Sevensecondsuv

In every measurable attribute other than fuel economy, the 5.0 is superior. The 3.5eb is a somewhat different argument, as the additional displacement allows it to exceed some of the 5.0 specifications. I like turbos too and think the 2.7 is a great engine, even in Bronco! But I'm not delusional about where each one sits relative to the other in the Ford engine hierarchy.

All these people claiming the 2.7 is somehow superior to a 5.0L coyote V8 need to go test drive some F150s. There's a reason the 5.0L is higher up the option line. The 2.7L is the option in the Bronco because it's "enough" for most people, the wide ass coyote would have been harder to fit in the Bronco, and Ford doesn't think they need a V8 to hit their sales targets. But let's not pretend the 5.0L wouldn't be preferable in many ways from a consumer standpoint.

Maybe ford believes differently, but I don't see a "maverick" pickup setting sales records if it's fwd and/or unibody. We're basically talking about a honda ridgeline at that point. I don't blame ford for trying; it's hard to support a bespoke BOF platform for a model that sells at $20k. But I think sales will be incremental at best, not "wow we found a whole new segment!" I hear almost constant pining for the old ranger, and if you look, nice ones are worth a good bit of change still. Somehow, despite being available for $25k, the new Ranger isn't satisfying these buyers. The main complaint I hear is it's too big. The conclusion I've come to is people loved the old Ranger because you could beat the living p*** put out of it and it just kind of shrugged, despite maybe topping out at 55 mph if you loaded the 112 horse 4-banger down heavy enough. I'm not seeing how a front-drive "escape pickup" is going to satisfy this market, if for no other reason than if you fill the bed with gravel (popular thing to do with old rangers in my area lol) the drive wheels won't have any traction. Can't blame Ford for trying something though - they have to do something to compete for the market share they ceded with cheap sedans.

I wasn't taking issue with the point you were trying to make, just noting how ridiculous the factory tow ratings have gotten lately. Yes, I agree there's room and a market for an F250 with less engine than the 6.2. Although I see a 6 cylinder (vee or inline) version of the godzilla at about 5.0-5.5L and 300 hp as being the perfect fit. Something with an iron block for truck duty and only 6 cylinders and OHV makes it cheap to build. Coyote and 3.5eb are needlessly powerful and expensive for such an application. Also, adding power boost or even the hybrid would be a nice touch.

I think you'd have to be out of your mind to put more than 10k behind a half ton anything. Same deal at about 20k behind a F350/3500 DRW. Any more than a trailer about 2x the weight of the truck and things start getting dicey over every bump. Yeah yeah gooseneck/5th wheel helps, as do sway control systems, and fully integrated braking systems. But it's always safer and a less stressful drive in a proper size truck. Factory tow ratings on class 1-3 have gotten insane due to the spec wars on consumer pickups. If you've got a big trailer, buy the proper size truck to tow it with!

It's pretty obvious to me. You can't buy stock in the company which has nearly unlimited cushy govt contracts for flying rockets, so you buy stock in the next best thing: their sister company. Nothing that Tesla does or has is worth even a fraction of their current market cap.

Maybe. I see it more as a last ditch effort to make Cadillac relevant again. "All-in" on BEV is a very risky proposition at this point. There is simply not enough BEV adoption in the next five years (despite what the idiot self proclaimed experts tell us - just look at adoption history over the last 10 years) to support a real business model for a traditional dealer. Tesla's business model is selling carbon credits and hype, not cars. That's not going to work for a GM brand because GM is in the business of selling actual cars. You have to have competitive ICE and/or hybrids to sell alongside the BEVs for years yet. BEV adoption is so slow because there's simply not any real benefit for most consumers. So we see it being driven by govt mandate and climate guilt. But honestly buying any new car is worse for the environment than keeping an older one, so I don't really get the climate guilt reason for buying a BEV either.

Unfortunately I agree with you. Boy that would really be something though....

