Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Godzilla V8?

  1. #1

    Default Godzilla V8?

    Anyone heard anything about this? It's pretty much going into the 2020 Super Duty. Today is the first I'd heard of it!

    https://www.foxnews.com/auto/2020-fo...w-7-3-liter-v8

    Some good nitty gritty here.

    https://www.svtperformance.com/threa...-name.1162603/

    So, it's the same bore spacing as a 6.2 Hurricane, but has both larger bore and stroke, but is OHV 2-valve. I guess that means they can use existing tooling to make the blocks. 445 cubic inches, 7.3 Liter.

    It does sound cool. What I don't understand though is what need is it filling? 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks have made do for years with the larger of the V8s available in the 1/2 tons (5.4 and then 6.2 Ford, 5.7 Dodge, and 6.0/6.2 GM) There haven't been BIG gas V8s in these in years. The 8.1 GM and Ford and Dodge V10s are long gone.

    Now, the important stuff. Who's planning a Fox swap?
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  2. #2
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    The moment you hook a trailer on to those little engines that could you realize they really can’t

    Then there were all the diesels on the side of the road last week between Des Moines and Minneapolis.

    Pulling isn’t about peak output numbers — it’s about low end and midrange grunt. If I have to rev up to get power then I’m stuck being revved up just to pull.


    My perspective comes from growing up around cammed 400M’s that towed 8000 lb gooseneck trailers down the road at 100 mph or a camper with a boat behind it, etc.

    Also my Hypertech tuned 5.4L Triton that makes 365HP and 405 ftlbs vs our 96 F250 7.5L with E4OD. The 96 will pull the 5.4L truck with the trailer down the road sideways and doesn’t even waste a downshift.

    500 ft lbs of torque with less than 1700 RPM ...... that’s what drags stuff up a mountain in the cold

  3. #3

    Default

    I agree.

    I drove many 5.4 trucks with as much as 16k behind them, and the old Triton v-10 6.8 was a favorite... Unloaded.

    My old f-250hd with 350k miles would pull that trailer All day long at 70mph... On flat level ground. Any sort of hill (and I live and work in the Rockies) would result in 45mph top speeds at 4500rpm or higher. Now a steep hill/moutain climb, 20mph with the hazards on.

    My old 98ish 400ci international in my f-650 you could barely tell it's there.

    I mean those ecoboosts are damn impressive when really pushed, but you have to push. An old high torque large motor would pull all day long without breaking a sweat, and repair and maintenance of a gas vs deisel was a big deal in construction.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  4. #4
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    4.53 bore spacing for the 6.2 sohc per bank.

  5. #5
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haystack View Post
    I agree.

    I drove many 5.4 trucks with as much as 16k behind them, and the old Triton v-10 6.8 was a favorite... Unloaded.

    My old f-250hd with 350k miles would pull that trailer All day long at 70mph... On flat level ground. Any sort of hill (and I live and work in the Rockies) would result in 45mph top speeds at 4500rpm or higher. Now a steep hill/moutain climb, 20mph with the hazards on.

    My old 98ish 400ci international in my f-650 you could barely tell it's there.

    I mean those ecoboosts are damn impressive when really pushed, but you have to push. An old high torque large motor would pull all day long without breaking a sweat, and repair and maintenance of a gas vs deisel was a big deal in construction.
    Ive tortured my 5.4L majorly overloaded too. My trip to Austin with my 85 GT in tow inside an overweight POS enclosed trailer is memorable and it sucked. Meanwhile the F250 downshifted exactly once between Omaha and southern Missouri while pulling my son’s 86GT on a heavy steel “in town rental” uhaul trailer. Hell, my 5.4 shifted into 2nd on a few hills pulling that damn trailer home EMPTY!

