The toughest engine....In The World?

21st century Cobra/Daytona Coupe? GT70 revival? bring back the Falcon on a modified Mustang platform and give it three engine options (the Ecoboost V6 out of an '11 Mustang, this, and the new 5.0l V8)? V6 powered Miata/GC/RX7 killer?

I got some marketing for the new F150 and the engine options, the Ecoboost had the highest tow ratings of the all the engines. I'd have to check for the actual numbers however.

kb58 wrote: Okay, I understand the marketing thing of proving how tough it is. But, high mileage... in a truck, seems like the worst possible shape to render any sort of impressive numbers. If they want a marketing success that gets noticed, now put that same exact engine into something that's 2500 lbs, with a 0.20 Cd, get 40+ mpg, and kicks butt at the track. Now THAT's far more impressive to anyone looking for good mileage and good power.

What sells more, the Prius or the F150? Would you rather improve the gas mileage of your best selling vehicle (and often THE best selling vehicle) or make something that nobody will buy to make a giant mpg number?

I actually really like the idea that Ford has come up with. It ought to help a lot with people's perception of what a truck can really do. I'd love to see a truck dropped in the weeds without fenders that are 7 feet high, but that's the look and feel of the modern truck that will sell in the US, now they just made it as good as it can be (well, pretty god anyway) in that package.

Kb58 I do not think you understand most truck buyer, They tend to look for trucks that will go the distance, pull the load,drag just about anything anywhere and do it day in day out week in week out and year in and year out.and not need major repairs along the way. Add in the cost of truck Vs. cars and truck HAVE to go longer for the most part and I am sure this is what Ford was trying to show to there buyers.

As a dodge guy I will have to take a look at this engine/ truck in the next year or so

Overall this was a great way to showcase what for has been working on overall. Now where is the Focus RS

Paul B

kb58 wrote: Okay, I understand the marketing thing of proving how tough it is. But, high mileage... in a truck, seems like the worst possible shape to render any sort of impressive numbers. If they want a marketing success that gets noticed, now put that same exact engine into something that's 2500 lbs, with a 0.20 Cd, get 40+ mpg, and kicks butt at the track. Now THAT's far more impressive to anyone looking for good mileage and good power.

Donebrokeit wrote: Kb58 I do not think you understand most truck buyer, They tend to look for trucks that will go the distance, pull the load,drag just about anything anywhere and do it day in day out week in week out and year in and year out.and not need major repairs along the way

All the while doing the duty of a tesoterone filled soccer dad mobile..

The only dirt most of those trucks will see, is when someone spills knocks over a starter pack of zinnias in the bed..

Actually, the focus of the durability customer are the diesel buyers, not the gas ones.

BTW, an easy answer for "why not diesel" for every single car in the US- cost. Yes, any emissions level is generally possible- but at what cost.

For this- there are truck owners who have no issues with turbos, and they fill up their trucks with oil. And they like to tell anyone in listening distance how they have 200-500k on their trucks. These are the best customers, ever. Mostly because they constantly buy new trucks....

But there is a lot of very real concern over DI and turbos in the marketplace, so I think you'll see ALL of the OEM's try to convice them that new tech has a place in their parking areas.

Ignorant would be more right if this was only about SUV's. But there are a LOT of trucks that are put to use. It's amazing what people do with them, put them away, wet, and expect nothing short of perfection every time they drive. Tough group of people.

Thankfully, the F150 has been the top seller for a long, long time now. Almost cleared 900k units one year.

Ignorant wrote: impressive, but it is no 22r. I know a 22r that lived for days without oil in rochester ny.. The kid hated his truck and literally was trying to kill it so his dad would buy him another. After 3 days of trying to kill it... No coolant, no oil, no diff lube, no trans lube... He gave up and put it all back in and drove the truck for another year.

I'm building a 22RE for the '84 Celica. The one that's in it now leaks oil so bad it's hard to believe. I don't drive it much, but I keep a jug of oil in the back. When the oil pressure light starts coming on I dump a little in and keep going. I can't believe the thing is still running.

