Jump to content
Drew Dowdell

Ford News: Ford Cuts V8 Production

Recommended Posts

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). 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

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

Too use Drew's response...

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's what boost does. 

To use my response for forced induction...

14 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

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

Yeah...WW2 fighter aircraft used superchargers and nitrous to boost performance for high altitude flying, maximum take-off speed, to climb higher, faster at a more aggressive angle.  But nowhere did engineers then decide to use those applications to reduce engine size...

Technological advancements you say that allows for downsizing of engines...

SURE!!!

But that type of argument ALSO applies to V8s...

Whatever we do to 4 and 6 cylinder engines to reduce engine size and to maintain all aspects of efficiency and to comply with CAFE standards ALSO apply to V8 engines...non?

We have 1.5 liter 4 cylinder engines in heavy family hauling vehicles today...

Why not apply some of that magic technological wizardry to those 6 cylinder engines, downsize their displacement and voila!

You know...Ford and Mazda had a 2.5 liter V6 in the 1990s that produced 160 or so horsepower and about that much in torque...

You mean to tell me that advanced technology that we use today for 1.5 liter 4 bangers could not be used for  a 6 cylinder today? Minus the turbo BS in trying to replace displacement.

Displacement is just how much volume of air could pass through an engine. All we are doing with forced induction is just replacing volumetric air displacement with FORCED air into the engine...

In fact, MOPAR and Chevy actually CALCULATE their supercharger displacement on their 800 horsepower engines...

2.7 liter on the Demon...

2.380 liter on the Hellcat...

2.65 liters on the LT5 Corvette engine. 

V8s in the low 4 liter range could be made with 350 plus NATURALLY ASPIRATED horsepower nowadays, non?

We almost had THAT in the 1990s...

3.8 liter V8s making around 300 Naturally aspirated horses could NOT be beneficial? 

We could add turbos to those. non?  Just like we do with V6s with those displacement numbers today? 

My wife's little turbo on her Fusion is maybe what?  500cc.    That would be .5 liters...   That would make my wife's 1.6 liter into a 2.1 liter.

If you ask me...Id rather have Ford's 1990s 2.5 liter V6 that was in the Probe and the Mazda MX5 with todays new tech in my wife's Fusion minus the turbo shyte...

OK....Id turbo it up for BETTER 0-60 and 1/4 mile times...maybe...its a family sedan, not a sports car after all.  

Nobody says that turbos dont have benefits, they do...

But they arent replacement for displacement...  they just are power adders...to improve performance...and not necessarily efficiency either...

 

Like I said, I dont understand the why we needed to completely kill off the naturally aspirated engine along with real displacement. Alls we did was just replace it with another an external, more complicated displacement thingy...just to make our engines produce the SAME amount....for our daily driven, family haulin' vehicles...

Edited by oldshurst442
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really have loved to know what an old GM 3800 Super Charged would have done in a modern vehicle with one of these 9 or 10 speed automatics.  I bet it would have driven great with all of that low end torque. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I would really have loved to know what an old GM 3800 Super Charged would have done in a modern vehicle with one of these 9 or 10 speed automatics.  I bet it would have driven great with all of that low end torque. 

I've said that before as well. I don't think the 90's/early 00's engines were bad but they were all matched to the sloppy 4spd autos. I think even a modern 6spd auto would wake those vehicles up. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still no substitute for displacement.  That goes double for torque.  Ditching cylinders for turbocharged 4s is not terribly wise in my view.  What GM and Ford need are torque-biased V6 engines period.  No need to emulate Honda and their relatively weak sixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

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). 

It isn't uncommon to use full throttle climbing mountain passes to simply maintain 60mph. Using 75% throttle or more going uphill is more the norm rather than the anomaly

Flat surfaces, a completely different story. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is the only reason small displacement turbo engines have become so popular is because manufacturers are trying to meet EPA regulations. Now of course they can market it a 3.5 l turbo engine as more powerful than a V8.  But that's only marketing.  They can also market a 3.5 as more fuel efficient than a V8.  But when the engines are under a load, towing for example, many people in the know realize that eeficiency marketing is a ploy for small turbo engines.  Are there benefits to forced induction. Yes. Are they much more complicated and more prone to failure in somem cases, yes.  Are they more expensive to develop and build yes.  

 

If it weren't for trying to meet regulations than any maker could develop a 20 liter turbo V8.  All the benefits of large displacement, and all the benefits of turbo.  Automakers are playing a balancing act between economy and power.  Throw in emissions regulations on top of that.  

 

Back to the title of this thread. Ford cuts V8 production.  They're doing it to meet regulations, not because that's what the market is clamoring for.  They boast about how many EcoBoost engines are sold in trucks vs. V8 engines.  But like I said before you can't buy what isn't offered.  And there are enough people that don't realize you can have Eco or boost but not both.  So ford can slap a sticker on the window of an EcoBoost pickup with great MPG ratings.  And the first time someone toes a good load with that EcoBoost they realize a V8 is more efficient.  

 

You have to understand what you're going to be using the vehicle for, and how they different technologies work.

 

Many people do realize how these technologies work, many people do not.  So I'll say again, it's meeting regulations and marketing.

 

Okay I'll stop ranting.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scout Great post and your right. @dwightlooi posted a great read about NA versus induction and the pros and cons and I think many of us here know that you can do much with a small forced inducted motor, does not mean it will be as efficient and power full as a proper V8.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You most certainly can have eco and boost just not at the same exact second. But spread 5 seconds apart I can be making gobs more torque at 2500rpm than a N/A counterpart or set your cruise control and basically run a n/a small engine. Look both characteristics only seconds apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

You most certainly can have eco and boost just not at the same exact second. But spread 5 seconds apart I can be making gobs more torque at 2500rpm than a N/A counterpart or set your cruise control and basically run a n/a small engine. Look both characteristics only seconds apart. 

I suppose I did not specify when I said Eco and boost but not both.  But I was also talking about under heavy load and didn't think I needed to.  I was assuming most people reading these forms kind of already knew and I was rehashing something.  I guess I should not assume.  

 

I also mentioned different technologies and how they work.  And knowing your needs versus those technologies.  which is why you do not see class 8 tractor trailers going down the roads moving 80,000 pounds using Small engines buzzing their little hearts out. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when a vast majority of people just buy what's on the lot instead of ordering exactly what they want... and with FoMoCo likely "guiding" dealers to order more EB trucks, of course it's going to happen (waning V8 "demand").

I would much sooner choose an NA engine over a turbocharged one, and in the Ford, the 3.3L is a dog... the only other alternative is... the good ol' 5.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe ocnblue and Drew are confirming my first post. 

 

 

You can't buy what you can't find.

 

Then there is my second Post in this thread which  (sort of ) explains that marketing has bamboozled so many people.  

 

I know I did not specify exactly how marketing has bamboozled so many.  But I'm going to assume that in these forms people understand.  

 

But then again there seem to be a lot of people who buy trucks based on "real people" advertising. 

 

I suppose the sad thing is that there are so many people going to buy a truck and getting duped by a *"'!/" Salesman.

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 10:34 AM, Scout said:

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.  

Guess your area is more conservative on what they think will sell. 50 mile circle around my house here we have 1,602 V6 F150's and 627 V8 F150's.

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Guess your area is more conservative on what they think will sell. 50 mile circle around my house here we have 1,602 V6 F150's and 627 V8 F150's.

image.png

My quick math off the top of my head says that's about one out of three. 

 

Now without actually reading the link you posted I'm wondering how desirable the one of three trucks with a V8 are to the average yuppie. 

 

Now take that average yuppie / soccer mom / Joe blow that wanys a good family truckster and put him in front of a salesman.  Then consider Ford isn't offering a V8 in much that's not "special order" or high-end trim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Potluck said:

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

mmmmmm....yeah....

And most people dont really need to tow that much shyte either...

The point you wanna make other than trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think the 2.7 is getting considered by anyone towing substantial lodes on a regular basis. 

 

I'm also confused about how the 2.7 can out tow the 5.3.  

44 minutes ago, Potluck said:

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

You should elaborate because there is definitely something not adding up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is that a turbo v6 is better than most naturally fed V8s. F150 is proving that regularly.

I know no one is seeking out a 2 7 to tow with, but they still could and do it better than a gm 5.3, and still get better gas mileage when they aren't towing.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the 5.3 gets pretty good gas mileage because it can act as a 4-cylinder on the highway using AFM. I've gotten 22mpg out of a heavy Suburban with that setup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Potluck said:

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

Are you going to explain this one?  I'm still curious.  You threw the bait out there and I swam by it.  I haven't decided if I'm actually going to take the bait because I have a funny feeling it was troll bait.  That or you honestly believe in your heart that the 2.7 can out tow the 5.3.  And in that case it's an entirely different discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Math?

The 2.7 is listed as having 7600lbs towing capacity on the Ford website.  The 5.3 is listed as 6700lbs.  7600 > 6700.

That's strange.  My findings include the 

Chevy 4.3 rated at 7400    7400>6700 you put in for the 5.3

Chevy 5.3 rated at 11,100  so the 5.3 11,100>Ford7600

 

Ford 2.7 max tow 8100.  Still 5.3 at 11,100> than 2.7 at 8100.

And that brings me back to,

Quote

 

 But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.


 

Now that there are so many numbers to compare maybe someone can explain it to me.  Am I not seeing something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

6700 is what comes up for the 5.3.   Listed as 2019 Silverado RST Double Cab 4WD.   Maybe other numbers for different configurations.  

Different configurations do have a big effect on tow ratings.  I just wanted Potluck to explain how "the 2.7 can out tow the 5.3".  Because of our conversation I even provided the maximum 2.7 tow rating for him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

6700 is what comes up for the 5.3.   Listed as 2019 Silverado RST Double Cab 4WD.

That's incorrect. Here's the 2019 Silverado 1500 towing guide, see page 11.
https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/english/index/shopping-tools/download-catalog/02-pdf/2019-chevrolet-trailering-guide.pdf

6700 lbs is the 2.7L turbo 4 rating on the double cab 4x4- the lowest possible rating of any SIlverado. Even the 4.3L V6 is rated higher.

