Fords new 2.7 vs Chevy 5.3 vs Dodge 3.0 Diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whenever I see those things I think of neutering it.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Aluminum and an I4 diesel in a full size body would be awesome, but many cant wrap their minds around practical needs versus a vehicle that they can hang novelty nuts off of
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
And just when it seemed impossible for the world's ugliest pickup truck to get any uglier... Ford proves me wrong.
I thought I was the only one who felt that way...

I bet those headlight housings are $500 to replace if one gets damaged.


Not the only one.

Aluminum and an I4 diesel in a full size body would be awesome, but many cant wrap their minds around practical needs versus a vehicle that they can hang novelty nuts off of
wink.gif




If people could get that mentality, then 90% of the truck buyers out there would be driving this:
ford-ranger-01.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Nice! Thanks for the topic.

We can now predict the responses.


See what I mean. Using turbocharged V6's and aluminum body's are not new. Just different instead of applauding an manufacturer for the R&D of implementing different ideas to obtain greater fuel efficiency in which the public believes it desires(Arguments can be made it does not). You get comments like the towing and acceleration can not be accurate. The truck's paint will peel and the body will disintegrate. I prefer not to use "Haters got to hate", but in this instance this phrase is accurate.


Correct, Ford uses aluminum body parts currently. And they disintegrate, peel, chip away when exposed to salt.


My 1996 Mercury GM had an alum hood and trunk lid. When sold in 2009 the paint was fine. I really haven't noticed any Ford CVs or Mercs that have those parts disintegrating.
21.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Whenever I see those things I think of neutering it.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Aluminum and an I4 diesel in a full size body would be awesome, but many cant wrap their minds around practical needs versus a vehicle that they can hang novelty nuts off of
wink.gif



I always wonder if a friend put those on there, and the owner just hasn't noticed.
 
Just read recently where Cummins has been testing a 2.8L inline 4 fueled on E85. 250 HP and 450 lb torque. Guess they think that GM must be getting close to final R&D on the 3.2L EBDI E85 engine they have been playing with. I loved the 2.8L diesel in my 2006 Jeep Liberty. I am really anxious to see what all of these folks are going to be doing with engines in the next few years and am chomping at the bit for some of them to make it out for us to get our hands on.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet

Downsized, turbocharged, high output engines have been around for over 30 years. I drove 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, with 2.3L engine. It was a heavy car, that's for sure. And the little turbo engine, with increased boost (by me) held up perfectly over the long haul. Albeit on a diet of Mobil 1, 15W-50. The demise of that car was not the engine wearing out a 180,000 miles, but an underhood fire, related to old, plastic, fuel line connectors.

The technology is not in question, nor is longevity. It's been proven. New model "mistakes" are another story.


The big difference is the duty cycle. Turbo sports cars and even turbo luxury sedans are sprinters- the boost is less than a few PSI 90% of the time, even if it peaks over 20 PSI. Most of the time, the engine is operating at a tiny fraction of its peak power- and thats true for normally aspirated engines as well.

Trucks are different- when towing that thing's going to run boosted for hours on end. No big deal for a diesel to do that, VERY big deal for a spark-ignition engine to do the same. Structurally, I'm sure its up to it- all it takes is a stout block, fasteners, rods, piston, and crank. Its the exhaust-gas temp on a spark-ignitied engine under sustained boost that would have me worried. Cylinder crown and exhaust valve temperatures can get out of hand pretty easily, but modern electronics can probably keep that in check OK.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08

How is an engine with a larger displacement running a higher BTU fuel cooler running?


comparing gas and diesel engines AT FULL LOAD:
The diesel cycle does not produce as high PEAK combustion temps as a gasoline engine, nor are the EGTs typically quite as high. The diesel cycle is closer to a constant-pressure expansion cycle (in fact that's the definition of the idealized diesel cycle) because the fuel is introduced throughout the combustion phase as the volume expands, and burns like a flame on a torch inside the cylinder. Fuelling stops and then pressure and temperature continue to drop for the last part of the work extraction phase, and then the exhaust valve opens.

The gasoline (spark ignition) cycle is closer to an adiabatic expansion cycle. The heat is introduced in a rapid event at the start of the expansion phase where the gas is raised to an extremely high temperature, and then the resulting hot gas expands with no further heat addition, but remains quite hot when the exhaust valve opens. Real-world spark ignition is sorta halfway between that ideal and the constant-pressure diesel cycle, because the flame front has a finite speed through the air/fuel mixture, but its still a higher peak temp than a diesel.

You can see it (indirectly) if you look at the P-V diagrams for the diesel and otto cycles. In the otto cycle, the pressure rises enormously during the heat input (combustion) event, whereas in the diesel the pressure is constant as the combustion occurs.

