Makes sense especially as Ford starts to develop the F150 on the Rivian based skateboard concept and the V8 is replaced by Torque Electrics.

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Makes sense especially as Ford starts to develop the F150 on the Rivian based skateboard concept and the V8 is replaced by Torque Electrics.

I think this is more about immediate need than anything 4 to 5 years in the future. 

So Ford starts with the V6 and charges extra for a V8 (normal) and even more for the EcoBoost 4cyl and even more for the EcoBoost V6.  Is it just me, or are Ford truck buyers being milked for illusory fuel efficiency gains here?

As the proudly satisfied owner of a 2016 F-150 SuperCab with the 2.7L EcoBoost V-6, I totally understand the drifting away from V-8 engine optioning by Ford truck buyers.  This smallest of engines in the F-150 line-up is always right there under one's right foot, with a turbo'ed 325hp and 350 lbs/torque offering plenty of acceleration and oomph. Perhaps more impressive, however, is the fuel economy. Every mixed-driving tankful nets me right around 22mpg, and on straight hwy driving I'll do 26mpg. Hard to complain, and hard to covet a V8 when getting this sort of performance from a V6....

I wonder what the take rate for V8 trucks would be if they weren't practically a spacial order option these days.  The last time I was at my local ford dealer finding a new V8 truck was like where's Waldo.  When people go shopping they cant buy what isn't available.  The take rate for V8s may be higher if Ford actually made them more available IMO.  I just did a quick search, of the sea of new trucks at a dealer by me there is 4 with the 5.0.   You cant buy what you cant find.  

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

On 5/15/2019 at 11:22 AM, Potluck said:

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

Mustang might well become the only regular production Ford with a V8. 

The HD line will still be working V8's for a bit with the new 7.3 gas. 

The fact that Ford is cutting V8 production is a reflection of CAFE realities (at least until BEVs become superior). 

I would make one modest proposal: do not quash all the torque.  GM made a huge mistake by providing a V6 with relatively little real torque.  I say that as one who owns a Lucerne with a 3800 V6.  I read elsewhere in these forums that the GMC Terrain also lacks power (i.e. torque).  That (I hope) got fixed with the 2018+ models given that the engines are even smaller now.  I do hope that Ford ensured that their V6 engines are NOT the weak, no torque variety that seem to plague more than a few carmakers.

On 5/15/2019 at 11:22 AM, Potluck said:

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

The turbo just replaces the extra 2 cylinders and the volume air displacement...

The added weight that comes with the required turbo plumbing and the needless complexity and the extra moving parts of the turbo itself just seems contradictory to me when people say: "no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well."  

Oxymoron is what it is... because a turbo V6 requires a lot of complexity just to replicate what a naturally aspirated V8 does quite easily...with its eyes closed and its hands tied behind its back type deal...

I dont get the OVERengineering solution...I really dont. 

Im sick of hearing about how smaller displacement TURBO engines do an equal or better job than their higher displacement, more cylinder counterparts...

Its like the more we repeat this bullshyte the more we will believe it?

 Smallish displacement turbo V6s do NOT do an equal or better job that equal horsepowered and torqued naturally aspirated V8s do.

Small displacement turbo 4 cylinders do NOT do an equal or better job that equal horsepowered and torqued naturally aspirated V6s do.

On paper, it seems that the smaller displacement turbo engines do an equal or better job...but in reality they dont.  

All it is, its just a compromise between the two.  Whatever the manufacturer wants to favour one over the other. 

To bypass some BS CAFE emissions standard.

A forced induction application on an engine should be considered as a COMPLIMENTARY power adder and helper...NOT as a REPLACEMENT...

Like I said above...repeat a lie long enough, we will eventually believe in that lie...

On May 3, 2019 at 1:19 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I think this is more about immediate need than anything 45 years in the future. 

Is Ford really looking that far ahead?