The 5.3L ranges between 9400 and 11,600 lbs.

It's simple logic.

Edited by balthazar
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 11:14 AM, Potluck said:

Most people aren't living at 5,000 feet. But a Ford 2.7 can still out tow a GM 5.3 even at Sea leavel.

 

9 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

 

That's incorrect. Here's the 2019 Silverado 1500 towing guide, see page 11.
https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/english/index/shopping-tools/download-catalog/02-pdf/2019-chevrolet-trailering-guide.pdf

6700 lbs is the 2.7L turbo 4 rating on the double cab 4x4- the lowest possible rating of any SIlverado. Even the 4.3L V6 is rated higher.

The 5.3L ranges between 9400 and 11,600 lbs.

I already knew the answer before I posted anything.  I just wondered if Potluck wanted to keep digging that hole.  🍻

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.


  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 93 Guests (See full list)



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      20190505_110414-mp4.mp4
      Mother’s Day weekend was a busy one. The kids had planned out the whole Sunday for the wife and I had planned the day before to build an area with a raised garden bed for the wife. The raised bed material was bought, the area mapped out and the plan to get up early and rent a truck to pick up cedar chips and black gold compost soil was scheduled.
      Saturday morning went as I expected, up early, quick breakfast and off to be the first in line at the U-Haul rental place. Figured rather than $75 per delivery, two types of material meant $150, why not spend $19.95 for a single day rental of the truck, pick up the material myself and pocket $130 or so.
      U-Haul actually has it to mileage and other fees that made the single days truck rental $55 and change, so not as big as I expected but still roughly a $95 savings.

      Surprise was that the truck I got was a new 2019 F150 with V8 that only had 300 miles on the odometer. Having not been in a new Ford pickup in the last couple years, I was excited to see how it drove, what the fit n finish was like and over all materials.
      U-Haul trucks are your base trucks with rubberized floors, dash is all hard plastics yet they still had backup camera and the V8 engine. As such the truck had no problem even loaded down with dirt or the cedar chips moving. Over all ride was decent and I actually really loved the seats as they were very supportive to my large size and yet comfy driving from freeway to local roads, never tiring to the body. Radio was a basic am/fm with a base pair of stereo speakers. Decent and functional.

      Dash being a base truck was hard plastic, as we have seen in many videos about even top of the line Luxury auto’s, the dash did make a big amount of squeak noise. Screen size of the radio system was also very small. Yet as many folks have used the term, the truck was functional.

      Fit n Finish was very tight, did not find any large panel gapes or errors in the paint job or exterior body.  I did find the very simple tie down points with already rusting bolts to be a bit surprising but it still worked and the truck had a bed so I did not have to worry about messing the truck bed up. Interesting observation is that when the truck is locked, so is the tailgate, so with a load, I had to always keep the truck unlocked so the tailgate would open and let me unload my chips and soil.
      The V8 engine was very smooth and quiet and the only drawback was the weird auto stop / start. If you’re in normal traffic it works just as GMs systems have worked with turning off and on the engine. Yet sit in one place too long and then release the brake pedal and you get a message on the center dash screen saying you have been stationary too long and must put the transmission in park and then back to drive before engine will start back up. Even with following their directions, it seemed the engine did not want to start back up forcing me to put it into park and then manually starting the truck again.


      Other than that single issue, the truck worked and the backup camera was nice to have to get as close as possible to the wife’s new raised veggie garden.

      Hit me up with any questions you have about the truck or my project. Yes I did take out the grass the weekend before so my cedar chips are 3-4 inches deep.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford said that it would be cutting a shift from its Essex Engine Plant in Ontario starting in October.  Ford says the move will "better align with consumer demand".  The likely cause? Ford F-150 buyers are shifting more of their purchases away from the 5.0 liter V8.
      F-150 buyers have a choice of 5 engines when selecting a truck, the 2.7-liter Ecoboost, the 3.3-liter V6, the 3.5-liter Ecoboost, and now a 3.0-liter PowerStroke Diesel, all in addition to the 5.0-liter V8, and the customer mix appears to be skewing towards the smaller displacement engines.
      The cut in shifts will not result in job cuts as those workers will be transitioned to another engine plant to build the 7.3-liter engine due to be installed in the 2020 Ford Super Duties. That transition will happen in November of this year. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford reported first quarter operating earnings of $801m, up $160m over the same quarter last year.  The company says that it expects this quarter to be the strongest quarter of the year due to seasonal factors and major product launches later this year.  However, the company says it still expects to finish 2019 better than 2018.
      Outside of North America, Ford is still losing money, but those losses are shrinking.  Ford recently announced a restructuring plan for Europe that included over 6,000 layoffs. 
      Also in the earnings report, Ford revealed that the company is subject to a criminal investigation by the Justice Department due to its emissions certifications. We recently reported that Ford had launched its own internal investigation into its emissions certification process. 
      Ford's stock rose more than 6% in premarket trading. 

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...