Things that I don't need on my truck

[jejeosborne]

Numbers are right (the diesel spiked to 1000F rarely) and we're not talking about during a regen where it dumps raw fuel in the exhaust either. As usual you Ford cheerleaders are not reading what I write only what you want to see. I like direct injection (spent $24k on one) but in simpler form and caution the extra expense in repairs. I will be onboard with whomever builds a good large displacement direct injection engine that does NOT need turbos and all the extra useless expensive technology just to do what simpler V8's are doing without it.
Right now it looks like GM will be first in line with that new line of N/A direct injected engines and I will certainly be in line to test them once they're out. Although with the HEMI design, a direct injected version of the 5.7l and 6.4l would rock.

As for the 4x4 shifter, I like having that large shifter on the floor so I tell the truck when I want 4WD. Too bad those are gone too...

What is all this "extra useless expensive technology" you speak of? Looks to me that the only difference is the addition of a turbo that separates these new gm motors from an ecoboost. The higher exhaust temps of a gas motor have a benefit with a turbo. It allows for more efficient use of back pressure and a more efficient turbo design. Diesels have lower temps but greater volume of exhaust. I don't see anything negative with these higher temps if the system is designed for it.

I appreciate being called a cheerleader. They are people who express positive energy. You are whatever the antonym of a cheerleader is.

I think most would agree, torque is most important in a truck engine but you have argued against that in the past too. Here is why I like a turbo in a truck.

 

[jejeosborne]

There is rumors of a EcoBoost 5.0 with twin turbo's and dropping the 6.2.

Should be interesting.

Chris

I think the 3.5 liter is the replacement for the 6.2 liter. A 5.0 ecoboost would be in a class by itself. Not sure it would be put in a half ton unless some type of performance styled truck.

 

[94BULLITT]

I saw were ford modified the ecoboost 3.5 it made 318hp and 565ftlbs.

 

[RobertN]

Nice, but they had to supercharge it and other bolt-ons. They are seeing 600 hp, not much more than an SRT10 with the latest motor would have, without any bolt-ons.

I certianly wouldn't mind test driving that (removed)

Remember, those 80's Cyclones turned good stock times, and would bark all four tires in every gear. Buddy had one; it was quick, and handled. Knew of folks with the old RAM SRT10's; they ran pretty fast stock.

Who needs a SRT-10 when you could build one of these?

 

[Dr Dave]

It's probably not a big option down there but I really like my heated seats. I call them the butt cookers. The little lady will not let me buy a replacement unless it has them.

I call them BUN WARMERS, my wifes truck has them.

Dave

 

[kevin37b]

You have no clue. Step out of this conversation before you make yourself look foolish. No truck of any brand just walks a boat like that up a ramp that I use. Noting is though on a truck then pulling 15,000# plus from the drink. Dead stop, water resistance, wet ramp, 35% grade.

Chris

You 2 fellers need to have a cookout and a glass of scotch .

 

[Dmace]

What is all this "extra useless expensive technology" you speak of? Looks to me that the only difference is the addition of a turbo that separates these new gm motors from an ecoboost.

If "all" they did was add a turbo then yes that would be the only difference. You apparently don't understand what other changes are needed when adding a turbo to a vehicle. From fuel delivey to internal component design to exhaust, cooling, ECU management and in Ford's case special TCU changes (which is why testers have so many problems trying to get the low rpm TQ numbers Ford claims at the crank).

I think most would agree, torque is most important in a truck engine but you have argued against that in the past too. Here is why I like a turbo in a truck.

Sure it's important but not at the expense of HP. You want more TQ just change the gearing, you want more HP it takes a lot more changes. Anyone can fake TQ numbers with gearing, HP is a better measure.
The same HP/TQ of the Ecoboost can and will be made with a simplier engine/trans design.

You 2 fellers need to have a cookout and a glass of scotch .

I prefer Whisky. ;-)

 

[Willl]

I can reach 1000 plus degrees exhaust temp with a little extra go pedal in my dodge. Not hard to do at all.

 

[Fordman1981]

I can reach 1000 plus degrees exhaust temp with a little extra go pedal in my dodge. Not hard to do at all.

What programmer are you running and what level are you running it on?

 

[jejeosborne]

If "all" they did was add a turbo then yes that would be the only difference. You apparently don't understand what other changes are needed when adding a turbo to a vehicle. From fuel delivey to internal component design to exhaust, cooling, ECU management and in Ford's case special TCU changes (which is why testers have so many problems trying to get the low rpm TQ numbers Ford claims at the crank).

Sure it's important but not at the expense of HP. You want more TQ just change the gearing, you want more HP it takes a lot more changes. Anyone can fake TQ numbers with gearing, HP is a better measure.
The same HP/TQ of the Ecoboost can and will be made with a simplier engine/trans design.

I prefer Whisky. ;-)

I guess we both don't understand because the only thing you mention is a different computer program.

Are we back to transmission talk? I thought we were talking torque at the crank.

I asked you a question months ago about torque and HP and you left it unanswered. I will ask again here and see if you flee like you did in the past. If HP is so important to you rather than torque, which would make a better engine for a truck:
a hemi with 395 HP and 407 lb-ft of torque or
a cummins with 350 HP and 800 lb-ft torque? I kept it Ram terms for your convenience. Hemi has 45 more HP. Just gear that hemi and it is better. Lol

I choose torque everyday. I guess that is why we don't see eye to eye.