The diesel at full load produces less sudden mechanical stress on the piston and rod than a spark-ignitied engine, and exposes the combustion chamber to a lower peak temperature.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Cujet

Downsized, turbocharged, high output engines have been around for over 30 years. I drove 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, with 2.3L engine. It was a heavy car, that's for sure. And the little turbo engine, with increased boost (by me) held up perfectly over the long haul. Albeit on a diet of Mobil 1, 15W-50. The demise of that car was not the engine wearing out a 180,000 miles, but an underhood fire, related to old, plastic, fuel line connectors.

The technology is not in question, nor is longevity. It's been proven. New model "mistakes" are another story.


The big difference is the duty cycle. Turbo sports cars and even turbo luxury sedans are sprinters- the boost is less than a few PSI 90% of the time, even if it peaks over 20 PSI. Most of the time, the engine is operating at a tiny fraction of its peak power- and thats true for normally aspirated engines as well.

Trucks are different- when towing that thing's going to run boosted for hours on end. No big deal for a diesel to do that, VERY big deal for a spark-ignition engine to do the same. Structurally, I'm sure its up to it- all it takes is a stout block, fasteners, rods, piston, and crank. Its the exhaust-gas temp on a spark-ignitied engine under sustained boost that would have me worried. Cylinder crown and exhaust valve temperatures can get out of hand pretty easily, but modern electronics can probably keep that in check OK.


The thermal loads are not a problem. Nor are turbine inlet temperatures. I contend that a smaller engine, running, intercooled, under modest boost, has less stress, than a normally aspirated engine, screaming at higher RPM, under large throttle openings, while struggling to pull that trailer. Robust in much the same manner as turbo diesels. By proper design, application and engineering.
 
440Magnum: Thanks for the explanation on gas vs diesel.

I don't think I'd worry much about reliability. The Ecoboost has been in the F150 since 2011 and it's been doing "truck work" with few failures. IIRC Ford has 500k Ecoboosts in F150's out there now. Many have crossed the 100k mark and are fine. I would hope that Ford did it's homework with this engine especially since it's on the most popular vehicle in the USA.
 
Meh its a good idea but not my thing. That's asking a lot out of a motor.

I'll be a believer when my framers or concrete guys can get one to 300k without opening it up. Lets see how it does on 10k-20k mile Jiffy Lube oil changes, and 100k-150k spark plug and air filter changes. Or if the CE light comes on at 70k and they wait to 140k to pull the code than fix it at 170k...

I know a NA motor especially the 5.3, 4.3, and 6.0 will run forever in those circumstances. This is why GM stuck with big low stressed NA motors. The old 7.3 diesel was like that.

Also the fuel burn is probably the same for all of those trucks, since it takes fuel to make HP.

As said above, thanks early adopters!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
And just when it seemed impossible for the world's ugliest pickup truck to get any uglier... Ford proves me wrong.
I thought I was the only one who felt that way...

I bet those headlight housings are $500 to replace if one gets damaged.


Not the only one.

Aluminum and an I4 diesel in a full size body would be awesome, but many cant wrap their minds around practical needs versus a vehicle that they can hang novelty nuts off of
wink.gif




If people could get that mentality, then 90% of the truck buyers out there would be driving this:
ford-ranger-01.jpg



Jalopnkik covers this... the truck needs to be physically big for its CAFE "footprint". Efficient, yes, but hulkin' huge too.

http://jalopnik.com/5948172/how-the-gove...ag=i-feel-gassy
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet

I'm not going to claim they get 52 MPG, or are faster than a big block Chevy powered pickup.


The 5.3L isn't what I'd call a "big block."

The biggest question for me is the longevity of a twin turbo, small displacement engine putting out that much HP/TQ in a large vehicle intended to tow/haul/etc. I'm not worried about drag racing with a trailer...I'm worried about $10K to replace an engine in a 10 year old truck.

Ford trucks used to be my hands down favorite, and when talking older trucks they still are. I could still see myself buying a new gas Super Duty if I really needed one, but that's about it. Not so sure about this new F-150...seems like a lot of complexity and expense in a pickup, which isn't really what I'm looking for in a pickup.

Good thing my "big block" Ranger shows no signs of quitting, and putting an engine in it would probably cost less than replacing both headlamps and taillamps in a new F-150.
 
Just curious - at what point do those that don't think it will hold up say "yep, it does"? The 3.5 EB is over 3 years old now in the F150 with few reported issues. When does it become a "proven" power plant?

200-300k is not realistic cause most will not make it that long. Heck, when I was looking at older trucks, many in the 150-200k+ range featured "new engines".

