Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

Man guys I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this one has me bummed out. I hope this is a software glitch but even at that this bad early press really hurts Fords fragile relationship with prospective diesel buyers.

 

Please watch if you have time and share your thoughts.

 

One more thing if GMs new inline 6 banger diesel is glitch free they could score a major coup against Ford Im afraid.

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the issue going downhill, that's about what I expected. Slower than the EcoBoost engines, but better fuel economy. The lack of HP in the diesel really hurts it in that test.

 

But still, maintaining 45 MPH up the IKE while towing 9k lbs is pretty impressive for a half ton truck, especially while only using a gallon of diesel every 5.4 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. 250 hp only goes so far. This thing is solidly outgunned by the 3.5 and 5.0.

 

I saw another video comparing a new diesel 150 to a diesel 250 in a standing 0-60 test unloaded. It wasn't even close - the 6.7/6-spd bested the 3.0/10-spd by over 2 seconds even though it weighed a ton more.

 

Sure it gets better mpg, and I can see certain fleets wanting it for fuel commonality, but pitching this thing as a "premium" powertrain option for those who tow big trailers with high-trim F-150s is not going to work out so great once word gets out. It's going to take most buyers years to recoup the option premium via fuel savings. Unless you're really addicted to the diesel clatter sound or like the smell of diesel exhaust fumes, there's not much reason to pick this over a 3.5 or 5.0.

 

This thing really needed to be about 4.5L and 320 hp. Of course the fuel economy wouldn't have been as good...

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a premium powertrain because there are folks out there who want one just because and they're willing to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. 250 hp only goes so far. This thing is solidly outgunned by the 3.5 and 5.0.

 

I saw another video comparing a new diesel 150 to a diesel 250 in a standing 0-60 test unloaded. It wasn't even close - the 6.7/6-spd bested the 3.0/10-spd by over 2 seconds even though it weighed a ton more.

 

Sure it gets better mpg, and I can see certain fleets wanting it for fuel commonality, but pitching this thing as a "premium" powertrain option for those who tow big trailers with high-trim F-150s is not going to work out so great once word gets out. It's going to take most buyers years to recoup the option premium via fuel savings. Unless you're really addicted to the diesel clatter sound or like the smell of diesel exhaust fumes, there's not much reason to pick this over a 3.5 or 5.0.

 

This thing really needed to be about 4.5L and 320 hp. Of course the fuel economy wouldn't have been as good...

 

I would expect the Super Duty to spank the F150 in acceleration. The SD has 200 more HP. It has 80% more HP (and over 100% more torque) yet only weighs 30% more. Do the math...

 

TFL Truck did the calculation and it came out to about 30k miles to break even on fuel costs for the 3.0L over the 3.5L EB (but I think they used premium for the 3.5L, so I would say closer to 50-60k miles if you never tow anything). However, if you tow, I would expect those numbers to drop drastically, because the 3.0 should get considerably better fuel economy when loaded, as shown by the IKE test. The 3.0L is only a $2400 option over the 3.5L ...it's not near the $9k option the 6.7L.

 

And really, if you aren't towing up the IKE every day, 240 HP and 400 and however many ft-lbs of torque is plenty for a half ton truck. Remember the '99 Super Duty? 235 HP and 500 ft-lbs in a one ton dually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched that video yesterday. I'm suspecting the issue is more with the transmission. It doesn't like holding back the weight and was shutting itself down. That's why 10 minutes after it had time to cool off, it was fine again. It happened when at max revs for quite some time.

 

To me it just smells more like a trans issue than the engine. It could be something to protect the engine, but my bet is on trans tune. It wasn't a temp overload though according to the dash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the '99 Super Duty? 235 HP and 500 ft-lbs in a one ton dually.

Yeah, and that was class leading (or close to it) in it's day. It's not 1999 anymore. In 2018, 250 hp out of the top engine option in a full-size truck is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

Personally, I'm satisfied with the 145 hp 4.9L six in my F-250. But that's not indicative of new truck buyers in 2018.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that was class leading (or close to it) in it's day. It's not 1999 anymore. In 2018, 250 hp out of the top engine option in a full-size truck is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

Personally, I'm satisfied with the 145 hp 4.9L six in my F-250. But that's not indicative of new truck buyers in 2018.

