Now if Ford would just offer the 2.7 with the manual...
Sponsored
Now if Ford would just offer the 2.7 with the manual...
diesel take rate is even lower than manual!While a V-8 would be nice... more importantly GIVE US A DIESEL...
blah blah blah...I want a v8.It has nothing to do with power.
It has everything to do with size and purpose
1 it might BARELY fit but good luck making it Maintenance and Assembly Friendly
2 likely wouldn’t pass crash tests
3 won’t pass emissions tests in most countries (if it’s going globally)
4 Demand for v8s is PLUMMETING. Mustang (excluding Shelby) and F-150 demand is only getting lower
5 THE BIGGEST reason
The upcoming (2023+) Raptor/Warthog version is getting the 3.0 Ecoboost with 400hp 415 (similar peak numbers to 5.0) but the ecoboost has more low end balls.
at the end of the day. Ecoboost motors are better any way you shake it, the only nice thing about the v8 is the exhaust tone
I think the only reason people are clamoring for the V8 is the sound.
While a V-8 would be nice... more importantly GIVE US A DIESEL...
is there really a market for people willing to spend 10k extra for a 8 cylinder engine
Oh dang, you pulled out Bobby Knight throwing chairs.
Maybe if the diesel wasn't a 4k option with a locked in extra 2k automatic they would sell more.diesel take rate is even lower than manual!
Jeep said they regret offering it. Took them 18 months LONGER than expected to pass EPA. Sure the initial sales were great. But after the first few months . Sales are FLAT.
likely not going to hit 8,000 total units for 2020.
Has to be a $4,000. Supply and demand and cost.Maybe if the diesel wasn't a 4k option with a locked in extra 2k automatic they would sell more.
So lets see how weak the 5.0 really is in the low end.I don’t know about him but I have plenty of experience behind Fords 2.7L, the power is in a small range and there’s not very much there. I can’t imagine what type of shtbox people have to be coming from to be impressed by the 2.7L.
RPM | 2019 2.7 93 TUNE-TORQUE (wheel) | 2019 5.0 93 TUNE-TORQUE (wheel) |
1200 | 70 (Maybe, can't find dyno chart that low) | 161 |
1500 | 100 | 212 |
2000 | 225 | 294 |
2500 | 325 | 330 |
3000 | 425 | 348 |
3500 | 425 | 378 |
4000 | 415 | 400 |
4500 | 400 | 400 |
5000 | 375 | 395 |
6000 | 275 | 368 |
So lets see how weak the 5.0 really is in the low end.
So off idle, 5.0 slaughters 2.7. And even through 2000, it's not really even close. Finally by 2500 we get even and not until 2700 does the 2.7 out torque the 5.0. Huge spike for 2.7 between 2500 and 3000, but if anyone has been paying attention, that is exactly what us "linear power" guys don't want. 5.0 also gets you extended RPM range without switching gears @ over 5000 with still decent torque, in case you were trying to crawl an obsticle, but then needed a bunch of wheel speed on the higher end of RPM range.
So to recap, "what do you get"??
1. Ecoboost destroying off idle torque
2. Much better torque and more important, smoother up to 2700.
3. No big torque spikes.
4. No lag (especially on/off throttle @ ECO's torque peaks)
5. Even torque across entire RPM range
6. Extended upper RPM range, with still decent torque.
Oh BTW, this is really only close because Ford decided to use a small V-8.
Anyway, the arguments have been
1. It doesn't fit
2. Won't get as good mileage
3. Will be too expensive
And all those things may be true, but can we put to bed why some of us would take even a tiny V-8, over even a tuned 2.7 ECO.
RPM 2019 2.7 93 TUNE-TORQUE (wheel) 2019 5.0 93 TUNE-TORQUE (wheel) 1200 70 (Maybe, can't find dyno chart that low) 161 1500 100 212 2000 225 294 2500 325 330 3000 425 348 3500 425 378 4000 415 400 4500 400 400 5000 375 395 6000 275 368
It was a 5 star 93 tune, maybe a bit less boost than yours. Up though 2700, same deal as my chart, the "no low end torque" 5.0, beats 2.7. That 3rd chart is not a dyno chart from a reputable tuner. IE, your chart shows 375 ft-lbs gross @ 2250 RPM on stock tune, yet 93 tune dyno shows 200 ft-lbs net. Even at 2750 you are 100ft-lbs off (again, not even same tune, which should favor the 93 tune if anything, even accounting for drivetrain loss).1 what tune are you using for the 2.7? Fords in house tune?
because five star 2.7 93 tune puts out a lot more than that, 460lbft at the wheels.
- my torque curve may be a little off because I used Ford estimated animated torque curve Vs dyno. (Which a torque converter may have something to do with the difference)It was a 5 star 93 tune, maybe a bit less boost than yours. Up though 2700, same deal as my chart, the "no low end torque" 5.0, beats 2.7. That 3rd chart is not a dyno chart from a reputable tuner. IE, your chart shows 375 ft-lbs gross @ 2250 RPM on stock tune, yet 93 tune dyno shows 200 ft-lbs net. Even at 2750 you are 100ft-lbs off (again, not even same tune, which should favor the 93 tune if anything, even accounting for drivetrain loss).