Ecoboost/boss
Freshman User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by the_webers_inc
Just imagine the power that even the 4.6L v8 would produce if Ford were to apply their new EcoBoost technology (direct injection, turbocharging) to it. Another thought: an EcoBoost 5.4L v8 would probably put out numbers that would be on par with the current 6.8L v10. I like that idea.
If Ford would embrace the idea of applying their new EcoBoost technology to their v8's, every one would be happy. In my opinion, the 5.4L v8 has good HP & Tourqe right now. Direct injection and turbo charging would only reinforce the motor's current strong point's.
If nothing else, EcoBoost would improve the fuel economy of any v8 that they might apply it to. My truck will get between 15.5 to just under 18mpg unloaded on the highway. I am more that happy with those numbers for a 5.4L powered F-150. When I want better mpg's, I drive my Saturn VUE that gets 25 to 29mpg. But you know what? I would buy a new F-150 with an EcoBoost 5.4L v8 in a heartbeat. Besides the extra power, I bet you could easily get into the low 20's in mpg. Improved power with the bonus of improved mpg's, sounds like a win-win situation, if Ford is willing to go that route.
T. J.
If Ford would embrace the idea of applying their new EcoBoost technology to their v8's, every one would be happy. In my opinion, the 5.4L v8 has good HP & Tourqe right now. Direct injection and turbo charging would only reinforce the motor's current strong point's.
If nothing else, EcoBoost would improve the fuel economy of any v8 that they might apply it to. My truck will get between 15.5 to just under 18mpg unloaded on the highway. I am more that happy with those numbers for a 5.4L powered F-150. When I want better mpg's, I drive my Saturn VUE that gets 25 to 29mpg. But you know what? I would buy a new F-150 with an EcoBoost 5.4L v8 in a heartbeat. Besides the extra power, I bet you could easily get into the low 20's in mpg. Improved power with the bonus of improved mpg's, sounds like a win-win situation, if Ford is willing to go that route.
T. J.
Amen!
Let the 6cyl guys have the 6 cyl ecoboost engines in their trucks and let the 4.6, 5.4, 6.2, 6.8 V8 guys have their eco boost V8's. Ford could use some improvements across the board on hp and torque numbers(any improvements are welcome)
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre.
As long as people are throwing out engine ideas..... What a torque monster it would be if we had a 6.0L inline si
based on the 4.9) with ecoboost! I think that would punch a little hole in ford's diesel sales, so I never expect to see this in production.-Adam
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 4
From: Neenah, Wisconsin
Originally Posted by Fosters
and 48mpg while towing uphill with a headwind at 9000 ft altitude
Postmaster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 0
From: Marion, VA
Originally Posted by blkbrd36
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre. -Adam
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Originally Posted by blkbrd36
How come over 20 years ago you could get 50+ miles/gallon in a mercury lynx wagon (diesel non turbo) What happaned to that technology? Granted, that was a car, but I think the future for our vehicles is in the diesel genre.
I bet you can't run as fast as you did 20 years ago while someone's choking you
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
Originally Posted by fonefiddy
For all the forced induction nay sayers.
Imagine if the new 4.4 Diesel came out without a turbo. They'd really be whining. 100/250?
Imagine a PSD with no turbo.
Imagine if the new 4.4 Diesel came out without a turbo. They'd really be whining. 100/250?
Imagine a PSD with no turbo.
Start ramming boost down a gasser and 9 times out of 10 the service life of the engine is reduced, not so with a diesel.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dkf
Start ramming boost down a gasser and 9 times out of 10 the service life of the engine is reduced, not so with a diesel.
Are you thinking of the older half-fast attempts by the america automakers to turbocharge? Or maybe a high performance engine tuned to make every possible horsepower.
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 1
From: Duluth, Mn.
It's not true. But you do have more moving parts to maintain. VW has been building 1.6-2.0L turbo engines that run like a top for 100-200K, when properly maintained, for years. Nissan VG30T's run over 100K miles with ease. Ect....ECT...ECT.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
Originally Posted by fonefiddy
It's not true. But you do have more moving parts to maintain. VW has been building 1.6-2.0L turbo engines that run like a top for 100-200K, when properly maintained, for years. Nissan VG30T's run over 100K miles with ease. Ect....ECT...ECT.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
Another technology that I'd like to see explored is using ethanol inj on a high compression forced induction motor. You can keep the high compression of a NA engine, and use the high octane ethanol to quell detonation. It'd only be needed when max power is requested. But the HP increase would prolly lower the size of the engine needed to power the vehicle.
So you could get away with a 2.0L instead of a 3.0L. Then when lower power is needed, (IE: cruising down the freeway) you would be using considerably less fuel, compared to a 3.0L.
Cargo Master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 1
From: Duluth, Mn.
You very funny man!
Go look around at your local salvage yard. See if you can average out the milage on every vehicle there. Most peeps won't keep a vehicle once it costs more to maintain, than the loan/retail value is.
Sure, there are some of us that keep our vehicles for longer, but we are getting few and farther between with every generation.
I would consider 150K low maintainance miles, perfectly acceptable. My 5.0 F150 has 230K miles on the OEM engine and tranny. But the performance has been falling off for the past 100K miles. It does'nt get the milage it used to either. Most peeps would have put it out to pasture years ago.
Go look around at your local salvage yard. See if you can average out the milage on every vehicle there. Most peeps won't keep a vehicle once it costs more to maintain, than the loan/retail value is.
Sure, there are some of us that keep our vehicles for longer, but we are getting few and farther between with every generation.
I would consider 150K low maintainance miles, perfectly acceptable. My 5.0 F150 has 230K miles on the OEM engine and tranny. But the performance has been falling off for the past 100K miles. It does'nt get the milage it used to either. Most peeps would have put it out to pasture years ago.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=fonefiddy]
I would consider 150K low maintainance miles, perfectly acceptable. My 5.0 F150 has 230K miles on the OEM engine and tranny. [QUOTE]
If i said 100k to 200k is about average didn't I say the same thing....
I would consider 150K low maintainance miles, perfectly acceptable. My 5.0 F150 has 230K miles on the OEM engine and tranny. [QUOTE]
If i said 100k to 200k is about average didn't I say the same thing....
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
Enlighten me, how long do you expect a turbocharged V6 lasting in a 5500lb work truck.
I assumed we were talking about trucks, because I don't really care about little cars. This is the F-150 section the last time I checkd.
Was I not comparing a turbocharged gasser to a turbocharged diesel. I think you guys need to learn to read a little better.
I assumed we were talking about trucks, because I don't really care about little cars. This is the F-150 section the last time I checkd.
Was I not comparing a turbocharged gasser to a turbocharged diesel. I think you guys need to learn to read a little better.
Last edited by dkf; Jan 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM.