Ford to release new 4.8L Dual Injection V8 for F-150?

[RichardJensen]

I took a 2015 GMC/ 5.3L loaner truck to Sioux Falls to get a transfer case once. Got 14mpg. Is that impressive?

 

Same stretch of road I've got 21-23 with my 2.7EB.

 

 

Exactly! this friend of mine with the GMC made it a point on a northern Maine to central Mass trip tom set the cruise to 65 on I-95. Got 25 mpg. NO LOAD in truck. The guy is a bit of a GM cheerleader but does swear by the economy and power of the truck.

 

Speed limit on that stretch of I-29 is 80MPH, it's moderately hilly for about a third of the length (roughly mile markers 109 to 90 of a 50 mile trip), and as it's South Dakota, you're usually bucking wind of some sort. Plus, if he was picking up a GM transfer case (and AFAIK he works in a GM dealership), there may have been a bit of city traffic tacked onto that.

 

At 80MPH, I'm pretty sure you're going to be into all 8 cylinders most of the way.

[tbone]

The aftermarket might be pissed since

few need much above that.

They will be ok, people always want more.

[SoonerLS]

How many traded their 5.0 for a V6 ecoboost engine already?

From what I've seen on the F150 forums, it looks like folks go from 5.0s to EB35s, and vice versa, all the time, and the last numbers I saw put the 5.0 and EB35 at about the same take rate. There are diehard V8 guys, but for most buyers, EB36 vs 5.0 doesn't appear to make much of a difference at all, unless you need the higher tow ratings offered with the EB35.

 

If I could've gotten the same deal on my truck with the EB35 as I did on the 5.0, I'd've been all over that, and I'm a looong-time V8 truck guy who's never had any use for a sixer. (Or short-box beds, but that's another story...) I think it would be a "New Coke"-sized disaster if they don't keep a V8 in the F150, and I still have no use for the D35 in an F-Series truck, but the EB35 just doesn't feel like a "V6" truck to me.

[jpd80]

From what I've seen on the F150 forums, it looks like folks go from 5.0s to EB35s, and vice versa, all the time, and the last numbers I saw put the 5.0 and EB35 at about the same take rate. There are diehard V8 guys, but for most buyers, EB36 vs 5.0 doesn't appear to make much of a difference at all, unless you need the higher tow ratings offered with the EB35.

 

If I could've gotten the same deal on my truck with the EB35 as I did on the 5.0, I'd've been all over that, and I'm a looong-time V8 truck guy who's never had any use for a sixer. (Or short-box beds, but that's another story...) I think it would be a "New Coke"-sized disaster if they don't keep a V8 in the F150, and I still have no use for the D35 in an F-Series truck, but the EB35 just doesn't feel like a "V6" truck to me.

And that's perhaps where the EB27 becomes the base V6 truck and swallows up those remaining NA V6 sales.

It's really that simple, when you take the atmo V6 out of the equation, Ford is left with a neat three way engine split

in F150 between the two EB V6s and the 5.0 V8. I think that where the new 10-speed auto has a big role to play

in growing all of those sales n equal proportion - balance is the key here in not leaving customer groups behind...

 

A bigger question for me is where does the diesel V6 fit in, does Ford use it as the new base engine by aiming

it primarily at the work truck brigade but also include it as an efficiency option on the upper lifestyle trim level?

Edited December 25, 2016 by jpd80

[akirby]

I thought the vast majority of F150s were TT V6s with the 5.0 only making up a small percentage of sales.

[jpd80]

I thought the vast majority of F150s were TT V6s with the 5.0 only making up a small percentage of sales.

They are, it's a 3-way split between the V8 (30%), EB27 (30%), EB35 (30%) and barely 10% to the Atmo 3.5 V6.

The battle over V8s was won years ago when F150 buyers overwhelmingly chose the EB 3.5 over the 6.2 V8.

 

Now compare that with the Silverado 1500's engine split of 5.3 V8 (~70%), 4.3 V6 (~20%) and 6.2 V8 (~10%)

and we see just how different that customer base really is...

 

Although I wonder, if GM actually offered it's own 3.0TTV6 and 3.6 TTV6 engines in the Silverado 1500,

would we see a similar shift away from V8s?

 

probably so...

 

and if Ford stuck with 4.6 & 5.4 V8s with Coyote, then maybe things would have been different with V8 sales..

but they didn't because, those two engine sizes have been effectively supplanted by EB 2.7 and EB 3.5.

Edited December 25, 2016 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

I thought the vast majority of F150s were TT V6s with the 5.0 only making up a small percentage of sales.

