The 2017 Eco-Boost vs V8 Bench Racing / Whining thread

[harrisb]

I agree with you on the GT being in a different league, but the standard 3.5L will do 470 Lb/ft and they've consistently said the Raptor will be "well north" of the that so 475 is pretty low. I'd be disappointed if it's less than 500 Lb/ft of torque, but HP is harder to predict since they haven't talked about it as much.

My guess is right around 450/500+.

V8...not likely, but who knows. I probably can't afford that model anyway so I'll be happy with 450/500. If it's some kind of twin turbo V8 it'll be crazy expensive and if it's a NA V8 it'll be smoked by the V6.

Exactly. Original 5.0 in 2011 was 360hp/380tq. Raptor was 411/434. That is more like my definition of well north, percentage wise

If there is only 500tq when the standard eco gets 470tq it's gonna be real close off the line, with the f150 likely winning due to weight plus smaller tires. Is the RAPTOR a race truck? We'll sort of and power does matter to me, A LOT

I can't believe that Ford will want the raptor that close, you can do a lot of work to a standard Eco lariat with the same options as the raptor for the 35-40k difference in price up here in Canada. Even a limited is 25k difference, that'll still buy a lot of parts

 

[mberger111]

Capitalism dictates there will be a v8. People whine about it so much and I'm sure Ford likes money. They just have to hit that sweet spot people are willing to pay, myguess is 69,999$

Uncle Sam dictates that there will be a V6. All the whining is misdirected at Ford when it's the CAFE standards that are really killing the V8. If Ford does do a V8 it will have to be somewhat limited to keep their fleet goals for the CAFE standards. I believe that's how it works, but correct me if anyone has more information.

I'm OK with a V6, but like most would prefer a V8 if possible. However, given the hoops manufacturers have to jump through with emissions and fuel economy standards, I'm pretty happy with what Ford is cranking out.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

Exactly. Original 5.0 in 2011 was 360hp/380tq. Raptor was 411/434. That is more like my definition of well north, percentage wise

If there is only 500tq when the standard eco gets 470tq it's gonna be real close off the line, with the f150 likely winning due to weight plus smaller tires. Is the RAPTOR a race truck? We'll sort of and power does matter to me, A LOT

I can't believe that Ford will want the raptor that close, you can do a lot of work to a standard Eco lariat with the same options as the raptor for the 35-40k difference in price up here in Canada. Even a limited is 25k difference, that'll still buy a lot of parts

I agree. With all the talk about torque 500 would be the bare minimum I would consider reasonable considering the way they talk about it. 30 seems pretty minimal when you consider the percentages.

The 14% from your example would be 536 Lb/ft. I would consider that well north.

 

[SubSonicSOPMOD]

Is it all really that bad? It doesn't seem like it considering every car company has a performance division. Fiat Chrysler is doubling down on a supercharged v8 for jeeps, GT350, ZL1, Z28. It seems to me that Ford just has different ambitions and wants to stand out from the pack. I don't think they're worried about ecoboost sales, they seem to be doing well. After everyone gets a taste of eco raptor I predict a redone 6.2 or maybe a supercharged V8. I hope whatever it is its naturally aspirated. Better for off-road bash sessions. Who knows they could go diesel. Either way I can't wait to see what's in store for future generations of raptor.

 

[mberger111]

Is it all really that bad? It doesn't seem like it considering every car company has a performance division. Fiat Chrysler is doubling down on a supercharged v8 for jeeps, GT350, ZL1, Z28. It seems to me that Ford just has different ambitions and wants to stand out from the pack. I don't think they're worried about ecoboost sales, they seem to be doing well. After everyone gets a taste of eco raptor I predict a redone 6.2 or maybe a supercharged V8. I hope whatever it is its naturally aspirated. Better for off-road bash sessions. Who knows they could go diesel. Either way I can't wait to see what's in store for future generations of raptor.

It can be partially due to Ford really pushing the Ecoboost overall, but it is absolutely driven by the CAFE standards. Right now they're not too bad, so manufacturers can get away with some of that now, but I think Ford is smart to try to get out in front of it now while still trying to develop motors that can be efficient when babied and produce a lot of power when pushed.

By 2025 F-150s are supposed to get 30+ MPG if I understand it correctly. That's the entire fleet so they could still build a few Raptors at lower MPG, but the rest of the fleet would need to make up for it. They'll either have to produce very few Raptors OR the Raptor will need to come up in MPG so it doesn't drag the F-150 line down. That's not even taking into account emissions stuff. Like I said, I have a somewhat limited knowledge of it, but that's my best understanding. It's all a numbers game, but the better MPG the Raptor gets, the more they will be produced.

