My sense is that you do Ford's bidding and Ford has no more interest in free speech than you do. No one gets more insults than I do for challenging Ford's precious ecoboost. I really wonder when someone gets involved and prosecutes the whole sham.

You could discuss this with me privately. Instead you encourage people like Nassty by going public. I am so done with the whole joke. Good luck.

 

That is most certainly NOT the way the business works.

Engine durability targets are highly influenced by customer expectation and end use. Marketing group does an enormous amount of research to understand customer wants, competitive position, and costs the market will accept. They blend customer wants with company strategy to create functional specs that engineering must strive to meet. Bottom line is the business doesn't just care a little about life targets, they care a lot. I can't even begin to describe to you how important durability targets are to what the business does and brand identity.

And I don't know where people get the idea that marketing is equivalency to sleezy car salesman. The marketing group in my company are professional and extremely knowledgeable about the products. Many are the old pros from engineering or have tons of experience in the field. They hand down very crisp technical requirements to engineering teams, often about complex issues. If they get it wrong then the business can fail so their work is deeply scrutinized.

The car makers get more than pennies from service. Parts sales are a large part of profits and help the auto maker endure trough when new car sales slow. It is an extremely important part of the business and is the "Harvest" in the Seed, Grow, Harvest business model. The key factor is that parts sales keep generating profits for decades until the vehicle is no longer on the road. I don't think a high volume automaker can even stay in business these days if they don't put strong focus on part sales.

 

I saw that the EcoBoost V-6 was chosen for the Ford GT, but I also like the sound of Hennessey's 600-bhp rendition of a 5.0L V-8 which shows how much power potential that engine has in the right hands.

 

Other than the bottom and top end, the 5L could also be boosted. Putting a turbo on an engine changes the dynamics to something more similar to a diesel. I don't have any information about how the 5L is constructed these days, but if it can do 600BHP, that almost certainly is turbo'ed or supercharged.

For example, I've read somewhere on this forum that the 3.5LEB has 6-bolt mains. Is that kind of information available on the 5L?

 

Probably is or can be if someone is willing to tear an engine down piece by piece and give a run down on it. But how many are willing to do it and share the information? Took me a good long time to get dimensions on certain engines because just searching for it on google really doesn't help. Either have to go to forums and the like and I can almost guarantee you that, that information isn't stickied ever! Hardly if ever is useful info on forums ever stickied for future references.

At first I was kind of on the side of why did they EcoBoost the Ford GT that was always a V8. Well I decided to look it up and it was because of rule changes for Le Mans Euro racing. No engine can be larger than 5.5L naturally aspirated (unless highly retarded/de-tuned...which is how Chrysler can still run the 8.3L V10 Viper) and engines cannot exceed 4.0L for forced induction. Which is why Ford did not go with the 5.0L. While they could have raced it, they have a better chance winning races with a twin-turbo engine.

You can add a turbo or supercharger to any naturally aspirated engine just as long as its well regulated either by adding a waste gate that opens at around 10psi or a belt that only allows 10psi of boost for the supercharger. If you don't you risk blowing either top end or bottom end or if you're really unlucky both. I don't have an unlimited bank account so I would hope manufacturers have their stuff together when they build these types of engines.

 

QwkTrip, I'm glad your company does better than most. A prime example supporting my position is the GM ignition switch debacle. Problem was brought to the attention of the decision makers, and they ordered "no fix" in order to save a small amount of money.

Of course automakers "want" to give you a great product (engine) that lasts forever. However, unfortunately, in many instances project accounting wins and many key features, including those for improved longevity, are cut out.

Selling a vehicle is a very different proposition than selling a consumable item. Consumable items generally have very little room for quality problems...but automakers have much more leeway. Brand loyalty factors strongly even in the face of junk products. People feel emotional bonds with vehicles.

The only point I'm trying to make, and you're naive to think differently, is that automakers prioritize profit over all else. This strategy goes awry when cost cutting "now" ends up affecting future profits.

Ford knew from the start they'd need to "prove" the EcoBoost. It was unconventional, and they knew it'd be under close scrutiny. They knew it couldn't blow up. So far, its been a great engine. The problem is that they lied about the economy. In real life, not that great. I'm sure they knew it, after thousands of miles of testing in all conditions, even as "marketing" proclaimed the Eco virtues as much as the Boost virtues.

