The reports of the Neanderthals' demise has been greatly exaggerated...


MGD

 

You keep your sound, and i'll keep blowing the doors off most v8 trucks that sound good :


im kidding, im kidding..

Well sort of

 

Hey Bluejay, you do realize you're in the wrong forum right? "F-150 Egoboost Online" does not take kindly to your outdated, offensive remarks about an engine that is simply inferior in every way, does not sound like a leaf blower, and just plain does not exist anymore.



The news of a 5.0L cummins in the Titan and possibly Tundra, with low 300's hp, and low-mid 500's torque sounds interesting. How much heat do you think the little egoboost would generate bumped up to those numbers? I know we are under strict KGB watch here now, but I know which one I would choose if I had the choice.

A V8 egoboost? Now we're talking, monster hp/torque numbers, and I'll bet displacement would have something to do with it.

 

Personally, I would love to see a V8 Eco-boost, that would be unprecedented power in an F- Series pickup.

What is funny, is that in the history of the whole ford f series, it wasn't until 1999 that ford offered a gas V-8 with over 300 hp and 400 FT-lbs of Torque ( and that was only for the lightning and took supercharging a 5.4L to hit those numbers). So the 3.5L Ecoboost offers the consumer more horsepower and torque than what was available prior to the turn of this century. So this nostalgic love for the V8's power is mostly a result of embellished/ false memories of power that never existed.

For example, the vaunted "big block" 460 CID / 7.5 L V8 offered between 1973–79 only produced 200–220 hp. So much for "its only about displacement."
But hey, it had a wonderful exhaust note and had 8 big cylinders, so some on this board would apparently take that 1973 engine over today's 6 cylinder 3.5L Ecoboost.

 

That is just absurd in a half-ton IMO. If you have a need for that much power, you really need a 3/4 ton truck. I would love to see a diesel with those numbers in an F250.

Yeah buddy! I hope the next gen Super Duty gets an EB V8 with around 475 HP and 575 ft-lbs of torque. That would be a perfect replacement for my 6.4L smoker in about 2019.

 

Yet to find a gutless turbo truck? Well duh being there is ONLY ONE turbo gas truck out right now in the states being the Ecoboost. I said, if you read, that I felt like I had to dig deeper into the gas pedal to get the truck to go, where the ford 6.2 I didn't. To me if I have to give a vehicle more throttle, meaning it has to add more fuel to make more power then it has to work harder to do the same task. They both did the same task just fine, but the eco took more motivation.

Not knowing the motor is a 3.5TT is not a "technicality" its lack of knowledge of what you are talking about. I know plenty about the 3.5 N/A. I've worked on quite a few, driven many a Flex/Taurus. Of course that isn't fords "new" 3.5 as no one has driven it. I've explained why I don't think it will make more power then the 2.7. So please, with all your vast knowledge explain to me why the 3.5 will be so powerful or why it will out do the 2.7? When Ford is pushing the "EcoBoost" tech so hard, why would they have a base motor out do the 2.7 which again is rumored to be as powerful as a stock 5.4.

 

Ahh I am confused, what does "dig deeper into the gas pedal" mean? Are you really saying that because your calf muscle had to work harder on the pedal, that equates to the engine working harder? You also mention "it has to add more fuel to make more power," did you compare fuel consumption on a mile per gallon basis (towing the same sized load), or are you once again trying to draw objective conclusions based on your subjective use of that highly calibrated, vary scientific piece of equipment known as your calf muscle?

 

Actually the EB gets 10mpg regardless if the trailer is full or empty (which is really weird) where the 6.2 varies. Well if I give one truck a quarter throttle and the other half throttle, well that to me says one has to be pushed harder to do the same job. Apparently you guys seem to think an engine at higher RPM has the same internal stress as an engine at lower RPM. If that's true I cannot change your mind.

 

Pushing harder on the gas pedal does not equate to injecting more fuel. Pushing harder on the gas pedal does not equate to the engine working harder.

You do realize that these trucks have electronic throttle control, right? And it makes it much easier for Ford to tune them differently. So, for instance, maybe 1/2 throttle on the EB equals 1/4 throttle on the 6.2L. This can be done for many reasons, one being to increase fuel economy, another to be to increase perceptive performance.

Considering the 3.5EB is built to increase fuel economy, and the 6.2L is built to increase performance, making the 3.5 a bit less responsive to the go pedal and the 6.2L a bit more responsive, would give the exact scenario you are talking about.

Equating the amount you have to push on the gas pedal to how hard the engine is working is just foolish and makes you look uneducated (vehicle-wise).

 

talking about beating a dead horse with some of you people on here. why not wait till ford puts the number out as some of you are out to lunch with the number you think will happen just wait for ford to put them out.

 

Yes I do understand these are drive by wire, they have been since 04. Also I do understand that due to a tune it can change throttle response. However how would it make the truck downshift more often and stay at a higher RPM more often? That has nothing to do with how the throttle control is tuned. Sure the trucks maybe tuned differently but if a truck has to be in a higher power band that tells me that the engine has to be at a higher RPM to pull the same load. That then tells me that the engine cannot maintain the speed as easy so it requires the trans to put the engine at a better RPM for towing. So lets try this again, in my experience the Eco was at higher RPM more often then the 6.2. More RPM = more stress on the motor, more stress means more wear and tear.

However until you drive a 6.2 and a 3.5tt with the exact same load you wont understand. You are trying to make statements that in my experience isn't true. Apparently you think a motor at 5000RPM is working just as hard as 2500RPM. I'm not saying turbos or superchargers wear a motor down faster then N/A.

 

Hmmm, no, I never said, or even implied that. Just trying to point out that what you were saying made absolutely no sense at all.

Now, had you said

one of your first 2 or 3 or 4 times to explain yourself, we could have avoided a lot of the discussion. Honestly, I haven't driven either, but I know saying that you have to push the pedal further down on one than another doesn't mean the engine is working harder.

To add to your post though, I would hazard a guess that the EB is programmed not to shift as early for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post, plus the broad torque curve of the EB.

 

Ok, now I am reading your mail. I can buy the argument around RPM (although I think you also need to consider things like comparable final drive ratio etc). Now you are talking a more objective and universally accepted form of measurement.

 

"Reading your mail". I don't think Ive heard that expression

 

So higher RPM's = harder working? LOL

still trying to get my brain around this - doh.

without any equipment hooked up to these motors to prove which one is actually working harder I'm thinkin' this discussion is dead.