Serious questions for those who are convinced that an Ecoboost replacement is coming

[BurnOut]

This is EXACTLY the issue with the gen 2 Raptor owners. None of them did their research on the 3.5 ecoboost prior to purchase.

I owned an '11 F150 with the first gen Ecoboost for 3 years, and didn't have a problem one with it. Maybe mine was defective?

Yeah, I know, sample size of one... but I wasn't an Ecoboost ****** when I bought my G2 Raptor.

 

[WarSurfer]

This is EXACTLY the issue with the gen 2 Raptor owners. None of them did their research on the 3.5 ecoboost prior to purchase.

Well, you don't know what you don't know. Most folks just assume something as groundbreaking as the new Raptor is completely unique. If I had one, I would have already had Geoff at Full Race give it the once over - he'd probably give a discount for the R&D time and you'd get the first big hp 2017 Gen2.

 

[Truckzor]

This is the future people, whether you like it or not, V8's are going away unfortunately.

We've been hearing that same old song for almost 50 years now. But I don't think there's ever been a time when more manufacturers have offered V8s in their lineups.

 

[jaz13]

We've been hearing that same old song for almost 50 years now. But I don't think there's ever been a time when more manufacturers have offered V8s in their lineups.

Every manufacturer is reducing displacement and adding turbos. Ferrari and Lamborghini V12s are museum pieces. BMW dropped the V10 to go back to a V8 in the M5 and the M3/4 went from a V8 to a straight 6. Even F1 is using 6-cylinder turbos. Ford just pulled the Fiesta from the US because they assumed we wouldn't buy the 3 cylinder turbo they want to put in it. But yeah, other than that everything is the same.

 

[Sasquatch77]

Agree - Dodge and GM have taken the right approach to engine choices.
On a side note, I bet the Colorado ZR2 gives the Raptor a run for its money off-road. It actually has a vastly better exhaust note than the raptor too!

 

[Truckzor]

Every manufacturer is reducing displacement and adding turbos. Ferrari and Lamborghini V12s are museum pieces. BMW dropped the V10 to go back to a V8 in the M5 and the M3/4 went from a V8 to a straight 6. Even F1 is using 6-cylinder turbos. Ford just pulled the Fiesta from the US because they assumed we wouldn't buy the 3 cylinder turbo they want to put in it. But yeah, other than that everything is the same.

I don't recall saying anything was the same. I recall saying I don't think there has been a time in history where more manufacturers offered V8s.

*edit* as a follow up I want to note that I had hoped VW's diesel fiasco would trigger regulators to get more realistic with their testing strategies. Then this whole nonsensical idea about turbo engines being fuel efficient would go right out the window.

 

[jaz13]

I don't recall saying anything was the same. I recall saying I don't think there has been a time in history where more manufacturers offered V8s.

*edit* as a follow up I want to note that I had hoped VW's diesel fiasco would trigger regulators to get more realistic with their testing strategies. Then this whole nonsensical idea about turbo engines being fuel efficient would go right out the window.

Turbo engines are far more efficient. The are smaller, weigh less, have fewer parts, less drag, and recover energy N/A motors flush down the exhaust pipe.

True, turbo engines burn a lot of gas at WOT because they are putting extra power to the ground. There is no free lunch when it comes to output and at similar output levels, a turbo burns nearly as much gas as the N/A version producing the same power. But turbos are far more efficient at cruising speed which is where auto engines spend most of their time operating.

 

[Truckzor]

Turbo engines are far more efficient. The are smaller, weigh less, have fewer parts, less drag, and recover energy N/A motors flush down the exhaust pipe.

True, turbo engines burn a lot of gas at WOT because they are putting extra power to the ground. There is no free lunch when it comes to output and at similar output levels, a turbo burns nearly as much gas as the N/A version producing the same power. But turbos are far more efficient at cruising speed which is where auto engines spend most of their time operating.

Turbo engines are inherently heavier and more complicated. They have more parts and more systems to fail. They are also inherently less fuel efficient. For any given level of power, they require more fuel to achieve it in the real world (they need to run richer to keep the pistons cool). They come with inherent driveability issues, especially when they are intentionally undersized to game fuel mileage ratings (specifically, they have no power whatsoever off idle, they have boost lag, etc.).

All around they are just a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

[MikeEby]

Turbo engines are inherently heavier and more complicated. They have more parts and more systems to fail. They are also inherently less fuel efficient. For any given level of power, they require more fuel to achieve it in the real world (they need to run richer to keep the pistons cool). They come with inherent driveability issues, especially when they are intentionally undersized to game fuel mileage ratings (specifically, they have no power whatsoever off idle, they have boost lag, etc.).

All around they are just a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Really? I agree with the complexity, but the torque curve on a modern turbo is a thing of beauty. My TT BMW V8 delivers max torque at something 1700 RPM. The Ford EB do about the same maybe a little higher, you really feel the torque at the low end, because it's where you spend most of your time.

Mike

 

[WhatExit?]

Turbo engines are inherently heavier

All around they are just a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

You're a friggin' genius! Do you design/engineer engines for Porsche/Audi/VW, Ferrari, GM, or Ford? If not you should! They could use someone with your knowledge and expertise.