GM plans to transform small-block V8

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by boris

Why don't ford use the tech from inside out heads on the new power stroke diesel engines, that way a single sequential could nestle in the valley of the v. Plus surely one turbo is cheaper than two?

You have far more under bonnet room in F trucks to allow reverse cylinder heads,
they could be made to work on cars as per some European examples but I think cost and
commonality with naturaly aspirated versions still dominates cost factors...

[castellan]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Surely the Gen III was new block and heads at the same time?

Are you sure? Not aware of any engines pre-1900 that didn't use pushrods.

The gen III also has a iron block version as well for trucks.

The design of a motor being OHV or OHC or DOHC has to do with it's function. just like springs being leaf springs they have there positives & negatives.

Do you think a ford v8 5.4L is better then a gen 4. why!

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by castellan

Do you think a ford v8 5.4L is better then a gen 4. why!

For low-end torque, yes. For high revving power, no.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I'm talking about
the future when vehicles like the F150 need to meet even tighter CAFE regulations.

Ultimately engines of higher capacity will be replaced by smaller forced induction engines.
is that the option for a "future" 4.2 DI Supercharged engine is there whether they use it or not.

I think you will find the Holden problem, if Ford tried a 4.2L version. I think the EcoBoost is the real problem solver, a 3.5L V6 EcoBoost is going to ******** all over a 4.2L V8 for power, torque and fuel economy. a 4.2 will have the same fuel econ as the 5.0, with less performance. Add a supercharger to the 4.2, and it may be close on performance with the 3.5L EcoBoost, but with worse fuel economy. It seems that Ford is smarter than GM, and won't have this problem.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I think you will find the Holden problem, if Ford tried a 4.2L version. I think the EcoBoost is the real problem solver, a 3.5L V6 EcoBoost is going to ******** all over a 4.2L V8 for power, torque and fuel economy. a 4.2 will have the same fuel econ as the 5.0, with less performance. Add a supercharger to the 4.2, and it may be close on performance with the 3.5L EcoBoost, but with worse fuel economy. It seems that Ford is smarter than GM, and won't have this problem.

I was reading a recent article on the SHO 3.5TT and although the writer acknowledged the SAE test figures (~25/17 = 9.4/13.8), his results were 15 USmpg (15.7 l/100)combined cycle. I guess drivers will need to be careful not to put the boot in.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I think you will find the Holden problem, if Ford tried a 4.2L version. I think the EcoBoost is the real problem solver, a 3.5L V6 EcoBoost is going to ******** all over a 4.2L V8 for power, torque and fuel economy. a 4.2 will have the same fuel econ as the 5.0, with less performance. Add a supercharger to the 4.2, and it may be close on performance with the 3.5L EcoBoost, but with worse fuel economy. It seems that Ford is smarter than GM, and won't have this problem.

Ecoboost was developed as a solution for US cars and CUVs downsizing to meet economy targets,
the fact that the EB V6 went first sends the message that it's both a
performance and economy engine depending on the application it's used in

My research,
THE EB 42 was not developed because the Lion 4.4 V8 diesel will be a much better fit for F150
and going forward, very few vehicles outside F Truck can actually use a V8 these days.
It's not whether the EB V6 is better than a small EB V8 but where the market need is,
at the moment EB V6 fits both FWD and RWD applications while EB or S/C V8 doesn't - that's important.
I think the 4.4 diesel in F Truck will really win a lot of customers, the shear torque of a diesel is hard to beat.

[boris]

Originally Posted by jpd80

You have far more under bonnet room in F trucks to allow reverse cylinder heads,
they could be made to work on cars as per some European examples but I think cost and
commonality with naturaly aspirated versions still dominates cost factors...

Yeah but surely inside out heads would work even if you don't use forced induction, the only reason to have the intake in the valley was because you could then use one carbbie to feed both cylinder banks, not a problem with fuel injection.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Ecoboost was developed as a solution for US cars and CUVs downsizing to meet economy targets,
the fact that the EB V6 went first sends the message that it's both a
performance and economy engine depending on the application it's used in

My research,
THE EB 42 was not developed because the Lion 4.4 V8 diesel will be a much better fit for F150
and going forward, very few vehicles outside F Truck can actually use a V8 these days.
It's not whether the EB V6 is better than a small EB V8 but where the market need is,
at the moment EB V6 fits both FWD and RWD applications while EB or S/C V8 doesn't - that's important.
I think the 4.4 diesel in F Truck will really win a lot of customers, the shear torque of a diesel is hard to beat.

Don't forget the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost has 400Hp/400lb-ft in the F150, that will feel savagely powerful. It doesn't need to be bigger in the F150. Perhaps a 5L EcoBoost might come out for the Super Duty one day. Who knows it the 4.4L diesel will make it to production? I think it will if Ford can keep the costs down. It will still need Urea to keep it meeting emissions and remaining fuel efficient enough to justify the higher price for the engine and diesel fuel. If it's more than a $3500 option, people will stick to the petrol engines, or they will get a Super Duty.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Wally

I was reading a recent article on the SHO 3.5TT and although the writer acknowledged the SAE test figures (~25/17 = 9.4/13.8), his results were 15 USmpg (15.7 l/100)combined cycle. I guess drivers will need to be careful not to put the boot in.

There's no hiding the fact that the SHO weighs more than 2 tonne, and the added driveline friction of AWD means economy will never be as good as it could be in a smaller vehicle. But I guess the whole point is that a V8 version with similar power would be using even more fuel.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

There's no hiding the fact that the SHO weighs more than 2 tonne, and the added driveline friction of AWD means economy will never be as good as it could be in a smaller vehicle. But I guess the whole point is that a V8 version with similar power would be using even more fuel.

The perfect vehicle to compare with is the 300C/Charger AWD with the Hemi V8.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/awdgabe/charger
Not good going by that one! Without the AWD, it gets about 22mpg on the highway.
Ford says 17/25 for the Taurus SHO, Dodge says 16/23 (and that's with MDS). It would be good to get some real world results on both. I was so impressed with how the Flex EcoBoost drives though, I would get it (or the Taurus SHO), even if it had the same fuel economy as the Hemi V8.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by castellan

The gen III also has a iron block version as well for trucks.

The design of a motor being OHV or OHC or DOHC has to do with it's function. just like springs being leaf springs they have there positives & negatives.

Do you think a ford v8 5.4L is better then a gen 4. why!

Did that use the same heads, was it a new block? Just curious re the statement they've never changed both at once.

Pushrods do have their advantages, but maximising efficiency is not one of them and that is what manufacturers have to work on.

Why use the Boss motor as an example, we all know that is hampered by the stroke dimension and restriction on revs that results. Nothing to do with DOHC/pushrod.