I wouldn't call 30% a small percentage. The numbers I've seen have pretty much had the Coyote and EB35 running at about the same rate since they were added to the F-150.

 

I wasn't counting the smaller EB, as the V8 vs. EB debate/decision really seems to center around the 5.0 and the EB35. I see lots of folks who go from EB35 to 5.0 (and vice versa), but not many talk about switching to/from the smaller EB.

[jpd80]

I wouldn't call 30% a small percentage. The numbers I've seen have pretty much had the Coyote and EB35 running at about the same rate since they were added to the F-150.

 

I wasn't counting the smaller EB, as the V8 vs. EB debate/decision really seems to center around the 5.0 and the EB35. I see lots of folks who go from EB35 to 5.0 (and vice versa), but not many talk about switching to/from the smaller EB.

The smaller EB is meant for those buyers who don't do a lot of towing but want more power than the NA V6

and since it's introduction, it's basically taken some percentage off both the 5.0V8 and the 3.5 EB.

 

I didn't bother mentioning the 6.2 at all because in the past, it was like under 5% and then, mostly Raptors.

Edited December 26, 2016 by jpd80

[akirby]

I thought it was lower than 30%. I know it was lower than I expected it to be.

[jpd80]

I thought it was lower than 30%. I know it was lower than I expected it to be.

National Dealer stock is an accurate reflection of the product mix currently being sold. Of the 104K vehicles in stock

, around 33K are V8s which approximates that quoted 30% V8 sales mix mentioned.

 

While that's not 100% confirmation, it's a pretty good estimate of that sales mix, one that has been

confirmed by Ford several times and perhaps why it's also moving to improve the V8 and maintain

that percentage....the new 10-speed when it's finally added to the V8 will probably help stabalize

the sales mix and give V8 buyers what they have been asking for - better gas mileage.

Edited December 26, 2016 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Here's a question I have regarding those low NA 3.5V6 sales in F150,

Could Ford replace that V6 engine with say a small capacity V8 like a 4.0 or 4.2 liter that gives some F150 buyers

the V8 they like but with great fuel economy and enough towing capacity to do modest tow jobs better than the 3.5 V6?

 

Just thinking outside the box here for where Ford may be able to turn a low selling niche into something much more

with the right engine and gearbox combination.... (by my estimations, a baby V8 would be around 320 HP/330 lb ft)

[NLPRacing]

Here's a question I have regarding those low NA 3.5V6 sales in F150,

Could Ford replace that V6 engine with say a small capacity V8 like a 4.0 or 4.2 liter that gives some F150 buyers

the V8 they like but with great fuel economy and enough towing capacity to do modest tow jobs better than the 3.5 V6?

 

Just thinking outside the box here for where Ford may be able to turn a low selling niche into something much more

with the right engine and gearbox combination.... (by my estimations, a baby V8 would be around 320 HP/330 lb ft)

 

After test driving 2.3EB & 3.5NA Explorers back to back, I think the 2.3EB would be a better replacement for the 3.5NA. To me, the 2.3EB in my wife's 17 Explorer feels very much like the old 4.6L 3V that was in the 06 Explorer. And it seems to be pretty easy on gas too. She's mostly drives in town and has averaged nearly 17 mpg since she got it. I wouldn't be surprised to get 25 MPG or better on a road trip. I wonder how well a 2.3EB with a 10 speed auto would perform in a RCSB F150 and/or Ranger? I would think it would do pretty well.

[jpd80]

 

After test driving 2.3EB & 3.5NA Explorers back to back, I think the 2.3EB would be a better replacement for the 3.5NA. To me, the 2.3EB in my wife's 17 Explorer feels very much like the old 4.6L 3V that was in the 06 Explorer. And it seems to be pretty easy on gas too. She's mostly drives in town and has averaged nearly 17 mpg since she got it. I wouldn't be surprised to get 25 MPG or better on a road trip. I wonder how well a 2.3EB with a 10 speed auto would perform in a RCSB F150 and/or Ranger? I would think it would do pretty well.

Years ago Ford Aus built two Ranger 2.0 EBs as Attribute prototypes for the falcon Ecoboost project,

they performed very well but were limited to 2WD to cover the intended scope.

 

I have no doubt that a 2.3 EB would cover the NA V6 quite easily as the respective weights

of the 2.3 EB Explorer and NA V6 Crew Cab F150 are quite similar..

 

My suggestion was more of a what if to get more V8 buyers into F150 and increasing Ford's V8 production without

affecting existing Ecoboost V6 sales, a different engine that adds sales, not replaces the existing ones. It aims

more at those not necessarily wanting to haul much more than 7,500 lbs. A small V8 could be another solution

to giving buyers an entry level V8 that use their trucks as little more than shopping trolleys - just as fuel efficient

as the V6 but with the extra power and torque of a V8.