Gotta wonder if this is really just GM's first move in the process of shutting cadillac down. Outside of Escalade, Cadillac has no reason to exist. This way they can blame it on the dealers themselves for "not getting on board with the EV transition" and avoid all the bad press about big bad GM squeezing the poor little hometown dealers out of business. If I was a Cadillac dealer looking at the prospect of having to try to make a profit pushing a [mostly] electric line in the coming years, I think I'd take the money and run.

Yes, you got my hint. A 10 or 12 cylinder coyote would be bonkers!

Make that a DOHC 40 (or even 48) valve !!! ?

When my dad was looking at new F-150s in 2017 he drove all three 2.7eb, 3.5eb, and 5.0. In his opinion, the 5.0 and 3.5eb felt pretty similar in performance, while the 2.7 felt a little smaller. He asked me what I thought as I'm the resident gear head of the family. I told him the coyote was the mod motor that ford finally got right (this was after his experience with a couple gutless turd 2v 4.6s and 3v 5.4 in an '06 that punched a valve through a piston at 137k due to lack of valavetrain lubrication due to that horrific 1st-gen attempt at VCT on those motors). I also told him turbos are great too, for a gear head anyways (I had just finished building my second turbocharged Ranger at that point), but that it added a significant amount of extra moving parts, plus a direct injection fuel system, plus all the heat issues inherent to turbo charging. Regardless of how well engineered and torture tested that system is, it's at an inherent disadvantage to the coyote in terms of reliability. He ended up buying a 2017 XLT crew 4wd with the 5.0. He's been in love with the truck ever since. He has a 24' camper he pulls with it, it does very well for a 1/2 ton. Fuel economy is about 18-19 lifetime average, last I checked in with him. Then of course I know several others who have bought new F150s since then. Lots of 5.0s and a few 3.5s. All of them very happy with their truck. I do know one guy with an older 1st gen 3.5eb, a '12 I think, he says the power is great, fuel economy is terrible, and it's been nickel and diming him as it approaches 200k, lately. I don't think I know anyone with a 2.7 though.

Gasoline direct injection sounds like a great idea on paper - allows much higher compression ratios, precise control of combustion, etc. But the more I see of them in real life practice, the more I'm not liking the technology. Between the ticking racket, warranty issues, and up-front cost and long-term maintenance cost of having a high-pressure fuel system, it just seems like good old port injection is how it should be for gasoline engines. If port injection isn't meeting power/torque goals, increase displacement..... That's in my perfect world where emissions and fuel efficiency take a back seat to everything else, anyways.

I'm all for combining maximum displacement with maximum boost. Don't care if it's turbos or positive displacement blowers - they each have their plusses and minuses. The godzilla is going to make four-figure HP pickups "normal" and attainable for the average enthusiast once the blower kits become widely available. We're only at the very beginning yet with that engine. The coyote block and bottom end is good for roughly 900 I hear. So far the godzilla bottom end is looking good for 1500+, gotta love cast iron.

That's not true per the actual numbers posted earlier in this thread (and if you want more proof youtube is full of comparison tests). The actual pecking order for 0-60 times from slowest to fastest is 3.3L -> 2.7EB -> 5.0L -> 3.5EB -> 3.5EB HO. And then in the 1/4 mile, the 5.0L and 3.5EB are essentially tied. As far as fuel economy, the ecoboosts do better than the coyote when lightly loaded but the tables turn when heavily loaded, at least according to anecdotal evidence. As for aftermarket power addition, the ecoboost is cheaper to get 50-100hp with a tune and boost increase, but things get expensive in a hurry after that. The 5.0L has a clear advantage in cost (and probably reliability too) going to the 700-800 hp level which is easily accomplished with an off the shelf supercharger kit. So there are certainly still reasons for people to want the 5.0L besides "feelings".

