Who needs a V8 anymore???

[amrg]

Apparently this is hitting the market soon. 320 Hp and 375 lb of torque, all from a 2.7 V6!!!

http://www.worldcarfans.com/113123168107/2015-ford-f-150-will-feature-320-bhp-27-liter-v6-twin-turbo

 

[skeptic]

Peak HP and torque doesn't tell the whole story. Two things that I've never found in a smaller engine, forced induction or not, are low end torque and that great v8 sound.

 

[amrg]

Peak HP and torque doesn't tell the whole story. Two things that I've never found in a smaller engine, forced induction or not, are low end torque and that great v8 sound.

This I agree with! But with the new turbos, the ones with variable geometry, your getting proper boost linear to your RPM resulting in high torque figures at low RPMs which weren't the case with old turbos that suddenly kick in after a certain RPM.

 

[Hans3T]

After hearing how the 6.0 with catbacks sounds on my SSR... I will stick with a V8.

 

[High Five H2]

like skeptic said, peak numbers are only part of the story. i'd like to see a torque curve and how flat it is. those old toyota supras could make gobs of horsepower, but they didn't really perform as well as their HP numbers suggested because the power was so peaky. still... turbo technology is getting better and better.

 

[skeptic]

like skeptic said, peak numbers are only part of the story. i'd like to see a torque curve and how flat it is. those old toyota supras could make gobs of horsepower, but they didn't really perform as well as their HP numbers suggested because the power was so peaky. still... turbo technology is getting better and better.

Turbo lag vs. immediate throttle response. You just need that flat torque curve and low rpm grunt in a heavy vehicle.

Speaking of Toyota.... I have a fairly modern 4 cyl turbo (from a JDM MR2) in a '77 Celica. It dyno'd 237 hp and 227 lb-ft at the rear wheels, or somewhere around 285hp at the flywheel. On paper it's quite a bit better than the H3/H3T I5 and nearly as good as the Alpha v8... It makes for a very quick and fun 2,500 lb car, but it would be utter crap in a big heavy Hummer.

Looking at it another way, years ago I had both an LT1 v8 Trans Am and a modified 4 cyl Turbo AWD Eagle Talon. Every morning I'd walk out and decide which one I felt like driving that day. Both were a lot of fun, appropriate engines for the type of car they were in, and were very different driving experiences. As you would expect, the v8 would be a good fit for an SUV or truck but the turbo-4 would not.

These are just a couple of my experiences, and part of where my strong preference for a v8 in a Truck/SUV comes from. I have no experience with a variable geometry turbocharger, but it sounds promising.

 

[Schwarttzy]

There is a reason why my Father is driving the 5.0 and not the eco boost in Ford F150

 

[Steve #1]

The 2.7 EcoBoost uses twin asymmetrical turbos. It should have a VERY flat torque curve.

 

[amrg]

The 2.7 EcoBoost uses twin asymmetrical turbos. It should have a VERY flat torque curve.

That should be very similar to the Variable geometry turbo, or perhaps the same. One small turbo for the low RPMs and a Big one once the RPM hits the high numbers!

 

[n0useforaname]

My dad bought an Ecoboost last year. Needless to say, I'm very impressed with it.. And mind you that I drove a triple turbo'd Dmax for 7 years.

 

[Schwarttzy]

My dad bought an Ecoboost last year. Needless to say, I'm very impressed with it.. And mind you that I drove a triple turbo'd Dmax for 7 years.

Your talking about a 1 MPG gain on paper over the 5.0 real world results have been putting them much closer.

 

[n0useforaname]

I"m talking more in terms of actual seat of pants feel/drive-ability. Two of my friends have the 5.0, and my dad has the Eco.. I've drove both, and my one friend who owns the 5.0 rode to Ohio with me in my dads Eco to pick up a boat.. He even said that he wished he could pick up an Eco. When I drove the 5.0, it seemed to feel like top end power was non-existent.. When driving the Eco, it just pulled hard to 80MPH until I let off. I personally would own an Eco over the 5.0 after towing with both/etc..

