Jump to content

Upcoming Ford Powertrains


Recommended Posts

On the street, the 2010 GT500 and the standard Vette, will be a drivers race. As is evidenced by the times, at the track, the 2010 GT500 should beat the standard Vette. Every report on the new GT500, have remarked on how easy it is, for anyone, to get a good time out of it.

 

It is a very different animal, than the 2009 GT500.

 

That said, the Vette is a dedicated sports car. I would hope that it would be a better "drivers car." What it isn't, is a better family car. This is why you see so many "midlife crisis" males buying them. Most of these buyers, btw, couldn't drive the car well, to save their lives.

 

Anyone who thinks that the Vette is the epitome of quality, and fit and finish, really needs to go look one over. As an enthusiast, I have looked over many. The gaps, and fit and finish, are pretty bad............ for a car that starts in the $40K's. The interior is a rubbermaid special. The 2010 Mustang interior is much better in fit and finish, and materials, than the Vette. This is pretty pathetic, when you consider that you can buy a 2010 Mustang in the low $20K's.

 

Everyone who owns Vettes, understands that their cars are not about fit and finish, and quality interiors. They do not fool themselves into thinking otherwise. They do, however, wish that GM would fix some of the nagging quality problems, that the cars have had for years and years.

 

Yes, I frequent many Vette forums.

 

 

Great post... and very accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what the hell planet are you from??? can we please get this this never mind what an idiotic thing to say on a ford website ..... please don,t buy anymore fords ever again they can do very well without your ignorance....

 

HUH....I ride in a new Corvette a lot. They are not the same kind of vehicle as a GT 500, and is targeted to a different audience. Although I do see some Vettes at the drag strip, when you mention "track", most Vette owners are not thinking about a drag strip. The Corvette is not well suited to a drag strip....with negative rear camber from it's IRS.

 

If you wish to think being a few ticks faster at the drag strip makes a GT 500 faster than a standard Corvette....then what planet are you from?

 

BTW....I'm thinking about purchasing a new GT 500. They are neat vehicles. For my use, they suit me better than a Corvette. But, in fairness, I know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:stirpot: I've been lurking here on these forums for a couple years and I frequenty scour the web for nuggets of Fords future plans I'll add my 2 cents.

 

 

The 5.0 engine is a low cost option for high horsepower applications for ford.

 

This engine will be rated under 400 hp (i'm guessing around 370hp) in the future mustang application and over 320hp in the F150 application. The 5.0 is planned to be the engine option under the 3.5 V6 Ecoboost in the F150.

 

As far as I am aware the 3.7 is only being used in the Lincoln product line. The main purpose is to use larger numbers to renforce the concept of buying a superior premium product.

 

The Eco-boost 3.5 V6 can easily make 400+HP. The only two problems Ford has with doing so are longevity and having a transmission durable enough to handle the power. I am guessing that the new transmission for the 360HP version is being used as a long term test case study for the higher output version. This limitation does NOT exist in the truck series transmissions.

Ford has stated plain for everyone to see. The EcoBoost 3.5 IS the direct replacement for the triton 5.4 V8. Since I mention it below Ford did test the EcoBoost 3.5 for towing use. They know the statistic that 80% of all the loads towed by 150 owners are under 3000lbs. The engine is capable and has an extremely strong bottom end, but the F150 was never designed for 24/7 towing duty and the Ecoboost 3.5 is matched to that knowledge. I believe that the Ecoboost engine will not be as efficient while towing a 6000lb load. Owners who do that should look towards the delayed 4.4 liter diesel.

 

 

 

The 1.6 I4 EcoBoost engine will be the replacement for the 2.5 I4 currently in use with a estimated 180HP

 

2.0/2.5I4 EcoBoost: This is where the confusion and rumors start. It does not look like Ford has the 2.0 I4 Ecoboost finished, However IF the 2.0 I4 is a tall block stroked version of the 1.6 I4 ford could release a higher pressue version of the EcoBoost 2.0 I4 that could provide 260-280HP. I personally find this unlikely in the interm. The cost to reliably mass produce such an engine may not be the smartest idea until the EPA CAFE regulations require it.

