|
2009 3.5 V6 Turbo/Twin Force?
Has anybody heard any rumors on this engine? A buddy of mine said he heard Ford is already road tested this engine at 22/city and 26/highway. He said hp was somewhere around 350, with torque around 390. If this is remotely true, Ford is going to be just fine!
|
those numbers sound like the numbers from the Lincoln sedan, not the numbers you'd get in a 6000 lb truck.
|
Originally Posted by Fosters
(Post 6248912)
those numbers sound like the numbers from the Lincoln sedan, not the numbers you'd get in a 6000 lb truck.
Now I have heard many rumors regarding the EcoBoost (formerly know as Twin-Force) V6, but haven't seen any factual basis backing the #'s. Will wait until Ford releases more details. This EcoBoost design has also been speculated to go on the 6.2L Boss (Hurricane) motor at some point. |
Originally Posted by V8EXPLR
(Post 6249109)
Either way, 350hp/390lb-ft is more than the F150 has currently and more hp than the '09 F150 is supposed to have and a lot more than the 4.2 Essex offers in mpgs & power. Of course in a 6000# truck, you won't get those type of mpgs.
Now I have heard many rumors regarding the EcoBoost (formerly know as Twin-Force) V6, but haven't seen any factual basis backing the #'s. Will wait until Ford releases more details. This EcoBoost design has also been speculated to go on the 6.2L Boss (Hurricane) motor at some point. my point was, it's a car motor at this time, so don't expect those same numbers in a truck - not just mpg but the hp/tq numbers too. Ford, unlike toyota and chevy, will not put a motor with a 4000rpm peak torque in a truck. They'll sooner add 3 ft to the intake runners to get the low end torque and lose hp in the process rather than do that... remember those late 80s truck version 5.0s with the foot tall intake? the ones that made 140hp cause the mustang's blistering 215 was way too much, hehe... |
Originally Posted by Fosters
(Post 6249366)
my point was, it's a car motor at this time, so don't expect those same numbers in a truck - not just mpg but the hp/tq numbers too. Ford, unlike toyota and chevy, will not put a motor with a 4000rpm peak torque in a truck. They'll sooner add 3 ft to the intake runners to get the low end torque and lose hp in the process rather than do that...
remember those late 80s truck version 5.0s with the foot tall intake? the ones that made 140hp cause the mustang's blistering 215 was way too much, hehe... |
Originally Posted by V8EXPLR
(Post 6249371)
Oh no doubt. Wasn't disagreeing. I know it's been released that the 3.5L will replace the 4.2L in the 2010 or 2011 F150 MY, being 2009 won't have a V6, but these won't be the #'s. Maybe something around those lb-ft #'s, but those mpg & HP #'s will surely drop.
at least the crappy choice of rear end gears (3.15s in a half ton? any lower and you'd think they're geared for the bonneville salt flats ) will make it easy for that thing to build boost early on :P |
I would like to see the torque curve for those new engines. Turbo gassers have been around for a really long time, and really don't have a reputation as having much low end torque.
|
Sounds to me like it runs on premium though.
|
If it's truely a twin-turbo, it'll probably be a compound turbo system. So you can get low end torque and high-end horse power. I believe BMW currently has a compound turbo system on a the I-6 in the 3 series, producing V8 power! Also, aren't the new 6.4L diesels a compounded twin-turbo?
The BMW motor makes ~295 ft lbs of torque @ 1400 RPM, I'd put that in my truck! I think my '75 Chevy 454 3/4-ton made 330 ft lbs @ 1700 RPM. BMW 3 Series Coupé : Six-cylinder petrol engine (335i) |
Originally Posted by screwy
(Post 6250352)
Sounds to me like it runs on premium though.
You don't need premium to run boost anymore. E85 will work just fine :D |
Yea the (2.4 eco boost) svo mustang was a real tow monster.
Everyone know's that small turbo motor's are great for low rpm trucks. |
Hmm this motor could make a nice grandma/sleeper car. Kinda like a Buick GN. Or maybe a Ranger lightning edition
|
[quote=supeRobertduty;6252023]Yea the (2.4 eco boost) svo mustang was a real tow monster.
Everyone know's that small turbo motor's are great for low rpm trucks.[/quote That's not the purpose of these engines. These engines are for MPG's exclusively. The 4.2L it will replace was not designed to be a tow monster either. |
[quote=hsfbfan;6255896]
Originally Posted by supeRobertduty
(Post 6252023)
Yea the (2.4 eco boost) svo mustang was a real tow monster.
Everyone know's that small turbo motor's are great for low rpm trucks.[/quote That's not the purpose of these engines. These engines are for MPG's exclusively. The 4.2L it will replace was not designed to be a tow monster either. |
Originally Posted by broncobran68
(Post 6253827)
Hmm this motor could make a nice grandma/sleeper car. Kinda like a Buick GN. Or maybe a Ranger lightning edition
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands