Why no Ecoboost in the F250?

[dieselcrawler]

I posted in this thread early on, have tried to follow and read each post since, and the only thing that comes to mind at this point is this:

Putting an EcoBoost 3.5 in a Superduty F250 platform could possibly be useful to a handful of people. Most likely, the request/desire for such a combination would be similar to someone like myself who would prefer a manual transmission, they simply wouldn't sell enough to warrant the cost to engineer it into reality.

I believe the most cost effective solution would be to offer a 6.2L EcoBoost. Take the tried and true 6.2L and add a factory turbocharger system. There's been a few custom setups installed, the owners rave about them. Or scale it down, turbo a 5.0, and still offer the 6.2L in NA form.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Isn't the Godzilla gasser the answer ?

 

[dodge man]

These discussions always seem to breakdown into an argument gas vs diesel.

We have to keep in mind one is not better than another, they each have there applications where they shine.

Lets take my John Deere 2025r engine. It’s 1.27 liters (77 cubic inches) engine rated at 25 horsepower. No turbo. The truth is if you compare that to an equivalent gas engine in a car, that power rating is terrible. GM is making a 1.3 liter gas engine with a turbo that makes 155 hp. Even if I put a turbo and inter cooler on my JD that gas engine is still going to make 3 or 4 times the power. Gas engines are better right?

Its not that simple, the engine in my tractor could be run thousands of hours at nearly 100% power, that GM gas engine could not. Weight is also a big consideration, in cars and small SUV’s weight is critical, on tractors weight is often a good thing. Need more power, put in a bigger engine.

Then look at torque. If I drag down the rpm’s of my JD engine doing work it actually hits higher torque, a gas engine gets pulled down it’s getting less torque. Then look at fuel use, under high loads this is where diesel shines.

To answer the original question Ford has drawn the line at the F250 where a high power small displacement engine should be used. They, along with most other makers go with diesel or a larger gas engine for 3/4 ton trucks and bigger.

 

[Renze]

These discussions always seem to breakdown into an argument gas vs diesel.

The topic question "why no Ecoboost in an F250" leads to a followup question "will the EB handle the increased duty cycle of typical F250 use ?" Which can be answered by: Most likely not, turbocharging a gas engine makes it superior to naturally aspirated gas engines in usable horsepower for towing, but doesnt make it equal to a turbodiesel (though many F250 owners will use them as such, if you give them the horsepower)

 

[K5lwq]

Well I guess it boils down to if God and politicians wanted us to have a 250 with Ecoboost we would. So we obviously do not need this arrangement.

 

[deezler]

a much higher piston speed (=wear)

Just gonna chime in to say that piston speed has basically nothing to do with engine longevity anymore. Pistons can travel at max speed all day long without any appreciable wear against the liner. Historically yes, there have been problems, but all modern pistons are properly cooled (oil squirters) and the skirt coatings applied have excellent wear resistance. As well as the profiles machined into the skirt surfaces (they are far from simply round cylinders) are well optimized for controlling piston motion, reducing friction, and preventing wear. If you buy a Federal-Mogul / Tenneco / Sealed Power piston, this is what I've been working on for the last 18 years lol.

Now higher engine rpm still obviously brings problems for bearings, camshafts, oil consumption, etc. But IMO what kills most modern engines is thermal stress upon the ancillary components. In something like an ecoboost run at peak power all day long, you get turbocharger problems, high oil consumption, leaky charge and exhaust pipes, melted wire harnesses, etc... Generally avoidable/repairable stuff, but most people don't... until it's too late.

 

[deezler]

Here's an engine I wouldn't mind having in my theoretical new F250 (keeping in mind I only rarely tow 10-12k lbs max, but like having the payload to drop a pallet of bricks into the bed whenever I please).

A 4.4 liter straight-6 ecoboost. Peak power of 380 HP, torque of 460 ft-lbs (so basically the same as the current ecoboost 3.5L V6, but in a larger, more relaxed engine block.