 

In the meantime Ford could Ecoboost the 2.5 I4 and has mentioned that they could do so. That engine would not have to run in such a highly pressured design and could reuse tooling and block designs currently in use today. 260-280HP would be easy for such as design and would have weight and fuel consumption benefits over using the 3.5 V6.

 

The 6.2 liter V8 will be optional on the Raptor and standard on the F250 and larger trucks. The 6.2 liter engine is inexpensive, powerful and supports future engine modifications such as Displacement on demand, integrated starter generator, and direct injection. This engine is capable of the power output of the Ecoboost 3.5 but with a 100% towing load duty cycle. Under continuous heavy load the 6.2 liter engine will perform better with a lower maintenance cost.

 

The 4.4 liter diesel engine has been delayed but not cancelled. 300HP with 500lbs of torque. This engine is ideal for those who tow frequenty. The last numbers produced by ford state that a F150 with this engine can expect 23MPG in a 4x4 trim unloaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The 5.0 engine is a low cost option for high horsepower applications for ford.

 

This engine will be rated under 400 hp (i'm guessing around 370hp) in the future mustang application and over 320hp in the F150 application.

I'm betting it will be the other way around. The high HP version will be in the Mustang and the lower HP, higher torque version will be in the F150.

 

The 4.4 liter diesel engine has been delayed but not cancelled. 300HP with 500lbs of torque. This engine is ideal for those who tow frequenty. The last numbers produced by ford state that a F150 with this engine can expect 23MPG in a 4x4 trim unloaded.

Delayed for how long ? While I agree with your analysis that this would be a great engine for F150 (and even F250) I think your crystal ball is pretty foggy. I know engineers who were directly working on the project. It is stone cold at this time. I have faith. BOSS was "back burnered" a couple of time during its development.

 

The only thing that will bring the 4.4L back to life is a big jump in gasoline prices and the continued fall of diesel prices. I expect diesel prices to fall for the rest of the year, but I don't see any big jumps (say up to $3.00/gallon) in gasoline during the same time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm betting it will be the other way around. The high HP version will be in the Mustang and the lower HP, higher torque version will be in the F150.

 

 

Delayed for how long ? While I agree with your analysis that this would be a great engine for F150 (and even F250) I think your crystal ball is pretty foggy. I know engineers who were directly working on the project. It is stone cold at this time. I have faith. BOSS was "back burnered" a couple of time during its development.

 

The only thing that will bring the 4.4L back to life is a big jump in gasoline prices and the continued fall of diesel prices. I expect diesel prices to fall for the rest of the year, but I don't see any big jumps (say up to $3.00/gallon) in gasoline during the same time period.

 

Other way around? :huh: I'm confused. I said 380HP in the mustang and 320HP in the F150.

 

As far as I know the 4.4 is delayed as it is labled a higher risk item. I m guessing that Ford is not sure buyers are willing to pay the premium for the diesel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HUH....I ride in a new Corvette a lot. They are not the same kind of vehicle as a GT 500, and is targeted to a different audience. Although I do see some Vettes at the drag strip, when you mention "track", most Vette owners are not thinking about a drag strip. The Corvette is not well suited to a drag strip....with negative rear camber from it's IRS.

 

If you wish to think being a few ticks faster at the drag strip makes a GT 500 faster than a standard Corvette....then what planet are you from?

 

BTW....I'm thinking about purchasing a new GT 500. They are neat vehicles. For my use, they suit me better than a Corvette. But, in fairness, I know the difference.

amazing simply amazing god bless you party on you animal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if indeed the coyote is going to be a four valve arrangement, with a stroker kit you could conceivably squeeze another 47 cubic inches out of it!!! we all know how well 347 -302,s perform so i find the prospect very exciting indeed this way we can throw away the supercharging weight and forget about aluminium 5.4 -3v.s maybe even a better engine than ralph,s tired out pushrod v-8 in his much glorified vette,s??????? :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of what engines might be used in the upcoming Mustangs.