 

I'm apparently naive. Brand image is tied into profit, and they aren't stupid. F-series trucks have been the best sellers for decades, and that's because of an image that's incompatible with what you're suggesting. You can't cut costs at every turn and build a dependable truck. Businesses have to make money to stay in business, and they do that in most circumstances by taking care of their customers.

Oooh...a lie? Quite an accusation, and if true one that could subject them to billions of liability if proof was ever found. And in this day and age with electronic communications such as email it most certainly would be. I think that's about as likely as our government faking the moon landing, the stakes are too great and it runs contrary to the brand image that's been selling trucks for so long. Lots have gotten worse fuel economy than they would have hoped, but I haven't seen any evidence of a fudged EPA test cycle, which is all that's been claimed.

Tim doesn't work for Ford any more than I do.

Free speech doesn't exist on someone else's medium, would you expect the New York Times to print anything you write under the guise of free speech? Hell no they wouldn't, and this medium doesn't belong to you any more than the New York Times. Build your own forum or website and then have all the free speech you like, but don't expect that on someone else's.

Your comments are off base. You can disagree as much as you like with someone, but attacking someone's motivations and making assumptions about what they do is weak sauce. Especially when they're dead wrong.

 

Tom,

I like the EcoBoost engine and I think it (and the 5.0L) are great engines and will last a very long time. Either would be a good choice. Yes, you're correct. Ford does care very much about the F-Series lineup and the profits behind it.

I do think you (and others) are perhaps underestimating brand loyalty. GM took an awful lot of taxpayer money to bail itself out, and yet people are buying GM like no tomorrow. Granted, they are making better cars now...but it proves an automaker can screw up and rebound most successfully.

Please be honest with me...when I say Ford lied about fuel economy, how can you disagree? Certainly you agree in their hundreds of thousands of miles of testing the EcoBoost trucks, in hot and cold, hilly and flat, on and off road, towing and not towing, they knew exactly what kind of economy their truck would be getting well before it went to the market? Likewise, they knew exactly what the 5.0L would be getting in the same conditions and how the two compared? AND then, subsequently, their original marketing campaign advertised like crazy that the EcoBoost had "V8 power with the economy of a 6"

In my opinion, they were intentionally deceptive. Yes, technically it wasn't a lie, because the EcoBoost is a "6" and therefore it gets whatever fuel economy it, as a "6", gets. But the implication that many people believed was that it would have comparable power to a Ford V8 but have economy more like a Ford V6. Since the EB was new, one could only compare the power to previous F-series (or competitor) V8s and V6's. And here, the EcoBoost delivered strongly on one account but provided no better economy than the 5.0L and certainly did not match the economy of previous Ford V6 engines, or competitor V6 engines.

I do think Ford delivered on the better of the two promises, but if they were to be fully truthful, the 3.5L EB gets no better economy than a similar truck with the 5.0L V8.

 

You switched topics. Went from setting engine durability targets to CPI fixes in production.

You're right that not all problems get addressed. Company simply can't afford to fix all problems, and the prioritization of what CPI projects to work on and the capital expenditure for that project can sometimes get out of balance with making the best decision. And the snowball just builds if the company has a lot of problems to deal with.

But no, profits do not trump all. Overall quality targets are monitored and when there are gaps then it can create an influx of funding and a strong push from management to close the gap and fix problems. Especially with a F150 where quality is supposed to command higher product pricing.

By the way, accountants don't make detailed decisions about product. Engineering does.

 

Do you know how many websites I have been banned for saying exactly that? The difference is that Ford is trying to sell the ecoboost to everyone and lying about the mileage. The other thing I have said is that ecoboost is a great motor to do some towing, but if you want to tow heavy and often, diesel is the way to go. The personal attacks against me by Nassty and others who is on every sight are unbelievable. The follow me around and spend time researching everything I have ever said. It only makes sense that Ford is protecting their interests. Otherwise people could express their opinion, address yours (or ignore) it, live and let live. These sites seem way more interested in jamming Ford's opinion down my throat:

"Ecoboost v6 mileage with v8 performance" (get your free lunch here)

 

As the saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." So, why do you bother to come here if you think we are jamming Ford's opinion down your throat?