    Anyway ..... don’t give me horsepower numbers, give me huge low end torque numbers!
    -- James

    Favorite thing I’ve said that’s been requoted: “"40 year old beercan on wheels with too much motor"

    My four eyed foxes:
    "Trigger" - 86 Mustang GT - Black with red interior. 5.0 T5 built as Z. Original motor ~1/2 million miles. 18 yr daily, 10 a toy
    "Silver" - 85 Mustang Saleen 1985-006? (Lol) Rare 1E silver GT / charcoal interior. The car is a little bit of a mystery. Current project bought as a roller, tons of Saleen / Racecraft pedigree

    Also in the stable - my son’s car. 1986 Mustang GT Convertible. Black/Black/Black conversion. 93 leather. VM1 ECU. T5Z

    past foxes -
    1989 Mustang LX Sport 5.0 AOD white/tan black top. Once I ran this one down I caught a wife.
    Wife also had a 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe in the 90's.

    I'm a four eyed pride supporter, are you? Become one today!
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/payments.php

  6. #6

    Default

    Finally some big displacement to make some low end Grunt, but turned me off when they said the 10 speed will be behind it. Too many gears, working a truck in a hilly city, the transmission is always "Hunting" to pick a gear. We have a couple of 10 speeds in our fleet, we also had a 6.2 f350 and a v10 f450 service trucks, they are pretty useless in the pulling department unless they are revved out. We also have some f450 and f550 6.7 trucks, they work well, other than emission systems being the weak point.

  7. #7
    FEP Power Member gmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chicago, south subs
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Interview with engineer on the design team; minus the performance numbers, but answers the question of 'why a pushrod V8?'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FtNlfAbc2w&t=8s

  8. #8
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    The information I have seen is that the new 7.3 V8 is designed for the commercial fleet trucks. Uhaul, Penske, Budget, etc. also for the leasing of same commercial type trucks. The ole' V10 is long in the tooth at this point, was never that great overall. Decent power, but fuel mileage was never very good.

    The pushrod V8 is easier to service, easier to package, less expensive, and does a better job of making low end power. The large displacement will provide the huge torque numbers needed to pull these trucks, vans, etc. Should work out pretty well if Ford's recent engine success continues. Everything shows it is designed for low rpm torque and horse power at this point, so doubtful you will see it in a Mustang anytime soon, if ever! Well from Ford that is!

    I don't have any experience with the new 10 speed transmissions, but others have commented that they work pretty well. Hope so, since that is what Ford is stuffing in the new 2020 Super Duty with the revised 6.7 PSD and ultimately what I would buy if/when I decide to replace my 2004 F250.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  9. #9
    FEP Member bkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    House Springs MO
    Posts
    179

    Default

    I've read the new 10 speed transmissions are like a sore pecker, you can't beat them. They'll skip gears up and down so it's always in the right gear. No searching. I like the 6 speed in my Eco F150, but if I'm pulling, I just lock out 6th gear because it doesn't take much to keep it bouncing between 5th and 6th.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default



    Space, the Final Frontier!


    I'll bet its just the start for FoMoCo. Once they've gone back to Dancin'Knitting needles, its then 4V per cylinder dancin' knitting needles!

    Great news!

    In my economy, the crossover from small to big block is just past 4.46 bore spacing's, or just over the LA 273/318/340/360 Mopar engines.

    The old 332-428 FE/FT was 4.630 in.


    The reason for preserving the 4.527" SOHC bore spacing is cost, and also that the FR9 uses a 4.500" bore spacing, and Ford can regroup the technology on 2v per cylinder engines. IIRC, All the NASCAR engines have crept up to 4.46 to 4.5" bore spacing OHV engines. Even Fords early 4.5 V6 BUSCH Essex and the old 300 in line six were 4.47" spacing engines.

    Fords last production based NASCAR Roush Yates Engines D3 R452 V8 Engine Platform was 4.375" based, essentially the reheated Y block and 221/260/289/302/351 Windsor and 335 Cleveland/400 Ford and 351M crossover. By 1998, they knew bigger bore centers were needed, so the FR9 was the break-through, like the RO7 Chevy was.