 

I think a V8 will be the only engine allowed in a GT. If the GT had ~400hp and the GT500 pushing 500hp that'd be great.

 

About the Base V6 however, I had an idea.

 

We know the 3.5L Duratec can be stretched to 3.7L. We also know that the 3.5L can be ecoboosted to 350+hp. But how would this ecoboosting of a 3.5L affect the longevity of the engine? Can a 3.5L EB Duratec last 200,000 miles in a Mustang?

 

What would happen if Ford took the 3.5L and thickened the innards to make it a 3.2L EB Duratec? Would it still be able to get ~300hp while getting at least a 200,000 mile lifespan? Would the efficiency/ mileage numbers make friends with CAFE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of what engines might be used in the upcoming Mustangs.

 

I think a V8 will be the only engine allowed in a GT. If the GT had ~400hp and the GT500 pushing 500hp that'd be great.

 

About the Base V6 however, I had an idea.

 

We know the 3.5L Duratec can be stretched to 3.7L. We also know that the 3.5L can be ecoboosted to 350+hp. But how would this ecoboosting of a 3.5L affect the longevity of the engine? Can a 3.5L EB Duratec last 200,000 miles in a Mustang?

 

What would happen if Ford took the 3.5L and thickened the innards to make it a 3.2L EB Duratec? Would it still be able to get ~300hp while getting at least a 200,000 mile lifespan? Would the efficiency/ mileage numbers make friends with CAFE?

Ford intends using the Ecoboost 3.5 in the F 150 as a V8 alternative, do you honestly think

they would do that without ensuring that the 3.5 L is durable enough to last your 200,000 miles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford intends using the Ecoboost 3.5 in the F 150 as a V8 alternative, do you honestly think

they would do that without ensuring that the 3.5 L is durable enough to last your 200,000 miles?

 

I bet the engine will last, but there was an article floating around awhile stating the turbo system was only good for 150k miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford intends using the Ecoboost 3.5 in the F 150 as a V8 alternative, do you honestly think

they would do that without ensuring that the 3.5 L is durable enough to last your 200,000 miles?

 

Ford has had Ecoboost 3.5L F150s on the streets for at least 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the engine will last, but there was an article floating around awhile stating the turbo system was only good for 150k miles.

Nothing beats real life experience.

Until Ford has customers giving accounts of longevity people have a right to remain skeptical,

it's only a few years ago that Ford couldn't get head gaskets and inlet manifolds to seal......

 

I'm sure Ecoboost will become a cult engine and win over a sizable following,

they look like becoming the new gun engines for performance and efficiency.

 

Still, an AWD 5.0 V8 Taurus would have been nice car - especially for police.

The thinking man's Impala..... :stirpot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the engine will last, but there was an article floating around awhile stating the turbo system was only good for 150k miles.

 

All in the wording, I believe the correct terminology was designed to last at least 150K miles. I've seen other articles state that Ford designs all their engines to this standard...no major repairs untill it hits that...plus how many cars do you see with that much mileage on them that aren't tired or clapped out by then. I have two friends that have Aucuras with just over 200K but they want to get rid of them since they are ticking time bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in the wording, I believe the correct terminology was designed to last at least 150K miles.

 

Turbochargers: Two Honeywell GT15 turbochargers with water-cooled bearings and operate in parallel, spinning at approximately 170,000 rpm up to 12 PSI. They are rated for a 150,000-mile, 10-year life

 

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the 3.5L EB Duratec be made form the same metal in the Mustang as well as the F-150?

 

I suppose I subconsciously thought they wouldn't be exactly the same. I'm used to hearing the V8 is aluminum in the Mustang but iron in the truck.... I sorta thought that'd hold true for the Duratec's too... my mistake.

