In reply to Mr_Asa :
I always thought that was an interesting debate. Does OHC actually have any affect on actual powerband. I would assume it depends more on intake/head design and cam profile versus valvetrain layout. Now I understand that certain setups can be better for sustains high rpms use and valvetrain stability, but if you had a cam in block engine and the only thing you changed was made it OHC, would it actually affect powerband in a material way?
In reply to Opti :
Mahle developed a cam-in-cam-in-block for the Viper, so even cam phasing isn't an inherent difference between CIB and OHC. I'd imagine float is inherently worse with CIB so max feasible rpm could be limited unless you get into more exotic materials than the hyothetical OHC you are comparing to.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said: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.
I bought a used EB F150 3 years ago. It was a 2013 with 145K miles on it. Yes, 145K miles! It was thousands cheaper that any other '13 F150. I use it for towing and it does that just fine and will get 12-14 mpg when towing my 20ft enclosed and 15 when I tow my open trailer! Only issue has been with the trans. A trans cooler line between the trans and the radiator sprung a leak and I got stranded when the trans ran out of fluid. The line was fixed and the trans later was replaced with a good used one. I don't connect this issue with the engine which is still trouble free. The only issue I can see going forward is if and when the WP needs to be replaced. That can be an expensive repair but cheaper on the trucks than on Ford cars with this engine.
In reply to jimbbski :
WPs arent bad, they are belt driven on the trucks and the worst part is just getting all the turbo piping out of the way.
In reply to Opti :
I've always wondered about that. Given identical ports and valve size, is there a benefit other than size? Pushrods and rockers add weight, but on the other hand, adding a second cam and a chain adds weight too. I'd would be an interesting test to set up.
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.
When talking two valve engines, there is no ultimate difference between pushrod and OHC, once you get the intake ports past the pushrods. Which is where hemi heads (even the modern wedge Hemis) and tunnel ports and Chevy's wild engine with the camshaft on the exhaust side all come in.
In an application like this, it makes sense to go cam in block.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said: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.
They do about the same on MPG with a trailer hooked up, and the EcoBoost is WAY faster off the line and generally tows "easier" thanks to the turbos. I have reviewed/owned/driven every variant of drivetrain in a current F-150 and the only one I'd buy right now is the 3.5 EcoBoost or the 3.5 Hybrid (EcoBoost + battery setup).
As for the 7.3, I had it for a week in an F-250 Tremor. It was pretty good, certainly a great replacement for the V10. It's aimed at fleet customers who want low maintenance, simple drivetrain, easy repairs, etc. but would be a solid choice for consumers who don't need the torque of the PowerStroke diesel (or extra buy-in/ownership costs). It's a revvy engine but I don't know how well it'd translate to a Mustang.
Whats the difference in service/maintenance on the EB vs. the 5.0? I don't know what the turbo packaging is like, but I don't think in the history of automotive vehicles there has ever been a TT car that was inexpensive to service.
I've had a '13 3.5EB for just over 2 years. Bought it with 60k on it, now at 77k. Truck was used to pull a horse trailer when new as I understand it. I started out looking for a 5L because I was concerned about buying a turbo truck used, but after driving them back to back the EB was such a better truck engine I decided it was worth whatever risk was there. More torque at lower revs, the way it develops power reminds me of a smoothed out version of the 7.3 PSD I had. The 5L had to get way up in revs to match the same pull. It seems like a better motor for a sports car than a truck.
As for turbo leaks, I have had one on the driver's side turbo. I did the repair myself in a weekend using all Ford factory, dealer parts including gaskets (replaced all the cooling lines on that side, not just the leaker) for under $100 in parts. Popped the front wheel off, took the turbo out, replaced it the same way. Yeah, it's tight work but no worse than other stuff I've done on other vehicles. The 5L trucks have issues with coolant tanks and piping leaks in the same years as well. Those repairs are easier but more costly. My point is, all of them have their issues. So far, I'd still take the EB over the 5.
Brake_L8 (Forum Supporter) said:As for the 7.3, I had it for a week in an F-250 Tremor. It was pretty good, certainly a great replacement for the V10. It's aimed at fleet customers who want low maintenance, simple drivetrain, easy repairs, etc. but would be a solid choice for consumers who don't need the torque of the PowerStroke diesel (or extra buy-in/ownership costs). It's a revvy engine but I don't know how well it'd translate to a Mustang.
I think this is the key point. This engine shouldn't be compared to the 3.5EB or 5.0 and retail customers. This is for fleet trucks, buses, motorhomes, box trucks, and all the other work vehicles. Pushrods make sense to limit the overall footprint so the maximum amount of cabs, accessories, and layouts will work. PFI and NA make sense for fleet customers that are estimating a 300-500K mile vehicle life and don't want to budget for multiple turbo and injector replacements, intake valve media blasting every 60-80K, and removing 6 hours worth of piping just to get access.
I hope it's a home run, and the new standard for HD gas engines. Seperately, I also hope someone comes up with a head/cam/intake package to wake it up and go racing....because that would be awesome :).
Streetwiseguy said:I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
Basically a
Ford designed LS. VVT is a nice addition though. Where GM on that? Missed that boat
In reply to Vajingo :
GM has had VVT for a very long time in the GenIV engines.