 

Thinking outside the box here, go where GM and Chrysler can't follow, a small 4.2 Coyote with DI would be

around the 350HP/350lb ft, similar to the 2.3 EB for sure but maybe reach a lot of buyers who just want a

base V8 that feels like what they remember..

Edited December 27, 2016 by jpd80

[Trader 10]

I concur on how good the 2.3 EB is. Before we bought our Edge last spring I test drove a 2.3 Explorer as well as a 3.5 NA Explorer. The 3.5 seemed slower and course compared to the 2.3. I'd take it anytime over the 3.5.

[Stray Kat]

Guys a 4.8 liter V8 oughta be significantly smaller from a physical standpoint than the Coyote to make real waves. I'm hoping this little bugger is intended to be twin turbo'd from the get go.

 

While I doubt there will be any change to the bore centers between this and current Coyote architecture I'd like to see a correspondingly lower deck height and more compact cylinder head design. Maybe even integral exhaust manifolding in preparation for turbocharging.

 

This has "Ecoboost" written all over it and as such would set the other manufacturers on their collective asses in terms of world class engine engineering.

 

I'm of the opinion that the Gm and Chrysler mainstay V8's are on a collision course with EPA and CAFE realities sooner rather than later. I believe that comments made by Sergio Marchionne about their V8 engines lend credence to that opinion.

 

This engine would and easily could be the "crown jewel" of the Ecoboost line. I believe that if done correctly that Ford would have a hard time keeping up with demand.

[Bob Rosadini]

Guys a 4.8 liter V8 oughta be significantly smaller from a physical standpoint than the Coyote to make real waves. I'm hoping this little bugger is intended to be twin turbo'd from the get go.

 

While I doubt there will be any change to the bore centers between this and current Coyote architecture I'd like to see a correspondingly lower deck height and more compact cylinder head design. Maybe even integral exhaust manifolding in preparation for turbocharging.

 

This has "Ecoboost" written all over it and as such would set the other manufacturers on their collective asses in terms of world class engine engineering.

 

I'm of the opinion that the Gm and Chrysler mainstay V8's are on a collision course with EPA and CAFE realities sooner rather than later. I believe that comments made by Sergio Marchionne about their V8 engines lend credence to that opinion.

 

This engine would and easily could be the "crown jewel" of the Ecoboost line. I believe that if done correctly that Ford would have a hard time keeping up with demand.

S-Kat, Please elaborate. It is my understanding that the small GM V-8 (push rods and all) gets good mileage with the cylinder deactivation mode. So CAFE isn't really an issue if as I understand it, the numbers are a pool of all engines. tue?? As for EPA, what is on the horizon there??

[7Mary3]

Chrysler will assuredly be in trouble unless they finally find a merger partner that offers a lot of fuel-efficient vehicles. GM not so much, they will have enough hybrids, electrics, and small cars in their fleet to offset a lot of nostalgic hot rods and trucks.

 

Not seeing an EB V-8, but who knows?

[jpd80]

I wouldn't be too concerned regarding CAFE and vehicles with larger footprints, the bump spot for EPA window sticker

fuel economy is currently 19 mpg highway in full sized trucks and SUVs and only rises something like 2 mpg in the next

7 or 8 years.

 

In stark comparison to that, smaller vehicles like compact cars and Utes see a massive jump in compliance fuel economy,

this disproportionate response in mandated fuel economy will encourage more people into larger less economical vehicles.

[silvrsvt]

 

In stark comparison to that, smaller vehicles like compact cars and Utes see a massive jump in compliance fuel economy,

this disproportionate response in mandated fuel economy will encourage more people into larger less economical vehicles.

That's part of the reason why the new Civic is the same size as a 1989 Accord. Now.

[jpd80]

That's part of the reason why the new Civic is the same size as a 1989 Accord. Now.

Correct, there's a lot of incentive for manufacturers to follow buyer trends and give them larger vehicles

and just not worry so much about subcompact and compact cars.

 

We're seeing it now with compact cars growing to the size of older mid sized cars but with smaller trunks

to keep the total volume just under the EPA classification limit, it's the only way these cars will survive.

 

The example of Civic growing to near the older Accord size is just more evidence, Corolla's longer wheelbase,

Cruze larger than Focus right out of the chute, it's just more evidence that bigger is better.....