    The little long stroke modulars are just a 3.937" bore spacing, and based on what a chain drive does up high by the heads, the SOHC or DOHC heads certainly debit about 100 cubic inches of engine capacity in the same size engine bay. That's kind of why Chevy has stayed OHV V8.


    example of the expanse from OHC:-

    All the recent Quad Cammers are , IMHO, ding bat designs.










    Ford can back track with ease on this, and it'll work great!

    Going back to OHV makes sense if you have the bore spacings.

    It would be nice if it was had true "4V" per cylinder OHV heads.

    I will never have another OHC engine...done with the crap. There is nothing advanced about carrying more rev's to make power. I made myself pretty unpopular a while back...one guy extolled the virtues of the BA DOHC Falcon. Mate, that engine ruined the chance of making it package the Aussie funded T6 truck (the Aussie designed, Thailand build Ranger/Mazda BT50 down here), and each of those car line and truck lines just went up in weight just like the old six cylinder Aussie XA, XB, XC Falcons did in the 70's when they went to the tall deck 250 engines. There was no 6th Generation RX7, XD, XE, or Fox body moment at Ford Australia, it was just Tickford 24 valve tech from Jag and Aston Martin. They shoved in extra parts, and made it H-U-G-E.

    For me, the message I learned from Henry Ford was to simplify, compact, and then add more. The guy ditched in line sixes for V8's, and the whole idea wasn't actually anti I6, it was pro-"more engine in less space".

    The direct injection and 4v per cylinder can be made to fit a pushrod "dancin knitting needle" engine...Brain dead farts at Mercury Marine and GM just keep dredging up space inefficient Cammer engines like those two heinous monstrosities above. The innovation was Ford's back in 1966, the first SOHC FE's were designed to be 32 valve, but it all got so political. The OHV Weslake 32 Valve, the Chevy and Ford Dominion 32 heads, Arao 32's, they all have failed to materialise because Ford did such a great job on all Cammer Mod Engines.

    Ford actually controls 4v head technology, thank G""d. Not GM, not Nissan. The technology is designed to waste space, because Ford has access to making it cheaper simpler, and the existing base is around. The cost is over investment casting the rocker gear, not anything else.

    Ford agonized over the same thing in 1989 with the Romeo V8 and its Quad Cam 4.6....the FVPR OHV 32 Valve head was Ford patented, and run in production form via the SVO, then canned when Ford had is Desert Storm/MN12 era budget shunt.













    Ford pulled out on the 32 Valve GT40 intaked FVPR heads.



    As was said during a heated debate on 4V per cylinder drag bike legislation banning them...
    Quote Originally Posted by monstar-head-indeed-Mr George Bryce
    The only people that will tell you a 2-valve is just as good as a 4-valve – and there are people out there that say that – they are either covering their bases, protecting their own interests, have their own personal agenda or they don’t know what they are talking about.

  11. #11

    Default

    Well, it's nice to hear there's a need and Ford is actually the first to be jumping on it. I suppose they'll say "look at this great thing we can do because we saved so much money not making cars". Sorry, Ford can "do no right" for me until they fix that. Also, it sucks that there's apparently no way to make a modern pushrod V8 that doesn't look just like an LS

    Now, how about a Godzilla in a '70-71 Cyclone or Torino!
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  12. #12
    FEP Power Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, ca
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    Well, it's nice to hear there's a need and Ford is actually the first to be jumping on it. I suppose they'll say "look at this great thing we can do because we saved so much money not making cars". Sorry, Ford can "do no right" for me until they fix that. Also, it sucks that there's apparently no way to make a modern pushrod V8 that doesn't look just like an LS

    Now, how about a Godzilla in a '70-71 Cyclone or Torino!
    That's exactly where I was thinking one of these should end up.