Donebrokeit wrote: Kb58 I do not think you understand most truck buyer, They tend to look for trucks that will go the distance, pull the load,drag just about anything anywhere and do it day in day out week in week out and year in and year out.and not need major repairs along the way. Add in the cost of truck Vs. cars and truck HAVE to go longer for the most part and I am sure this is what Ford was trying to show to there buyers. As a dodge guy I will have to take a look at this engine/ truck in the next year or so Overall this was a great way to showcase what for has been working on overall. Now where is the Focus RS Paul B

kb58 wrote: Okay, I understand the marketing thing of proving how tough it is. But, high mileage... in a truck, seems like the worst possible shape to render any sort of impressive numbers. If they want a marketing success that gets noticed, now put that same exact engine into something that's 2500 lbs, with a 0.20 Cd, get 40+ mpg, and kicks butt at the track. Now THAT's far more impressive to anyone looking for good mileage and good power.

I'm pretty sure KB was talking about fuel mileage, hence the brickform comment. I think it would be tough to make something with a cd of .20 rock at the track because it would lack downforce, that or it would be the most aero efficient vehicle on the planet and Audi would snap you up like ... free chocolate at some sort of event with a lot of women? Also I though light trucks had their own emissions reqs. which were much looser than for passenger cars.

I was trying to say that if mileage is a point of their marketing, then why not put the engine in something where it can shine. Put it in something where it makes a difference of 10 mpg over the competition, instead of a truck and getting just a couple more mpg.

Donebrokeit wrote: "...Kb58 I do not think you understand most truck buyer, They tend to look for trucks that will go the distance, pull the load,drag just about anything anywhere and do it day in day out week in week out and year in and year out.and not need major repairs along the way..."

Agreed, and that's why I would think that most truck buyers, if they're looking for a truck to be really reliable with low maintenance, would therefore look to a V8 or diesel instead of a twin-turbo. Was the point of their teardown to proove that the twin-turbo is as reliable as a... V8? If so, why even bother with the risk in the first place?

In reply to kb58:

It's all relative- the Fusion Hybrid gets a lot better milage than the Camry Hybrid, and you can hear the birds when you listen for a reply.

Trucks, on the other hand. 2mpg for 14 mpg average is 15%, which is a lot. And since trucks are the top sellers. Our 5.7l truck got 15mpg on the highway, while the EcoBoost I had for the weekend was 20. that's a huge difference.

The point here is that the twin turbo V6 is the same in terms of relabilty as the V8, so there isn't a risk to the engine. That's the whole point to the teardown.

As for putting this into some small car for whatever- I'll just echo tuna- volume sells. That's why this engine is a big deal in a truck, and should be able to outsell the SHO, MKS, MKT, and Flex in terms of engines. Just so many more opportunities.

I think that same engine is available in the Flex (if I had $40K I'd be driving one) so it's logical that it will eventually make it into the Explorer, Edge, Fusion, Focus and then Fiesta.

Logical to me anyhow.

pinchvalve wrote: I think that same engine is available in the Flex (if I had $40K I'd be driving one)....

Not quite the same engine. Very similar to the one currently found in the Flex, MKT, MKS, and Taurus SHO, but not the same.

alfa, what do you see as the concerns over Direct Injection and Turbos?

Do you mean from the consumer point of view?

I fully admit it might have something to do with my man-crush on Mike Rowe, but I'm damn interested in the EcoBoost F150. My current truck gets 10 mpg regardless. So the thought of a truck that can tow just as well, that and get 20+mpg is DAMN attractive. Hell - I've never considered commuting in a tow vehicle because in order to be good at towing they suck at commuting, but this could change that.

z31maniac wrote: alfa, what do you see as the concerns over Direct Injection and Turbos? Do you mean from the consumer point of view?

personally, direct injection makes me nervous because of higher fuel pressure and all that implies. I also wonder how sensitive it will be to fuel quality. And how much is a replacement pump or injector?

z31maniac wrote: alfa, what do you see as the concerns over Direct Injection and Turbos? Do you mean from the consumer point of view?

Customer preception.

Just the idea of a Turbo V6 makes people nervous, even if it's built to be better than a v8. Unless it burns oil, of course.

belteshazzar wrote:

z31maniac wrote: alfa, what do you see as the concerns over Direct Injection and Turbos? Do you mean from the consumer point of view?

personally, direct injection makes me nervous because of higher fuel pressure and all that implies. I also wonder how sensitive it will be to fuel quality. And how much is a replacement pump or injector?

