f150 eco boost
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Off Topic
Forum Discription: Anything non-Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20239
Printed Date: January-11-2025 at 1:05am
Topic: f150 eco boost
Posted By: storm34
Subject: f150 eco boost
Date Posted: December-28-2010 at 8:06pm
|
Anyone seen these videos?
I've been a Chevy/GMC truck guy but the videos are pretty impressive. |
Replies:
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 1:06am
|
I've driven an ecoboost MKT (lincoln version of the flex). It was VERY impressive.
The only thing I don't get is that the 355hp of the ecoboost twin turbo v6, is at the same hp rating as their new 5.0 in truck form. As awesome as the new 5.0 motor is, I can't see any reason to buy that over the ecoboost, unless the 5.0 is less money up front, and less money to insure. All of the new F150 drivetrains for 2011 are impressive. 300 hp out of the base 3.7 V6, along with a nice tq rating too? damn... makes you wonder how long GM will soldier on with their 4.3. I'm still shocked that GM still runs those as the base motor. Dodge runs the 3.7 OHC but at 210 hp and like 235 tq, that is far from a powerhouse either. Adding the pentastar 3.6 OHC V6 as a base motor would help hp and tq, but even that has been critiqued in the new grand cherokee as not having enough tq. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 1:28am
Tom....you seem very knowledgable on all things automotive. Do you know if the new Ford 5.0 is a push rod motor, or is it similar to the 4.6 modular motor, only larger? |
horkn wrote:Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 1:43am
I have had 3 Cherokees and 1 Grand with the old 4.0 inline.That Grand is so heavy that if I had to do it all again I'd get the V8.I cannot imagine having a 3.6 no matter what the spec's say. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 3:30am
Thanks, I take pride in that:) The new 5.0 is DOHC variable intake and exhaust cam timing, and all sorts of other high tech goodies. Ford ditched pushrods a long time ago. The new 5.0 also has an ultra big sump, takes 9 quarts of oil (like my 4.2 v8 audi). It's a totally new engine , not really related to the modular 4.6 or 5.4 at all. Here's some reading about the new 5.0, in mustang form. Apparently Ford retuned the 5.0 for truck use and more tq. If you need 400 hp in a truck, get the 6.2 V8. http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/mmfp_1004_2011_mustang_gt_5_0_l_engine/index.html - 5.0 ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 3:38am
I've had a 4.0 ZJ grand, and driven enough cherokee (XJ's) and 4.0 WJ grand cherokees (99-04)that I prefer an 8 in those two as well. The 4.7 SOHC in my parents 99 WJ grand is a quick and fun motor, and has no fuel mileage disparity from the 4.0 I6 ones to boot. The new pentastar sounds good on paper, but when Motor Trend comparo tested the new 3.6 V6 2011 grand to the 2011 4.0 4runner, the 4runenr had a much better engine, tuned more for tq than HP, unlike the v6 new grand cherokee. Maybe once they ditch the 5 speed auto and get a 6+ speed auto it can be better all around. That will be a couple years though. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 9:55am
|
as we speak, they were bringing the big guns (cranes) into the Chrysler plant, pulling the presses, kinda sucks.
