I'm going to have to disagree with some points of your post. Displacement is an easy way to make reliable long term power, but displacement alone doesn't determine whether or not an engine is powerful, robust, or more efficient.
For example, let's take a step back to the 80s and 90s. The power output out of your average domestic V8 sports car (Fbodys or Fox Body Mustangs being a good example) was embarrassingly low. Crappy engineering with bad flowing heads and power sapping emissions equipment.
Today, a Kia Rio will smoke an old TBI 305 or 350 powered Firebird from the mid to late 90s and early 90s. Ditto for the Mustang.
"BUT THEY WERE 'MURIKA STRONG! "
Ever try to make 500hp for a long time on a stock 302 bottom end? They usually split down the lifter valley.
But a similar vintage four cylinder engine with only 122 cubic inches has been known to live extended periods of time making over 480hp on stock internals.
So displacement and more cylinders doesn't always equate to strength. Ask an old Ford guy if he needed a reliable engine to keep in his work truck, and give him a choice between a 302 and the 300 straight six, and see which one he picks.
As far as turbochargers, I do think that their added complexity makes for more expensive and frequent repairs as the vehicle gets older, so I am against that. But in terms of the current Mustang, I'm not against the 4 banger. I think it's pretty cool, and reminds me of the old SVOs (which were way better than the regular Foxes back then, IMO).
I don't think it's just Ford, but it's every American manufacturer that has to figure out how to win over the hearts and minds with smaller power plants when we're playing on the world stage these days.
There wasn't anything wrong with the engineering in the 80's, it was the smog controls that everyone, not just Ford, or Chevy, or AMC, but EVERYONE was fighting to work with.
Remember, we had fuel injected engines in the 60's and 70's that made tons of horsepower!
You've actually proven my point with the in-line 6 versus V8 analogy. Remembering that BOTH were basically 300 cubic inch engines. I'll take the torque and power of 6 thumping cylinders in the same size engine over 8 any day.
FWIW, Nobody has EVER made 500HP for extended periods (like a family vehicle designed to drive over 100,000 miles) from a 302 bottom end. I built several 302's (both 2-bolt and 4-bolt mains) in the early 70's and am very familiar with just how much power they'll put out. The 4-bolt main with a 612 lift cam running 12.7:1 SpeedPro pistons, heads shaved .030 with a big 'offy' intake would pull the front wheels off the ground in a stock weighted 71 Comet GT 4 speed (on street tires). That was a growling, snorting, fire breathing monster but MPG was horrible, and there is NO WAY it'd ever run 50,000 much less 100,000 miles without a teardown. (I took it apart more than once just for snits-n-giggles.)
And if you REALLY wanted a reliable 6, you wanted the old Dodge/Chrysler slant 6!!!! That puppy only needed oil changes and air filters and it'd run 300,000 miles no matter WHAT it was in. :xyxthumbs:
Speaking of the older SVO's, that was a Yamaha designed (and built) power plant. It was expensive, complex, and a BEAST! Basically it was a racing engine built for the street. Not an engine that you'd run 200,000 miles, (maybe 100,000 if you were lucky) but it was a sexy beast.
You should really drive a ecoboost before you judge. All you prejudice fears are addressed.
I have a Ecoboost SuperCrew f150 fx4. I've driven a Explorer EcoBoost and a Focus ST.
#1- Ecoboost does not need the typical high rpm to spool for boost. My truck makes its full 420lb-ft torque at 2500 rpm and holds that through almost 5000 rpm.
http://fishingminnesota.com/forum/f...albums_ecoboost_picture60378_torquecurves.jpg
#2 The ecoboost engine is built for turbo with forged internals to handle the stress of forced induction
#3 With today's technology turbo is less finicky and more reliable. You don't have to let the turbos cool after driving anymore, turbo lag is almost nonexistent (typical driver wouldn't notice), and as stated they are setup so you don't have to spool up. If you drive one from the time you press on the pedal you think your driving a larger engine, except it is much more quiet.
In the case of my truck, I can do anything with it that a 5.3/5.7 v8 can do but better because the torque curve is so long and flat. And when not towing/hauling I can get decent mpg if I control myself from having fun with it. In the f150 it's a Jekll & Hyde engine. It's a 6.0+ V8 when towing (power & mpg) but a 5.0 or smaller v8/v6 when just daily driving (mpg).
So the engines are driving nowhere near redline to produce power, and aren't guzzling gas while doing it...and the engines are not being stressed because they are built for turbo use....not some existing engines with a turbo strapped to it like a high schooler with a home built Honda Civic.
Not judging, just looking at facts that have been well proven through time.
I do agree however that the newer turbo power plants are MUCH MORE suited to the job at hand. Although all factory built turbo plants of the last decade (at least) have the same forged internals, (or they'd not last even 36,000 miles, much less twice that).
As the link I originally posted will attest to, the technology today is creating better, more efficient, more reliable power plants when compared to the past offerings. For instance, dual stage ceramic turbos comes to mind.
It is worth noting that as much as Car & Driver liked their 12 month, 28,000 mile test that their average MPG wasn't but 14.4. There are also numerous reports of the air intercooler causing the engine to go into "limp mode" (usually at the very time where one needs it the most, as in overtaking) that may end up leading to (at the very least) a massive recall, if not a class action suit. :dunno:
This is from a previous report earlier this year:
"The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 – specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine – of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May – almost a year ago – into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.
Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage.
Ford conducted its own testing and, rather than issue a recall, published a series of technical service bulletins prompting dealers to install deflect shields onto the CAC in the vehicles in question, solving the problem to 95-percent effectiveness in 2011-12 models and 100 percent in 2013 models. Apparently satisfied that Ford had resolved the issue, NHTSA has closed the file on this particular case."
Offering TSB's is the way that MANY manufacturers get around glaring problems. I know that GM has had problems with the anti-lock controller for YEARS on certain trucks yet they've yet to issue a recall. Instead there have been a series of TSB's on ground wires and such.
The truth is that the MODULE itself is faulty!
I would say however that the jury is still out as to how well a 3.5L is going to last pulling a 4500 pound vehicle (wet weight) plus passengers and cargo... down the road for 150,000 miles. Adding to that the 2015 isn't but a 2.7 Liter, REALLY!
Well said Griff, you presented facts and figures that can't b denied:thumbup: All that said though, what your up against here is "Murica" and its way of thinking. The calander hasn't flipped for decades, its where a small V8 is a 350 and power is big blocks. Then there's the sound thing, "nothing sounds like a V8" and a Mustang should always sound good. Well the thing is, if you want that V8 sound, your covered, you want a turbo 4, your covered and if your wife just cares about getting around in a cool car and she doesn't care what's under the hood, the detuned V6 is for you (same applies to guys whom aren't into cars too)
I grew up in the Motor City and have been hearing this for years. When I had my 87' GN I raced 427 Corvettes and BB Mopars on Telegraph, from a roll and at the light, took them out (Derek0609 can testify to this), so my into into turbo power was about 20 years ago...my God, has it been that long already
Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
Well I agree that "nothing sounds like a V8". But then again..... I've become rather fond of a NA V6 with a nice exhaust note as well.
Remember, that even the monster motors in the Ferrari's and such are setup as nothing more than twin firing V6's. IE they don't have firing orders such as 1-3-7-5-8-4-9-2-10-etc. etc. etc. They have TWO side by side cylinders firing at once, which basically makes them a dual-bore V6.
Bottom line however is that when you move from a NA engine (of any size) to a FI you make a sacrifice. Be that durability, or longevity and ESPECIALLY mileage! Even Consumer Reports have proven/written about just that.
Reading long term tests in the F150 showing mileage figures below 15 MPG makes me not want to invest in it, Not to mention the little Ecoboost is known to get even worse mileage in cold weather, due to lower engine temps, lower transmission temps (preventing torque converter lockup) and of course "winter gas".
Even though.... I tend to
like the (
very newest) design (
especially like the aluminum body). Although the reports of body fitment issues and paint issues are really troubling. (
I'd say that's more on the past/current models more so than the new all aluminum unit, so we'll see.)
All the while; We are driving a 10 year old Denali 5.3 L with 147,000 miles on it (
and Displacement on Demand (that is HORRIBLE btw)) that regularly gets 18.4~18.9 around town.
(Psssst... that's not much worse than my G35 gets btw!!!!!) :laughing:
Although..... I might tend to "
put my foot in it" on a regular basis!
rops:
