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

Stampede.Offroad

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
2,080
Reaction score
3,602
Location
SD
Vehicle(s)
junk
Maybe Ford could produce a smaller V8 in the future? Make it 3.02L to play for the nostalgia of the old 302. It would give you the sound of a V8 with a smaller size. Just an idea. A small Ecoboost V8 would certainly make headlines.
Something along those lines would be the best of both, but that engine won't exist for a few more years.

For now Ford has other engines it could pair with the manual that they for whatever reason didn't think needed more than one tiny option for, or revised their targets for the 2.7 up so it was no longer viable.





Advertisement

 

Adk_st

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
317
Reaction score
708
Location
Adirondacks,NY
Vehicle(s)
18' Toyota 4runner TRD Pro '57 CHEVY 6400
When you undersize a V-8 for 20 odd years (4.6??, what was the point), and then come out with your "BIG" motor, that is still only 5.0, of course. GM and FCA got it, Ford never did (not even back in the 80's when GM put an underachieving 5.7 in the Camaro, but it put out way more torque than even the long runner 5.0, HO). All this time we could have had bigger V-8's from Ford, but as mentioned, no way they come out with one now.

It does get tiring over and over having to explain why linear power is important to some of us and that the torque of a NA motor, even if less than an ECO, will come on instantly. Won't matter much on the street, overlanding, or even in the desert. But some of us don't care about any of that, we'd like the control and response that we are used too, for hard core technical wheeling.

What I don't get is if the ECO's are so much better than V-8's, and there is so many available, why is the LS still king of swaps?? (even as small as 350Z's or Miatas).
No way Ford comes out with a big V8 now? Is this the first time you've come out of your bubble in the last 2 years or are we ignoring the new 7.3l?
 

Laminar

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
661
Reaction score
1,674
Location
Iowa
Vehicle(s)
Cougar
Why do you think the EcoBoost motors are these crazy, peaky engines that are impossible to modulate?
He hasn't driven one, but he somehow knows exactly what they're like to drive.

It isn't like you get no torque at low engine speed and then a massive boost of torque once the turbo spools up. The turbos are small and spool up quickly. Turbo lag is essentially nonexistent.
Torque converter slip is balanced with turbo spool for very smooth acceleration. There's absolutely no sensation of "spool" in my MKX, just pure, linear acceleration.
 

Zinn

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
204
Reaction score
502
Location
Minnesota
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT, 2020 Ranger Lariat
Most of the "lag" in my Ranger is the transmission being hesitant to downshift, not the turbo itself. Putting it in sport mode and the thing gets a lot more aggressive. I don't see the problem with these ecoboost engines in a vehicle not designed for straight line speed.
 

Nickp

Base
Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
3,605
Reaction score
17,919
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
He hasn't driven one, but he somehow knows exactly what they're like to drive.
:cautious:
I just think it’s funny that everyone who can’t stand the ecoboost engines don’t actually own them or even have experience driving them at all. If you look on the F-150 forums it is basically universal praise for both the 2.7 and 3.5 from owners. In the bronco? It’s going to be a beast.
 

SouthernBronco6g

First Edition
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
91
Location
Georgia
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Are either of the ecoboost engines in this vehicle "unreliable"? Quick searching on the 2.7L and it pretty much just says it's a reliable engine considering it's new.
A lot of people don’t realize the tech that went into the 2.7 EB, Ford used diesel tech ideas on the 2.7 engine. 2.7 is a beast of a motor .
 

Bronc-O

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
4,246
Reaction score
5,374
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2021 Lincoln Aviator
I think Ford is trying to kill off the V8 in general. I'm surprised the new F150 wasn't all Ecoboost and zero coyote. I'm convinced Ford is actually angry that they feel the pressure to still make a V8 with manual mustang. Even their half million dollar super car was Ecoboost....
Customers are choosing the V8 far less often. Ford even cut a shift due to lower take rate.
 

Bronc-O

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
4,246
Reaction score
5,374
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2021 Lincoln Aviator
I'm really wondering how much the 392 Wrangler will be and how popular now that it's all but guaranteed to be coming out soon. I think if it does well, it will expedite Ford putting it in. The 392 10 speed cars are just dynamite so Im waiting and seeing. Good to have competition.
Probably a better chance of getting a 3.0 or the a hybrid power train than ever getting a V8.
 

SouthernBronco6g

First Edition
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
91
Location
Georgia
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
There's a reason automakers stopped making small V6s and are doing larger I4s or turbo I4s in their place. In the '90s Ford had a 2.5L V6, Mazda had a 1.8L V6. The 3.0 V6 reigned supreme on Fords and Toyotas and Hondas and more for quite a few years, then mid-00s everyone went 3.5 or 3.7 V6. Those small V6s that were putting out ~170-200hp were usurped by 2.5L I4s that could do the same horsepower but with way better mileage. And the turbo 4s are now easily making up to 300hp, pushing out the NA V6 altogether.

