Well Turbo Diesel Engines pull all kinds of heavy loads, and work very hard. What makes the gas engine any different?

 

what makes the gas engines different is there are a bunch of guys who can't get over that ford phased out the 4.9 straight sixes.....they're still complaining about the 5.4 and by the time thats gone they'll have just been getting used to it.....they'll finally have stopped complaining about its lack luster power (sarcasm) and unreliability.....and just when they've got nothing more to complain about......boooooom.....it'll be complaining about tt v6's and how ford doesn't react to customer needs and all that crap........only last time i checked my ford stock is up to 9 bucks a share (bought it earlier this year at 1.80 a share).....ford is the only one of the big 3 to not have gone through bankruptcy.....and seems to be pretty darn responsive to customer demands.....


No...manual tranny's aren't coming back ......hardly anyone wants them....

v-8's will some day be replaced by ttv6's.....and they'll put out way more power than the Old v-8's ever did....(remember the ohc and aluminum head fights)

ford makes the packages the way they do because 90 percent of people are very happy with the way they come.......and it saves those 90 percent of people money over individual options.....


Thats why gas engines are different than oil burners...

 

Well I like the idea of a ttV6. I think it will end up being a great engine for all uses, and I bet power will be on par with the current 5.4(don't everybody cheer at once) with room to grow. I bet the Ecoboost will be the best 6 cyl since the 300, but it won't have the torque(just kidding I know better).

As far as gas mileage goes I don't think it will be all that great, but it will probably be better than every other full size truck. Also I either read or heard somewhere that the EPA mpg ratings have been more realistic since 07 or 08, so the numbers reflect what normal people will actually get, so there is most likely room for improvement for those people that drive with fuel economy in mind. So the new SHO only gets 24 MPG, thats still better than our 95 3.2 SHO, it only gets like 21-23, but I love the power, and more importantly the sound that 3.2 makes at WOT.

 

"Power on par with current 5.4L"?

Uh, No. Much, much more.

Ford's EcoBoost engine technology | A boost up

“The F-150 will be the first application of the EcoBoost to a rear-wheel-drive vehicle,” says Alan Hall, EcoBoost marketing manager. “Because of that, we'll be able to get even more torque out of it. We'll have a similarly flat torque curve, and we're going to have a special transmission to handle what I would guess will be somewhere over 400 ft.-lbs. of torque.”

“We promised a 20% increase in fuel economy, and we delivered a 25% improvement,”

 

Ad much as I like V8's, V6's with turbo's make sense. Yes you could put a turbo on a 5.4 and make more power than the V6, and yes it might be true that keeping 10k lbs moving might have the turbo blowing all of the time, which may really hurt fuel mileage. But I believe that's the idea, you have less displacement, and fewer moving parts, which means that your engine should burn less fuel when not under load. On the other hand, when you need the power, your engine can burn lots of fuel and make lots of power, because of the turbo.

I really am a diehard V8 guy, and right now I couldn't see myself buying one of these any time soon. This sounds like a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Also, are there people here that actaully get 20MPG out of the 5.4's? A friend of mine logs all of his fuel/miles for work and gets around 13MPG

 

Personally I can't stand the 4.9. The one my uncle has struggles to pull a mustang on a car dolly. I wouldn't own one if you gave it to me for free.

Take a diesel apart and compare it to a gasser of comparable cubic inches. The visual alone should tell the story. Then put them on a scale. There is a reason why the diesel weighs twice as much. Heavy duty engines are better suited to handle heavy duty abuse. Then look at the heads. Gassers have spark plugs and diesels don't. High boost and spark plugs generally lead to detonation if not monitored properly. Don't have to worry about that with the diesel. The diesel block is much more sturdy than a gasser too, so it can handle the higher cylinder pressures better. I've split two gasser v8 blocks in half running less boost than my 7.3 handles on a daily basis. You can run over 30 psi on a diesel with no intercooler. With a gasser you need one with 8 psi. That should tell you something. This isn't a gas vs diesel thread, so not trying to turn it into one. But the simple fact is diesels handle boost much better than a gasser. I've owned plenty of both and speak from lots of personal experience.

I would hope a twin turbo v6 could put out as much power as a naturally aspirated v8. The problem is that for any kind of heavy towing you are going to be running the turbos wide open the entire time, so you lose all the benefits of the tt v6. For daily driving the tt v6 is a great idea though. Compare a tt v8 to a tt v6 and then tell me the tt v6 is better. Put a tt on the 5.4 and you'll have a truck putting out over 500 hp and getting over 20 mpg.

 

I have had many small cube turbo engines and they work great on the interstate. You don't notice the lack of power on flat land and you get great gas mileage because the turbo isn't blowing. But drive it in a hilly area and your gas mileage drops in half. I would hate to see what it would do with 10k hooked to it even on flat land.

I average 15-17 mpg with my 5.4 and it's in a super duty with 4.10's. Put it in a lighter truck like an f150 with 3.55's and I would expect to see close to 20 mpg's.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head, The Turbo V6's for the weekend warriors that maybe pull on occasion. I probably pull a trailer less than once every other month. If you got 24mpg on flat land, unloaded and you drove that way 90% of the time, and 12 pulling a load the other 10%. You would average 22.8 mpg. That's way better than my truck which averages 12.5mpg. The nice thing is, you only pay for the power when you need it. Just the opposite of the guys driving 460's that get 8mpg unloaded or with a fully loaded trailer.

