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

[Bob Rosadini]

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.

thx- I thought when the mod motor came out 16 years ago, "it won't be long before GM and Mopar join the party" but here we are-and GM is talking about a DOHC NEXT year??

[blksn8k2]

I don't disagree with the reasons why a multi-valve design is superior. However, you cannot ignore the fact that there is still a market for the low tech V-8. There is still a large percentage of truck buyers who are not interested in small displacement boosted engines or a smaller displacement multi-valve V-8. GM and FCA are giving those buyers a choice and their sales seem to support that direction.

 

GM certainly has the capability to offer engines similar to Ford but it could be argued that they have chosen to provide an alternative because the market wants one and they have found ways to meet current regulations while doing so. I do not believe GM has any push rod gas engines in their mid-size twins but they are also targeting a different market than they are with their full-size trucks.

 

No doubt at some point GM and FCA will have to pay the piper and, assuming Ford can meet future regulations by simply tweeking their current technology, Ford would seem to have an advantage.

[7Mary3]

I don't think GM has plans to go to aluminum to the extent Ford has on their full-size pickups. More aluminum then they are currently using for sure, but not the complete cab and cargo box.

 

As for the GM LS series, it isn't like it is GM's primary passenger vehicle engine anymore, that distinction would now fall to the Ecotech and 3.6L V-6, both multi-valve DOHC designs. The LS has, and will continue to have it's place in trucks and muscle cars. And the LS series is VERY under-stressed, particularly in truck/large SUV applications.

 

The rumored DOHC V-8 will likely be a limited-production piece for future versions of the Corvette, like he old ZR-1 was.

[J-150]

GM has to be careful. They and their cheerleaders have made such a stink about aluminum and TTV6 truck engines that they have backed themselves into a corner. If they adopt these things Ford will be all over it with "told ya so" advertising.

 

If they don't they will be hard pressed to hit fuel economy and engine power targets.

Edited December 30, 2016 by J-150

[jpd80]

I put it to you that the only reason those large capacity V8s survived is because GM and FCA:

- put cylinder deactivation technology on them to get past CAFE

- have not offered their truck customers the choice of a TTV6.

 

By not following the paths taken by GM and FCA, Ford has basically transitioned the greater majority of its

F150 and large SUV buyers to TTV6s. Ford has shown that more people are open to the switch than most

think and the resistance of buyers should be seriously questioned when so many have already changed.

 

GM has two very capable TTV6s sitting there for Cadillac only use, the reason that GM did that

is all too clear - they know that those two engines would lead to an extinction level event for

their LS V8 in trucks and large SUVs, just like we saw at Ford...

 

V8 truck buyers are not as rusted on as we imagine, many are open to change and its understanding

what's really wanted that gets so manuy of those valuable truclks and SUVs out the door.

Edited December 30, 2016 by jpd80

[7Mary3]

GM would have to backtrack on a lot of their claims if they went to aluminum to the extent Ford has! Not sure that GM has made much of an issue over Ecoboost (at least not in my area).

 

I think GM's and FCA's V-8's have survived and will continue is because they are both so good. From what I understand, GM has no fear that their own turbocharged V-6's would lead to a phase-out of the LS series. Of course if the customers showed a preference for those engines over V-8's GM would respond, but of course those V-6's are more expensive to produce than the LS's. There would have to be a real benefit for the consumer.

 

As far as the Ecoboost is concerned, it's more of a performance engine than a real economy engine. While those that I know who own Ecoboost powered (3.5L's) F-150's like the power, they do say fuel economy is only average in real-world driving. Also, Ecoboost has no application in heavier GVW vehicles. I don't see any Ecoboost type engine replacing either the 6.2L V-8 or 6.8L V-10.

[akirby]

Also, Ecoboost has no application in heavier GVW vehicles. I don't see any Ecoboost type engine replacing either the 6.2L V-8 or 6.8L V-10.

 

Why not? How is it different than a turbo diesel in that application?

[92merc]

I think a stout 4.6-4.8L engine with the dual injectors and CGI could replace both those gassers easily. I've actually been hoping for just that. I don't expect that soon. But one can hope. Not that I'm in the market for a HD truck anyway.

[7Mary3]

Simple, current versions are not strong enough. Output is only part of it. Duty cycle of a medium duty truck or even a heavy duty pickup calls for more sustained open throttle operation. A lot more heat. You probably could make a 4.8L Ecoboost type V-8 robust enough for a larger truck, but it would likely come at a cost of substantially increased mass and poorer efficiency, making such an engine a poor choice for a light duty pickup or SUV.

