Are v6 engines being over stressed

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: thescreensavers
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Both Ford GT's finished the entire Sebring 12 hour last weekend. They run twin turbo 3.5 Ecoboosts. 647 hp on the road versions.


You have a source for that last bit?


https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/

"This Ford GT is the ultimate expression of form following function. Its teardrop-shape body is the result of extensive work in the wind tunnel. Its carbon-fiber body and its 647 horsepower 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 engine are the ultimate expressions of technological innovation. "

I always love these arguments about small engines being "stressed". They are designed for it. Same as the I6 big rigs are designed for it. Same as how the I6 Cummins in the Ram makes close to (or over) 900 lb-ft. Or any of the other 2500/3500/250/350 Diesel V8s are making close too 1000 lb-ft. They all are designed for it.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Just to add some perspective, if you go back in time to around the 50’s, a lot of farm trucks that hauled hay or whatever had a small 4 banger up front. ...
Where was that? Not in the US, where most small farm trucks of the '50s had flathead or pushrod I6s or V8s. They worked just fine for "hauling hay or whatever" at sensible speeds, but owners didn't expect them to maintain 80 mph uphill while loaded, as people seem to expect today.

 

[Mantooth]

Originally Posted By: itguy08


I always love these arguments about small engines being "stressed". They are designed for it. Same as the I6 big rigs are designed for it. Same as how the I6 Cummins in the Ram makes close to (or over) 900 lb-ft. Or any of the other 2500/3500/250/350 Diesel V8s are making close too 1000 lb-ft. They all are designed for it.


Did you just make a positive comment about a Chrysler/Ram product?

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Mantooth

Did you just make a positive comment about a Chrysler/Ram product?

Just stating that the Cummins engine designers designed their engine for the power levels it makes. Just like everyone else does.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Just to add some perspective, if you go back in time to around the 50’s, a lot of farm trucks that hauled hay or whatever had a small 4 banger up front. ...
Where was that? Not in the US, where most small farm trucks of the '50s had flathead or pushrod I6s or V8s. They worked just fine for "hauling hay or whatever" at sensible speeds, but owners didn't expect them to maintain 80 mph uphill while loaded, as people seem to expect today.


I'd say way before the 50's, but it's a good point nonetheless.

Maybe they weren't 4 cylinder, but weak and heavy nontheless as you can bet they weren't putting out any decent amounts of power. The original big trucks were basically wagons with engines on the front. Chains were used in the wheels spokes as tread.

 

[KrisZ]

I would not say over-stressed, as in less reliable, however the more HP you extract out of a each cubic inch of displacement in an engine, the less tolerant it becomes to spotty maintenance or delay in addressing problems. Like for example, driving with low oil level, misfire etc.
I believe these have more potential to become a nightmare for the second or third owner if not taken care of properly.

 

[LeakySeals]

Any 5.4 owner will tell you they'd rather have the v6. That navigator is amazing.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: Mantooth
Did you just make a positive comment about a Chrysler/Ram product?




No, he didn't. He made a positive comment about Cummins. Completely different things.

 

[HemiHawk]

Sometimes I think the 4.0 V6 in my Frontier is over stressed given the vehicles weight. Then I remember its rated to tow an additional 6500lbs. Thats with 265hp and 285tq. I'd say these new turbo engines with built internals and twin turbos should have no issues coping with high stress situations.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Sometimes I think the 4.0 V6 in my Frontier is over stressed given the vehicles weight. Then I remember its rated to tow an additional 6500lbs. Thats with 265hp and 285tq. I'd say these new turbo engines with built internals and twin turbos should have no issues coping with high stress situations.

Nothing like dragging around a trailer for a while to make your car feel fast by itself again. You would probably be surprised how well your truck could move 5000lbs extra just by using 3/4 throttle and revving up the engine into the top half of the tach.
2000lbs behind my mtx 127hp Tracker was no big deal at all to get moving with 3/4 throttle and shifting at 5k.

 

[artificialist]

The Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Evo were making 280HP out of a 4-cylinder engine since before they were even sold in the USA. I suppose if you researched how many of those cars were shipped to Australia and New Zeland, and how many are still alive, you could determine if building engines this dense is a problem or not.