 

Profits "must" trump all else or a company won't stay in business. The point of contention lies in the results of the quest for profit. If costs can be cut and nobody notices, than great. However, if cost cutting results in a measurable loss of sales, which results in lower profits with the cost cutting instead of without it, then presumably the course is reversed.

Let's take the EcoBoost as an example. These numbers are meaningless, just for illustration - but lets say a Ford V8 typically lasts 200k miles but the EcoBoost lasts just 150k miles. The reason is the EB engine costs more to build, so Ford finds ways to cut costs on this motor by, let's say, removing piston cooling oil jets, one less crank bearing, a thinner headgasket, and cheaper valve springs. If, after a few years or so, Ford EcoBoost sales continue to do very well despite the shorter engine life, Ford will do nothing. If people complain and sales drop, Ford will take corrective action.

Accountants do often "make" decisions via engineering. From what I have seen in the company I work for, the engineers are typically very bright people who design very good products. Then they present their designs, and associated development costs to the managing "board" which includes accounting. Accounting will scrutinize and say, "remove this, don't include that, and make this more basic." Engineering will argue they can't, or try to sell accounting on a particular feature set. In the end, it seemingly always ends in a compromise. Engineering gets to keep some features, but accounting forces them to cut others.

I'm trying not to get off track too much, from the original question of "which engine and why," but its the EcoBoost engine that really is controversial and I like to delve into this topic as much as the next. That being said, I voted for the 5.0L, but I'd most certainly be happy with an EcoBoost.

 

Skinner, your opinion is just as valuable as the next. But you seem to have a habit of delivering it in a condescending manner which is unwarranted.

 

Well, if low end torque on the EB V6 is a bit more than the 5.0L why not just install a set of long tube headers on the 5.0 and an SCT tuner. I'm sure you could make up the difference but add more durability with the power being spread out over 8 cylinders instead of 6. I'd like to see some comparative numbers on the two then? I'm sure many have done this already.

Also, in the past Truck commercials emphasized longevity into 20, 30+ yrs. and more. My 98's got 16+ years on it, and is in the condition to last much more. The long term savings of keeping a vehicle are huge compared with the average person that trades in every 100k or less mostly just to keep up with the Joneses. I mean, if the trucks were made just to make money (as some have said) brand loyalty wouldn't be worth spit. Parts and service is a large part of the business with so many used trucks needing service, especially with how advance they are these days. Many people just can't work on them in their driveways anymore, so people tend to keep them longer and rely on the dealership to help them achieve this goal. Just think of the money you immediately loose once you drive your new truck off the lot, then the increased in insurance, and the loss given dealer your trade-in values are. A few years ago I was looking at new Fords at the local dealer, took one for a test drive and then had the salesman tell me my truck was a "clunker" due to it's age, ha, I laughed in his face telling him what the book value was and all the additional updates put into it; Linex bedliner, SS shorty headers, two sets of tires and wheels (summer and winter) etc. It's sales value was really in the $8k area. He was only going to offer me $3500.00 for it on trade. His only concern was selling me something, not that Ford trucks as are made to last for decades if properly maintained. I had to explain that to him and we left.

 

I think to say low end torque on the EcoBoost "is a bit more" than the 5L is "a bit of an understatement." Longer runners would help torque, but reduce top end. That's why a lot of cars used variable length intake manifolds for awhile; not sure if that's the case anymore. While it helps some, it cannot match the turbo. The variable intake and exhaust cam timing is pretty nice, but in reality this engine consistently seems to be light on torque. Horsepower is no problem, but what we have seen from the various applications of this engine is that when you increase horsepower, torque falls. The Boss 302, for example, has less torque than the standard GT. Usually bigger displacement engines are needed for serious torque, or turbocharging.

Ford's own 6.2L "Boss" V8 used in the Super Duty makes more torque than the 5L, despite half the cams and valves, and a far less sophisticated variable valve timing system. Its just a function of cubic inches, unless you want forced induction. Not that I'm complaining, the 5L makes perfectly adequate torque.