 

There seems to be a heckuva hp jump from the 1.6L to the 3.5L ecoboosted engines. I wonder if Ford is considering a Duratec 2.4-3.0 V6 family that's also suitable for EB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a heckuva hp jump from the 1.6L to the 3.5L ecoboosted engines. I wonder if Ford is considering a Duratec 2.4-3.0 V6 family that's also suitable for EB?

 

From what I've read, there will likely be 2.0l I4 and 2.5l I4 EB engines. But the 3.5 is currently the only V6 talked about receiving the EB treatment. I wouldn't expect a smaller V6 either. The whole point is the EB I4 replacing smaller NA V6's. So there won't be much of a need for smaller V6's any longer. The 3.5 NA would be it. Smaller will be a I4 EB. Bigger would be a 3.5 EB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Rated for what? How many failures at 150K? It would be down right stupid to expect the Turbos to automatically go bad at 150K miles.

 

And you forgot this:

 

“We’ve tested the turbochargers at a much-higher duty cycle than a customer would ever experience,” said Keith Plagens, turbo systems engineer. “Our whole goal from the beginning was to make the operation of the turbochargers seamless, so the customer wouldn’t even know they were there.”

 

So that tells me that they'll last longer then 150K rating they have on them.

Edited by silvrsvt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read, there will likely be 2.0l I4 and 2.5l I4 EB engines. But the 3.5 is currently the only V6 talked about receiving the EB treatment. I wouldn't expect a smaller V6 either. The whole point is the EB I4 replacing smaller NA V6's. So there won't be much of a need for smaller V6's any longer. The 3.5 NA would be it. Smaller will be a I4 EB. Bigger would be a 3.5 EB.

 

I've found these engine specs on wiki:

 

4 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (Duratec 25)

2.5L I-4 - 171hp, 171lb-ft

 

4 Cylinder EcoBoost

1.6 L I4 - 180 hp, 180 lb·ft

2.0 L DOHC I4 - 275 hp, 280 lb·ft

 

6 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (Duratec 35/37-Cyclone)

3.5L V6 - 265 hp, 250 lb·ft

3.7L V6 - 275 hp, 276 lb·ft

 

6 Cylinder Ecoboost (Duratec 35-Cyclone)

3.5L V6 - 365 hp, 350 lb·ft

 

8 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (?? Coyote ??)

5.0L V8 - 400hp, 400 lb·ft ??

 

There's a jump from 275hp to 365hp. Would a more fuel efficient 3.2L EB making around 300-320hp work as the base engine for a Mustang?

I think 300 hp would be good for a base model as well as be very fuel efficient. (At least more efficient than the 3.5L EB)

 

I see your point about the 2.5L I4 EB... but would it be as smooth & quiet as a 3.2L V6 EB might be? That's important too.

Edited by joihan777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found these engine specs on wiki:

 

4 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (Duratec 25)

2.5L I-4 - 171hp, 171lb-ft

 

4 Cylinder EcoBoost

1.6 L I4 - 180 hp, 180 lb·ft

2.0 L DOHC I4 - 275 hp, 280 lb·ft

 

6 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (Duratec 35/37-Cyclone)

3.5L V6 - 265 hp, 250 lb·ft

3.7L V6 - 275 hp, 276 lb·ft

 

6 Cylinder Ecoboost (Duratec 35-Cyclone)

3.5L V6 - 365 hp, 350 lb·ft

 

8 Cylinder Normally Aspirated (?? Coyote ??)

5.0L V8 - 400hp, 400 lb·ft ??

 

There's a jump from 275hp to 365hp. Would a more fuel efficient 3.2L EB making around 300-320hp work as the base engine for a Mustang?

I think 300 hp would be good for a base model as well as be very fuel efficient. (At least more efficient than the 3.5L EB)

 

I see your point about the 2.5L I4 EB... but would it be as smooth & quiet as a 3.2L V6 EB might be? That's important too.

