Jump to content

4.8 V8 for the '21MY F150?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

I thought keeping the bore spacing the same was a cost cutting move... to reuse the tooling.

That makes more sense than it being a marketing move. The guys who care about the bore spacing are very few and far between, so there's no significant marketing advantage to be had there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bzcat said:

Most F-150 buyers were fine with 4.6... if anything, the nostalgia is for the 351 more than 5.0

Fleet managers, maybe, but that's about it. There are a few F-150 guys who would trade a Coyote for a 5.4, but I have yet to run across one who would take the 4.6 over the 5.0.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

That makes more sense than it being a marketing move. The guys who care about the bore spacing are very few and far between, so there's no significant marketing advantage to be had there.

Correct, the Mod V8 was made shorter so it could be mounted transversely in FWD vehicles.

V8s in FWD vehicles was something that never really caught on but Ford carried the legacy

of narrow bearings in F trucks for years afterwards...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

The 5.0 V8 is still well above the individual CAFE limit for F150's "footprint", there's no urgent need to change anything.

 

Even post 2025? What about for Emission limits? 5L right now is 498g of CO2 / mile. The 2.7 is 423g (402 CA emission state and provinces) and the 3.5L is 472g(426g CA emissions state and provinces). I haven’t had time to pour over the agreement with California and CA emission states the 5.0 is running 20-25% higher CO2 than the ecoboost options.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

 

Even post 2025? What about for Emission limits? 5L right now is 498g of CO2 / mile. The 2.7 is 423g (402 CA emission state and provinces) and the 3.5L is 472g(426g CA emissions state and provinces). I haven’t had time to pour over the agreement with California and CA emission states the 5.0 is running 20-25% higher CO2 than the ecoboost options.  

I said, "no urgent need to change anything", that does not mean changes don't have to be made post 2025.

Those lower CO2 ratings you quoted for the Ecoboosts are based on the lower tow rated vehicles

 

Guys, I'm not against change but the Intel I have form a few years ago was that he 4.8 engine rumored

was something born out of rumors about bore changes to the 5.0 V8 whaich actually proved to be

a slight increase in bore, not a decrease.

 

California is tricky because emissions are tighter there but i wonder if Ford has solutions already in hand like the BEV F150 that gets sold alongside  a hybrid F150 planned for next  and regular F150s to square away both ZEV and total emissions  requirements.

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2019 at 7:54 AM, jpd80 said:

That wasn't the point i was making....

 

F150, towing 7,000 lb trailer @ 70 mph

2.7 EB...8.7 mpg

3.5 EB...9.1 mpg

5.0 V8.....10.1 mpg

 

F250 6.2 V8 ...12,500 lbs....8.6 mpg....

I have to believe that the 6.2 V8 engine would be much better on gas when towing 9,000 lbs and 7,000 lbs

I don't know where you got your data from, but I can't wait to see the last test repeated withe the new 7.3L and 10 speed !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

I thought keeping the bore spacing the same was a cost cutting move... to reuse the tooling.

Well the "urban legend" was ...

 

The "Boss" engine (6.2L) family was supposed to include a smaller and a larger engine.  The smaller engine was canceled because fuel economy was poor and the large engine was cancel do to thermal problems.  This left Ford in a predicament just as the Recession was starting.  A few bright "boy racer" type engineers went to management and said, "Hey, we can make some improvements on the 4.6L and make a lot more power and still get reasonable fuel economy !"  Of course that was music to managements ears !!  They were given the "green light" but told, they had to reuse most of the existing tooling from the Modular engine production line and they were given a very short time frame.

 

 Many "improvements' came right out of aftermarket/race proven trick (piston cooling jets).  Thousand of hours of flow modeling were done on the intake and cylinder head (this was pretty break through stuff at the time).   Along the way, someone in marketing came up with the idea of making it a 5.0L because there had been persistent cries from the Mustang crowd to "bring back the "five-oh".  They got there with the thinnest cylinder liner in the industry (last I heard, they were NOT replaceable).  A win-win !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Correct, the Mod V8 was made shorter so it could be mounted transversely in FWD vehicles.

V8s in FWD vehicles was something that never really caught on but Ford carried the legacy

of narrow bearings in F trucks for years afterwards...

Narrow bearing actually increase horsepower and improve fuel economy.  Not much, but it is measurable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Guys, I'm not against change but the Intel I have form a few years ago was that he 4.8 engine rumored

was something born out of rumors about bore changes to the 5.0 V8 whaich actually proved to be

a slight increase in bore, not a decrease.

If you are correct, this makes a lot of sense !  A larger bore means larger bore spacing means new tooling.

 

Ford is sitting on a pile of cash.  Sounds like a good investment especially if it will allow them to have a V8 for light vehicles in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2019 at 12:51 AM, jpd80 said:

 

 

Guys, I'm not against change but the Intel I have form a few years ago was that he 4.8 engine rumored

was something born out of rumors about bore changes to the 5.0 V8 whaich actually proved to be

a slight increase in bore, not a decrease.

