Topic: Rumour: 2015 Ford F-150 To Get Small Displacement EcoBoost V6

[PJ]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

320 hp is "underpowered?"

We live in a strange world......

For a truck...yeah...

Jeez. I own a 3.5L ecoboost F150 and would argue it is overpowered and overkill unless you are towing something big. Truck weighs around 5800lbs and will do 0-60 in 6.1 seconds according to Car and Driver, but it can't stop or turn. It isn't a fun vehicle to drive fast.

If the new 2.7 liter combined with the new 9 or 10 speed transmission comes with a real world improvement in fuel economy, I'll buy one. 370 ft lbs of torque should be plenty for most people. Up until just a few years ago that would have been what the top level V8 option would put out.

Too bad the diesel is such a costly option in the Ram.

My first and only pick-up was a GMC half ton with a 250 Six and four on the floor. We used to fill the bed with firewood every weekend, and tow an 8' pick up box trailer, also filled.

That 250 had maybe 100 hp and we never failed to make it home. Too bad 320 hp isn't enough for today's world!

Your truck likely weighed more then a ton less then today's pick ups but I agree with your point.  I knew someone who towed a horse trailer with two horses in it with a Ford 300 cu in straight six.  If I remember correctly it only had 120 hp but it pulled great.   

[mixmanmash]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.

Doubt away, but they are planning on using an extensive amount of aluminum to save weight.  Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover have done this in the past and have shaved significant amounts of weight off.

[PJ]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.

Doubt away, but they are planning on using an extensive amount of aluminum to save weight.  Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover have done this in the past and have shaved significant amounts of weight off.

Yeah but those companies sell at premium prices.  The pick up market is cut throat tight and it costs a lot more to work with aluminum the steel. Especially if you want keep the strength  the trucks need.

I'll guess 100-200 lbs is the most they will save. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Ford's extensive use of aluminium for the F150 has been leaking for a while. They are targeting a 700lb reduction. The technology is supposed to make up a good portion of the F150 display in Detroit.

http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/BUSINESS0102/312260086/ford-f-150-aluminum

Risky move, but tightening fuel standards are pushing everyone.

[Snowman]

When it comes to hauling/towing it's more about lower RPM torque than hp I believe. An engine that requires high revs to make decent power is not ideal in a pickup.

Exactly! but the majority of trucks sold these days see no such duty.

[mixmanmash]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.

Doubt away, but they are planning on using an extensive amount of aluminum to save weight.  Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover have done this in the past and have shaved significant amounts of weight off.

Yeah but those companies sell at premium prices.  The pick up market is cut throat tight and it costs a lot more to work with aluminum the steel. Especially if you want keep the strength  the trucks need.

I'll guess 100-200 lbs is the most they will save.

What you are missing is that scales of economy will come into play with such a huge mass production.

As well, yes weight for weight, aluminum costs more than steel, but you are using less weight wise and hence your overall cost won't increase by much.

Interesting read here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/27/fords-aluminium-f-150-what-took-them-so-long/

[mixmanmash]

When it comes to hauling/towing it's more about lower RPM torque than hp I believe. An engine that requires high revs to make decent power is not ideal in a pickup.

Exactly! but the majority of trucks sold these days see no such duty.

True.  For those that need the towing or hauling, yes low end grunt is important but for 90% of the pickups out there, they are hardly being used for this purpose.

I would also point out that today's V6s are also producing a lot more low end grunt than the V8s of 10-15 years ago.  Amazing what modern engine technology can do.  Mostly, in cylinder head breathing, especially at lower RPMs.

Something I saw that was amazing was a dyno chart of a stock Ford GT engine with 2 turbos, and the very same 2 turbos on a R35 GTR.  RPM for RPM, the GTR's VR38DETT had it beat because it breaths better, regardless of being down 2 cylinders and 1.6L in displacement.

[Northernridge]

I'm more interested in modern, normally aspirated V6s replacing the smaller outdated V8s. I have the perfectly-adequate-no-matter-what-you've-heard 4.8l V8 in my Sierra with the equally outdated 4-speed auto. This drivetrain has been just fine for my needs…towing up to 4,500lbs, hauling building supplies, hunting and light-duty off-roading. I don't win races and get mediocre fuel mileage but the truck works great. I wonder if the new V6s (plus more gears) would provide at least equal performance with improved gas mileage.

[bridgecity]

If the power/torque numbers produced match what is stated in the article (320hp, 370 ft lbs), then I seen no reason why the 2.7 would not be more than adequate for half ton duty.  With the turbo, torque will be available at low rpm. 

My concern would be longevity.  The 3.5 ecoboost hasn't been around long enough to know if longevity is a concern, however I haven't read anything about premature engine/turbo failures, which is a good sign.  For those of us that use a truck for towing/hauling regularly, my heart would still lean towards a V-8.  However, the smaller 6's that are gaining popularity are more than adequate for most people, probably for myself also. 

I will say this.  I love the power in my truck (380hp, 400 ft lb).  Its nice to be able to maintain highway speeds pulling a steep grade with 6000lbs in tow.  Its not necessary, but the cro-magnon in me likes it  .

[PJ]

When it comes to hauling/towing it's more about lower RPM torque than hp I believe. An engine that requires high revs to make decent power is not ideal in a pickup.

Exactly! but the majority of trucks sold these days see no such duty.

True.  For those that need the towing or hauling, yes low end grunt is important but for 90% of the pickups out there, they are hardly being used for this purpose.

I would also point out that today's V6s are also producing a lot more low end grunt than the V8s of 10-15 years ago.  Amazing what modern engine technology can do.  Mostly, in cylinder head breathing, especially at lower RPMs.