 

It is possible the Ecoboost concept could be applied to a larger medium duty engine, but would it deliver a benefit over a DI AFM type naturally aspirated engine? Probably not, again because an Ecoboost engine running that duty cycle would but under significant boost most of the time. More boost necessitates more fuel, otherwise we have even more heat (NOX) and the increased probability of detonation. More fuel? What was the point again?

[Bob Rosadini]

Simple, current versions are not strong enough. Output is only part of it. Duty cycle of a medium duty truck or even a heavy duty pickup calls for more sustained open throttle operation. A lot more heat. You probably could make a 4.8L Ecoboost type V-8 robust enough for a larger truck, but it would likely come at a cost of substantially increased mass and poorer efficiency, making such an engine a poor choice for a light duty pickup or SUV.

 

It is possible the Ecoboost concept could be applied to a larger medium duty engine, but would it deliver a benefit over a DI AFM type naturally aspirated engine? Probably not, again because an Ecoboost engine running that duty cycle would but under significant boost most of the time. More boost necessitates more fuel, otherwise we have even more heat (NOX) and the increased probability of detonation. More fuel? What was the point again?

You guys are getting over my head, but if the Ecoboost concepts claim to fame is big time torque at low RPM, why can't that work in a medium duty application? Existing MD engines run at a higher RPM range because they were designed to do just that. Just like before Mack introduced the Maxidyne concept in the mid 60's, what did big block diesels run? 1700-2100 RPMs-regardles if they were NA or turboed. Maxidyne changed all that -big time torque at 1200 RPMs and the RPM band still went up to 2100.

 

7M-you say medium duty "calls for more sustained open throttle operation". You are right-but again, isn't that what they were DESIGNED to do?? Just like an 855 cu. in. Cummins or an 8V-71 Detroit was built to run at 2100 with your foot in it., Turboed Maxidyne could cruise and climb hills at substantially fewer rpms- because it was designed and built to do that.

 

I don't own an Ecoboost 150 but my SHO always amazes me as it climbs hills at 1300 RPM's. Is it lugging?-Nope-at least by my definition of lugging which is if the slightest bit of throttle pressure leads to increased RPM's you are not "lugging".

 

Seems to me if the concept works in a 4000 lb PV or a pick up at 7700 or higher GVW, there should be some way to get the same benefit in a commercial application.

[Stray Kat]

Bob I think you're hitting the right notes here. At the end of the day though it's "perception" that has to change.

 

Years ago a 6 cylinder one ton truck was held in high esteem among the working class folks. It's only the last 20 years that we began to convince ourselves that we needed a big block V8 to do a job.

 

Remember when you could get a 240 or 300 six and run it hard all its life and still get 300,000 good miles out of it? I do. That's just good design.

[Bob Rosadini]

Bob I think you're hitting the right notes here. At the end of the day though it's "perception" that has to change.

 

Years ago a 6 cylinder one ton truck was held in high esteem among the working class folks. It's only the last 20 years that we began to convince ourselves that we needed a big block V8 to do a job.

 

Remember when you could get a 240 or 300 six and run it hard all its life and still get 300,000 good miles out of it? I do. That's just good design.

Kat-for sure on the 240/300. I would bet that a large number of the 'tugs" that you see pulling baggage carts at airports all over the country are still Ford 300's!

[Donaldo]

Kat-for sure on the 240/300. I would bet that a large number of the 'tugs" that you see pulling baggage carts at airports all over the country are still Ford 300's!

 

 

Not unless those tractors are CNG or electric drive. Running CNG/electric helps lower emissions/is economical for shorter distances like on an airfield.

[jpd80]

The big difference that I see with F150 buyers versus Super Duty like F250 is the greater need for both

fuel economy and part time power when required, around 70% of F150s are now V6s either with or

without turbocharging and positioned to maintain around 22-24 mpg official highway figures.

 

The Super Dutys are different and tend to tow or carry loads on a more regular basis and Ecoboost

may not get the opportunity to take advantage of its part time power and economy. Under boost,

the TTV6 may actually use more fuel than a larger NA V8, especially if the 6.2 can run at leaner

part throttle mixtures while towing. I see the 6.2 F250 in the same vein as the 3.5 NA F150,

an affordable low cost vehicle that saves the owner thousands on the purchase price while

providing enough towing and payload to get the job done without needing an $8K diesel.

 

I have a theory that while the 6.2 gas engine is just big enough for the F250, it's not big enough

for the larger F350 and F450 where those gas engine sales reduce rapidly, perhaps that's

where a larger 6.8 or 7.0 V8 gas engine needs to steps in - similar to the 6.8 V10 in F650....

Edited January 1, 2017 by jpd80

[J-150]

Arguing about the 6.2 or 6.8 as minimums for a 3/4 makes me laugh. The only need for those engines is consumer perception. The perception that a loaded 1/2 or 3/4 tons needs to accelerate like a Mustang.

