Deanh Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Ive heard that from driver for a few years and the 10 speed will only help...the ecos mileage is REALLY dependent on how its driven,,,,I drove a 4x4 up to hollywood 2 years ago, set cruise at 70, computer was reading 25 mpgs....accurate?....no idea but hey... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 My point was that, for it's application in the superduty, Ford gained nothing by making it an ohc design. All they did was increase the unit cost of the engine due to all the extra moving parts. I'm actually thinking the reason had to be that Ford doesn't have any engine guys left that know how to design pushrods so they just went with what they know. There had to have been bigger plans for the BOSS engine when it was first conceived... including plans for DOHC heads. If not then I agree, there's no reason to go OHC on a truck engine. I hope the new 7x V8 is an evolution of the BOSS design. If not it's safe to say that the BOSS V8 was a huge failure, especially when it failed to replace the 6.8L V10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Most people have already forgotten that the "Hurricane" was supposed to be a "family" of engines. The 6.2L was the "mid size". Primary goals were better fuel economy thatn the "modular" family. Well, it did NOT ! The 6.2L DID get better fuel economy that the 6.8L but the small engine failed. That failure inspired the "Coyote". Do you recall what the upper and lower displacement range was? I've heard a 5.8L was a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Let's see the 6.2 come anywhere close to that. Well I haven't heard of the 6.2 getting 23 mpg but I have heard several guys complaining about 13 mpg out of their 3.5eb's. Those are all 11-16 trucks though. Maybe Ford finally achieved a miracle with the 10 spd. Then again being the oddball 2wd certainly helps too. Actually I suspect it has a lot more to do with driving style. Keep it out of boost and it's a 250 horse 3.5L V6. Dip into forced induction and it goes rich out of necessity and fuel economy suffers commensurately. But if Ford can get it to run the cafe test without going into boost, that's all that matters! But congrats if you're really getting 23 mpg with it. That's closing in on 2011 2.3L Ranger territory (I average 26 mpg with my 2.3/M5OD) and you've got twice the truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Well I haven't heard of the 6.2 getting 23 mpg but I have heard several guys complaining about 13 mpg out of their 3.5eb's. Those are all 11-16 trucks though. Maybe Ford finally achieved a miracle with the 10 spd. Then again being the oddball 2wd certainly helps too. Actually I suspect it has a lot more to do with driving style. Keep it out of boost and it's a 250 horse 3.5L V6. Dip into forced induction and it goes rich out of necessity and fuel economy suffers commensurately. But if Ford can get it to run the cafe test without going into boost, that's all that matters! But congrats if you're really getting 23 mpg with it. That's closing in on 2011 2.3L Ranger territory (I average 26 mpg with my 2.3/M5OD) and you've got twice the truck! Ive found that the most vocal pickup owners who bitch about gas mileage are the ones who stomp the gas from start. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 my guess is the guys complaining of 13 mpgs either arent the actual owners ( and thus drive em like they stole em ) or have gone testosterone on the wheels and tires....( like the guy I had complaining about the very same issue with a lift kit and HUGE wheels and tires....WTF did he think was going to happen....the Raptor is penalized by its wheel tire combo as well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) The 13 mpg comment is literally every guy I personally know who owns one. I'm thinking that's about 6-7 guys. All 4wd crew variants. A small sample, but still. I also know a few 5.0L owners and they're reporting anywhere from 14-20 mpg. Still haven't met anyone who owns a 2.7L to compare. Edited March 1, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 proofs in the pudding...definitely reflects driving habits....that said, waking the turbos up is a BLAST...but comes at a price....remember, the 3.5 basically replaced the 6.2 in the lineup, so people shouldnt bitch regardless , especially given the fact they can still tow 10000 plus.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Years ago (mid 1980's) Ford could only build about 10% of F-150's with automatic transmissions. To compensate, they offered big package discounts to be competitive and maintain sales leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Don’t forget this is the 2nd gen 3.5LEB and I think they solved most of the cooling issues so they don’t have to run super rich as much. I do think the 10 speed made a big difference as well. Even going up a hill at 45 it stays in 7th or 8th gear. And it hits 10th gear around 45 mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) No wonder they jumped to Ecoboost...it was their only way out of a big hole.. No, this had nothing to do with EcoBoost ! Coyote got them out of a the "big hole" with the Mustang and the V10 was "good enough" for what was left of the E-Series run and the Medium Duty applications. EcoBoost was strictly a "sales job" done by Ford of Europe and Bosch with inaccurate data ! Months after the contract with Bosch was signed, Ford Engineers could not reproduce the same fuel economy and horsepower numbers that Bosch had sold the program on. After a lot of back and forth, Bosch engineers finally came to Dearborn to review the prototype engine and dynamometer setup to find out why Ford US was getting different numbers. After studying the situation, Bosch said, "Oh, you are testing to US standards ! Our results are based on EU standards !!" At that time, EU allowed a much higher level of