Something I saw that was amazing was a dyno chart of a stock Ford GT engine with 2 turbos, and the very same 2 turbos on a R35 GTR.  RPM for RPM, the GTR's VR38DETT had it beat because it breaths better, regardless of being down 2 cylinders and 1.6L in displacement.

I don't agree that modern V6s have more low end torque.  Mid range maybe and top end sure but not low end.  Adding a turbo helps but for towing in the 1500-2500 range there's still no replacement for displacement. 

[Fobroader]

I hope theres not a lot of aluminum in the bed.....that would bend a lot easier.

[Vanstar]

I'm more interested in modern, normally aspirated V6s replacing the smaller outdated V8s. I have the perfectly-adequate-no-matter-what-you've-heard 4.8l V8 in my Sierra with the equally outdated 4-speed auto. This drivetrain has been just fine for my needs…towing up to 4,500lbs, hauling building supplies, hunting and light-duty off-roading. I don't win races and get mediocre fuel mileage but the truck works great. I wonder if the new V6s (plus more gears) would provide at least equal performance with improved gas mileage.

Of course, naturally aspirated, smaller engines in lighter vehicles is the way to go. The V-6's of today have loads of power, it's just the trucks have bloated to gargantuan proportions. We also have a 4.8 Chev half-ton and I have never thought it short of power. It regularly pulls a 5000 + lb trailer, an nobody has complained. The 4.3 V-6 in the new GM truck seems like a real option for most buyers. I am NOT a fan of turbos on light-duty trucks. I'd like to see what happens to those turbos when one actually pulls or carries something for any length of time.

Since trucks are so large, the only way to reach CAFE regs without sacrificing the manly, big pen*s size of these monsters is lighter weight, and that means lighter materials.

[me_2]

Interesting interview about the covetic aluminum... Listen the question at 0:30:30 not ready yet for production 
http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?tag=covetic-aluminum

Ford's extensive use of aluminium for the F150 has been leaking for a while. They are targeting a 700lb reduction. The technology is supposed to make up a good portion of the F150 display in Detroit.

http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/BUSINESS0102/312260086/ford-f-150-aluminum

Risky move, but tightening fuel standards are pushing everyone.

[Snowman]

The move to aluminum by Ford is a good one. The tightening fuel consumption standards are driving R&D, how can this possibly be a bad thing?  I wonder what people said when the first aluminum boat came out 

[PJ]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.

Doubt away, but they are planning on using an extensive amount of aluminum to save weight.  Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover have done this in the past and have shaved significant amounts of weight off.

Yeah but those companies sell at premium prices.  The pick up market is cut throat tight and it costs a lot more to work with aluminum the steel. Especially if you want keep the strength  the trucks need.

I'll guess 100-200 lbs is the most they will save.

What you are missing is that scales of economy will come into play with such a huge mass production.

As well, yes weight for weight, aluminum costs more than steel, but you are using less weight wise and hence your overall cost won't increase by much.

Interesting read here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/27/fords-aluminium-f-150-what-took-them-so-long/

What your missing is aluminum is not nearly as strong as steel.  I work with it all the time and it's like machining plastic when you compare it to steel.  You can replace non structural parts like body work easy enough for a modest cost increase but that won't get you a 700 pound weight loss. 

And don't forget the competition has the same economy of scale using cheaper and stronger steel. 

[mixmanmash]

I don't see the point of three V6 engines either.  Maybe the 2.7 will replace the 3.5.

I hope not, its far too small and underpowered. If anything, I would increase the displacement of the 3.5.

Not if they take 700lbs weight out of the truck like Ford is attempting to do.

Love how the thread focused on the new engine versus the significant weight reduction.

That's because the smaller engine is easier to believe.  I'd love to see a 700 lb weight loss but have my doubts.  They could do it by making the truck 10-20% smaller but then it wouldn't sell to the average pick up buyer.

Doubt away, but they are planning on using an extensive amount of aluminum to save weight.  Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover have done this in the past and have shaved significant amounts of weight off.

Yeah but those companies sell at premium prices.  The pick up market is cut throat tight and it costs a lot more to work with aluminum the steel. Especially if you want keep the strength  the trucks need.

I'll guess 100-200 lbs is the most they will save.

What you are missing is that scales of economy will come into play with such a huge mass production.

As well, yes weight for weight, aluminum costs more than steel, but you are using less weight wise and hence your overall cost won't increase by much.

Interesting read here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/27/fords-aluminium-f-150-what-took-them-so-long/

What your missing is aluminum is not nearly as strong as steel.  I work with it all the time and it's like machining plastic when you compare it to steel.  You can replace non structural parts like body work easy enough for a modest cost increase but that won't get you a 700 pound weight loss. 

And don't forget the competition has the same economy of scale using cheaper and stronger steel.

Yes, but what grade are you working with?  What are the applications you are using it for?  Machining is very different and I wouldn't determine the strength of a material by how easily it machines.

I work with aluminum and steel as well.  We use it in applications where we want a flat surface and hence use a 3/8" thick sheet of it (4' x 8').  Steel in that thickness would kill us in weight.

It's pretty amazing the strength you can get out of aluminum depending on the grade and how you shape it.  Of course, that applies to many materials.

You would also be surprised at how many production vehicles have aluminum suspension components (control arms, etc) that have all sorts of forces applied to them.  Again, it's the shape, grade and how it's formed that provides the strength.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This is similar to when volume manufacturers switched to aluminium engine blocks.

Sent from my G3 using Tapatalk 4