 

I agree it's not 1999, but that was also a truck 2 classes larger than the F150.

 

And I wouldn't call it a knife when it has more torque than nearly every other engine out there. Not to mention better fuel economy.

 

With that said, if I were buying an F150, it would have the 3.5L in it. No doubt about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that said, if I were buying an F150, it would have the 3.5L in it. No doubt about it.

 

:whistling::thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd go for the 5.0, with the 2.7 being a close second. Now that the 10-spd is here it has mitigated the Coyote's sub 2000 rpm torque deficiency and most videos are showing the 5.0 neck and neck with the 3.5 in drag races (now someone is going to come along and say "but but but at 5000 feet the 3.5 walks away", which is true because any boosted motor is obviously going to have a huge advantage in thin air, but I'm a flat lander so it doesn't matter). Beyond that, the coyote just sounds soooooo good, especially at 6000 rpm!

 

If was going with an ecoboost, it'd be the 2.7 for a couple reasons. 1) it's better at the "eco" part than the bigger 3.5, and 2) I like that fact that it was a clean-sheet design with boost in mind from the beginning rather than an adaptation of the existing corporate aluminum open-deck V6 taurus engine.

 

To each their own though, fortunately Ford offers lots of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd go for the 5.0, with the 2.7 being a close second. Now that the 10-spd is here it has mitigated the Coyote's sub 2000 rpm torque deficiency and most videos are showing the 5.0 neck and neck with the 3.5 in drag races (now someone is going to come along and say "but but but at 5000 feet the 3.5 walks away", which is true because any boosted motor is obviously going to have a huge advantage in thin air, but I'm a flat lander so it doesn't matter). Beyond that, the coyote just sounds soooooo good, especially at 6000 rpm!

 

If was going with an ecoboost, it'd be the 2.7 for a couple reasons. 1) it's better at the "eco" part than the bigger 3.5, and 2) I like that fact that it was a clean-sheet design with boost in mind from the beginning rather than an adaptation of the existing corporate aluminum open-deck V6 taurus engine.

 

To each their own though, fortunately Ford offers lots of options.

 

The current 3.5L is a new engine. It only shares displacement with the original 3.5L (which was designed with turbo charging in mind as well). The current 3.5L is built to be a turbocharged engine, and likely will never see a non-turbo application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on your definition of "new". With the same bore/stroke, bore spacing, main and rod bearing size, etc, I'd call it an evolution of the gen 1 engine. My understanding is that the big differences are a redesigned timing chain, different turbos, different boost control, higher compression, addition of port injection, and obviously the new 10 spd. It was a significant redesign of the original 3.5, but the engine still shares dimensions and even some parts with the 2008 naturally aspirated 3.5L.

 

I don't consider that a "new" design in the same way the 2.7 Nano was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The current 3.5L is a new engine. It only shares displacement with the original 3.5L (which was designed with turbo charging in mind as well). The current 3.5L is built to be a turbocharged engine, and likely will never see a non-turbo application.

.

That basic engine design would be interesting to see in a supercharged application as in, remove the turbos and put a high volume Whipple supercharger on it and see how it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

That basic engine design would be interesting to see in a supercharged application as in, remove the turbos and put a high volume Whipple supercharger on it and see how it does.

 

Or better yet, leave the turbos on and slap a supercharger on it. A super-turbo-charged engine. Size the turbos for even more low-end and let the supercharger handle the high end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or better yet, leave the turbos on and slap a supercharger on it. A super-turbo-charged engine. Size the turbos for even more low-end and let the supercharger handle the high end.

I assume you mean use the turbos to push air into the charger? It'd need bigger turbos for that to work. The cold side of the turbos is what limits output on the current engines and putting a charger downstream would still be choked by the limitations of the turbos. First serious (i.e. more than a cold air intake and a tune) performance mod you do on a 3.5 is bigger turbos. That's exactly what Ford had to do on the raptor-spec motors to crack 400 hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you mean use the turbos to push air into the charger? It'd need bigger turbos for that to work. The cold side of the turbos is what limits output on the current engines and putting a charger downstream would still be choked by the limitations of the turbos. First serious (i.e. more than a cold air intake and a tune) performance mod you do on a 3.5 is bigger turbos. That's exactly what Ford had to do on the raptor-spec motors to crack 400 hp.