HC so they ran lean of stoichiometry. The contract was signed, the money spent and the program went forward. Edited March 2, 2018 by theoldwizard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Ive heard that from driver for a few years and the 10 speed will only help...the ecos mileage is REALLY dependent on how its driven,,,,I drove a 4x4 up to hollywood 2 years ago, set cruise at 70, computer was reading 25 mpgs....accurate?....no idea but hey... Kick the cruise back to 65 and I bet you would get an addition 2 MPG ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) There had to have been bigger plans for the BOSS engine when it was first conceived... including plans for DOHC heads. If not then I agree, there's no reason to go OHC on a truck engine. No DOHC at conception, although I bet a lot of the engineers were hoping that would happen ! If you look at the bottom side of those heads, the valves are HUGE ! Edited March 2, 2018 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) Years ago (mid 1980's) Ford could only build about 10% of F-150's with automatic transmissions. I don't have access to any data, but I question that statement. Maybe further back (60s, 70s ?) but by the 80s I think the automatic "take rate" was 50% or more. In the late 80s into the 90s, The combinations and permutations of engine, transmission, rear axle ratio and tire size meant there was probably more than a DOZEN different calibrations required to cover 49S and CA emissions. There physically was not enough room along the line to store all the PCMs so Ford paid another company to "stage" the PCMs in the build order. It was only in the past 10 years or so that they finally went to programming the PCM "on the line". The F150 plants may still be the only one doing this. Edited March 2, 2018 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Don’t forget this is the 2nd gen 3.5LEB and I think they solved most of the cooling issues so they don’t have to run super rich as much. I do think the 10 speed made a big difference as well. Even going up a hill at 45 it stays in 7th or 8th gear. And it hits 10th gear around 45 mph. I would almost call this the 3rd Gen 3.5L EcoBoost. A few years after Gen 1 of the 3.5L EB, the entire injection system was redesigned. While the original was almost 100% Bosch components and a very high percent of Bosch software, the replacement had very few Bosch components and a much lower percent of Bosch software. The base engine was not changed. I do not know what the changes are to the current engine except the water pump is no longer "buried" in the valley and the intake was redesigned to accommodate PFI in addition to the DI. Also. I think the new block has a maximum displacement of 3.5L (any 3.7L engines are made on the old block). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) No, this had nothing to do with EcoBoost ! Coyote got them out of a the "big hole" with the Mustang and the V10 was "good enough" for what was left of the E-Series run and the Medium Duty applications. Just looking back at the 2010 engine line up for F150, 4.6 and 5.4 V8 became 3.7 V6, 5.0 V8, 6.2 V8 and 3.5 EB So what they basically did was bleed sales away from the 5.0 V8 in two directions, the 6.2V8 and the 3.5 EB The second half of my post adds context If Ecoboost hadn't panned out and the 6.2 was in trouble with gas mileage, I wonder if a tall deck 5.4 version of Coyote would have then become an option... which was where I was leading to a third option, was the Mod faction within Ford right all along.... An engine that produces around 400 hp and 420 lb ft but smaller and lighter than the Boss. Ford could have then replaced the 6.8 v10 with a tall deck Boss with +7 liters....deja vue? Edited March 2, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 So what they basically did was bleed sales away from the 5.0 V8 in two directions, the 6.2V8 and the 3.5 EB I'd say they bled sales away from the Coyote to the EB35, if you want to look at it that way, as the 6.2 was never more than a niche engine in the F-150. As a corollary to one of your other points, if you look at the bore, stroke, and bore spacing, the Coyote appears to be a bored and stroked 4.6, but the Coyote is actually a more compact package than the 4.6L DOHC, by two inches in every direction (per the Ford Racing dimensions sheet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 That's probably fair comment given that the 2010 F150 had 4.6 and 5.4, the 5.0 basically replacing both of them while 6.2 and EB 3.5 took care of the heavier towing duties. So yeah, 3.5 EB taking some of the Coyote's sales is clearly the case.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Did I mention I'm now getting 23 mpg (mixed) in my F150 2WD supercab 3.5L EB with the 3.55 rear end? I think the new 10 speed with auto start/stop is really working.Yeah,not so much for my Raptor, lol. But I dont drive it very nice either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Yeah,not so much for my Raptor, lol. But I dont drive it very nice either... That’s the 6.2, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Thats the 6.2, right? Im pretty sure he has a 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 (edited) Im pretty sure he has a 2017. His profile says 2013. Maybe he forgot to update it. Edited March 3, 2018 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 His profile says 2013. Maybe he forgot to update it. Yeah he has a 17 with the 3.5 HO and 10 speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I have not been following this thread but how far back was the last mention of a Mustang? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I have not been following this thread but how far back was the last mention of a Mustang? Seriously, we're on page 19 of a Mustang CD6 rumor thread, what else would you expect.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.