Wow, I wonder if there is something wrong with my buddy's truck then, it is an 04 f150 and i think it has 3.55's in it. But I would have to check the rear end to be sure. What year is your truck? He is spinning some oversized wheels on there though, that might play a role.

 

Speculating is fun, it gives us something to talk about. But let's not knock it till it has had a chance to prove itself first. We can't just base it on ordinary turbo engines that have existed in the past. That is probably the reason why you couldn't buy a turbo V6 F150 in the past, because they were not suitable. obviously Ford thinks it has a pretty good reason to try something new now. Let's give it a chance, see what it can do.

 

I am all for having the tt v6 as an option, I just don't want it to be a replacement. I would have liked to have had a tt v8 option too. That would make for good all around performance and mpg's as well as giving the aftermarket one hell of an engine to toy with. I also really hate how Ford has this habit of coming out with great performance technology and then putting it on the worst possible thing they can. They come out with an overhead cam v8 in 1991 and instead of putting it in the mustang they put it in a lincoln town car. So 80 year old grandma driving 25 mph to the grocery store gets an overhead cam engine. 5 years later they decide to put it in a mustang. Then they come out with the 4 valve double overhead cam 4.6 in 92 or 93 and put it in a lincoln mark VIII. 16 years later the mustang still only has a 3 valve single overhead cam. Then they come out with a 4 valve double overhead cam 5.4 in 1999 and put it in.......a lincoln navigator. Soccer moms that will never have it full throttle get it, but the mustang and f150 still don't have it(unless you want the 70k dollar gt 500). I just wish, for once, ford would give those parts to the guys that want them instead of wasting them on v6's, granny cars and soccer moms.

My truck is a 2000 super duty, 4.10 gears, 5 speed, regular cab xl. I get pretty good mpg's out of it because I drive it easy. I usually shift around 2k rpm and don't run it hard unless I have to. I drove it like I stole it for a few tanks just to see what it would do and it dropped me down into the 13 mpg range. A lot of it just depends on how you drive it.

 

Me and you have gone back and forth in other threads about the 5.4, so I will explain myself again. The problem I have with the 5.4 isn't the power in stock form. Comparing stock to stock the 5.4 will pull circles around the 5.8(in equally matched trucks). Industry standards for hp have changed over the years though, so comparing stock hp number to engines made 20 years apart really isn't fair.

Where I don't like the 5.4 is the ability to modify it. They don't make stroker kits for it because it's already stroked as far as it can go. You can't bore it more than about .020 either. So it's already as big as you can make it. With the 2v you can't put bigger valves in the heads because they will hit the cylinder wall, so you are stuck with a whopping 1.74'ish intake valve. You could always put a set of 4v heads off the gt 500 on it, but they are only comparable to a set of AFR 205's. Parts are too expensive for it($700 cams).

With a 5.8 you can stroke them up to 460 cubic inches. You can also bore them .090 with no reliability issues. Parts are cheap ($150 cams) and the aftermarket is plentiful. I can build a wicked 5.8 for less than half of what it would cost for a 5.4. The 5.8 can easily support 2.10 intake valves and there are plenty of heads for them on the aftermarket that will outflow the best 4v heads available for the 5.4.

The other complaint a lot of people have with the 5.4 being underpowered isn't that the 5.4 IS underpowered compared to the 5.8, but that it FEELS underpowered compared to the 5.8. The 5.8 had 210 hp and 325 tq and the 2v 5.4 had 260 hp and 350 tq. The 3v 5.4 has 300 hp and 360 tq. The extra hp is only above 4000 rpm due to the 3v heads carrying the tq curve higher into the rpm's. From idle to 4000 rpm the 2v has the same(and sometimes more) hp and tq than the 3v. That really isn't a huge difference in power to start with, but then throw in the fact that current trucks weigh so much more than the OBS trucks and that power difference gets eaten up in a hurry.

 

That is all very true, I have both a 460 and a V10.

If you run them gently the 460 feels much more power full from the Tq at lower rpm and the 2K less weight.

If you hitch 10K to both you notice the V10s advantage real fast.

Your right about the mods, I am running the v10 stock because of the cost of mods but you can get 50hp out of a 460 for under $800.

 

I would not say that if I were you, those are fightin' wordsin the OBS forums.

It may be very badly under powered, but I have heard of them still running with a rod through the block, they are hard to kill.

One guy in the 80-86 forum has 600K on his, no rebuilds.

 

Remember when towing a 10,000 lb trailer with a 5.8 L was almost impossible......remember when you needed a 7.5 or a Diesel .......well someday people will say remember when you needed 5.4 L to do it.....comeon...let technology prevail...

 

So your complaining that the engine isn't able to be built the way you used to build engines? Maybe you haven't kept up with the technology....rather than boring and stroking engines now....we can tune them and run superchargers.......and make as much power as a stroked and bored 5.8....

How many guys here are running 5.4's in excess of 500 hp....on daily driven street vehicles......and ones that would last 200,000 miles.....now how many 500 hp 5.8's were street driven...and would get 200,000 miles doing it?


Maybe the engines don't need an update....maybe its just you need to get with the technology....