 

[ReconH3]

I'll stick with my V8. Those little boosted engines will never last as long as a normally aspirated V8 and turbos are delicate and break too easy. That's my personal experience.


"Ex Umbris Venimus"

 

[n0useforaname]

And that's the thing, it's all personal preference. I've grown kind of fond of a turbo'd engine, and will be dropping a Dmax in the H2 eventually. I miss that extra "umpfh" behind the pedal.

 

[LagunaH1]

Realizing it's not even close to the same thing: The turbo lag in my Passat TDI is *real* hard to notice and it has tons of torque at low RPM. In fact, it's torque peak is at 1700 rpm if memory serves me correctly. I love the "personality" of a turbo engine with all the low end torque.

 

[skeptic]

Realizing it's not even close to the same thing: The turbo lag in my Passat TDI is *real* hard to notice and it has tons of torque at low RPM. In fact, it's torque peak is at 1700 rpm if memory serves me correctly. I love the "personality" of a turbo engine with all the low end torque.

Turbo Diesel is a completely different animal. I would not hesitate to have a smallish turbo diesel in a truck/suv (or a big turbo diesel for that matter). I also freely admit I have no experience with multiple asymmetrical or variable geometry turbo engines. Perhaps they deserve more credit than I have given them?

 

[amrg]

Turbo Diesel is a completely different animal. I would not hesitate to have a smallish turbo diesel in a truck/suv (or a big turbo diesel for that matter). I also freely admit I have no experience with multiple asymmetrical or variable geometry turbo engines. Perhaps they deserve more credit than I have given them?

The idea is basically simple. A big turbo needs a large amount of exhaust gas to drive it, and u only get that once your RPMs go up. When u get enuff RPM the turbo kicks and hence the turbo lag we usually feel. To fix this, a second smaller turbo is added, which needs less exhaust to power it, hence it kicks in at a much lower RPM. If done properly, it wld b hardly noticeable...

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

Realizing it's not even close to the same thing: The turbo lag in my Passat TDI is *real* hard to notice and it has tons of torque at low RPM. In fact, it's torque peak is at 1700 rpm if memory serves me correctly. I love the "personality" of a turbo engine with all the low end torque.

we won't be telling my wife this, but we have a 2009 TDI Jetta that I think is a dog from idle to 3000 rpm.

I had a 1999 toyota tacoma, it replaced a 1989 SR5 toyota pickup (both 4x4s), and, despite the 4 cyl having more displacement in the newer car - it was terrible. No torque - of course, what idiot would want to carry two dirtbikes, gear and themselves to the dune? It had zero torque.... on the highway it was much better than the 22RE, but lugging around town - what a useless turd.

Which brings me to - there's no substitute for displacement. I build large by huge motors and small motors, and even with all the fancy, gee-whiz crap that they load onto the motors (check out my Fiat build sometime), they simply don't have the torque down low that a NA V8 has.

V8s please

 

[n0useforaname]

I just always recommend anyone to go test drive something before they knock it. When I had my Dmax, I knocked the Ecoboost bad.. but then after driving it a lot, I'm now impressed with how well it runs. I can't speak for overall longevity, but I think any vehicle is hit/miss with issues, no matter what the rep is.

 

[LagunaH1]

we won't be telling my wife this, but we have a 2009 TDI Jetta that I think is a dog from idle to 3000 rpm.

I had a 1999 toyota tacoma, it replaced a 1989 SR5 toyota pickup (both 4x4s), and, despite the 4 cyl having more displacement in the newer car - it was terrible. No torque - of course, what idiot would want to carry two dirtbikes, gear and themselves to the dune? It had zero torque.... on the highway it was much better than the 22RE, but lugging around town - what a useless turd.

Which brings me to - there's no substitute for displacement. I build large by huge motors and small motors, and even with all the fancy, gee-whiz crap that they load onto the motors (check out my Fiat build sometime), they simply don't have the torque down low that a NA V8 has.