And sure, the old engines may last forever but there is just as much new tech (DI anyone) in GM's new engines that can go wrong. Chrysler has an "all new Diesel" in theirs with "unproven reliability" too.
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Just curious - at what point do those that don't think it will hold up say "yep, it does"? The 3.5 EB is over 3 years old now in the F150 with few reported issues. When does it become a "proven" power plant?

...


Good question I'm interested in hearing the answer to as well, in somewhat the same vein...

Why do some seem to discount completely Fords testing? Yes the videos are marketing, but guaranteed if they were telling falsehoods GM and Ram lawyers would be on them...

They beat on the 3.5 EcoBoost and it stood up to it.

The Fast Lane Truck has several similar towing test and the EB always compares favorably.

Ike Gauntlet
 
I think one point most here can agree on is the DIY owner is hampered some when maintaining a boosted engine, either in learning curve, or parts cost, or just added complexity of working around more plumbing under the hood.

a 4cyl turbo with some hood space remaining is much less intimidating than a fullsize that's so tall you can't even look down in to, only to find there's no room once you can... I was drooling over a friends F250 diesel until he opened the hood. I'd need stools to stand on and then couldn't get to anything, and none of the parts would be small and easy to wiggle out.

I haven't been under the hood of newer fords. I recall the 80s and 90's fords were a nightmare with hoses and plumbing and brackets and braces everywhere. My ex did have an 08 escape that was as sorted out as a honda, very easy to work with (I4). I would certainly hope that the new trucks were nicely assembled--- it would lessen my interest if it were not.

I hope to be able to consider an EB Ford at some point-- I will certainly look at them -- but it won't be until my kids are well into, if not out of, college, and used EB trucks are easy to find...
 
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

Good thing my "big block" Ranger shows no signs of quitting, and putting an engine in it would probably cost less than replacing both headlamps and taillamps in a new F-150.


haha, that's a good one!
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder

Why do some seem to discount completely Fords testing?


I don't think anyone is "completely discounting" Ford's testing. If they hit it out of the park here, good for them.

But a little healthy caution is not unreasonable. They're dropping very small displacement engines into full-size trucks -- not a subcompact pocket rocket -- and blowing the heck out of them, to do what a much larger V-8 had to. That's not something that's been done before.

All new engines should pull strong. But three or four years in the field is not enough time or enough miles in my opinion to judge long-term durability in that application.

You may be too young to remember, but GM's V-8 diesels in the '70 were "tested", too. So label me cautious when I don't blindly accept everything a manufacturer claims.

Let me put it to you another way. If you are staring at two used 2014 commercial trucks seven years from now, both with 200,000 hard miles on them, one has a Chevy 5.3, the other has an Ecoboost 2.7, and all else being equal (including what was invested on maintenance), which one are you going to have less concern about buying?

The historical rap on turbocharged gasoline engines is that they are more maintenance and repair prone and are ultimately not as durable as their NA counterparts. Running one in heavy-duty use exasperates those old issues. Maybe Ford figured out all the problems to overcome these decades-old realities. They would be the first to do so.

Not too parrot others, but the early buyers are doing us all a favor. There is something to be said for the bleeding edge.
 
When I look at these gas-turbo'd engines the turbo is gonna be a wear item vs the rest of the hard parts in the engine. I doubt that most high-mileage gas or diesel engines are still on their original turbo.
 
Originally Posted By: wirelessF
When I look at these gas-turbo'd engines the turbo is gonna be a wear item vs the rest of the hard parts in the engine. I doubt that most high-mileage gas or diesel engines are still on their original turbo.


Turbos usually are considered an item with a useful lifespan shorter than the rest of the engine. 200-250k miles is a typical lifespan from the anecdotes I've read. Even at 30k miles a year, that's still just under 7 years replacement interval. Not too shabby IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
I'd be far more concerned with the body's electrical isolation from the frame (or any other steel components) breaking down and causing galvanic corrosion in the aluminum parts.

+1
Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned about any galvanic reactions between the steel frame and aluminum body because the body mounts are rubber. What I would be VERY concerned about is how they are going about fastening together all of the aluminum body parts and fastening other parts onto the aluminum body structure. Are they using steel fasteners? Well, they are going to end-up with BIG problems! Are they using plastic fasteners? How strong are they going to be and how long will THEY last? You know what happens to plastic parts after a few years exposure to the environment. There is another BIG problem with using an all aluminum body structure and body parts in a truck (besides corrosion), aluminum is WEAK, it dents VERY easily and it tears easily. I predict that these trucks will look older than 10 years old inside of a couple of years and could actually begin literally falling apart when used in a work environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top