That's what I'm thinking the upgraded 6.2L will be. The V10 is reportedly expensive to produce (25% more cylinders than a V8), so a common engine between the two would be a big cost savings.

 

There must not be an increase in power, with a lighter transmission.

 

I would love to see something in the 7+ liter size in the super duty. My 5.4 has towed everything I have asked it to(between 6 to 12k lb loads) and done it better and more efficiently than any big block I've owned, but I am not liking the trend of everything going to a smaller engine these days.

 

You may think otherwise, Josh, if you ever tow something with an EcoBoost engine. In really hoping for an EB for the Super Duty someday.

 

I haven't towed with an ecoboost, but I have driven an f150 around town and was pleased with the get up and go and I have owned 3 Thunderbird turbo coupes. I would just like to see that same technology added to a bigger displacement engine. An ecoboost v10 that gets 15-20 mpgs empty and has 600 hp would be nice

 

A job that pays me $1000/hour where I don't actually have to work would be nice too.

 

25 years ago people would have thought a 5.4 making more power than a 7.5 and getting 5 more mpg's in the process was impossible. Or a 500 hp Mustang getting 25 mpg's. However, I wouldn't mind having a job like that either lol.

 

I was just giving you a hard time, though it's asking a lot.

Maybe just make the V10 about 3.5L and you could have your wish.

I seriously hope we do get an EcoBoost in the Super Duty soon. That's what I want in my next truck in 2-3 years.

 

I'm in favor of a 5.0L EcoBoost engine. 550/625 HP/TQ should be easy to obtain and still get decent fuel mileage. 5L is large enough not to need boost all the time and large enough to spin a nice size turbo and small enough to be able to sip fuel (relative of course).

 

I'd like to see a more holistic approach to new Super Duty powertrains.

Developing yet another gas engine with only incremental increases in fuel economy doesn't excite me, even if it has a turbo charger on it.

I'd like to know where the math currently sits on the partnership that Ford embarked on with the EPA over a decade ago, developing several implementations of Hydraulic Launch Assist...





...in Ford light truck demonstration vehicles like the F-550...





...and the Expedition, as reported in the following articles here...


Demonstration Vehicles | Clean Automotive Technology | Transportation and Air Quality| US EPA


and here...


New hydraulic hybrid technology developed by EPA and Ford.


And as announced by Ford in Ford's bright yellow marketing vehicle that contained the design DNA for the last decade of Ford trucks, the 2002 Tonka:





Hydraulic Launch Assist was said to be in the Tonka. I saw the Tonka personally, and watched it being driven, but was not able to crawl underneath to see how (or even if) HLA was packaged underneath.

However, EATON was another EPA partner in the development of this motive technology that stores brake, or deceleration energy, as pressurized hydraulic fluid that is utilized to assist the engine in launching the vehicle from a stop.

Under the Roadranger drivetrain brand, Eaton is building and selling HLA systems today, and they are most often implemented in city garbage trucks... an application that makes a lot of sense, due to the high number of stops and starts, and due to the unlimited budget the garbage companies have, since they merely need to raise our rates in order to afford all the toys that save THEM fuel.

I'd like to know where Ford is at with this technology now, more than a decade after announcment. From the looks of the new Super Duty frame, it doesn't appear that there is a lot of room left to offer a hybrid drive system. However, from experience owning a hybrid since 2005, I can tell you that I have saved (are you sitting down?) $48,000 in fuel costs over that 10 years, driving the Prius in every situation where driving the truck wasn't needed.

That is not a typo. I used 12,000 gallons LESS fuel to drive 150,000 miles, during a period of time when fuel was as high as $5.00 per gallon. So I calculated the savings based on $4.00 per gallon, to account for the recent fall in fuel prices. But even at $3.50 per gallon, that is still $42,000 in fuel savings.

Prius haters must make the oil companies chuckle, but even funnier would be to see the oil companies choke when the Super Duty revamps the power train line up with a constellation of hybrid technology including pollution free supplemental power like HLA. The math and the usage applications must not be penciling out at this time for it. I wonder when it will.

 

From my understanding, Ford has gotten away from the HLA due to the space and weight necessary to add the hardware to make the system work. It just wasn't worth it for a vehicle the size of a Super Duty. The real advantage is in the larger vehicles like a garbage truck.

 

I always wondered why no one ever made a system like on a locomotive. Use an Ic engine to power a generator which powers electric traction motors. Seems like it wold be a good idea to me.

 

That would be a good idea. Low rpm making plenty of power. I'm willing to bet weight is a huge factor though.

 

For the expected price of the new superduty, Ford could give everyone a Cmax as a bonus to buying the truck and viola, you have instant fuel savings.

 

The horsepower and torque increase would be significant above the 6.2.