Here's the numbers
54.5 MPG For All Cars by 2025 With New CAFE Standards? Not Exactly | US News

 

[Oyyci]

Is it all really that bad? It doesn't seem like it considering every car company has a performance division. Fiat Chrysler is doubling down on a supercharged v8 for jeeps, GT350, ZL1, Z28. It seems to me that Ford just has different ambitions and wants to stand out from the pack. I don't think they're worried about ecoboost sales, they seem to be doing well. After everyone gets a taste of eco raptor I predict a redone 6.2 or maybe a supercharged V8. I hope whatever it is its naturally aspirated. Better for off-road bash sessions. Who knows they could go diesel. Either way I can't wait to see what's in store for future generations of raptor.

You have to factor in volume too. How many buy charged V8 jeeps at 70k sticker?(I've never seen one) Gt350 and ZL1 are limited production( I think). V8 muscle cars don't do terrible on milage either, I can get 24-25 in my '13 mustang if I try to baby it. And still I would be willing to bet the new mustang has way more buyers of the Eco and v6 than the v8. Especially considering rental fleets. I think you'll see the end of the standard offering v8 on the f150 and mustang soon, maybe limited to the limited production vehicles. There are already articles stating that the big 3 us manufactures are off the cafe marks due to the high volume of pick up sales.

I don't know why everyone is so butt hurt about V6s. There's plenty of them in cars making quadruple digits. More than 99.9% will ever want, need, or ever be capable of making. I don't think it's any secret these ecos will have room to grow with the new fuel system and turbo configuration. We already know the GT is in the 600s somewhere. Let's also be honest, most buyers (like myself) will never use a Raptor anywhere near its potential design limits, some won't even leave a paved road. Will I tinker with AM parts? Hell yeah, but only because I think it's fun to tinker and make it unique; not because I need more power or capability.

Don't like it, don't buy it. But don't poo poo on the people here that like it! Wait for one of us douches to try and jump 90ft and buy the pieces and drop a voodoo or something in it. Let's all be friends!

 

[SubSonicSOPMOD]

Never thought I'd be rooting for big oil to grease some palms and keep enabling the industry. seems like they would only have to get those numbers on the lightest base models in perfect conditions. You know like they do now.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

I don't understand this entitled attitude over the ecoboost v6. People are expecting power to be 500/500. All it really has to be is "better" than last gen. It's only what a couple thousand more than last gen. I would think that money would go toward expensive aluminum and a stronger frame. I really hope nobody offs themselves when ford announces 450/475. It's lighter with way more tech than last gen. I'm pretty sure they axed the brembos from last gen probably claiming its lighter and doesn't need them. That exhaust looks expensive too.

 

[Dewserb]

Never thought I'd be rooting for big oil to grease some palms and keep enabling the industry. seems like they would only have to get those numbers on the lightest base models in perfect conditions. You know like they do now.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

I don't understand this entitled attitude over the ecoboost v6. People are expecting power to be 500/500. All it really has to be is "better" than last gen. It's only what a couple thousand more than last gen. I would think that money would go toward expensive aluminum and a stronger frame. I really hope nobody offs themselves when ford announces 450/475. It's lighter with way more tech than last gen. I'm pretty sure they axed the brembos from last gen probably claiming its lighter and doesn't need them. That exhaust looks expensive too.

Considering the new generation regular 3.5 Ecoboost is coming in at 470 tq, I can't see the high output variant being 1 lb ft less than 500.

 

[yenrod]

Mmm, turbooooo

 

[Truckzor]

@Truckzor what truck don't I own?

Uhhh. A Raptor?

but the new truck is better in every way

My opinion clearly differs

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

V6s have inherently lower parasitic engine losses than V8s due to lower cumulative surface area across the piston seals, and therefore turbocharged V6s will generally consume less gas when off-boost at low engine outputs than just about any equivalent output V8. Not that I expect you to change your mind, but that's why most auto manufacturers are shifting to turbocharged V6s and I4s.

There is some truth to what you are saying. All else equal, a V6 would have 25% less frictional losses in the pistons and 20% less at the mains. Of course, all else being equal(or equivalent, as appropriate), the V8 would have 33% more power so that would be a good trade in my opinion

Manufacturers are sizing down for packaging reasons and because smaller engines, all else being equal, consume less fuel. Not because of the minuscule frictional losses from 8 ring packs vs 6. You can turn an engine over by hand until the valves are in place. So all of zero horsepower is consumed there.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

Truckzor - it's not a who can be the most obnoxious contest - you've already won in spades

I only ever comment on this crap when stupid NEWBS comment on things they don't know anything about. *cough, cough*

 

[_M_]

@Truckzor uhhhh...sold it like 2 weeks ago. Did you miss that? Do you want pictures to prove it?

I'm glad you still like yours. Keep it as long as you want. It will always be an awesome truck. Everything that I know so far tells me the new one will be even more awesome and that's why I sold my 13 and ordered my 17.

See we can all get along...