slemke

I doubt it. If EB3.5 buyers are like my engineering friends, they bought the ecoboost for the torque. A 5.8 would be similar to the 5.0 coyote in terms of output so no significant change in the buyers. The 3.5 EB and power boost are in a different league when it comes to torque....410 vs 500 and 570. Ram attracted buyers with the interior, particularly the large screen. The ‘21 f150 closed that gap. GM has the 6.2, which is the most powerful non-specialty 1/2 ton v8 (lots of disclaimers there). The power boost edges it out in hp and easily beats it in torque and fuel economy while delivering the nifty 7.2kw pro power feature. A 6.8L or 7.3L Godzilla would bring in some customers. But that would be because of it being more powerful than the competitor’s v8s, not the pushrods.

You would have a stronger point if the HO 3.5EB wasn’t available with 450hp, or the 460hp Mustang didn’t get such terrible gas mileage. I was checking the fuel economy numbers on the Mustang GT convertible 6 speed and it was atrocious. The ‘21 coyote f150 was similar or better in the combine. Ford could increase the power on either one (and the 2.7) if they wanted. Cafe is dictating the tune.

ICE do not have to run on fossil fuel. Diesel engines can use numerous forms of bio fuels including recycled grease. Gas engines use ethanol. Many of the high performance ecoboost tunes are set to use varying amounts of ethanol up to e85. I think they will be around for quite some time, but likely running on ever increasing amounts of bio fuels.

I think we would hear no end to the cost cutting complaints if the coyote is replaced by a cheaper pushrod v8. How much cheaper to build are we talking anyway? If Ford has to reduce the premium charged for a v8, would it be worth it? Would that also reduce the premium charged for the 3.5l eb and hybrid?

The fuel economy numbers have been posted on fueleconomy.gov. 4x2 hybrid isn’t listed, but it is available in the build and price configurator. Diesel wasn’t listed either. No appreciable difference in fuel economy between the 4x4 3.5eb, 4x2 3.5eb, and 4x2 coyote. 2.7eb splits the difference between them and the hybrid for significantly less cost. Now if only the max recline seats were available on lower trim levels....

Or find creative locations to put additional batteries. I’m somewhat surprised that Ford didn’t put the hybrid battery behind the seat in the F150 like the old in cab fuel tanks.

GT outsold Fiesta...which was outsold close to 3:1 by the flex.

Not surprising. Deactivating 2 cylinders puts the effective displacement between that of the 5.3l and 6.2l v8s in 4 cyl mode. I recall reading that the 6.2l hit the sweet spot for cylinder deactivation. It will be interesting to see how well the coyote runs on two legs. Probably just fine in the Mustang, but the heavier F-150 might be too much for 2.5l. If that is the case, I doubt we will see the 2.3l eb in anything larger than the Ranger.

While I agree that the 6.8 and 7.3 will be for different applications, I don’t see the 6.8 replacing the coyote or 3.5l eb. cafe is applicable for under 8500lbs. The 3.5l eb powerboost is the top engine in the Non-raptor F-150 and will likely remain so. As far as additional engines to cover the market, I think a ~4.0l ecoboost v8 would be a nice addition for Navigator and F-150. Something to line up with the Germans and above offerings from GM and Fca. I just don’t see it as a high enough priority to get the necessary development dollars. An in-line 6 hurricane/boss/Godzilla as mentioned is another candidate whenever Ford has some development dollars that need spending.

There goes hope of a 6.0l nano v-12.

That is how I read it also. I think it replaces the high output 3.5l ecoboost in the limited. The electric motor is only 35kw. It would not surprise me if the gas engine started off with the 450hp version. The 1.5kwh battery seems small, especially considering the 7.2kw generator output. Anyone know if the hvac is an electric heat pump to provide some comfort while sleeping in the max recliner seats? Engine cycling on and off could disrupt the snooze.

The 3.5l eco boost was also a different trim and likely weighed more. The 2.7 was impressive whatever axle ratio it had. With it’s combination of performance and fuel economy there isn’t much reason to step up to the 5.0 (unless you want the sound and naturally aspirated) or 3.5 ecoboost for max towing or performance.