A V-6 Gas Motorhome Engine?

[two2go]

Just read a review of a F-150, and the specs on the EcoBoost V-6 engine are pretty impressive. 365 HP and 420 ft-lb torque out of only 3.5 liters, and on regular gas to boot.

The Workhorse 8.1 was 340 HP and 455 ft-lb; the Ford V-10 is 362 HP and 457 ft-lb for comparison. I also see that Ford has a 6.2L V-8 with 411 HP and 434 ft-lb, but no longer shows the V-10 as an option. Have they stopped making them?

I was just musing whether the little V-6 could motivate a 26,000# GVW class A? When I am going over a 10,000 ft. mountain pass, those twin turbos just might pull stronger than my gasping-for-air 8.1. I've also been reading about a possible 8.8L replacement for the 8.1, which I suppose supports the old saying, "The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic feet."

[LVJ58]

Did the review list what rpm's the max torque and max HP was developed? 3.5 liter translates to roughly 213.6 cu in.

[WeatherTodd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by two2go Just read a review of a F-150, and the specs on the EcoBoost V-6 engine are pretty impressive. 365 HP and 420 ft-lb torque out of only 3.5 liters, and on regular gas to boot. The Workhorse 8.1 was 340 HP and 455 ft-lb; the Ford V-10 is 362 HP and 457 ft-lb for comparison. I also see that Ford has a 6.2L V-8 with 411 HP and 434 ft-lb, but no longer shows the V-10 as an option. Have they stopped making them? I was just musing whether the little V-6 could motivate a 26,000# GVW class A? When I am going over a 10,000 ft. mountain pass, those twin turbos just might pull stronger than my gasping-for-air 8.1. I've also been reading about a possible 8.8L replacement for the 8.1, which I suppose supports the old saying, "The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic feet."

dont be as impressed as fords marketing wants you to be. I have a few miles on the eco v6 truck and it aint "fuel efficient" by any means.
It puts up more of a fuss hauling a 3000lb 15' trailer than my 8.1.
Matter of fact... my 8.1 moho gets better gas mileage than the ecoboost v6 I use sometimes.
Ford doesnt play up the fact that max fuel economy is obtained at 45mph.
Plus Ford is being a tight ass about "ecu flashes" and similar modifications for vehicles under warranty. Im sure there is an easy 100hp/100lb ft of torque waiting to be unleashed from that engine.

[powerboatr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeatherTodd dont be as impressed as fords marketing wants you to be. I have a few miles on the eco v6 truck and it aint "fuel efficient" by any means. It puts up more of a fuss hauling a 3000lb 15' trailer than my 8.1. Matter of fact... my 8.1 moho gets better gas mileage than the ecoboost v6 I use sometimes. Ford doesnt play up the fact that max fuel economy is obtained at 45mph. Plus Ford is being a tight ass about "ecu flashes" and similar modifications for vehicles under warranty. Im sure there is an easy 100hp/100lb ft of torque waiting to be unleashed from that engine.

actually the engine was designed to boost EMPTY mpg
as research shows most pickups run around empty.
my 5.4 v8 gets great empty mileage at 75mph, 18 mpg. but pulling a trailer it drops to 10- 13 at the drop of a hat
the eco boost fills that area well, but with added power when you need it, but we all know hp increases also use more fuel
i too expect a hp increase with an ecu tweak very soon, as it has been revealed the v6 is a sheep in wolfs clothing

[two2go]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVJ58 Did the review list what rpm's the max torque and max HP was developed? 3.5 liter translates to roughly 213.6 cu in.

365 hp at 5000 rpm
420 ft-lb at 2500 rpm
I recall when racing engines were just achieving 100 hp/liter. Now a truck engine can do it.

[blackf3504dr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeatherTodd Ford doesnt play up the fact that max fuel economy is obtained at 45mph.

Don't blame Ford for the way vehicles are tested. The EPA sets the standards for the tests.

[Ramblin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by two2go Just read a review of a F-150, and the specs on the EcoBoost V-6 engine are pretty impressive. 365 HP and 420 ft-lb torque out of only 3.5 liters, and on regular gas to boot. The Workhorse 8.1 was 340 HP and 455 ft-lb; the Ford V-10 is 362 HP and 457 ft-lb for comparison. I also see that Ford has a 6.2L V-8 with 411 HP and 434 ft-lb, but no longer shows the V-10 as an option. Have they stopped making them? I was just musing whether the little V-6 could motivate a 26,000# GVW class A? When I am going over a 10,000 ft. mountain pass, those twin turbos just might pull stronger than my gasping-for-air 8.1. I've also been reading about a possible 8.8L replacement for the 8.1, which I suppose supports the old saying, "The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic feet."

Sure. Outfit it with an 18 speed tranny with a granny gear or two, and it'll pull anything up the mountain, assuming you don't die of old age before you reach the top.

[WeatherTodd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackf3504dr Don't blame Ford for the way vehicles are tested. The EPA sets the standards for the tests.

the mpg has NOTHING to do with EPA regs or tests. It was Fords only promo vids that bragged about it.

My 5.4 gets a solid 20mpg on the highway at 75mph. (with 26 gallons of gas)

[blackf3504dr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeatherTodd the mpg has NOTHING to do with EPA regs or tests. It was Fords only promo vids that bragged about it. My 5.4 gets a solid 20mpg on the highway at 75mph. (with 26 gallons of gas)

Yes I understand it's in the Ford ads, but they base that figure on the EPA tests. The auto makers can't just pull a number out of thin air anymore, it must come from the EPA if they want to "brag" about it in their ads.

[WeatherTodd]

black... I think you are misunderstanding EPA ratings versus "truth in marketing".
I dont know of any pickup truck buying consumer that checks EPA ratings before purchasing.
I clearly remember their vids and commercials saying "V8 power with v6 fuel economy". Thats simply not the case. Ford even had competitors trucks drag racing each other with a trailer load.