Oddly enough, the same concern about diesel is non existent, even though the technology is very similar, but the disel pressures are at least 10x as much. But diesel engines are precieved to last 3-10x longer than gas PFI engines....

At one time, I did have some concerns, but that is what development and research is all about.

i wouldn't say non existant.

they're the same reasons I'd hesitate to buy a modern diesel as well.

i sell parts for a living. it's the little stuff that kills ya.

belteshazzar wrote: i wouldn't say non existant. they're the same reasons I'd hesitate to buy a modern diesel as well. i sell parts for a living. it's the little stuff that kills ya.

My Mazdaspeed3 is direct injected. Let me check injector parts price via carparts.com.

$184

Let's see....fuel pump...

$370.

So yeah..not cheap there.

Let's compare to a 2007 Miata

Carparts.com doesn't even offer injectors for that car. Hmm...

Fuel pump?

Universal (Never) Fit pumps from $150 to $1200.

I'd say that's inconclusive at best. Eh. It was all for SCIENCE!

belteshazzar wrote: i wouldn't say non existant. they're the same reasons I'd hesitate to buy a modern diesel as well. i sell parts for a living. it's the little stuff that kills ya.

People wax and wayne over their desires of turbo diesels. And the premium that is gladly paid for diesel trucks is staggering- all with the notion that they will last for 300-500k miles.

Gas DI is a lot (and I mean a LOT) less expensive than diesel. But there's a massive amount of preception that has to be dealt with.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I fully admit it might have something to do with my man-crush on Mike Rowe...

I used to work with him. Super nice guy.

I dunno, consider me unimpressed. 300 hours, inside a lab with optimal fuel, oil, and coolant is not a "torture test". -20 to +235 F is a good heat cycle test but My Jeep 4.0 has 150,000 REAL miles and 5 months out of the year I turn it on twice a day at ~+20 F and run it up to +200 F all the while using who knows what fuel gets pumped out of the ground at various gas stations, off the shelf oil, road salt and sand pounding the engine, fine silt and sand getting sucked past the air filter and into the engine, and coolant that was likely not changed at exact factory intervals. I don't buy it that 300 hours is the same thing.

Run it now at 300 hours with whatever oil and coolant is in there and let's see how it does.

miatame wrote: I dunno, consider me unimpressed. 300 hours, inside a lab with optimal fuel, oil, and coolant is not a "torture test". -20 to +235 F is a good heat cycle test but My Jeep 4.0 has 150,000 REAL miles and 5 months out of the year I turn it on twice a day at ~+20 F and run it up to +200 F all the while using who knows what fuel gets pumped out of the ground at various gas stations, off the shelf oil, road salt and sand pounding the engine, fine silt and sand getting sucked past the air filter and into the engine, and coolant that was likely not changed at exact factory intervals. I don't buy it that 300 hours is the same thing. Run it now at 300 hours with whatever oil and coolant is in there and let's see how it does.

Are you knocking them for following service procedures? It's regularly been proven that it's that very practice that privides longevity in vehicles. I would imagine that an engine that hasn't been taken care of will ultimately fail, much like a lot of the cars I see at work. When you let the oil light come on on a regular basis what do you expect? And honestly why wouldn't you buy a name brand gas like BP or Shell over Joe's Discount Hi-Test? Maybe there's a reason why engineers recommend certain fluids. Things last longer when they are taken care of. This is the universal law of ownership.

alfadriver wrote:

z31maniac wrote: alfa, what do you see as the concerns over Direct Injection and Turbos? Do you mean from the consumer point of view?

Customer preception. Just the idea of a Turbo V6 makes people nervous, even if it's built to be better than a v8. Unless it burns oil, of course.

Yep, thats my perception. I am of an age where a large understressed engine will pull better and last longer than a small overstressed one.

Having said that, I think they will work fine for the 75% of people who use their trucks as a car. Towing a Bobcat from here to Florida, you are gonna have to prove it to me.

I've seen many a development test in process. We had one cycle that was called "The Head Cracker." Use your imagination.

If you think that test bed testing is not abusive, you need to do some research.