Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Sign in to follow this  
RyanB

Ford Super Duty New Gas Engine

Recommended Posts

shawndoggy

I haven't followed cafe standards that religiously, but were HD trucks ever brought under their umbrella?

I have a couple of friends with 6.4 ram 2500s who are very happy with their big gassers... they sure are cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain.  I guess time will tell on resale (the world seems to still hate a gasser over 100k)

The Ford v10 has been the motor everyone loves to hate since the beginning.  Poor efficiency, poor power (butt dyno) and a habit of spitting plugs in the early days.... what's to love?  A do-over on the big gasser could be a great thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Falko

Didn't mean to derail the other thread (pre-coffee post). So....

I don't get this line of thinking. Ford has a good base and technology with the Ecoboast engine. Why go old school with huge displacement? And a V10, I'm not sure anyone has had much success in making an efficient V10. You can get some power out of them but at the expense of a lot of fuel. I'd be surprised if this engine comes in a V10 unless it is for marketing purposes. But then again, I'm thinking this thought of a displacement engine is marketing as well.

And as for comparisons, GM should just throw down the gauntlet and drop the LS7 into the HD line of trucks, with a different tune of course.

And I've also heard great things about the 6.4 Hemi. I've heard from engine builders that the older 6.1 and the 6.4 hemis are very heavy built units.

Share this post


Link to post
jjackkrash

The V-10 has been a good engine in my folks' motorhome.  It is a pretty good gas engine for pulling heavy loads.  

Share this post


Link to post
RyanB
7 hours ago, Falko said:

I don't get this line of thinking. Ford has a good base and technology with the Ecoboast engine. Why go old school with huge displacement? And a V10, I'm not sure anyone has had much success in making an efficient V10. You can get some power out of them but at the expense of a lot of fuel.

 

......

And as for comparisons, GM should just throw down the gauntlet and drop the LS7 into the HD line of trucks, with a different tune of course.

And I've also heard great things about the 6.4 Hemi. I've heard from engine builders that the older 6.1 and the 6.4 hemis are very heavy built units.

I think the reason that Ford has not (and will not) expand the EcoBoost into the Super Duty side all has to do with duty cycle.  It is a great engine for a 150/1500, and can produce impressive power, but I don't think it will hold up to extended heavy duty use.  Not saying it is a bad engine, just like anything, it has its limitations.  Which would be my same argument as to why GM won't do what you suggest for the LS7.

And as far as a V10 fuel consumption, it likely would be similar overall to what an EcoBoost is.  The current 3.5 is anything but efficient when it is towing.  Great power yes, great MPG, no.  A newer V10 (or larger V8) can employ cylinder deactivation technology.  Run on 4 or 5 cylinders when not towing, run full displacement when power is needed.  Kind of like what the EcoBoost does with turbos.

Current administration will neuter the EPA and CAFE standards.  That will allow the HP wars to continue - both in diesel and gassers.

These are the good ole days!

Share this post


Link to post
MadMan
10 hours ago, RyanB said:

Thought this was interesting.

No, it is not an EcoBoost.  It is a 7.0 V8 or V10.  I think this likely says what Ford thinks is going to happen to the EPA.....

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/03/report-ford-super-duty-to-get-new-gas-engine.html

This is good new for me, I'm one that does not see a diesel as an upgrade.  I'd much prefer a gas burner.

Share this post


Link to post
carguy79ta

I am a GM guy and ram diesel.  however....I am all for neutering (castrating) the EPA and other agencies

Share this post


Link to post
Falko
On 4/5/2017 at 6:06 PM, RyanB said:

I think the reason that Ford has not (and will not) expand the EcoBoost into the Super Duty side all has to do with duty cycle.  It is a great engine for a 150/1500, and can produce impressive power, but I don't think it will hold up to extended heavy duty use.  Not saying it is a bad engine, just like anything, it has its limitations.  Which would be my same argument as to why GM won't do what you suggest for the LS7.

And as far as a V10 fuel consumption, it likely would be similar overall to what an EcoBoost is.  The current 3.5 is anything but efficient when it is towing.  Great power yes, great MPG, no.  A newer V10 (or larger V8) can employ cylinder deactivation technology.  Run on 4 or 5 cylinders when not towing, run full displacement when power is needed.  Kind of like what the EcoBoost does with turbos.

Current administration will neuter the EPA and CAFE standards.  That will allow the HP wars to continue - both in diesel and gassers.

These are the good ole days!

I can see that about the duty cycle. As for the 7.0, I've heard that is a very well built engine. But probably too much so and is costly to build, probably a bigger reason they won't use it. The problem with cylinder deactivation is you don't lose much of the internal friction in the engine. Run an 8 on four and you still have the internal resistance of an 8. It no doubt helps, but not as well as a smaller engine with turbo.  I think the reason many ecoboasts don't get great mileage is the result of heavy right foot syndrome. 

The next few years are going to be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Shastasurf

 The deactivating cylinders in my gm 5.3 caused a lifter failure and destroyed my engine, this week. I'll try and snap some pics.   Deactivating cylinders just cost me big and I'd delete it if I was gonna keep the rig.   So about the 5.3 being one of the most reliable engines gm has made, maybe without cylinders deactivating lol.  I'll prolly buy an older rig just for towing and rock my Tacoma.  And give Ford a try next!

Edited by Shastasurf

Share this post


Link to post
oldjeep
13 hours ago, Shastasurf said:

 The deactivating cylinders in my gm 5.3 caused a lifter failure and destroyed my engine, this week. I'll try and snap some pics.   Deactivating cylinders just cost me big and I'd delete it if I was gonna keep the rig.   So about the 5.3 being one of the most reliable engines gm has made, maybe without cylinders deactivating lol.  I'll prolly buy an older rig just for towing and rock my Tacoma.  And give Ford a try next!

Cylinder deactivation has been around a long time in a couple brands and you don't really hear about many failures.  How many miles were on the truck?

Share this post


Link to post
RyanB

Actually, I think the failures are somewhat more common on the GM brands. Even my GM fanboy friends warned me about it on my Yukon. 

 

I have never heard of a failure on a Chrysler product. 

 

My wifes 300 Hemi has cylinder deactivation and has been troublefree for 100,000 miles. 

 

That technology sure wouldn't scare me away. 

Edited by RyanB

Share this post


Link to post
Shastasurf
23 minutes ago, oldjeep said:

Cylinder deactivation has been around a long time in a couple brands and you don't really hear about many failures.  How many miles were on the truck?

125,000 miles 2011 Yukon xl

Edited by Shastasurf

Share this post


Link to post
jjackkrash

My brother-in-law toasted a 5.3 in a Tahoe at about 70-80k mostly highway miles and regular dealer maintenance.  The dealer told him highway miles were worse for deactivation cars because the deactivated cylinders apparently are not lubed as well as the activated ones, at least on some of the earlier 5.3 models.  

Edited by jjackkrash

Share this post


Link to post
oldjeep
19 minutes ago, RyanB said:

Actually, I think the failures are somewhat more common on the GM brands. Even my GM fanboy friends warned me about it on my Yukon. 

 

I have never heard of a failure on a Chrysler product. 

 

My wifes 300 Hemi has cylinder deactivation and has been troublefree for 100,000 miles. 

 

That technology sure wouldn't scare me away. 

My 09 Hemi Ram has it with about 150K miles, with no issues.  Although honestly it doesn't kick in all that often in my normal driving.

Edited by oldjeep

Share this post


Link to post
Falko

The 2007 and some 2008 5.3's were notorious for having issues related to cylinder deactivation. 

Share this post


Link to post
RyanB
2 hours ago, oldjeep said:

My 09 Hemi Ram has it with about 150K miles, with no issues.  Although honestly it doesn't kick in all that often in my normal driving.

The 300 spends a lot of time in "MDS" on the highway. At least at speeds below about 70. But the only way I know is if I have the display set to show it which is not on default. Not sure how the RAM is. 

Share this post


Link to post
rugger

Think the earlier 5.3s were more reliable.  Was no doubt best engine I've owned.  280,000+ miles on a 2003 Chevy Tahoe that pulled the boat until I sold the rig.  Only changed the AC pump.  I had a buddy with an 07 Denali that had problems.

Still a fan of diesels too though.  My 7.3 is loud, but it's a simple as a tractor.  I've had 2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Bozboat
20 hours ago, jjackkrash said:

My brother-in-law toasted a 5.3 in a Tahoe at about 70-80k mostly highway miles and regular dealer maintenance.  The dealer told him highway miles were worse for deactivation cars because the deactivated cylinders apparently are not lubed as well as the activated ones, at least on some of the earlier 5.3 models.  

I had the 5.3 in a 2007 Silverado, that drank a quart of oil every 600-750 miles, I bailed out of it at 58,000 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
jjackkrash
9 minutes ago, Bozboat said:

I had the 5.3 in a 2007 Silverado, that drank a quart of oil every 600-750 miles, I bailed out of it at 58,000 miles.

IMO 07-08 5.3, es no bueno.  

Share this post


Link to post
carguy79ta

my 2004 Yukon has 185k on it in 13 years so not all hiway miles.  it also drinks about 1 qt in about 1200 miles.  tranny was done at 100k .  local rebuild is fine.  do like the motor tho.  am saving the vehicle to turbocharged next year.  

Share this post


Link to post
nyryan2001

100k and a tranny rebuild is distinctly American

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...