Okay my bad on the frame.. This thread has drifted all over the place and I musta thought that we were somehow talking about a 2016 F150 with an ecoboost mill...

Anyway... Plows themselves do not cause overheating or heat related problems while plowing.. Well, not unless you have the plow pushing a load of snow at 50 MPH that is... I rarely get over 10 MPH when plowing. The fan moves all the air that is needed to keep the engine cool and air/air intercooler as well for that fact.

Anomic, I'm with you.. If it can't handle plowing duty, does it belong in a heavy duty truck?

I don't think so...

Show me the quarter million mile ecoboost that has worked its whole life and you might change my mind.. Heck, I don't even think the Coyote has the ***** to work hard for that many miles...

 

Late model F150s are not plow rated due to the EPS (electric power steering). 6.2 Liter V8 F150s have hydraulic steering and can have light duty plows mounted on them.

I would not want to run a plow on anything smaller than a F250. The abuse a plow transfers to the steering, suspension, and drive train is very high.

 

I tried that on my 4 wheeler. Granted it doesn't push as much snow as a pickup plow, but gee it was fun. All 4 wheels spinning while plowing the street, sliding etc. I highly recommend people plow at high speeds.

 

One thing that has not been mentioned is that with current technology; hook a turbo'ed gasser to an 18000 lb load and watch it burn gas......big time. There goes all the gas mileage bragging rights! Future technology... Maybe.

 

The entire point of the Ecoboost is that when it's not working hard, it doesn't burn as much gas as a similarly-powered naturally aspirated engine.

While I'm not saying the current Ecoboost is at the same level of longevity, if they can engineer a diesel to last as long as it does, they can engineer a gas engine to live just as long.

 

That is my point. When Joe Blow plops down 60+ grand for a truck and hooks up to his 41 ft toy hauler, then takes off across Montana bucking a 25 mph quartering headwind and is lucky to get 5 mpg, he will be screaming bloody murder at Ford to fix it. And I think that Ford has this in mind why not offering an Ecoboost in the SD series.
I have read and heard some negative feedback from people with the F150 Ecoboost pertaining to the difference in fuel consumption when empty or towing.
They are totally taken by surprise at the difference.

 

This is a problem with people not understanding basic physics, not a problem with marketing by ford. It takes more fuel to move weight and air, as simple as that. A relative and I ran together from Myrtle Beach SC th east TN in the conditions you just described. We were both pulling the same size campers, me with my Ecoboost f-150 and him with his 6.7 f-350. I averaged 6 mpg and he averaged 8 mpg. It takes more fuel towing with a headwind regardless of what is under the hood.

 

Ford pretty much failed at that. It is easy to see when comparing it to the competition that is still using larger displacement N/A engines. The mpg the EB equipped vehicles are getting is far from impressive. The torque curve is a different story.

 

How about this?: The Ford 4.9L (300cu.in.) I-6 engine has been a reputable, dependable, durable, powerful motor of its time (1965-1996 in Ford trucks) and has been through decades of trucks with stump pulling power. Aftermarket parts have unleashed the full potential a 300 I-6 motor can put out for power with even a slighter increase in fuel economy as well. As the years progress, Ford is moving to smaller, yet powerful motors to reduce fuel consumption yet still provide power. This is where my idea for reinventing the wheel comes to place. Going with the same bore/stroke dimentions (4.00″/3.98&Prime, a 4 valve head to help the motor breathe, direct injection for better fuel efficiency and power, and a turbo charger based on the design of the current 6.7L Powerstroke, would not only yield monstrous low end torque than the current 6.2L V8, but should deliver equivalent or better fuel economy with Ti-VCT. The motor should consist of 4-bolt main caps for the crank for better support. The motor should be an overhead cam design for Ti-VCT, and should be a cross flow design to prevent the intake air from being heated, and allow for a cooler, denser charge. I’ve heard of one person turbocharging a 300I-6 motor in his truck and with 18lbs of boost he dynoed out at the rear wheels at 300hp and 573ft/lbs of torque and still managed to get 15mpg with an automatic transmission. The better flowing head design of the motor I thought of, along with direct injection, turbo charging and Ti-VCT should be good for 400hp, 600ft/lbs of torque and probably 16-20mpg. This would make an awesome performing motor in an F-150 and make it a best in class horsepower and torque. It would make a good home as well in the Super Duty segment for its low end torque, power that would be almost equivalent to a 6.0L Powerstroke diesel.

 

And it's longer than a V10!

 

Would be a great idea, but sadly it wont happen.

 

IMHO Ford is going to get left in the dust in the HD gasser segment if they don't do something. The GM 6.2 is at what, 460 lb ft? Not sure on the Hemi, but it has been well received, and selling well. I would bet they're working on something, we just don't know what yet. Could be a re-engineered 6.2 with 8 speed trans, or a new turbo'd V6. They've shown that they'll build new "Eco" engines for their cars etc, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a new "Eco" engine for the SD, I just don't think it'll be a V8. My best guess is a V6 in the 4.3 range or so. If the 3.5 can give you 420 lb ft, a turbo'd 4.3 should get even more than our beloved Triton V10 did, and deliver it at lower RPM's. With forged internals, and lower RPM's I don't think longevity is a problem so long as they can keep those turbos cool. I'd buy one, but then I don't daily drive mine so I have no qualms, or illusions on the mileage.

I'm no expert by any means, and just shooting from the hip here, but it's fun to speculate.

 

Out of curiosity, I looked up all the latest numbers from each manufacturer, as well as their most recent previous numbers.

When Ford introduced the 6.2L in 2011:
F-150: 411 hp @ 5500 rpm/ 434 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Super-Duty: 385 hp @ 5,500 rpm/ 405 ft-lbs tq @ 4,500 rpm


GM in 2013:
Light Duty: 6.2L with 403@5700/ 417@4300
Heavy Duty: 6.0L with 360hp@5400/ 380@4200

GM in 2014 (carry-over to 2015):
Light Duty: 6.2L with 420@5600rpm/ 460@4100
Heavy Duty: 6.0L with 360@5400/ 380@4200 (unchanged)


Ram 2013:
Light Duty: 5.7L with 395@5600/ 407@3,950
Heavy Duty: 5.7L with 383@5600/ 400@4000

Ram 2014 (carry-over to 2015):
Light Duty: 5.7L with 395@5600/ 410@3950
Heavy Duty: 5.7L with 383@5600/ 400@4000
Heavy duty: 6.4L with 410@5,600/ 429@4,000

So basically it took the competition 5 years to beat the 6.2L! I'd say Ford isn't doing too bad.

It will definitely be interesting to see what Ford does engine wise with the 2016. Since they're investing so much in the lighter aluminum body, I'd be surprised if we see major engine changes (like totally new engine platforms). I would wager the Boss Engine platform (6.2L) will soldier on in some form, likely with a slight power and maybe displacement bump.

With that said, I do think we will see the addition of an Ecoboost option, even if it's not when the new truck is introduced. Ford has had great success with marketing the Ecoboost and they're not going to let that go to waste on one of their best selling vehicles (the Super Duty). Even if that means they're just gonna stick a version of the 3.5L in there and call it a day.

I think that's going to end up being the real question; WHICH Ecoboost will they use? Will they want the Ecoboost to slot in under or over the Boss engine?

In theory, they could do an Ecoboost V6 based on the Bosses' engine architecture. Think 4.6L-4.8L V6 Ecoboost. Otherwise, they still have the production limitations of the modular platform, which would mean a V6 Ecoboost limited to about 3.7L or a V8 Ecoboost limited to about 5.0L.

~3.5L V6 Ecoboost, ~4.6L V6 Ecoboost, or ~5.0L V8 Ecoboost.....Which Ecoboost would you want to see in a Superduty?

 

Good stuff there SVT VERT, I'm too lazy to do that much research

Which ecoboost would I like to see? The 6.2 of course! Pretty much for one reason though; towing my RV at higher elevations where the altitude robs the NA engine of some of it's power. I'm happy with my 6.2, but if it just had that little extra push when needed it would be that much better.

There's a guy on the 6.2 forum with a thread going that is having a company install a twin turbo setup on his SuperDuty. I'm sure it won't be cheap, and the mileage will suck (No pun intended), but I'm watching that with interest.

For me it would have to come from the factory, because for what the turbo install is going to be, I would just buy a diesel and be done with it. I tow a trailer that runs about 7500 lbs, and I don't put a lot of miles on, so the gas works for me. I chose the SD over the 150 for the payload, because I might want to step up to a 5th wheel someday, so I would like to see a more powerful gas engine!

You make a good point that the 6.2 will likely continue for a while until new technology gives us a gas engine that will put out 500 lb ft of torque, and get 16 MPGs, in other words, just a little more than the V10 had, and they're almost there! Come on Ford! Not everyone wants a diesel! They gave us a 6 sp trans to even things out, but going from the V10 to the 6.2 just didn't quite get there as far as I'm concerned.

On edit: I probably sound like I'm contradicting myself saying I like the 6.2 but want a little more, but that's kinda the way this truck/engine combo makes you feel. It gets the job done, but leaves (me) feeling that it could be so much more, and yes, I should have ordered the truck so as to get the 4:30 gears.

 

I doubt that.. I'd imagine a large displacement V8 makes as much or more low end torque than your 3.5 ecoboost.