  13. #13

    Default

    Just had another thought. If they're smart, they'll make a swap version available right away and market it to all the people disappointed by the 6.0 or even the V10, 5.4 and 6.2 (for towing)! Hell, you could find yourself a 2-valve 5.4 powered F150 with a blown out spark plug, or a 3-valve with a bad cam phaser for CHEAP, slap one of these babies in there and really have something!
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  14. #14
    FEP Power Member 4-barrel Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,953

    Default

    How about a new big-block Mustang?

    https://www.motorauthority.com/news/...avy-duty-heart

    Mike

  15. #15
    FEP Supporter
    qikgts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rockledge, FL
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    New details (maybe) below...

    https://www.svtperformance.com/threa...ction.1170924/

    From the thread...
    So to not bury the lead, we've heard from several sources that the internal goal for the 7.3L Godzilla engine is 450HP. It may come in a little higher or lower, but that seems to be the figure Ford engineers were initially shooting for. No word yet on a torque figure, but my guess is somewhere around 500lbft. One thing is for certain, big power is going to be made on the low-end of the RPM range. For the current applications the 7.3L is slated for, stump-pulling grunt always on tap is a standing order.
    '85 GT

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4-barrel Mike View Post
    How about a new big-block Mustang?

    https://www.motorauthority.com/news/...avy-duty-heart

    Mike
    Ohhh, Boss 429 would be sweeeeeeeeet. I'll believe it when I see it though. I am still kind of in shock this engine even exists though. Ford really seemed to have put all their eggs in the EcoBoost basket.

    It's pretty dang cool to see the racing tech in this engine like beehive springs and roller rockers.

    One thing I think they need to do though to make this engine successful as a swap option is to charge LESS for it than the Coyote. It costs them less to make it, so pass that along to the customer. If nothing else, they could have a lot of happy early 2000s truck owners they disappointed with subpar engines.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  17. #17
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Roseburg Oregon
    Posts
    3,308

    Default

    The Ls was a copy of the ford small block family .
    I have Friend , that races autocross and hill climb , with Ls powered Rx7 and 240Z .
    I took one of his Ls heads , and it is a physical fit to my 302.
    Look at the exhaust ports on the Ls head , just like Ford , and no longer siamese.
    clowns to the left of me , Jokers to the right

  18. #18
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    3,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashley roachclip View Post
    The Ls was a copy of the ford small block family .
    I have Friend , that races autocross and hill climb , with Ls powered Rx7 and 240Z .
    I took one of his Ls heads , and it is a physical fit to my 302.
    Look at the exhaust ports on the Ls head , just like Ford , and no longer siamese.
    Amen. Ford aced the class.

    The 351 C was a 9.2" deck 4.38" bore spacing engine that Chevrolet copied to get the 9.22". 4.40" bore spacing LS.

    The canted valve 335 engines, with Mopar LA/ Chevy Mystery Motor, those canted valve polyspheric heads that still outflow anything. Because when Engineering's Joe Macura did the 335 heads, the work he and the team at Ford did was of exceptional quality. It may be that they went a little overboard with port size, but shape, cam selection, and carb sizing was very good given the short dead lines and the reassingment of George Stirrat (Windsor 221-289), Philip Martel (351w)and Bill Gay (302Boss, then 351C) to other jobs.

    The Windsor GT40 heads just took a long time to copy the original 351 and 302 Windsor inagural year introduction performance.
    The Cleveland head performance was repeated with the LS engines, but with a flat vlave angle. It benchmarked the best Boss 302, Boss 351 and the Jack Roush 400 stroker engines in alloy Yate A3 form.

    The GT40 and GT40P were a very late return to the 4V 351W 1969 and 4V 302 1968 head flow figures, heads specfically removed when the Cleveland based 335 engines came out in late 69. The Boss 302 would have probably been overshadowed on the road by a J code 302 with the same kind of 290 degree cam. The 335 series engines (351C/351M/400)...all they did was take away all Fords development budget money from the 302 and 351 W, and pored it into a line of engines which were never sold in the volume Ford expected.