Note that the Mazda6 not only gets 10mpg better, but it's also faster than the Taurus.

taurus-6.PNG


If you can have:
- 1 head gasket instead of two
- 1 exhaust manifold instead of two
- 2 cats instead of 4
- a single bank of cylinders instead of the width of two
- 2 cams instead of 4
- 4 pistons instead of 6
- etc etc etc
...and make the same power? Wins all around.

V6 vs. V8 suffer some of the same problems (though not all since you still have two banks). The total linear length of piston to wall contact affects your engine's mechanical losses. It's more frictional area, more heat, more loss, less efficiency - it's worth 5% of the total engine losses on its own.

Look at Ford's 3.5 NA V6 vs. their 3.4 NA V8 from the '96-99 SHO. If you look at the circumference of each cylinder's bore on the V6, you get a total piston-ring-contact-length of 68". On the V8, it's 81". So for the same displacement, you have a 19% increase in piston ring contact length, adding to heat and frictional loss, hurting your mpgs.

When you keep the displacement the same but add cylinders, you usually end up with a smaller bore and shorter stroke. If you have a shorter stroke, you can rev the engine higher before you run into troublesome piston speeds. So in general, a 3.0L V12 can rev higher than a 3.0 V8, which can rev higher than a 3.0 V6, which can rev higher than a 3.0 I4, all other things equal. Revving higher means making more power up at the tippy top of the powerband. Awesome for race cars, terrible for trucks. For the same displacement, a V8 will likely be heavier, get worse mpg, and make worse power low in the powerband than an equivalent V6.

I get it, I4s and V6s generally sound like garbage, but there's no good argument for installing a V8 that makes less than 450hp when turbos exist.
The Ford Cyclone 3.7 V6 RWD Is a superb motor, very reliable, probably best V6 Ford ever made NA. Cafe standards killed it, but it would not be suitable in a Bronco either, like the 5.0 Coyote it make it’s power and torque later in the power band. This is why Ecoboost is a great engine with smaller turbos you can get some big torque down low, good gas mileage and a small footprint.
 

nameuser

First Edition
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
61
Reaction score
162
Location
North of Scipio
Vehicle(s)
67 Halfcab
Just a little automotive nonsense/trivia.
I am an old man but I remember when I was kid my dad who was a gear head from the 30"s told me that there was a fair amount of concern when the ford flat heads came out that they had an inherent design problem.
The concern was that due to the V design that gravity would make the pistons and cylinder wall wear out prematurely on the downhill side.
 

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
1,691
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
When you undersize a V-8 for 20 odd years (4.6??, what was the point), and then come out with your "BIG" motor, that is still only 5.0, of course. GM and FCA got it, Ford never did (not even back in the 80's when GM put an underachieving 5.7 in the Camaro, but it put out way more torque than even the long runner 5.0, HO). All this time we could have had bigger V-8's from Ford, but as mentioned, no way they come out with one now.

It does get tiring over and over having to explain why linear power is important to some of us and that the torque of a NA motor, even if less than an ECO, will come on instantly. Won't matter much on the street, overlanding, or even in the desert. But some of us don't care about any of that, we'd like the control and response that we are used too, for hard core technical wheeling.

What I don't get is if the ECO's are so much better than V-8's, and there is so many available, why is the LS still king of swaps?? (even as small as 350Z's or Miatas).
This.
 

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
1,691
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
He hasn't driven one, but he somehow knows exactly what they're like to drive.
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.
 

Nickp

Base
Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
3,605
Reaction score
17,919
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
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.
DDDF2278-8436-4013-A9BE-98A46AC41D25.jpeg


The 2.7 puts out more torque than a Boss 302 mustang.

if that’s not enough power then idk what exactly you want. And you must be used to sports cars not trucks, so your experience doesn’t even really apply to Bronco.

Unless you own a cyclone or F-150 lighting. I guess that would make sense.
 

NCOBX

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
1,691
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
H2 Hummer, Holden Commodore
DDDF2278-8436-4013-A9BE-98A46AC41D25.jpeg


The 2.7 puts out more torque than a Boss 302 mustang.

if that’s not enough power then idk what exactly you want. And you must be used to sports cars not trucks, so your experience doesn’t even really apply to Bronco.

Unless you own a cyclone or F-150 lighting. I guess that would make sense.
What do I want? Displacement and linear power first and foremost. I was highly unimpressed by my experience with the 2.7, the 3.5L was much better to drive though it still has the funky peaky output.

But for me I’ll take a tuned 7.3L
 

Advertisement







 
Zone Offroad


Advertisement
Top