Why do they have such a hard time deciding to put the 5.0 in?

[Toccoa]

Now if Ford would just offer the 2.7 with the manual...

Sponsored

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

1 word. Fitment.
This is the 3.0 Explorer. I can’t imagine that the Bronco bay is going to be any bigger. And you want to fit a much larger v8 in there? Good luck.

demand for v8s is down big time. To the point where ford is cutting production big time on Coyote production.

also not just EPA CAFE standards but GLOBAL standards. It’s getting harder and harder to sell v8s.

also in every measurable aspect the 2.7 Ecoboost is a better motor than the v8.
And don’t bring up maintenance and reliability because it’s marginal.

the only thing the v8 would bring is sound and nostalgia.

not worth fords time effort and money.

 

[RedneckBronco]

While a V-8 would be nice... more importantly GIVE US A DIESEL...

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

While a V-8 would be nice... more importantly GIVE US A DIESEL...

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.

 

[Southern Girl]

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

blah blah blah...I want a v8.

 

[Southern Girl]

I think the only reason people are clamoring for the V8 is the sound.

 

[Toccoa]

While a V-8 would be nice... more importantly GIVE US A DIESEL...

 

[Southern Girl]

is there really a market for people willing to spend 10k extra for a 8 cylinder engine

 

[Southern Girl]

Oh dang, you pulled out Bobby Knight throwing chairs.

 

[WadeWolf76]

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.

Maybe if the diesel wasn't a 4k option with a locked in extra 2k automatic they would sell more.

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

Maybe if the diesel wasn't a 4k option with a locked in extra 2k automatic they would sell more.

Has to be a $4,000. Supply and demand and cost.

Take rate is super low. I would shocked if the entire lifetime of the JL they sell over 80,000 diesel wranglers.

EPA and RND cost is huge! Takes a lot of money to get a diesel into a car these days.

Couple that with a Low take rate and you get a high cost.

And manual would be an even lower take rate.

 

[OX1]

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.

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

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

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

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.

Stock vs stock

 

[OX1]

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.

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).

 

[FirstOnRaceDay]

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).

- 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)

Either way 5star shows both stock engines Dyno at 300lbft by 2750 rpm. Yes the 5.0 makes more torque from 0-2750. But it marginal from 2250-2750.

Rock crawling sure that difference from 1250 to 2250 might be noticeable. (Which btw is WAY more than Jeep has) but aside from that every other major application where torque matters. It doesn’t matter.

And the tuning difference is massive

Sponsored