It's closer to a dinosaur then it is to Godzilla. It's a big lazy large displacement gasser that isn't particularly eager and is designed for longevity without substantial maintenance needs. Unfortunately the transmission behind it will likely undermine those efforts.
It will likely be the last of it's kind as within the next decade EV drivetrains will do everything that it does, better.
It may sound like I'm slamming the platform, but I'm glad that it exists and that they developed it, but it thing that the pricepoint that it comes in, a necessary evil to cover the R&D, makes it rather laughable for what it is. It should've been developed at least 10 years old. Engines of this sort are designed for 20 year production runs, and this one will likely see half of that.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:It's closer to a dinosaur then it is to Godzilla. It's a big lazy large displacement gasser that isn't particularly eager and is designed for longevity without substantial maintenance needs. Unfortunately the transmission behind it will likely undermine those efforts.
It will likely be the last of it's kind as within the next decade EV drivetrains will do everything that it does, better.
It may sound like I'm slamming the platform, but I'm glad that it exists and that they developed it, but it thing that the pricepoint that it comes in, a necessary evil to cover the R&D, makes it rather laughable for what it is. It should've been developed at least 10 years old. Engines of this sort are designed for 20 year production runs, and this one will likely see half of that.
You foresee electric RVs in ten years?
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).
While you *can* make the same power and torque using a smaller engine with boost or more RPM, it really comes down to how it's certified and how it's used. Many of these engines are certified at a percentage (load and rpm) of peak power- so the higher reving and boosted engine, the same applies for the cert output. So in this case, a large displacement, slow spinning engine is the best. It's all about powertrain matching. And the V10 really needed replacing- this engine has a lot of design update in it. So even though it uses pushrods, it's all new and pretty high tech.
When you put engines into really large vehicles, it takes a lot of engine to get it to move- so sometimes bigger is just better.
On a side note, it's amusing to call DOHC modern, when it's over 100 years old now, too.
In reply to cyow5 :
Yes.
In reply to Flynlow (FS) :
I know some shops are already porting the stock heads and getting close to 400 cfm. Most of the builds crazy builds ive seen are using sheet metal intakes. I dont know of any off the shelf cams yet, but I may be behind
I bought a 3.5EB Expedition in January with 65k miles on it. It already has 74k miles and I've done over 3k miles towing. Coming from a 7.3 Excursion and a 6.0 F250 before that, the 3.5EB tows like the 7.3 in regards to power but with more gears but less noise and smell. The gas mileage wasn't bad at all. The truck is fast loaded or not, its ridiculous. I don't have a big aversion to maintenance, that wasn't a deciding point to be honest. But, I like old Mercedes and Jaguars so maybe I'm not a good gauge of that lol.
Not the correct forum, but I'm thinking it'd be a viable speed boat power plant as well.
FMB42 said:Not the correct forum, but I'm thinking it'd be a viable speed boat power plant as well.
Ooooh, good one!
The ones I am familar with go for nitrous instead of turbos. Lots of Frito-Lay lookin' exhaust valves come out of boat motors.
cyow5 said:captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:It's closer to a dinosaur then it is to Godzilla. It's a big lazy large displacement gasser that isn't particularly eager and is designed for longevity without substantial maintenance needs. Unfortunately the transmission behind it will likely undermine those efforts.
It will likely be the last of it's kind as within the next decade EV drivetrains will do everything that it does, better.
It may sound like I'm slamming the platform, but I'm glad that it exists and that they developed it, but it thing that the pricepoint that it comes in, a necessary evil to cover the R&D, makes it rather laughable for what it is. It should've been developed at least 10 years old. Engines of this sort are designed for 20 year production runs, and this one will likely see half of that.
You foresee electric RVs in ten years?
Honestly, RVs seem like the absolute worst case for Electric power.
Infrequent use & extremely high fuel demands/long ranges. Imagine having $50k in batteries in your RV just to achieve a 300 mile range and its only driven 5k miles a year.
In reply to cyow5 :
But if ya WANT all electric to work, it will happen no matter what physics has to say about it...
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:It will likely be the last of it's kind as within the next decade EV drivetrains will do everything that it does, better.
I agree with the last of its kind, but I strongly disagree with the 10 year EV everything timeline. People were talking about the death of the internal combustion engine 10 years ago to batteries, hybrids, and hydrogen. Yet here we are. For RVs, commercial vehicles, boats, etc, an ICE engine remains the better choice for a portable, energy dense power source. Horses for courses.
In reply to Flynlow (FS) :
Yep. EV is great for vehicles that have a high stopped to motion ratio, while having small duty cycles of same.
Unfortunately, while the RV stopped:motion ratio is usually high, you'd need a really really REALLY big battery for your RV to charge it for 11 months so you could take a one month cross-country vacation...
Vajingo said:Streetwiseguy said:I LOL'd at the top right hand "feature" on the list.
Backpedal much, Ford?
Basically a
Ford designed LS. VVT is a nice addition though. Where GM on that? Missed that boat
I had a 7 year old Chev pickup with vvt in the shop for a new oil pump today, because apparently we need an electric solenoid in the pump to help control oil pressure now...
You'll need to log in to post.
