When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Additionally it got me to thinking that the main reason that the new Expedition is only available with the 3.5L Ecoboost is because the 5.0L could be going away. Both engines in any sane opinion would be a hit for the Expedition especially if they were offered together.
The point here the Ranger's estimated 31 MPG's with the 3.2L inline diesel.
I think that's likely. My main point was that the 5.0L isn't an old design that's nearing the end of its lifecycle. Lots of folks still think the 5.0L has something to do with their grandfather's 302 of yore.
I think this is somewhat of the old tech adage referred to as "eat your children". One of the realities I lived with when I worked in tech was that you can't sit on your latest and greatest too long, because the competition is targeting their next design on what you have out there now. If you don't work to obsolete your own best products, your competition surely will. The best get better.
Hope it wont be a huge pain to work on like the older MOD engines. The 5.0 Coyote is easy to work on. If I had to guess this new engine will run DI and IDI as well as MDS.
I recall reading a few years ago that the Coyote 5.0 heads were already pre-configured in such a way as to allow direct injection modifications in the future. This would allow Ford to just machine the existing castings differently, rather than completely redesign new castings with totally different valvetrain/spark plug geometry.
Maybe the new 4.8 is a debored/destroked version of the Coyote with turbos/DI/cylinder deactivation?
I would think it is more likey based on the new 3.5 EB architecture. That way it's already desined to be turbo/supercharged from the beginning. Anything is just a guess right now.
Although, quick math shows a 2 cylinder increase would yeild 4.375 liters, the deck height could be raised for a longer stroke when casting an 8 cylinder version. I don't know the bore spacing of the new 3.5 EB off hand, but there is probably room to increase the bore somewhat too.
I would think it is more likey based on the new 3.5 EB architecture. That way it's already desined to be turbo/supercharged from the beginning. Anything is just a guess right now.
Although, quick math shows a 2 cylinder increase would yeild 4.375 liters, the deck height couls be raised for a longer stroke when casting an 8 cylinder version. I don't know the bore spacing of the new 3.5 EB off hand, but there is probably room to increase the bore somewhat too.
You may well have nailed it because the bore and stroke of the 3.5L and the 5.0L are more similar than people realize. As for internal geometry, I'm clueless.
When pictures of the prototype engine show up it will be interesting to see the angle of the cylinder banks. The vast majority of V8 designs have a 90-degree config, and most V6s have a 60-degree angle, but there are always exceptions.
If the new engine turns out to be a 60-degree V8 then its virtually guaranteed to be a stretched 2017+ 3.5EB variant. A narrow-angle V8 engine makes room for integrated exhaust manifold-turbos and allows for a relatively compact DOHC package.
When pictures of the prototype engine show up it will be interesting to see the angle of the cylinder banks. The vast majority of V8 designs have a 90-degree config, and most V6s have a 60-degree angle, but there are always exceptions.
If the new engine turns out to be a 60-degree V8 then its virtually guaranteed to be a stretched 2017+ 3.5EB variant. A narrow-angle V8 engine makes room for integrated exhaust manifold-turbos and allows for a relatively compact DOHC package.
That's an outstanding point. The Coyote is a 90-degree engine, and the V-6es are 60-degree engines.
I think it's more likely to be based on the Coyote engine, though. The 3.5L engine wasn't boosted until three years after introduction, and the many components are shared with its N/A counterpart. I had an '11 Mustang GT, and at the time I read quite a bit about the Coyote, as it was a fresh design for that model year. Every article I found mentioned that it was designed for forced induction and direct injection from the start.
Of course we're all just guessing, here...we'll find out for sure sooner or later!
Think Ford will stay with the 2.7L type build design manufacturing techniques only V8 and attached to head turbo + the dual type injection systems ? Believe the old Aluminum fatigue thing has shown up in some continually hot running 3.5's and will possibly be the reason for the compacted blocks !
The earlier mentioning of Ford using possible cylinder deactivation reminded me of my 2011 Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi. Dodge boasted about the deactivation mode saving fuel. Has there ever been a study to prove this claim? It seems logical to me that if the engine deactivates 2 cylinders, then the remaining 6 will just work a little harder, I.E. Use a little more fuel to accomplish the same amount of work. perhaps it's about the individual cylinder efficiency being higher if the cylinder is performing at a slightly higher work load? Any test articles on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Jag
The earlier mentioning of Ford using possible cylinder deactivation reminded me of my 2011 Ram 1500 with the 5.7 Hemi. Dodge boasted about the deactivation mode saving fuel. Has there ever been a study to prove this claim? It seems logical to me that if the engine deactivates 2 cylinders, then the remaining 6 will just work a little harder, I.E. Use a little more fuel to accomplish the same amount of work. perhaps it's about the individual cylinder efficiency being higher if the cylinder is performing at a slightly higher work load? Any test articles on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Jag
I don't have an article handy, but I installed an indicator light on my Jeep Commander that came on when MDS was active, which was 4-cyl mode. I saw a notable increase in instant mpg on the readout when it was active vs. inactive.
I have read studies on it, and you're right. The additional work that has to be done by half the cylinders largely offsets the lower number of cylinders in use. So while at a cursory glance, one might assume you could gain significant efficiency on half the cylinders, it's more like a 5-10% efficiency gain in many cases, which translates to 1-2mpg. which is still significant. I can attest to terrible city mileage in my hemi, while returning similar highway mileage to the new Ford, which I attribute to MDS.
Thanks for the response. I know that my Hemi routinely gave me verified 20-21 mpg at 75-80 mph. I wish there had been a button to disable the MDS just for a test.
11-19-2016, 05:36 AM
perhaps it's about the individual cylinder efficiency being higher if the cylinder is performing at a slightly higher work load? Any test articles on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Jag