 

 

 

 

Did you have a word with Ford Authority? They're now reporting pretty much exactly that (well, the adoption of DI at least)  :)

 

http://fordauthority.com/2019/08/2021-ford-f-150-will-not-get-4-8l-v8-engine/?fbclid=IwAR0ICIXcb2AfvzkibEfGYIjgQuyPTf4RPQvje0XZg5UhQ6RTR7V7C-GyXBU

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford switched from cast iron cylinder liners to plasma transferred wire arc thermal spraying for model year 2018 Coyote blocks. The spray bores are thinner so they decreased the bore on the aluminum blocks to compensate. Someone probably saw the bore reduction on the block specs or drawings and thought they were decreasing the engine displacement on the Coyote.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2019 at 9:29 AM, theoldwizard said:

Ford is sitting on a pile of cash.  Sounds like a good investment especially if it will allow them to have a V8 for light vehicles in the future.

 

The thing is, is it really worth investing into a brand new V8 engine at this point? By 2030 or so, we are going to see a significant increase in BEVs to the point of investing in ICE is going to be not a wise investment. 

 

The current engines Ford has should be able to bridge that gap with updates till we move on to a predominantly electric vehicle infrastructure   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The thing is, is it really worth investing into a brand new V8 engine at this point? By 2030 or so, we are going to see a significant increase in BEVs to the point of investing in ICE is going to be not a wise investment. 

 

The current engines Ford has should be able to bridge that gap with updates till we move on to a predominantly electric vehicle infrastructure   

I had a vision of Mazda like 13:1 compression, increased torque and fuel economy that extend the life and usability of the Coyote for years to come

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The thing is, is it really worth investing into a brand new V8 engine at this point? By 2030 or so, we are going to see a significant increase in BEVs to the point of investing in ICE is going to be not a wise investment. 

 

The current engines Ford has should be able to bridge that gap with updates till we move on to a predominantly electric vehicle infrastructure   

Realist only project a 30% market penetration of light duty electric vehicle worldwide by 2030.  50% would be a big stretch.  My guess is that in the US it will be closer to 20%.

 

Electric power generation and grids are going to struggle even hitting those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, theoldwizard said:

Realist only project a 30% market penetration of light duty electric vehicle worldwide by 2030.  50% would be a big stretch.  My guess is that in the US it will be closer to 20%.

 

Electric power generation and grids are going to struggle even hitting those numbers.

 

Right, but the issue is this-if your developing a new ICE now in 2019 and it comes out in say 2022-you'll be lucky to have 10 years to recoup your investment on it. The window for clean sheet ICE engines is rapidly closing as time goes on. 

 

Depending on costs and improvement in range (300 mile or so), you'll see a rapid adoption of BEVs in the 2030s, going by current trends (keeping a new car for 10 years or so, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, silvrsvt said:

 

Right, but the issue is this-if your developing a new ICE now in 2019 and it comes out in say 2022-you'll be lucky to have 10 years to recoup your investment on it. The window for clean sheet ICE engines is rapidly closing as time goes on. 

 

Depending on costs and improvement in range (300 mile or so), you'll see a rapid adoption of BEVs in the 2030s, going by current trends (keeping a new car for 10 years or so, etc)

 

Why only 10 years? BEV penetration won't go from 20-30% in 2030 to 100% in 2031

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J-150 said:

 

Why only 10 years? BEV penetration won't go from 20-30% in 2030 to 100% in 2031

 

You come out with Engine X in 2022- by 2032 the demand for Engine X will rapidly start shrinking because of the BEV option that offers better performance and roughly the same range as a single tank of gas. 

 

There are going to be other factors at play, but the window for ICE engines is going to be more or less closed in the next 20-25 years. 

 

People's range anxiety starts disappearing around the 300 mile range, which is roughly a tank of gas in most cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

You come out with Engine X in 2022- by 2032 the demand for Engine X will rapidly start shrinking because of the BEV option that offers better performance and roughly the same range as a single tank of gas. 

ASSUMING that power plants and transmission lines are built !  That will take 20-30 years !!  Even then, ICEs will exist.  Many second world and third world countries have very little if any electric power generation and transmission capabilities.

 

A few years back, I read a story about a company in India that went broke.  They made mens shirts.  They had the raw material, the labor, the factory and machinery, but they could not get reliable power.  I doubt this is going to change drastically there in the next 30 years.

 

How about the farmer in the middle of the Great Plains ?   Will he be able to get enough power to run his equipment ?  He probably will not have the capital to invest in a huge solar array and batteries to store it all.

 

Petroleum products will continue to be the BEST power density/dollar and easiest to transport (without loss) for many decades !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

ASSUMING that power plants and transmission lines are built !  That will take 20-30 years !!  Even then, ICEs will exist.  Many second world and third world countries have very little if any electric power generation and transmission capabilities.

 

Thats also assuming there is no improvements in use of power either by using more efficient lights, appliances, etc either.  For light duty vehicles, I'd expect a better then 50% market penetration in the next 20-25 years

 

How many farmers buy fusions as an example? Its industrial grade equipment running diesel, not gas...

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...