V8s please

Well, as someone said earlier in this thread: I suppose it's all a matter of personal preference and what you are looking for in a car / engine. As much as I love my TDI, I also do think that a lot of the motivation behind the trend (as I see it, at least) towards smaller displacement engines with turbos is a general perception that smaller engines give better mileage. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment but I think that's a big part of why we seem to see more small-ish engines with turbos.

I read a few places that the Ford Ecoboost engine in the F150 isn't THAT much more fuel friendly than the NA V8, and that doesn't really surprise me. You need a certain amount of fuel to move an F150 (or any car / truck for that matter, I'm not knocking the F150), regardless of whether it's a turbo V6 or an NA V8.

 

[n0useforaname]

I would agree.. as my 6.6 V8 Dmax got better mileage than my dads EcoBoost.. and I was clearing about 690HP to the rear wheels on top of it all. But I never really look at fuel mileage either.. when buying a huge truck, SUV, etc.. it's kind of a moot point IMO.

 

[skeptic]

The idea is basically simple. A big turbo needs a large amount of exhaust gas to drive it, and u only get that once your RPMs go up. When u get enuff RPM the turbo kicks and hence the turbo lag we usually feel. To fix this, a second smaller turbo is added, which needs less exhaust to power it, hence it kicks in at a much lower RPM. If done properly, it wld b hardly noticeable...

I understand the idea behind it, I'm just saying all my experience has been with a single turbo where you size it for where you want the trade-offs to be.

 

[MaxPF]

I read a few places that the Ford Ecoboost engine in the F150 isn't THAT much more fuel friendly than the NA V8, and that doesn't really surprise me. You need a certain amount of fuel to move an F150 (or any car / truck for that matter, I'm not knocking the F150), regardless of whether it's a turbo V6 or an NA V8.

GM claims it's new half ton V8 (probably a 5.3) gets better fuel economy than Ford's F150 with the EcoBoost. Granted, it makes less power, but if GM decided to add a pair of turbos to that same V8 the game would be over.

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

Well, as someone said earlier in this thread: I suppose it's all a matter of personal preference and what you are looking for in a car / engine. As much as I love my TDI, I also do think that a lot of the motivation behind the trend (as I see it, at least) towards smaller displacement engines with turbos is a general perception that smaller engines give better mileage. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment but I think that's a big part of why we seem to see more small-ish engines with turbos.

I read a few places that the Ford Ecoboost engine in the F150 isn't THAT much more fuel friendly than the NA V8, and that doesn't really surprise me. You need a certain amount of fuel to move an F150 (or any car / truck for that matter, I'm not knocking the F150), regardless of whether it's a turbo V6 or an NA V8.

I understand that, but the premise behind this thread was "who needs a V8" meaning, you can get something similar with less cylinders.... thus, answering the question, not knocking someone's choice was my intent.

As for the F150 - I just got done fixing one that put a stick through the intercooler.... it's like Toyota and the first SR5s or the Explore that put the air intake right below the bumper (can you say hydrolock?).... but back the f150 - it needs the intercooler to properly work, and eventually, you'll have to move the bumper out to fit the intercooler out of the danger zone. Of course, that brings on another issue - overhangs and hanging up....

so really, I need a V8 for certain vehicles, V12s for others, and honestly, a V16 is on the drawing boards waiting for a worthy project.... heck, the Ferrari V8 is smaller than most 6s and even smaller than a few 4s....

 

[5gn-h3t]

The new 4.3l EcoTec3 V6 (LV3) from GM looks impressive. The old 4.3 was basically a 350 -2 cylinders. This is like an LS1 -2 cylinders but with direct injection, DOD, and all kinds of other goodies. 285HP and 305 ft/lbs torque. It's not a rocket ship, but it is so far ahead of the old 4.3. Wish I could get a '14 Chevy S-10 with this engine.