Ford Europe will be producing a 2.0 Ecoboost rated at about 235 hp/235 lbft.

FoA is studying this one for the Falcon as an economy and low CO2 emitting version.

It has more low end torque than a Duratec 35 V6.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford Europe will be producing a 2.0 Ecoboost rated at about 235 hp/235 lbft.

FoA is studying this one for the Falcon as an economy and low CO2 emitting version.

It has more low end torque than a Duratec 35 V6.

 

Are you sure about that? The 2.0L I4 EB FOA engine makes 275hp/280lbft.

 

Why would FOE make a similar sized engine with less output? Is it smaller altogether?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? The 2.0L I4 EB FOA engine makes 275hp/280lbft.

 

Why would FOE make a similar sized engine with less output? Is it smaller altogether?

 

It will be the same, just a different rating.

 

As for engine life being 150000 miles, that is the industry-standard B10 life for a light duty engine (Predicted failure rate of 10% for 150000 miles or 10 years).

 

It is impossible to develop an engine that will live to that point and then expire just after that for all cases, because the duty of the engine is different for every customer and not least because the engine manufacturer can't do 10 years of testing! Therefore one can only develop the engine with several very specific accelerated tests , i.e. low-cycle-fatigue & high-cycle-fatigue, various permutations of extremes of part tolerances, various abuses, etc. From this testing the engineers will try to predict statistically how long the engine should live for average use (whatever that is!)

 

If this sounds like gambling, well it is but this all that can be done. All I can do is assure is that Ford are as good as anybody else in the business for life-ing their engines, and that some of their accelerated test are amongst the strictest in the business. As long as the 3.5 ecoboost is treated with a modicum of respect then it should live for 150000 miles and has the potential to go way beyond, just like the current NA modulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that? The 2.0L I4 EB FOA engine makes 275hp/280lbft.

 

Why would FOE make a similar sized engine with less output? Is it smaller altogether?

 

 

Yeah, a EB 2.0 putting out 275HP is being pushed as hard as a EB 3.5 pumping 420HP.

 

Ford can do it, but without using higher spec parts it won't survive the durability tests.

 

230HP from a EB 2.0 is alot more reasonable. Which is again why I am betting on Ford also releasing a EB 2.5 with 275HP.

 

:stirpot:

Edited by Mackintire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing beats real life experience.

Until Ford has customers giving accounts of longevity people have a right to remain skeptical,

it's only a few years ago that Ford couldn't get head gaskets and inlet manifolds to seal......

 

I'm sure Ecoboost will become a cult engine and win over a sizable following,

they look like becoming the new gun engines for performance and efficiency.

 

Still, an AWD 5.0 V8 Taurus would have been nice car - especially for police.

The thinking man's Impala..... :stirpot:

 

What do you get when you cross a Coyote and a Falcon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ YUM happy.gif

 

Yeah, a EB 2.0 putting out 275HP is being pushed as hard as a EB 3.5 pumping 420HP.

 

Ford can do it, but without using higher spec parts it won't survive the durability tests.

 

230HP from a EB 2.0 is alot more reasonable. Which is again why I am betting on Ford also releasing a EB 2.5 with 275HP.

 

:stirpot:

I agree with your theory, Mackintire

but not so sure about your math (which I gave up for Lent ('nother subtle hint for web-ubiquitous friends))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I wouldn't expect a smaller V6 either. ...

Actually there was an article out earlier this year that said Ford was "evaluating" a smaller version of the 3.5L (non-EcoBoost).

 

EcoBoost engines will be considered "premium" engines in most application and you will pay a premium price for them. Ford will likely offer non-EcoBoost engines along side EcoBoost in almost all applications.

 

Adding a 2.7-3.2L V6 (based off of the 3.5/3.7L) when the current 3.0L Duratec "retires" would be a logical thing to do and may be more cost effective than a 2.5L EcoBoost. Remember the 3.5L engine is less expensive than the 3.0L due to DAMB vs. RFF and a die cast block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...