Edited December 28, 2016 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

Correct, there's a lot of incentive for manufacturers to follow buyer trends and give them larger vehicles

and just not worry so much about subcompact and compact cars.

 

We're seeing it now with compact cars growing to the size of older mid sized cars but with smaller trunks

to keep the total volume just under the EPA classification limit, it's the only way these cars will survive.

 

The example of Civic growing to near the older Accord size is just more evidence, Corolla's longer wheelbase,

Cruze larger than Focus right out of the chute, it's just more evidence that bigger is better.....

The same could be said for the smaller than full-size truck market. A true mini truck ain't happening.

[Stray Kat]

S-Kat, Please elaborate. It is my understanding that the small GM V-8 (push rods and all) gets good mileage with the cylinder deactivation mode. So CAFE isn't really an issue if as I understand it, the numbers are a pool of all engines. tue?? As for EPA, what is on the horizon there??

Hey Bob, I remember Mr. Marchionne making comments about their engine situation and that was a big factor as to why he was seeking to merger with an entity that could help them meet future EPA and CAFE standards. I believe the ones to be fully implemented by 2025.

 

I seem to remember him saying that the resources weren't there to keep up from an engine standpoint.

 

Now in my opinion both GM and FCA have a bunch of money to spend if Ford has indeed blazed the correct path. The general is about to switch over to aluminum truck bodies and that ain't going to be easy or cheap. In my opinion Dodge is floundering and faking it till they have a breakthrough. I don't think Dodge can keep up long term.

 

Now the reason I think Gm and FCA are sucking wind with engines is because the ink they are getting is more on the horsepower side and what new powerful "special edition" they are touting like candy before children.

 

While I'm fully aware that "cylinder deactivation" is a thing and it can work I submit to you that any vehicle can be hypermiled to get similar results. I play with that on my 2005 Montego all the time. When I try the fuel consumption computer often shows 27-28 mpg. Can that be right?

 

Anyhoo this all brings me to this final point. There is a reason why 4 valve engines are not allowed in NASCAR. In a 2 valve engine you must go farther out on a limb from a physics standpoint in order to deliver similar performance to a multi valve engine.

 

Number one you need more displacement especially through a larger bore which makes it a bit harder to keep the combustion process clean. You gotta have that big bore to unshroud the correspondingly larger intake valve.

 

Crap now we need a large valve, a larger spring to control it. A beefy camshaft and valvetrain to move it precisely. There are some serious limits and compromises to be made the farther up the scale you go with all that.

 

The highest performance Gm engine (LS7) was having valve train problems as a matter of fact.

 

While all this is going on they are adding expense to the engine along the way. I get a kick out of these jokers that just love the Gm engine over the "more complex" Ford V8's for example. I guess material quality requirements and on the edge designs don't add to the complexity of designing these "simple" V8's don't figure into their calculations.

 

These guys that constantly spout about how stressed an Ecoboost engine is because it is turbocharged are completely okay with Gm and FCA moving their valves almost an inch in both directions millions of times for thousands of miles. No they just take that for granted. Ignorance is bliss.

 

But that all has it's limits. If Ford wanted to they could simply turn the screws up on the 3.5 EB and force Gm and FCA into a ditch. They both know they will have to respond in kind.

 

I say Ford has the simplest most under stressed engines of all and when the time comes they can bury Gm and FCA. The big changes to EPA and CAFE standards will be "all in" by 2025 and that will be here before you know it.

 

I like Ford's position.

[NLPRacing]

Not seeing an EB V-8, but who knows?

 

I don't think this 4.8L V8 will get the EcoBoost treatment as is. But I wouldn't be surprised to see an EcoBoost V8 based on it with a shrink in displacement a little to say 4.4L to 4.6L.

[RichardJensen]

Here's a question I have regarding those low NA 3.5V6 sales in F150,

Could Ford replace that V6 engine with say a small capacity V8 like a 4.0 or 4.2

 

They could, but that's not why that option exists.

 

That's a fleet special engine, and few alternatives are going to be as cheap to build.

 

Maybe if Ford reduced the available engine options by replacing the 3.5L NA and, say, the 2.7L EB with a single engine, you'd see a turbo in the fleet package, but if they did that it's unlikely that it would be a V8 that would sell in higher trims.

[MY93SHO]

 

 

That's a fleet special engine, and few alternatives are going to be as cheap to build.

 

 

Exactly. When I was shopping I wanted to see what a Ram 3.6L cost in my area. Couple in Sioux Falls and one in Yankton. Not a lot sitting on the ground.

 

Going only on the number of oil changes I pull per year the GM 4.3L was purchased at a decent rate in 2014 and then it dropped to nothing.