Just imagine the power that even the 4.6L v8 would produce if Ford were to apply their new EcoBoost technology (direct injection, turbocharging) to it. Another thought: an EcoBoost 5.4L v8 would probably put out numbers that would be on par with the current 6.8L v10. I like that idea.
If Ford would embrace the idea of applying their new EcoBoost technology to their v8's, every one would be happy. In my opinion, the 5.4L v8 has good HP & Tourqe right now. Direct injection and turbo charging would only reinforce the motor's current strong point's.
If nothing else, EcoBoost would improve the fuel economy of any v8 that they might apply it to. My truck will get between 15.5 to just under 18mpg unloaded on the highway. I am more that happy with those numbers for a 5.4L powered F-150. When I want better mpg's, I drive my Saturn VUE that gets 25 to 29mpg. But you know what? I would buy a new F-150 with an EcoBoost 5.4L v8 in a heartbeat. Besides the extra power, I bet you could easily get into the low 20's in mpg. Improved power with the bonus of improved mpg's, sounds like a win-win situation, if Ford is willing to go that route.
T. J.
Amen!
Let the 6cyl guys have the 6 cyl ecoboost engines in their trucks and let the 4.6, 5.4, 6.2, 6.8 V8 guys have their eco boost V8's. Ford could use some improvements across the board on hp and torque numbers(any improvements are welcome)
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre.
As long as people are throwing out engine ideas..... What a torque monster it would be if we had a 6.0L inline sibased on the 4.9) with ecoboost! I think that would punch a little hole in ford's diesel sales, so I never expect to see this in production.
and 48mpg while towing uphill with a headwind at 9000 ft altitude
good point...i forgot that....they'd also complain because it was fuel injected, had electronics on it....and had catalytic converters....and it weighed too much because it was cast iron.....but if they made it out of aluminum than they'd complain because of the bi-metal engine....
__________________
2007 Lariat screw - tri coat met - chrome package - Black leather captains chairs - sunroof - audiophile
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre. -Adam
And you could outrun them with a bicycle.
__________________
2004 XLT Regular Cab, Short Bed, 4X4 with 5.4 and 3.73.
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre.
EPA and environmentally consciencious, technology- (and overall thinking-) challenged tree huggers happened. US has the strictest emissions laws of any country, and the worst gasoline/diesel possible.. hence why the engines sold here make so much less power than comparable sized engines sold in europe/japan.
I bet you can't run as fast as you did 20 years ago while someone's choking you
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
For all the forced induction nay sayers.
Imagine if the new 4.4 Diesel came out without a turbo. They'd really be whining. 100/250?
Imagine a PSD with no turbo.
Comparing gas and diesel is like comparing apples to peas. They are very different. You can make plenty of efficient power from a gasser without a power adder. With a diesel on the other hand, you gotta have a power adder to make respectable hp thats just the way it works.
Start ramming boost down a gasser and 9 times out of 10 the service life of the engine is reduced, not so with a diesel.
Start ramming boost down a gasser and 9 times out of 10 the service life of the engine is reduced, not so with a diesel.
Is this true of simply your opinion? What facts do you have to support this? Subaru is often considered one of the most reliable vehicles made and has been using turbochargers for years. There are other examples as well.
Are you thinking of the older half-fast attempts by the america automakers to turbocharge? Or maybe a high performance engine tuned to make every possible horsepower.
It's not true. But you do have more moving parts to maintain. VW has been building 1.6-2.0L turbo engines that run like a top for 100-200K, when properly maintained, for years. Nissan VG30T's run over 100K miles with ease. Ect....ECT...ECT.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
It's not true. But you do have more moving parts to maintain. VW has been building 1.6-2.0L turbo engines that run like a top for 100-200K, when properly maintained, for years. Nissan VG30T's run over 100K miles with ease. Ect....ECT...ECT.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
I don't consider 100k-200k a very long lasting engine.
You very funny man!
Go look around at your local salvage yard. See if you can average out the milage on every vehicle there. Most peeps won't keep a vehicle once it costs more to maintain, than the loan/retail value is.
Sure, there are some of us that keep our vehicles for longer, but we are getting few and farther between with every generation.
I would consider 150K low maintainance miles, perfectly acceptable. My 5.0 F150 has 230K miles on the OEM engine and tranny. But the performance has been falling off for the past 100K miles. It does'nt get the milage it used to either. Most peeps would have put it out to pasture years ago.
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
based on the 4.9) with ecoboost! I think that would punch a little hole in ford's diesel sales, so I never expect to see this in production.
