Has anyone heard any word out of FORD that might indicate they will produce an ECO-BOOST Engine for the F-250 HD and F-350HD. The current gas engine choice just doesn't seem to live up the no longer available V-10 Torque and HP.

Not trying to start any rumors just hoping their might be such an option coming!?!?!?!?

GARY

 

A turbo charged V6 won't be better than a 6.2 I doubt you will ever see that engine in a SD. It doesn't belong in it. Maybe a 5.0?

 

A 6.2T would be sweet. Or even a 5.0 turbo would be acceptable. Eather way, fuel economy would suffer when accelerating. On the highway, mpg would be close to the same as current motors.

 

I doubt you'll see the EB in a SD platform. No need. Especially in the industrial arena these trucks see. They get treated pretty badly, and I can't see Ford juggling that grenade
huh?

6.8 V-106.2 V-8
it loses a little torque...but gains back in the HP area...and it also gains another trans gear. The 6.2 makes its HP/TQ at lower RPM vs. the V-10.

I'd happily drive a V-10...but the 6.2 just says "Buy Me". Imagine a new intake, tuning and perhaps a blower...fun

 

As much as I love the V10 the 6.2 is no slouch.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...nd-videos.html

 

I would love to see an EB engine in the SD line. However, I think you would have to increase both power and fuel economy over the 6.2 in order to make it viable. Not and easy tasks. Plus, Ford had the engines in the SD line fractured for a long time and I don't see them going back to that model but who knows. They could get into a gas HP peeing match with Chevy and Ram like they done with the diesel wars. They already have that battle going in the 1/2 ton segment.

 

Why would Ford spend money on what essentially becomes a second diesel to compete with the 6.7L, which they just recently spent a small mountain of money to produce? I'm not trying to debate if one fuel or the other is better, just looking at the economic sunk costs. Ford would have to spend money to develop a second direct injected, turbo charged......gasser?

A year ago the 5.0L and 3.5L were almost dead even around 40%(16% 3.7L), whereas in the SDs the 6.7L outsold the 6.2L 65% to 35%. The diesel is doing great when you figure in that it sells at a $7,000 premium over the gasser, so unless a SD-EB can sell at the similar premium, it would be hard to make it cost effective, just from a development standpoint.

Would a 6.2L with a blower be awesome? Duh. Worth $7K? ...nah.

 

Fleet mpg requirements.


A 5.0l EB would be fine in a SD if the entire package is designed to last when used to haul around the heavy weights a super duty can see.

 

I'm not convinced that the twin turbo setup could last in a SD. I'm still skeptical about it long term for the F-150. Time will tell on that front.

I just look at the failure rates of the PSD, Duramax, and Cummins turbos and wonder if a gasser turbo is any better?


Honestly don't see the point of a EB motor in the SD. Maybe for MPG's. These damn things already cost 1/3 a brand new house where I'm from. You get a fully spec'd out F-350 and your talking almost $70k with the PSD. Over $60k gasser. I'm with Texastech about R&D costs. Ford can spend less money in other areas and get a better return margin IMO

Wonder instead if Ford would cut some weight? Trim these pigs to a svelte 6/7,000 lbs from current almost 8k (CC, longbox, PSD) and you'd see a decent MPG/Performance gain

 

The info you posted shows the 6.2 making hp/tq at higher rpms, which for towing or getting something heavy moving the lower tq would be better. also the (390 hp @ 2800 rpm), seems like that might be a torque number instead. Seems I read it makes like 85 or 90% of its max tq value down lower, unless you are comparing the 6.7 diesel hp rating to the 6.2 gas.

Or maybe I am just confused by the way it was written and what you meant.

 

No, it makes 390 HP at 2800 rom

I agree the higher torque is nicer, but that 6 speed is nice. 1st and 2nd gears are stump pullers

 

The EB in my F150, feels like it has more umph than the 2v V10 did in my 2002 F250.

The 2002 2v 6.8L v10 had 310 hp / 425 lb-ft. The 3.5L EB has 365-hp / 420 lb-ft.

My F250 had the 4spd auto & 4:30 gears. My F150 has a 6spd auto & 3:73 gears

 

On a 3.5l, does the engine oil lubricate the turbo? I think engine coolant cools the turbo in Fords setup.
Reason I ask, is earlier gas turbo engines use circulating engine oil to lubricate AND cool the turbo. I know on my 05 VW, as long as you have good fresh oil, the turbo should last the life of the vehicle. Never any issues there.

Also on a side note, after spirited driving, I allow the car to idle for a minute or two to cool the turbo down before I turn the car off.

 

I believe the turbos are cooled with coolant and lubricated with engine oil.

One thing the EB has for it is that at high rpms it does not develop much boost. It provides more boost at lower rpms to help produce the flat torque curve and keep the horsepower up as well.

Ford should be able to make it work very well if they do the proper R&D and don't cheap out on key components.

2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost V-6 Photos and Additional Engine Details - PickupTrucks.com News

The extra weight of the 250 and heavier drivetrain components are going to suck more power. So its not surprising your 150 EB feels peppier. Because it is. Ford still left power on the table with the EB. Five Star has been working on some tuning for them and even without upping the boost the gains look promising.

 

Is the that comparing the EB to the 6.2? That rpm and hp number is more like diesel numbers. That would put torque up in the 600-700 range probably. Sorry just not quite making sense to me