Why does a truck need a V8 over a turbo V6? The V6 makes much more torque at lower RPM????

 

Ummm, the Ecoboost makes more power and torque than the 5.0 and has a more usable power band, without needing modifications. And in a 4x4 it's only a $750 option. Its a no brainer, more power, better economy and more towing capability.

My Ranger, for example, makes more power and torque than the 302 V8 I could have put in it and a fully dressed 2.3 turbo acually weighs slightly more than a 302. Your claims of needing a V8 for weight and torque are merely a personal theory.

 

I bet he is another one that subscribes to the nothing replaces displacement theory as well. Which isn't true now either.

 

Yeah, and maybe Ford should just have the old 302 and 460 for our only engine options in every truck produced currently. Technology is SCARY!

 

It is and it isn't, but I'm a tech nerd though.

 

This is still pretty true, if you put the same ecoboost on the 5.0 it would blow the 3.5 out of the water in power. A bigger displacement similar engine of equal components will have more power.

The Roushcharged 5.4 is only getting 7-8psi of boost and makes 445hp, add the 12psi that the ecoboost is currently putting out to it and I bet you would be knocking on 500hp.

 

And while this is true when strictly speaking about power levels, the vehicle manufacturers also account for fuel mileage while aiming for a certain power level where forced induction can be a replacement for displacement in engine design.

 

You sir are a moron. The EB makes more torque than the 5.0 in stock form. Mike has already tuned his 5.0L and he was at about 280lb ft at the rear wheels on the dyno. If you account for 20% loss through the drivetrain, a stock EB would make 330ish lb ft at the rear wheels. That's 50lb ft more torque and the torque curve is tabletop flat to 5500rpm. I'm not saying the 5.0L is a bad engine, because it certainly isn't, but to say the Ecoboost is a poor fit for the F150 is ridiculous. And your comment about weight is absolutely absurd. I imagine the 2 engines are within a couple hundred pounds of each other and besides, new half tons weigh as much as old 3/4 tons so this point is moot.

 

A 7.3 Powerstroke has less output then a 6.0 powerstroke, 6.4 powerstroke and the 6.7 powerstroke.

Now we could take out the 6.4 and the 6.7, the closest is the 6.0 though. They are all turbocharged, DI and v8 diesels though with regard to all of them, but I'm specifically talking about the 7.3 and the 6.0 as they are the closest in parts and part types. In fact, some would argue that the 7.3 has some better parts with regard to the engine then the 6.0.

 

If they had the exact same port design,compression,turbo,cam,injectors and programming the 7.3 would have more power. If you had a 6.0 powerstroke and added 2 more cylinders it will have more power, exact same internal components just more displacment. The dodge viper engine is basically a 360 with 2 more cylinders,much more power then a 360 could make on pump gas using the same components.

I have built many performance snowmobile engines, their is absolutly no replacement for displacement, if a smaller engine makes more power it is because it has more agressive porting,advanced timing or higher compression. Put that same setup on the bigger engine and the smaller engine gets toasted.

 

I'd buy a 550 with that if Ford would make it. 5.0 Turbo would be great. I heard it is coming for the GT500 soon.

 

....and all the while consume more fuel. Manufacturers are not only trying to produce more powerful engines, fuel efficiency is a major factor.

And one more benefit the Ecoboost will have over all F150 engines to date; performance and towing at altitude. There is no way that anyone can deny that forced induction engines hold there rated power levels better at altitude than N/A engines.

 

That is a replacement for displacement. If it doesn't sacrifice reliability and it has more output versus the bigger engine, that is a replacement. As it is in stock form, now someone could come along and DI the other gas engines and turbo those and then we could see what's going on, but I don't think that's going to happen at least not for over the road usage and that's what 90% of the people on here are really going to care about. If someone does that for a race track, it won't last based on the fact that it's living in a harsh environment.

The 6.0 versus 7.3 is a little more straighforward comparison, because it has a more in common between the two engines besides being diesel. Both V8, both DI and both turbocharged. Now the 6.0 does have more electronic controls on it which even though people don't like, it enables "us" to eeck more out of there with less effort. 7.3 for the most part was put in lighter trucks compared to the 6.0. It takes injectors, bigger turbo and a/m tuning to get to the stock levels of the 6.0. You do the same type of stuff your over 500HP(at least the way I did it and that's in a truck that weighs ~2k more, with a heavier but "smaller" engine) on the 6.0.

If there is no replacement for displacement then the 6.0 beating the 7.3 wouldn't be possible let alone a v6 being able to hang with much higher displacement V8 engines for one of the heavier 1/2 ton trucks on the market. Right now we don't have DI, turbo'ed V8s for half tons, if sometime we do, I'm willing to bet there is going to be someone that comes up with something to allow a v6 to hang with the "big boys" as I'm sure having that smaller engine is probably going to attract even more buyers to that market share. Either that or they will drop the V8s eventually and just improve on the V6s(which I don't think that's as far fetch as some would hope).

 

Go ahead guys. I am telling you that ecoboost is a gimmick and when you pay $30 a quart for that overrated synthetic oil and premium gas you remember I said so. When that worn out engine hits 100K like all 4 of my last ford trucks did and you are looking at burned out turbos and extreme high repair bills, just come back to the forum and call me more names. Unlike many of you I have driven just about every make of car and you do not put turbos on a work engine as in a truck. You will find out the hard way just as I did with my Turbo Supra, my Twin Turbo Rx7, my Turbo Laser and my Turbo Kawasaki. And its going to cost you out your ***.

 

7.3, 5.9, 6.0 all turbo'ed trucks that I have dealt with, all went passed 100k and the only one that didn't have the original turbo is my 6.0 and that's because I wanted(key word wanted, it didn't crap out on me at 70k when I went with the a/m turbo) a bigger a/m turbo.

Now I can't speak for everyone, but I haul ~16k worth of horseflesh, trailer and supplies. I average around 30-40k a year. I would say my turbo trucks get worked. I don't know many people that have had turbos crap out on their 7.3s, they complain about their trannys but not their turbos. 6.0s had problems because people didn't know how to handle a diesel engine with emission controls. 6.4 and 6.7 are still yet to be determined.

Turbo work trucks aren't anything new in of themselves at least where diesel is concerned. However, you just said turbos shouldn't be on a work truck, you didn't specify whether it was with regard to gas, diesel or both.