2015 F-150 2.7L with 400HP? WTF

[Cleave]

You act like ford is falling behind by being a few years late to add direct injection, but gm isn't by being a few decades late to add overhead cam, with still no plans to add it

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

Anyways, to the original topic, it wouldn't be the most powerful 4-cylinder ford has ever produced

 

[sabumaru]

Think this
2x2.7litre in a v8 config will put you in the 800 range
Quad turbo

Verstuurd vanaf mijn GT-P3110 met Tapatalk

 

[Cleave]

I don't know why I keep thinking it's a 4-cylinder, something about 2.7L just screams really big 4-cylinder, it might be the most powerful v-6 ford has produced, but it's not that unbelievable that they would get that kind of output out of it

 

[Macman]

I'm guessing it's a v6 rather than a 4cyl

 

[Cleave]

I'm guessing it's a v6 rather than a 4cyl

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my last post

 

[Vash]

It seems to me that any fuel economy gains from direct injection were only a side benefit of the technology beyond the main goal to decrease knock/detonation. That particular use case is what allows DI really shine in forced induction engines while only showing minimal gains in naturally aspirated engines. From a cost standpoint, you have to increase fuel economy more in a NA engine to offset the initial cost increase of DI. The cost increase becomes more worth it when you have the performance potential of forced induction.

 

[BramageDained]

It seems to me that any fuel economy gains from direct injection were only a side benefit of the technology beyond the main goal to decrease knock/detonation. That particular use case is what allows DI really shine in forced induction engines while only showing minimal gains in naturally aspirated engines. From a cost standpoint, you have to increase fuel economy more in a NA engine to offset the initial cost increase of DI. The cost increase becomes more worth it when you have the performance potential of forced induction.

Nobody in the aftermarket really liked DI on boosted cars(not anyone I know anyway). The fuel system is expensive to upgrade and because of the initial cost, they are generally designed around exactly what the car from the OEM will produce with little headroom for more.

I'd rather it just be conventional injection and boost. Maybe bigger injectors and a pump and a simple retune with more boost yields a lot more power with E85. On my Evo, it took all of 5 seconds to switch tunes from the 93pump and E85 tunes- with a 75whp/100wtq difference between the two. And that was on just a 2.0L with intake/exhaust and the factory turbo.

A 5.0 twin turbo in the new Raptor would=

 

[Plan B]

I agree about the DI. Look at the MazdaSpeed3 owners. The DI works great if you don't want to mod it, but was nothing but headaches the second you wanted something more than stock. Although, car manufacturers most likely don't take this into consideration...

 

[LONGISLANDRAPTOR]

Range Rover uses DI in the 5.0 and 3.0 V6. We have been having lots of issues with injectors fouling, and getting hung open, That causes a HUGE rich condition, and misfires all over the place.

Another byproduct we have seen in the field with DI is there is no longer fuel wash on the intake valves or intake ports in the head. The intake valves after about 50K come out loaded with carbon, more than i have ever seen.

I personally hate DI, and think it never should have left diesels.

 

[DubbsFaris]

Where is the downside here? If Ford decides to crap on the F150 with a ****** engine, we that own a raptor win big time.

If Ford comes out with a kick ass powerplant for the new F150, it may cost us more of our kids college money, but we still win...

Whatever happens, Im good with it. I haven't seen a whole lot of Ford mistakes lately.
So, ill give them the benefit of doubt. (MFT aside)