 

Whatever did we do back in the day with 250s equipped with 140hp I6 or 160hp 5.0 engines.

[coupe3w]

Arguing about the 6.2 or 6.8 as minimums for a 3/4 makes me laugh. The only need for those engines is consumer perception. The perception that a loaded 1/2 or 3/4 tons needs to accelerate like a Mustang.

 

Whatever did we do back in the day with 250s equipped with 140hp I6 or 160hp 5.0 engines.

Yeah, and why did we change from rotary dial phones. My God the insanity.

[Stray Kat]

Yeah, and why did we change from rotary dial phones. My God the insanity.

You missed the point.

[blksn8k2]

What I am struggling with as far as the possibility of reducing the naturally aspirated V-8 in the F-150 from 5.0L to 4.8L is wouldn't that result in an engine with similar output to the 2.7L EB? Why bother?

 

I could better understand the idea of a smaller displacement V-8 with forced induction that could be used as a top of the line gas option in the F-150 and Super Duty as a replacement for both the 6.2L V-8 and 6.8L V-10 and with different tuning in a GT-500 type Mustang.

Edited January 2, 2017 by blksn8k2

[J-150]

What I am struggling with as far as the possibility of reducing the naturally aspirated V-8 in the F-150 from 5.0L to 4.8L is wouldn't that result in an engine with similar output to the 2.7L EB? Why bother?

 

I could better understand the idea of a smaller displacement V-8 with forced induction that could be used as a top of the line gas option in the F-150 and Super Duty as a replacement for both the 6.2L V-8 and 6.8L V-10 and with different tuning in a GT-500 type Mustang.

Ask yourself why the take rate on the v8 is 30 something percent.

 

Now ask yourself if you think Ford is ready to gamble on losing any of those 30% to any one of 4 truck makers that still offer a v8.

[30 OTT 6]

Arguing about the 6.2 or 6.8 as minimums for a 3/4 makes me laugh. The only need for those engines is consumer perception. The perception that a loaded 1/2 or 3/4 tons needs to accelerate like a Mustang.

 

Whatever did we do back in the day with 250s equipped with 140hp I6 or 160hp 5.0 engines.

The real MVPs for modern trucks are the new 6-10 spd. transmissions.

[blksn8k2]

Ask yourself why the take rate on the v8 is 30 something percent.

 

Now ask yourself if you think Ford is ready to gamble on losing any of those 30% to any one of 4 truck makers that still offer a v8.

Apparently you only read the first sentence...

[jpd80]

Also, what extra sales can be picked up by adding V8 engines and diesel to the NG Expedition and Navigator?

 

While buyers like the Ecoboost 3.5 V6, quite a few rusted on V8 buyers still look for a V8 Utility

as evidenced by GM's 29,000 sales last month. The 3.0 Diesel would also attract buyers that

GM currently isn't catering for...and possibly away from Jeep GC?

 

J-150, on 03 Jan 2017 - 03:01 AM, said:

Arguing about the 6.2 or 6.8 as minimums for a 3/4 makes me laugh. The only need for those engines is consumer perception. The perception that a loaded 1/2 or 3/4 tons needs to accelerate like a Mustang.

Whatever did we do back in the day with 250s equipped with 140hp I6 or 160hp 5.0 engines.

The majority of trucks back then were single cabs in F150 and could use those smaller engines.

Today, thanks to changes in buyer trends, around 90% of F150s are crew cabs that act more

like our lost BOF large cars....

 

When you think in those terms, it all makes sense, the F150 Crew Cab is our modern Crown Victoria,

free of any CAFE issues and a huge profit earner for Ford....

Edited January 3, 2017 by jpd80

[jpd80]

With regards to the V8s, has anyone given thought to the F150 and Expediton/Navigator receiving

4.8 / 5.2 Coyotes opposed to the Mustang staying with the 5.0 V8?

 

A new DI 4.8 V8 fitted with the new 10-speed auto transmission would be more than a match for

GM's AFM 5.3 V8, the Mainstay of GM's Silverado 1500 sales while the Ecoboost V6s continue

to set F150 apart form the competition..

 

Just a possible explanation for a change in direction, an upgraded 5.0 V8 may do the same thing..

Edited January 3, 2017 by jpd80

[02MustangGT]

Well since the 5.0 has been rumored to be upgraded with direct injection+port injection, a 4.8 is not necessary. And no, I am not providing sources supporting these rumors.

[fordmantpw]

The 5.0 is supposed to get a slightly larger displacement, but not enough to change the nominal size. It will still be called a 5.0L.