There is nothing wrong with the turbos (though I question just hoe much abuse that they can really take) But, I also realize most folks don’t know how to care for a turbo either, (try to take care of the one in my Nox)

That said, there should be more V8s for those who still want simple, traditional power in their truck. I already know what Ford is doing....the 5.0 will be completely gone within a year or two.

Darn shame that they can’t give the the best of both worlds.....choice is a good thing!

8 hours ago, daves87rs said:

.the 5.0 will be completely gone within a year or two.

I've heard rumors of a new 4.8 replacing it.. No clue if there is any accuracy behind it though. 

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

I actually think that's more impressive by the Escalade than disappointing in the 3.5. 

I've watched quite a few videos on trucks towing(saying that sounds quite absurd of me LOL) and they don't seem to care about the mpg hit because there is so much power there available and it doesn't need to sit at 6000rpm to do so. 

Usually when TFL(like them or hate them, they try to be as consistent and accurate as they can) tows, all the trucks are within 1mpg of each other towing. 

59 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

So I bet the Turbo Boost had that engine at 6000 or more RPM while the Escalade was cruising along at 1800 to 2000 rpm getting that 12 mpg. I have towed many a boat with my Escalade and always get between 12 to 14 mpg depending on if I go local or drive over the pass.

Would not want a Turbo for hauling for nothing compared to my V8.

17 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So I bet the Turbo Boost had that engine at 6000 or more RPM while the Escalade was cruising along at 1800 to 2000 rpm getting that 12 mpg. I have towed many a boat with my Escalade and always get between 12 to 14 mpg depending on if I go local or drive over the pass.

Would not want a Turbo for hauling for nothing compared to my V8.

I just re-read the discussion thread... it was spinning at 2,500 rpm at 70mph in order to keep the spools fed. 

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I just re-read the discussion thread... it was spinning at 2,500 rpm at 70mph in order to keep the spools fed. 

So only a 500 to 700 rpm difference, yet that 7.3 mpg to 12 mpg is big time failure IMHO. They might as well offer a Hybrid option to enhance the pulling and keep the MPG higher. Thank you for following up on this.

Add a hill or elevation to the mix and the turbo engine will put some distance between the two. 

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Add a hill or elevation to the mix and the turbo engine will put some distance between the two. 

Yeah, the Turbo does have more pull, and that article will mention it I'm sure.  It's just how much gas it sucks in the process. 

19 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So only a 500 to 700 rpm difference, yet that 7.3 mpg to 12 mpg is big time failure IMHO. They might as well offer a Hybrid option to enhance the pulling and keep the MPG higher. Thank you for following up on this.

That's what boost does.  That's how they're getting that amount of power out of a 3.5 liter. 

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Add a hill or elevation to the mix and the turbo engine will put some distance between the two. 

I have not seen that driving around here with Turbo small engines versus big block V8's. My Escalade 6.0 V8 and Durango 5.9L V8 do very well, I usually pulling a trailer just effortlessly move over the mountains around here compared to the smaller engine trucks / SUVs.

24 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I have not seen that driving around here with Turbo small engines versus big block V8's. My Escalade 6.0 V8 and Durango 5.9L V8 do very well, I usually pulling a trailer just effortlessly move over the mountains around here compared to the smaller engine trucks / SUVs.

It's just science. Turbo engines are superior at higher elevation. They do not lose the roughly 30% power reduction when a mile in the sky like a N/A engine will. 

15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's just science. Turbo engines are superior at higher elevation. They do not lose the roughly 30% power reduction when a mile in the sky like a N/A engine will. 

Good point, for places like Colorado and those passes that are hitting above 5000 feet elevation, but I think the main passes here in Washington at 3000 feet I wonder if it really makes any difference?

17 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's just science. Turbo engines are superior at higher elevation. They do not lose the roughly 30% power reduction when a mile in the sky like a N/A engine will. 

That's only under full throttle where the loss is noticed.  At partial throttle, an NA engine is still operating at a vacuum (less than ambient air pressure).