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

[Truckzor]

Did anyone watch the episode of Jay Leno's Garage where they featured the new GT? Raj Nair made a comment that they went the 3.5 Ecoboost in order to showcase the technology. Just goes to show that it's all a marketing scheme. Too much money invested in the ecoboost platform.

I will still always prefer the responsiveness of a big naturally aspirated V8, but I really don't have a problem with the EB technology. I hope the EB design is a huge success. But I also hope they take the 3.5, slice it down the middle, add two more cylinders, and sell us a real engine. They could make a 4.7 liter V8 EB with basically zero additional development costs (because a 16 year old kid with Autocad could do that work).

They must be working on something for the GT500 and since the Mustang isn't going to Le Mans it will almost certainly be a V8.

 

[Nick@Apollo-Optics]

@Rookie that's the only reason I can think for putting it in the gen2 Raptor but still have the the 6.2 (and bigger motors) available in the 2017 Super Duty trucks. Still doesn't make any sense to me in a Raptor. I guess the Raptor is the guinea pig for the new eco that will then go in the Super Dutys in a year or two?

The purpose is to change people's view on V8s. They want to put the Ecoboost into the flagship model to ween people off of their NA V8 and get them into Ecoboost trucks. They want people to say, "Well, if the Ecoboost is good enough for the Raptor, it's good enough for my XLT/Lariat/etc."

I assume it's the same for the Mustang. Ween people off of the 5.0 so they next-gen Mustang GT is an Ecoboost.

It's all about meeting CAFE standards.

 

[WyoStorm]

Probably but there is zero change in the F150 CAFE standards between 2016 and 2021. I think the time would be better spent on improving the fuel efficiency of maybe just a smaller na v8 then.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

Good call on the weight. I know they're moving the 2017 Super Duty to aluminum like the F-150s. But I don't think a 500-700lb difference will be enough to keep it out of boost.

The 2017 is only supposed to be about 350 lbs lighter as a lot of the extra savings is going right back into the truck to make it stronger.

 

[Nick@Apollo-Optics]

Probably but there is zero change in the F150 CAFE standards between 2016 and 2021. I think the time would be better spent on improving the fuel efficiency of maybe just a smaller na v8 then.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------



The 2017 is only supposed to be about 350 lbs lighter as a lot of the extra savings is going right back into the truck to make it stronger.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd like to see a V8 in the new truck, but Ford has gone "all-in" with the Ecoboost technology.

Yep, you're right about the Super Duty weight. Are the Super Duty trucks included in CAFE or are they exempted due to 8500+ GVWR?

 

[armoredveh]

I too hope Ford succeeds with the EB -- it appears to be a great engine platform going forward.

 

[WyoStorm]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd like to see a V8 in the new truck, but Ford has gone "all-in" with the Ecoboost technology.

Yep, you're right about the Super Duty weight. Are the Super Duty trucks included in CAFE or are they exempted due to 8500+ GVWR?

They are included but on a different scale. Less improvement needed over the next decade +. I think only about 2 mpg by 2027 vs around 5 for the F150s (window sticker numbers).

 

[Rated R]

Does anyone know the ratio of sales between the EB and 5.0?

 

[Rookie]

Does anyone know the ratio of sales between the EB and 5.0?

That's a good question. Hard to use the info for what you're probably going for here. Too many people probably just went and bought an F150 on the lot without much investigation or their salesman swayed them in one direction or the other. I have met a lot of new F150 owners that just have the standard 3.5 V6, a few with the 3.5 EB, even less with the 5.0, and none with the 2.7 EB. That's just my personal experience though. Most of the trucks on the lots around me are the standard 3.5 V6.

freedommotorsports.us

Email: [email protected]

​

 

[gwpfan]

I will still always prefer the responsiveness of a big naturally aspirated V8, but I really don't have a problem with the EB technology.

Not sure what exactly you mean here, not at all trying to pick a fight, but the responsiveness comment leaves me wondering. I drove all three prior to picking up the 3.5L Eco, (3.5 Eco, 5.0 & 6.2) got my Raptor 3 years later. The responsiveness in the Eco wins even stock...then add a tune on the Eco and no comparison at that point. Maybe I am missing something but the torque difference alone ~2500 RPM (3.5L Eco) vs ~4800 RPM (6.2L)....2500 RPM is more responsive than 4800....

The only responsiveness (feedback) I can think of that many like is the engine noise and exhaust notes on the 6.2 vs the 3.5 Eco. 6.2 you and everyone around you knows your getting on the throttle. 3.5L only the people in the vehicle and those closely watching you, unless you decide to do a burnout...

 

[Truckzor]

Not sure what exactly you mean here, not at all trying to pick a fight, but the responsiveness comment leaves me wondering. I drove all three prior to picking up the 3.5L Eco, (3.5 Eco, 5.0 & 6.2) got my Raptor 3 years later. The responsiveness in the Eco wins even stock...then add a tune on the Eco and no comparison at that point. Maybe I am missing something but the torque difference alone ~2500 RPM (3.5L Eco) vs ~4800 RPM (6.2L)....2500 RPM is more responsive than 4800....

The only responsiveness (feedback) I can think of that many like is the engine noise and exhaust notes on the 6.2 vs the 3.5 Eco. 6.2 you and everyone around you knows your getting on the throttle. 3.5L only the people in the vehicle and those closely watching you, unless you decide to do a burnout...

I'm referring to boost lag and throttle modulation. It's not really an issue when you are pulling a boat up a long hill but it can be when you are off road.