I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of big displacement. Gas engines run in a very tight range of air/fuel ratio and BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption). I.e. it's going to take a relatively constant amount of fuel to make X horsepower whether you're using a 2.0L, 5.0L or 8.0L engine. In a lot of ways boost, rpm, and displacement all achieve the same thing: capability for more power. A smaller turbocharged engine has drawbacks in complication, unit cost, and requires a lower air-fuel ratio under boost. A larger displacement engine has higher pumping losses when running at low output. A medium engine like the 5.0 can make the same power as a 7.0L but is going to have to spin approximately 40% faster to move air (and therefore produce power) at the same rate and will have a softer torque curve down low as a result. However, with 10 speed transmissions, cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, computational fluid dynamics-assisted design of combustion chambers, and electronic throttle-based ECM control strategies, the drawbacks to all three categories of engines can be minimized relative to the others. So to me, it really comes down to how to deliver the desired torque and power curves at the lowest unit cost and with acceptable fuel economy and emissions. It's possible Ford did the math and decided 6.8L was the best answer for upper levels of mustang, F150, and SUVs. We'll find out soon enough...

And obviously we're talking CAFE numbers. Real world, the 3.5eb and 5.0 coyote are about even in fuel economy based on my non-scientific average of several dozen trucks. Properly engineered, a 6.8L powertrain would only be marginally worse. Again, CAFE numbers are different....

How do the electric F150 and Mach E affect CAFE scores? Perhaps those are making room for a big atmo engine option in the CAFE formula?

Well a naturally aspirated 6.8 would barely move the needle from the current 3.5eb raptor. So clearly we'd be talking about a supercharged 6.8 in Raptor and Shelby. You may be right and that's the only 6.8 coming. I tend to think there'll be a naturally aspirated version too, if only to increase volume. This is where I see top level of F150 as a potential application. Also the expedition is screaming for this engine (and then also offer the electric F150 drivetrain as an option). Yes a small V8 ecoboost w/hybrid would be more correct for Navigator, but obviously that would be a ton of engineering with very little volume.

So it's probably a smaller throttle body or simply doesn't open it as far since everything is electronic throttle nowadays.

Anyone hear exactly how they do it? Short of a different cam, about the only thing I can think of is a much smaller throttle body or simply a spark/fuel cut at 4000 rpm. In either case, why bother?

I don't see the 6.8 and 7.3 going in the same product. 7.3 is a cast iron truck engine. I'm guessing the 6.8 will have an aluminum block and the reduced displacement will be entirely from a shorter stroke. This will move the powerband upwards by about 500 rpm while also letting it rev to 6500+. So two entirely different engines for different applications. My guess is the naturally aspirated 6.8 will be about 500 hp and will replace the 3.5eb above the coyote in F150. It'll also appear in the expedition and navigator (either standard or above coyote). It'll be the base engine in Raptor, with a 750-800 hp supercharged version optional. The naturally aspirated 6.8 will be limited to special editions of the mustang while the standard GT will get the improved coyote, and the GT500 will share the supercharged version from the raptor. I don't see the 6.8 going into F250/350. If ford does a smaller V8 in the 250/350 and E-series, I would think it's gotta be a de-bored / de-stroked iron block godzilla at about 5.5-6.0L displacement. A 5.5L (exactly 3/4 of a 7.3L) cast iron straight-6 or V6 version of godzilla would also make a ton of sense for a base engine in fleet F250s, E series, and larger Transits, but I'm not sure how high on Fords R&D priority list such an animal would be.

My bet is it replaces the 3.5eb as the top tier engine. DOHC, two turbos, an intercooler, and direct injection fuel system makes for an expensive engine for a mass market model. Ford probably realized they could deliver the same performance with a big pushrod engine at a fraction of the powertrain unit cost. And from what I hear about 3.5eb, a 6.8 would probably deliver the same fuel economy.

Now the next question - is this a destroked version of the 7.3? Or could this be a coyote with more cylinders? Probably the former considering complexity and unit cost. I bet the 7.3 costs a lot less to make than a 3.5 ecoboost which is where the business case is coming from. Makes total sense for a top engine in F150.

If this comes attached to a manual transmission in a mustang I'll take back every bad thing I've ever said about Ford!