 

[Renze]

Just gonna chime in to say that piston speed has basically nothing to do with engine longevity anymore. Pistons can travel at max speed all day long without any appreciable wear against the liner. Historically yes, there have been problems, but all modern pistons are properly cooled (oil squirters) and the skirt coatings applied have excellent wear resistance. As well as the profiles machined into the skirt surfaces (they are far from simply round cylinders) are well optimized for controlling piston motion, reducing friction, and preventing wear. If you buy a Federal-Mogul / Tenneco / Sealed Power piston, this is what I've been working on for the last 18 years lol.

I have a less rosy view on cylinder and liner coatings: VW and Peugeot both had huge reliability issues when they relied too much on the coating, to reduce the amount of lubrication oil the scraper rings would let pass to lubricate and seal the compression rings. They reduced PM on new engines but both manufacturers had engine models that started to consume huge amounts of oil after 80.000km because the rings ran on a coating instead of on oil....

So i dont know what you call "historical" problems, but they have been around for 10 years, are still recent, and a PITA; I hope you do a better job than VW

(Edit: According to Wikipedia, the VW 2.0 Biturbo TDI used Alcan or Federal Mogul pistons: I dont know which they put in the TFSI turbo gassers, but those were equally poor, my colleague had one and hated it.. why dont the Germans just keep using Kolbenschmidt?? )

 

[4570Man]

So lets take this a step further. A guy in my town has an old Ford tandem axle dump rated at 54,000lbs. Its powered by a CAT 3208 @ 230HP. I would guess the torque rating to be at about 550-600 ft lbs. The truck is 30 years old. He pulls an excavator, or backhoe with it on an air brake excavators trailer. He has been doing this for 25 years +/- as have many one-man excavating operations in thousands of towns across the US.

So we have a 3208 CAT 10.4L engine pulling 50,000lbs around on the original engine for 100’s of thousands of miles. I’d like to compare the Ecoboost, with much more HP and similar or a little less torque to the CAT 3208.

Any of you keyboard statistics guys comparing your ecoboost engines to old diesels want to step up and tell us that it would last even 1/2 or 1/4 as long as the less powerful 3208 CAT?

I bet it wouldn’t last a year. lol

And the CAT 3208 wasn’t even a highly regarded engine. It was a basic V-8 diesel and it was a parent bore engine. It just got the job done. Similar could be said for the Ford 7.8L diesel, the DT466 and many other old diesel engines of bygone days. No, they didn’t have the paper statistics you guys drool over, but they would run 200,000 miles in terrible heavy conditions, use less fuel, last longer and require less maintenance than the big block gas engines they replaced.

There’s a lot more to an engine than paper hp/tq ratings. A lot more.

The eco boost wouldn’t even last the first day without significantly upgrading the cooling system. I doubt the transmission holds up long in a dump truck either. Those low power diesels were built to chug along at nearly full power output all day everyday and do it for 30 years. There’s a big difference in continuous duty output and the power you can make for 30 seconds to pass another vehicle.

 

[deezler]

I have a less rosy view on cylinder and liner coatings: VW and Peugeot both had huge reliability issues when they relied too much on the coating, to reduce the amount of lubrication oil the scraper rings would let pass to lubricate and seal the compression rings. They reduced PM on new engines but both manufacturers had engine models that started to consume huge amounts of oil after 80.000km because the rings ran on a coating instead of on oil....

So i dont know what you call "historical" problems, but they have been around for 10 years, are still recent, and a PITA; I hope you do a better job than VW

(Edit: According to Wikipedia, the VW 2.0 Biturbo TDI used Alcan or Federal Mogul pistons: I dont know which they put in the TFSI turbo gassers, but those were equally poor, my colleague had one and hated it.. why dont the Germans just keep using Kolbenschmidt?? )

haha! Yeah our german colleagues handle the EU business, I don't have access to those programs. Thats a ring problem, not a piston one though. And a problem specifically designed and dictated to us by VAG

Kolbenschmidt makes a fine piston, as does Mahle, generally speaking. But we each have our different (patented) technologies. And now we all have problems keeping our manufacturing plants fully staffed and operating. Raw material pricing is brutal now too. Tough times.