fordmantpw Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I thought the Scorpion diesels had the exhaust and turbos in the valley--or would that be why the cab would need to be removed? Yes, the engine is a "reverse breather" with the exhaust and turbos in the valley. I'm not sure if the cab has to be removed for the turbo or not, but I do know it has to be removed for some major repairs. Provided they used high quality diesel. Low quality diesel ruined tons of injectors. Good point...that was another huge issue with the 6.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 My dad's F350 has the "6.OhNo" (bone stock). He had problems with it early in its life (IIRC, it had to do mostly with the cold idle, but I vaguely remember him saying something about it being down on power), but they finally got a PCM code revision that fixed it. When he was having the problems, he was so aggravated that he was talking about trading it for a Chebbie--and all of his trucks have been Fords (and he's not owned any GM products since I was a wee bairn). After that final flash, though, he's been happy with it, and it makes almost excessive amounts of torque. F'rinstance, he has a Ford 4000 agricultural tractor with a '96-ish Ford industrial diesel mill that he used to tow on a 16' utility trailer behind (what's now) my '91 F150 4x4; the tractor's rear wheels alone weigh well over 500lbs each, and that industrial (steel) mill only adds to the weight--there was one intersection where he had to drop the xfer case into 4-Low to get across. Now he pulls it on a steel-decked 20' gooseneck, and it's like the PSD doesn't even notice that it's pulling any extra weight at all. It didn't even flinch when he used it to move his John Deere 4020, and that one literally lifted the rear wheels of the truck off the ground when its front wheels hit the trailer's deck...thank God for wheel chocks and a B&W Turnover Ball hitch... My father had a very early '03 6.0 and had almost no issues (it died once at an empty intersection, but after the reflash, it never happened again). My brother bought an '03 as well...his is on the 3rd engine. The first one threw a rod, not sure what happened with the second one. They both used them to tow fifth wheels and they did great. My brother still has his and double-tows a fiver/boat combination. My dad traded his for an '11 last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 That's 80 inches of boost, FWIW. Stout. Back in the 1950's, Trans Canada Airlines ran North Stars, with Merlins instead of the DC-4's Pratt & Whitneys. TCA had to run 'em at 80 inches for take-off. When I was 10, got to fly in one, unbelievably loud for hours on end. Thanks a lot for posting this. Sent me to Wiki to learn more; never knew about this DC4 variant (with other miscellaneous parts mixed in). Well, in spite of the noise, Wiki says you were flying 35 mph faster! But supercharging meant straight through exhaust hence the "pleasant exhaust note." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) What I find most interesting is the various strategies in the huge C/D segment. The Japanese started the horsepower wars in C/D, first with Nissan installing a V6 with (IIRC) around 210 hp. That action caused Honda to take an uncharacteristic step for a Japanese company; they tore up the front structure of the Accord so they could jam in a V6 in response, and that action was taken outside the normal cycle. Every manufacturer responded with even higher horsepower V6's in what was a utilitarian, but rather sleepy segment. Now fast forward. Ford, GM, and Huyndai are generally going for GTDI 4 cylinders with traditional automatic transmissions, and that includes the higher performance models. The Japanese, however, are staying with improved larger displacement normally aspirated engines -- both I4's and V6's -- but are trending to CVT's. The latest move is Honda's improved I4 and V6 for the Accord matched with a new CVT. The powertrains are pulling some pretty good numbers; Nissan is showing 27/38 for the 2.5l Altima. For comparison, the Fusion 1.6l Ecoboost is projected to come in at 26/37. Real world fuel economy/driveability are TBD at this point. I do know that I have been in the back seat of my brother's Nissan Maxima, and I could hardly hear myself think with an incredibly awful low-frequency variable drone. I think the CVT is trying to search for a ratio that might be good for fuel economy, but is way too long-legged for NVH. We'll see what happens when these cars hit the road, but they almost have to be using the CVT's wide ratios to get those kind of fuel numbers. Edited August 26, 2012 by Austin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 I discussed that same point with someone some months ago, I remember the 2.7L that Honda stuck into the Accord, Camry with a 2.5L V6 because back then, all standard american family midsize sedans had standard V6s, Taurus 3.0L Vulcan, Lumina 3.1L, (I dont remember Chrysler has a kid, cant quote, what was it Stratus?, oh well). And now the roles have reversed but it has left the Nissan, Honda, Toy with their pants down in relation to Turbo technology. I'm interested in seeing how they will eek MPG out of their V6s, well thats if they even address it. In their case they aren't too worried with CAFE as the Big 3 would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The Japanese started the horsepower wars in C/D, Are you SHO about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Are you SHO about that? Nissan had a 3.0 I-6 turbo in the skyline in 1986, three years before Taurus SHO.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Are you SHO about that? I recognize that there were V6's in C/D cars (including Contour), but what I'm talking about were large, high horsepower V6's installed in affordable mainstream family C/D family cars. The first to to break that barrier was the Nissan Altima in 2002 with a 3.5l putting out around 250 hp, and that installation caused a lot of panic -- certainly at Honda and most certainly at Ford while the Fusion was in pre-program. These top end powertrains, combined with excellent 4 cylinder engines, had something to do with the Japanese pulling away with the segment, so it might be hard for them to give them up. At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that in the largest car segment in the U.S., the Japanese are sticking with larger displacement normally aspirated engines (but adding DI in some cases) including large V6's while Ford, GM, and Hyundai are going to GDTI. Since Honda's engines have just been updated, and they have a new CVT transmission, this is not a short-term affair. It will be interesting to watch. Will the "traditional" l4 and large V6 give them an advantage, since it might take a while for the public to become adapted to GTDI? Or will they be seen as out-of-step? I do applaud Ford for the gutsy call on Fusion's EcoBoost lineup; inside Ford, even mentioning an all I4 lineup on Fusion as a possibility a few years ago would have gotten one's head chopped off. Edited August 27, 2012 by Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Since Honda's engines have just been updated, and they have a new CVT transmission, this is not a short-term affair. It should be interesting how it plays out...though I do wonder about the possible backlash against the CVT transmission...though Nissan doesn't seem like it has problems with it, vs what Ford went through with the 500... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Will the "traditional" l4 and large V6 give them an advantage, since it might take a while for the public to become adapted to GTDI? Interesting question. My thinking is that customers will adapt more quickly to GTDI than CVT, as GTDI is a less obtrusive alteration to one's driving experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Interesting question. My thinking is that customers will adapt more quickly to GTDI than CVT, as GTDI is a less obtrusive alteration to one's driving experience. Thats werid...how the hell did I get quoted for something I didn't say? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I recognize that there were V6's in C/D cars (including Contour), but what I'm talking about were large, high horsepower V6's installed in affordable mainstream family C/D family cars. That sounds like an apt description of the '89 SHO, but I see what you're saying. Will the "traditional" l4 and large V6 give them an advantage, since it might take a while for the public to become adapted to GTDI? Or will they be seen as out-of-step? I doubt it'll make a difference to the majority of Honda buyers, most of whom are simply buying transportation appliances (IMHO). It might make a difference to "swing" buyers, but I'm thinking that the infotainment systems (Sync/MFT) will make more of a difference. It's sad, in a way, that presence/absence of a "bells and whistles" infotainment system has increasingly become a make or break feature for drivers while actual driving features (V8s, manual transmissions, etc) have ceased to be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Nissan had a 3.0 I-6 turbo in the skyline in 1986, three years before Taurus SHO.. And that was sold in the US when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 That sounds like an apt description of the '89 SHO, but I see what you're saying. Well from what my memory recalls, the '89 SHO wasn't really an "affordable" car at the time. IIRC, my parents had a 89 Tarsus Wagon that was fully loaded and it cost around $26K (not sure if that was before or after A Plan at the time) but the SHO was def north of 30K...at least on the sticker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Well from what my memory recalls, the '89 SHO wasn't really an "affordable" car at the time. IIRC, my parents had a 89 Tarsus Wagon that was fully loaded and it cost around $26K (not sure if that was before or after A Plan at the time) but the SHO was def north of 30K...at least on the sticker No way--my '95 SHO was "only" $26K sticker, and I'm pretty sure they didn't go down on price. The SHO was a high-end Taurus, but the Taurus was an affordable car at the time (remember, it was the top-selling car at the time). Edited August 27, 2012 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well from what my memory recalls, the '89 SHO wasn't really an "affordable" car at the time. IIRC, my parents had a 89 Tarsus Wagon that was fully loaded and it cost around $26K (not sure if that was before or after A Plan at the time) but the SHO was def north of 30K...at least on the sticker Those prices have to be off, by maybe $10k? My parents' '90 Bronco, loaded up stickered at $24k. I couldn't see a Taurus costing more than a Bronco... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Back when I sold em, the '98 SHO listed somewhere between $28,000-$29,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Interesting question. My thinking is that customers will adapt more quickly to GTDI than CVT, as GTDI is a less obtrusive alteration to one's driving experience. I don't have any access to market research these days, but if you played a game "what's the first thing that comes into your mind" and asked C/D buyers to describe "V6" and "I4 Turbo", I personally think you might get something like the following: V6: Smooth; powerful; reliable Turbo I4: High technology; powerful; peaky; high rpm's; reliability issues This is all BS conjecture on my part, but I do think the positives for V6 would be higher than the positives for turbo I4 (I'm not talking what actually is, but perception). It's just riskier to go with something new at this point, cause you've got a lot of 'splaining to do. Which is why I think the conservative Japanese have stayed with their tried and true story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkisler Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 No way--my '95 SHO was "only" $26K sticker, and I'm pretty sure they didn't go down on price. The SHO was a high-end Taurus, but the Taurus was an affordable car at the time (remember, it was the top-selling car at the time). Sorry, but I'm talking about the SHO which was the highest price Taurus and had a very, very low take rate. I'm talking about main-stream, large, powerful V6's which represent around a 30% mix in mainstream family sedans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Those prices have to be off, by maybe $10k? My parents' '90 Bronco, loaded up stickered at $24k. I couldn't see a Taurus costing more than a Bronco... I think you might be right...whoops! I pulled up an old C&D 10 best, and they said the 89 Taurus SHO started under 20K....the regular Taurus was around $14K...and a Escort back in the day was $9000. still 20K in 1989 is still alot of money and the Price difference between a 2013 SHO and a loaded Focus is still about 20k :P According to the Inflation calcuator...20K is roughly worth $34K in 2010 dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Which is why I think the conservative Japanese have stayed with their tried and true story. The other possibility is that they are just starting to fall behind in the segment in terms of technology. It's not like the Camry in particular has ever been a leader in the segment in terms of bringing anything new to the table. Edited August 27, 2012 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 V6: Smooth; powerful; reliable Of course when the CVT means cognitive dissonance on two of those three points..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Sorry, but I'm talking about the SHO which was the highest price Taurus and had a very, very low take rate. Hmmm Ford execs say 30 percent of all Tauruses built are SHO models, and that dealer orders for the Performance package are running at near 50 percent. Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120530/carreviews/120529789#ixzz24lJzbLI2 Thats the 2013 Model though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I think you might be right... I know. :flexing: :hysterical2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.