pretty amazing what they (ford) are doing with these engines, easily squeezing out more horse and torque regardless of cubes. I dont want to be the town cryer, and its a recent discovery on the qaulity that Ford is dumping into the vehicles they are building. re-vamped the entire product line and full charge ahead on the marketing...very commendable. ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: thatdude596
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 11:38am
| time will tell to see how the new motors perform. i think its great for the american automobile industry to be making a huge comeback and new innovations. i think they will become the big 3 again shortly. toyota has taken a huge hit of late. i still prefer mopar=moar power! |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: December-29-2010 at 12:41pm
I had a Cherokee and 2 Grands with the 4.0 I6, one Grand with a 5.2 V8. I really liked the 4.0, a smooth bulletproof motor, not a speed demon but towed quite well. I had the 4.7 V8 in my '01 Durango, that is a nice engine but more of a high revver than a tow engine, I haven't driven one of the newer 300 HP 4.7's to see how they compare. These new engines sound great, what we're heading toward is 25 mpg, 300 HP capable engines that can tow decently and can really move. It's about time, the U.S. automakers stayed with 15 mpg V8's for way too long. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: December-30-2010 at 12:22am
The base 3,7 is already a proven mill in other ford vehicles, as is the ecoboost 3.5 DI twin turbo mill, and even the 6.2 has been out for a solid year in the raptor. Those are proven. The 5.0, I have no worries about because Ford is very cautious about untried things and don't want to risk any of their high quality remarks to take a hit. They tested the hell out of the new 5.0 in test mule mustangs for a couple years. I don't know what gear ratio you had in that 01 durango with the 4.7, but with the gearing in the parent's WJ 99 grand, it tows very well. It tows the nautique better than the 94 2500 350 full size chevy we had. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: December-30-2010 at 1:51am
|
<<I don't know what gear ratio you had in that 01 durango with the 4.7, but with the gearing in the parent's WJ 99 grand, it tows very well. It tows the nautique better than the 94 2500 350 full size chevy we had.>>
I had 3.55 gears in the Durango. It towed my little Skier fine but with an over 4,000 lb. boat and trailer it had to really rev to pull OK. The '03 Durango I drive now has the 5.9 V8 and 4.10 gears so obviously tows much better, maybe the comparison doesn't do the 4.7 justice, particularly since it didn't have towing gears. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: horkn
Date Posted: December-30-2010 at 3:08am
|
My parent's 4.7 wj has the 3.73 gear ratio. that definitely does not hurt.
It tows about the same as my dad's 02 4.6 v8 explorer with 3.73's. And a lot like the 4.7 v8 04 4runner of my Fiance's. I've towed the martinique with all 3 trucks, and of course the full size chevy we had too. ------------- 78 martinique- refloored, reinforced, stringers re glassed, re engineered interior GT40P heads Edelbrock Performer intake acme 4 blade http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/fish/nautique.jpg |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: December-30-2010 at 10:04am
|
Looking at the specs on the Ecoboost, the thing that stands out is the 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2500 rpm! A gas engine making peak torque that low is unusual, I wonder how they do it with a 213 cu. in. engine.
Pretty amazing tech, I'd like to drive one to check it out. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: TX Foilhead
Date Posted: December-31-2010 at 3:19pm
|
I'm not positive, but I think the Eco Boost motor in the trucks will be different than in the cars. They are using the Eco Boost name for all of the direct injection turbo motors. In the F150 that is supposed to be the big motor unless you get a Raptor with the 6.2. The numbers on both motors are very close. I have also heard that there may be a future Raptor with that motor and the boost turned up.
|
Posted By: 65 'cuda
Date Posted: December-31-2010 at 3:38pm
|
They use the twin turbos to get the boost up at relatively low rpm's (two smaller, lighter, turbine rotors will spin up faster than one larger rotor) the direct injection allows higher manifold pressures, and compression ratio's because the fuel is introduced into the combustion chamber, cooling the charge right before preignition would occur. I'll bet they run really well. If you can keep your foot out of it they should get very good milage. ------------- Gary http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=941" rel="nofollow - 1965 Barracuda SS |
Posted By: 65 'cuda
Date Posted: December-31-2010 at 3:52pm
|
Another advantage of the direct injection that I can think of, is you only have to get the air through the valves, then you add the fuel increasing the charge density. If you add the fuel to the air in the induction tract it takes up some of the "room" that the valve can let in, by adding it after the valve has closed you get more charge into the cylinder. ------------- Gary http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=941" rel="nofollow - 1965 Barracuda SS |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: December-31-2010 at 9:39pm
|
holy chit, Gary.....you went and seen the wizard ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |