There is replacement for displacement, but not at equal levels. The same engine with higher displacment will always be able to build you more power. You will not lose power by boring out a engine. Sure you can make a V6 hang with a V8,but it takes twin turbos to do so,thats like comparing apples to oranges.

 

WOW! I didn't realize that the Ecoboost requires a special oil that costs $30/quart!

How are you wearing out all your trucks @ 100,000 and what did you do to those turbo cars? Maybe that synthetic oil is something you should look into....

 

Ahhh, someone came up with the difference. I never said that it had to be on equal level. Is the ecoboost twin turbo'ed? I only thought it had one.

But then again, how do you explain the difference with regard to the 7.3 and the 6.0? Those are pretty much equals and even the 7.3 had some advantages that the 6.0 didn't have and yet still came out low man on the totem pole.

 

I will try and get my point across one last time, take the 6.0 and bore and stroke it to a 7.3, now you have a fair and equal comparison,and I will bet money that the larger displacement yeilds you more power .

 

6.0 has 4 valves per cylinder, 7.3 had 2. 6.0 has 4 head bolts per cylinder, where the 7.3 had 6. More valves was a great idea, less head bolts was not!

 

Aluminum block 6.2L Eboosted. 4v Ti-VCT

 

Crap, I did forget about the valves. You are right there.

Although, I don't think the less headbolts in of itself was a bad idea, they just didn't foresee what would happen with having VGT turbo that had to deal with an EGR system. EGR system gunks up the turbo(for whatever reason) turbo has an overboost condition and that's too much for the clamping pressure of the stock bolts and they stretch. Now if handled with that in mind, that issue more then likely won't happen(nothing is a sure thing though).

 

Let us know when Ford starts making a twin turbo V8.Until then this is about the Ecoboost V6 vs. the naturally aspirated V8.I bet if you spend the same amount of $ on mods on the Ecoboost V6 and the 6.2l, the Ecoboost would smoke the 6.2l.

Not the case with turbo charged engines.Turbocharged engines that run on pump gas have low compression.
I agree the same setup on a V8 will produce more power.Since Ford doesn't do it, how much would it cost to put the Ecoboost setup on a V8?I'm guessing several thousand $$.

 

While I generally stray away from apples-to-oranges comparisons, I feel compelled to point out that over-road freighters have been largely turbo-charged for decades. And if ever there was a "work engine", I would hazard to say that freighters are at the top of that list. On that same list, I would also throw some of the bigger, commercial generators. But, that is going a bit further down the 'apples-to-oranges comparison' road.


I know that there were more than a few nay sayers for the 6.7L (Scorpion) which was destined to take on the mantle of Ford's latest Powerstroke. Now that they have been out for a bit, even the staunchest critics are having to eat some of their words.

Instead of summarily dismissing the EcoBoost for its newness, complexity, or whatever else, how about we wait until there are a significant number on the streets? And then will get to see how they perform & survive (or die) in the real world.

Personally, I think Ford has learned some hard lessons...especially in the BILLIONS that it lost with warranty claims on the 6.0L Powerstroke. I think that massive improvements in design, development, quality control, and testing are producing not just new motors, but new vehicles. And it is through this that Ford is gaining market shares in the car, truck, and SUV segments.

 

In an absolute sense, you're correct. Take two identical motors and make one 10% more displacement than the other and you're going to see a resulting increase in power output.

However, nothing's absolute. The question is - when do you stop on power? I dare say the EB has plenty of power for any "normal" user (anyone that doesn't want to build the fastest hot-rod truck they can just because they can). So, they've replaced the displacement of the 5.0 with a twin-turbo DI setup.

Yes, you could build a 5.0 EB... and it would run circles around the N/A 5.0 and the 3.5 EB. And it would suck more fuel than the 3.5 EB (and maybe the N/A 5.0 depending on weight and efficiencies). And it would produce more power than is needed in such a vehicle. Drop it in an F550 as a replacement for a 6.2 (which I can't believe Ford built the way they did) and it would be a great idea.

 

I feel the same way. Although I have had bad experiences with first year production models and getting the bugs worked out, I am really looking into these Ecoboost F150s. I think that they have proven the engine enough through testing and the other similar Ecoboosted vehicles that they should be very reliable right away.

 

Alright let me weigh on this.

I am a displacement man,that's why I'm going to buy a 5.0L vs the Ecoboost, HOWEVER, this does not mean that I refuse to acknowledge that the Ecoboost is a strong engine. I agree with one of the comments earlier that stated we are putting to much emphasis on fuel milage in these trucks ''mostly the goverments fault'' Fact is, Trucks are never going to get the same milage as cars, and IF milage is so important to you, maybe you shouldn't be in the market for a truck in the first place...Personally I think its quite amazing that a 5500lb 1/2 ton truck making between 350 to 400hp can get around 17-20mpg avg.

I think Ford's ENTIRE engine lineup for 2011 is a winning set. You have a best in class small V6 ''3.7'' that will suit most 1/2 ton buyers needs. You have a powerful midrange V8 ''5.0'' for people like myself, You have the Ecoboost for people who want to try something new, and the 6.2L for those who want the biggest and baddest out there no matter what the price premium is.

I think Ford's biggest concern now should be shedding weight from the F-150. Which is already in something that is highly possible for the new F-150 re-design set for around 2014 or 2015.

And yes I would love to see a ''Ecoboosted'' 5.0L down the road, ONLY after the current 3.5L Ecoboost prove's itself in the real world. And why not going ahead and add Ti-VCT and Direct Injection to the 6.2L while your at it. Its dismal 12mpg city 18mpg highway rating could only improve with the addition of Ti-VCT and DI. Another thing that baffles me is why the 5.0L did not recive Direct Injection right outta the box ''even if without turbos''. The only reason I can think of is for the sake of compatition, thus adding DI to it later on down the road when GM or Chrysler come out with something new.

 

I have owned ford f-250 diesels for the last 12 years. Currently have 2006 and waiting for the ecoboost to replace it (maybe). The diesels have been great trucks but tired of paying a premium for diesel fuel and the milage is not that great. I have driven the new 5.0 and thought it was a good running truck, but waiting to drive a ecoboost. As far as performace, i don;t think there will be many upgrades for the ecoboost engine other than a tuner which will probably gain about 60hp. I am thinking a 5.0 with a supercharger would be the way to go as far as getting performance. I am also considering the GMC denali truck which i have not driven yet. I think its nice to see ford step up and give us some absolutely great choices in the f-150 finally. Just my 2 cents worth if its worth that.

 

That is the way to go IF money is no object.A tuner costs around $500 and a supercharger cost around $5k.

 

I say put the Ecoboost on a 4V V10.