Going back to pushrods is really interesting. Im guessing that was decided early on for packaging reasons.
Not for packaging from what I remember of the article I read. Everything about this engine is about low-end grunt in order to get loads moving while towing something. Pushrods with big honking valves is part of that search for low-end.
Mr_Asa said:spandak said:Going back to pushrods is really interesting. Im guessing that was decided early on for packaging reasons.
Not for packaging from what I remember of the article I read. Everything about this engine is about low-end grunt in order to get loads moving while towing something. Pushrods with big honking valves is part of that search for low-end.
You can put the same size valves in either a CIB or OHC motor, right? That doesn't really seem to be a deciding factor when starting from a blank slate. Rather, I'm going to completely guess that a large enough oil pan shifts the hard points of the motor too close to the hood to pass pedestrian safety laws. Rather than drop the oil pan size, they went CIB.
You'll need to log in to post.
