- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Highly impressive for a V6.The 2017 Ford F-150 is shaping up to be a 10.
The updated pickup will be the first Ford to feature a new 10-speed automatic transmission that was jointly developed with GM, and it has now been confirmed that it’s a new 3.5-liter twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6 will be rated at 375 hp -- 10 hp more than the current motor -- and 470 lb-ft of torque, which is a boost of 50 lb-ft.
Expand / Contract
(Ford)
While the horsepower rating trails the F-150’s 5.0-liter V8 and its competitors top eight-cylinder engines, the torque number beats the Chevrolet Silverado’s 6.2-liter V8 for best in class honors by 10 lb-ft.
And I thought my Taurus SHO was hot with 210 hp from a 3.0 litre engine.
Well, it was for the time.
why not just buy the simpler v8?
I've got 270hp from a 3.5.
I heard once that Ford sells a truck every 40 seconds and thats just in the US
I recently looked at the 2016's and wow. Wow thats a nice truck and wow they're expensive as hell and wow the the dealer was offering up no incentives.
Sticker price, take it or leave it.
Yea, I have to wonder with all the advances, maybe they could just make a high mpg work truck.That is a very impressive rating for an engine that size. I'll bet that engine and transmission will be hellishly expensive to fix, though, if anything should ever go wrong with them. I would give up some fuel economy for simplicity and ease of maintenance. That dead-simple, economical reliability is part the beauty of old pickup trucks. The complexity we see now results partly from the change in how pickups are used and the luxury buyers now expect. In 1960 or even 1970, a pickup was still mainly a tool for work in various industries. Getting across long distances fast and in comfort was not usually a consideration, while cost of purchase and operation were very important.
My father had a 1948 Studebaker stake truck with a small inline six, which probably put out less than 90 horsepower, a four-speed transmission with a floor shift, king pins, and very stiff leaf springs. It had a speedometer, choke, ignition key (you pushed the clutch pedal down to start it) and the basic gauges. That's it--no power anything, and not even a radio or heater. But about all it needed were oil changes and an occasional lube, and it would easily carry a ton or more anywhere he needed to take it. It was hot as hell inside the thing in the summer, and at sixty on the freeway, the engine was revving up a storm. But the old horse was cheap and always worked fine.
The Noble M400 features a mid-mounted transverse engine design. The power plant began life as a 2,968 cc DOHC Ford Duratec V6 with four valves per cylinder, as used in the Ford Mondeo ST220. With this engine as a base, Noble fits high-lift camshafts, revised fuel injection, and two turbochargers.
For durability, Noble also added forged pistons, an oil cooler, a larger baffled oil sump, and extra cooling ducts. Its engine has a maximum power of 425 bhp (317 kW) at 6,500 rpm, with a torque figure of 390 lb·ft (530 N·m) at 5,000 rpm.[SUP][6][/SUP] This power and a light weight allow the M400 to achieve a power-to-weight ratio of just over 400 bhp/ton, the figure for which it was named, a 0–60 mph (97 km/h) of 3.2 seconds and a 1/4-mile time of 11.4 @ 119.8 mph (192.8 km/h).[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Top speed is 187 mph (301 km/h). The UK automotive TV show Vroom Vroom suggested that the M400 gave Ferrari Enzo performance at a Porsche 911 price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_M400
Cost difference?No, not really.
+50 HP in the Nobel with less displacement, but the truck has more torque.
Yea, I have to wonder with all the advances, maybe they could just make a high mpg work truck.
If they can get decent mileage out of a 375 hp engine, what could they get out of a 100 hp engine?
No, not really.
+50 HP in the Nobel with less displacement, but the truck has more torque.
Cost difference?
I'm holding out for one with a smaller, updated version of the Napier Sabre 24-cyl. sleeve valve engine. If some horsepower and mechanical complexity is good, more can only be better. Like a Hawker Typhoon, only with four wheels.
The Napier Sabre was a British H-24-cylinder, liquid-cooled, sleeve valve, piston aero engine, designed by Major Frank Halford and built by Napier & Son during World War II. The engine evolved to become one of the most powerful inline piston aircraft engines in the world, developing from 2,200 horsepower (1,640 kW) in its earlier versions to 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) in late-model prototypes.[SUP][1][/SUP]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre
Not comparing the vehicles, they are far too different. Just wanted to point out that there are turbo V6's that produce more HP, that's all. The Noble was first off the top of my head, but I think I could probably find even more powerful ones.
LOL. Yeah, that'll fit in a pickup truck.
This tiny 1.5L engine from Nissan makes 400 horsepower - Autoblog
3 cylinder, 400hp
You just got trumped.
LOL. Yeah, that'll fit in a pickup truck.
LOL. OK.I did say a smaller version. I think 1,200 hp or so would be about right--just make the hood longer.
The descriptions of those pickup engines got me thinking about mechanically complex designs, and the Sabre had more moving parts than any engine I've ever heard of. These new engines seem to be getting pretty close to it, though. What's impressive is that they can make them as dependable as they seem to be.
LOL. OK.
This is one of the things that the automotive industry does best, if you ask me. They realize that every repair covered by warranty costs them dearly, and that they'd much rather catch the failure as early in the development cycle as possible. These engines now, and the largely automated production lines that produce them, have dependability and reliability designed into both from the git go, which includes the ability for the engine to continue running until 100K miles without any maintenance other than oil top up (and maybe not even that, 'cause they really don't leak or burn much of any oil anymore).
We are already very close to the sealed engine. No maintenance required. If it breaks or has problems, you swap the entire thing out and recycle the old one.
Of course, if power is what you are after, you need a tank engine? this will take you through the hard slog of a long ride, or through the creeping town haul every day. of course, to really get the jump on competitors, you need only get the military involved in the 'engine quest,' yes? this would see trillions invested, as engineering there just maintains things, of course.
On the other hand, if you want to make a totally powerful engine, you need only observe tit is 'merely heat generated.' all energy comes from heat, that is how our universe works, without heat there can be no mass. so, to make the engine 'stronger,' you need more heat from the ignition to the engine to process the oil. this would mean that you need to use other things tn oil, how about, silicon? this is plastic and can handle a lot of heat, even turning to liquids if kept warm enough? so, you would put your engine on, and leave it on, trusting in a conductor for computers that will see the heat retained with something you can get from sand, yes? simply boiling sand in a pot will result in silicon rising to the top and quartz sinking to the bottom, so, we should use sands they are both good conductors, yes?
The problem is leaving your engine on the whole time. this can be done with a minor heating thing, coming from the sand, and going back to the sand like cold fusion's ideals. thus, we could have a 'continual combustion engine,' of course.
But, let's make it liquid all the time? we could mix some water in there, as it will not dry, to do away with the need for continuous combustion. this water is also a conductor of heat, which is the principle of energy transfer - conductors. thus, this muddy stuff could keep the engine going at an acceptable pace for the urban commute, yes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?