 

No, make them parallel, not compound. Feed the engine from both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo has an electric supercharger working with turbo's on some of their engines. I think they were doing the SC for the quick low end spool-up. Then the turbo under higher loads. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, make them parallel, not compound. Feed the engine from both.

Hmmmm. Don't think I've ever seen a parallel system (other than twin turbos). You'd have to use some sort of check valve to keep the turbo from pushing air backwards through the charger since boost isn't going to come on equally from both. Of course you'd have to provide a recirculation path too since a positive displacement charger still needs to breathe when the turbo is out-boosting it, holding the check valve closed.

 

I can't think of a good way to make that work.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Don't think I've ever seen a parallel system (other than twin turbos). You'd have to use some sort of check valve to keep the turbo from pushing air backwards through the charger since boost isn't going to come on equally from both. Of course you'd have to provide a recirculation path too since a positive displacement charger still needs to breathe when the turbo is out-boosting it, holding the check valve closed.

 

I can't think of a good way to make that work.

 

If they can do parallel turbos of different sizes (the 6.4L PowerStroke for example), I don't see why it couldn't be done with a turbo and supercharger.

 

Coupling the turbos with an electric supercharger like 92merc mentioned would be cool. How about this: electrically assisted supercharger at low RPM's to eliminate lag, then at high RPM when the engine is turning fast enough and the loads are greater, drop the electric assist and let the engine do it all. But then, why do we need turbos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it could probably be done. Definitely a science project though.

 

But then again the current 3.5 does an outstanding job and eliminating lag and giving great low end torque. What it could actually use is ability to breathe better at higher rpm. Again, this is due to the small factory turbos (precisely what gives it the excellent low end). I think they've got it optimized for trucks pretty good right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a premium powertrain because there are folks out there who want one just because and they're willing to pay for it.

An ass for every seat, Right akirby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike Gauntlet is a horsepower test, great for buyers to see their vehicle type driven to the max

but is it all that important in real world driving and towing on less hilly open country running.

 

It's good that the transmission fault was exposed and I think it gives Ford much to think about

with regards, max trailer weight and engine braking - engine braking up to 4500 rpm in a diesel

down a long grade like that was always going to end in "Limp Mode" as I'm sure that Ford never

envisaged the truck being tested to the max in that way for so long. It is the Olympics of truck testing.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that coming to a head during a pre-production test is excellent....Trucks going to be delayed anyway ( fires and new release hand in hand ) so Ford can hopefully analyse and adress the issue...heavier duty trans cooler?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, pretty much what I expected. 250 hp only goes so far. This thing is solidly outgunned by the 3.5 and 5.0.

 

I saw another video comparing a new diesel 150 to a diesel 250 in a standing 0-60 test unloaded. It wasn't even close - the 6.7/6-spd bested the 3.0/10-spd by over 2 seconds even though it weighed a ton more.

 

Sure it gets better mpg, and I can see certain fleets wanting it for fuel commonality, but pitching this thing as a "premium" powertrain option for those who tow big trailers with high-trim F-150s is not going to work out so great once word gets out. It's going to take most buyers years to recoup the option premium via fuel savings. Unless you're really addicted to the diesel clatter sound or like the smell of diesel exhaust fumes, there's not much reason to pick this over a 3.5 or 5.0.

 

This thing really needed to be about 4.5L and 320 hp. Of course the fuel economy wouldn't have been as good...

Appreciate your POV but I can see a lot of situations where the 3.0 Powerstroke will not be not stretched to the limit

Seriously, people who are towing 8,700 or 9,000 lbs regularly should be looking at the 6.7 Super Duty for sure

 

If buyers are looking at the F150 Powerstroke a shopping trolley that does occasional towing mostly on the flat

then they can look forward to much better fuel economy all round. I think those are the premium buyers that akirby

was talking about. The lower trims are available to fleets but those vehicles will be used as fill ins below Super Duty.

 

I have a hunch on the 3.0 I-6 Duramax, I suspect it will have much higher specific power and torque rating

more in line with say a 1.5 times version of a high tech 2.0 diesel where near 200 hp / 340 lb ft becomes 300 hp/ 500 lb ft

You can feel that GM is going to come out of the blocks hard on that thing so they can stamp authority in 1500 trucks and SUVs.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×