    In terms of smarts, the 351c was the Pantera engine, and it eclipsed any other 4 to 5.3 liter European Supercar V12 or V8 engine, even the Boxer 512BB, simply because it met the leaded and unleade emissions requirements for a low volume import engine. With an old 4-bbl Autolite, Motorcraft or Carter or Holley carb. With a proper set of dialed in gt40 style Weber IDA's, it was unbeatable as a GT5. Any Gray Iron Detriot engine plant engine that can power a Pantera car that can do 20 to 40 mph in top gear in 6.2 seconds while making a 155 to 167 mph top speed has to be a truley great engine. All 351's potentially were cut form the same cloth. Ford puroposely downgraded its 5.8's because of the need to make the rest of its range competive.

    Ford raced off and made the small block SOHC Mods and quad cammers as perfect as they are now.


    That big old 1 hp per cubic inch 444 will be epic.

    Back in 2016, I thought Fords Boss/Huricane 4.53" bore spacing 6.2 copied the polyspheric valve angles, and was the chance of giving the design its last port fuel delivery, 2 valve per cylinder shot at the detonation free big time.

    The down grade to OHV, and its 66 cubic inch capacity increase, still with port EFI, is a great thing.



    But it won't be legal in a passenger car unless its a pre 1975 car in most states.

  19. #19

    Default

    Yeah well... still not okay to swap an LS into a Ford, dammit.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    I am still kind of in shock this engine even exists though. Ford really seemed to have put all their eggs in the EcoBoost basket.
    Well, R&T offers an explanation.

    https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...details-specs/

    Apparently this was the best way to improve fuel economy while being used to haul and tow stuff. And awww, they just did it out of the goodness of their hearts because they didn't HAVE to since there's no testing for vehicles of these classes.

    It's interesting to think you improve real world fuel economy simply by having enough power in the right rev range for everyday use. I know that's what EcoBoost was designed to do (making power in lower RPMs than typical screamer turbo engines), but you hear plenty about people getting disappointing fuel economy with them. I wonder what went wrong.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  21. #21
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZephyrEFI View Post
    Well, R&T offers an explanation.

    https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...details-specs/

    Apparently this was the best way to improve fuel economy while being used to haul and tow stuff. And awww, they just did it out of the goodness of their hearts because they didn't HAVE to since there's no testing for vehicles of these classes.

    It's interesting to think you improve real world fuel economy simply by having enough power in the right rev range for everyday use. I know that's what EcoBoost was designed to do (making power in lower RPMs than typical screamer turbo engines), but you hear plenty about people getting disappointing fuel economy with them. I wonder what went wrong.
    There may not be any Government required MPG ratings for this class, but fleet owners look at this and I can guarantee Ford was losing sales because of it. Therefore they had to address it or continue to lose sales because of it.

    I am a die hard, bleeds Ford blue fan, but I will admit that for many years now Ram and GM have been getting better MPG from many of their gas engines compared to Ford. Most of that with "lower technology engine" too! RAM has their long term durability issues IMHO and GM just doesn't seem to hold up to the commercial pounding many of the larger trucks/vans take over time. Although you have to give them credit for getting pretty good fuel economy in many cases. Ford has done much better in the last few years in this regard thanks to the new Coyote and the Ecoboost engines, but for years Ford almost always were 1-2 MPG lower than the competition if not more! Fleet owners/managers have to look at this over the service life of the vehicle and that can add a huge amount of $$ back into the budget as the miles rack up.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  22. #22

    Default

    I don’t believe there is anything wrong with Ecoboost engines or their tuning that is causing bad MPGs. I gotta believe that it’s the drivers enjoying that smooth boost too much. It’s addicting. I have the smallest EB motor in my Fiesta. I get amazing MPG if I drive it in a reasonable manner however I get 5 MPG less with a heavy foot. I like the dual personalities as it gives me the choice on how much mpg I’m gonna get lol

  23. #23
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    I don’t believe there is anything wrong with Ecoboost engines or their tuning that is causing bad MPGs. I gotta believe that it’s the drivers enjoying that smooth boost too much. It’s addicting. I have the smallest EB motor in my Fiesta. I get amazing MPG if I drive it in a reasonable manner however I get 5 MPG less with a heavy foot. I like the dual personalities as it gives me the choice on how much mpg I’m gonna get lol
    I never stated that the Ecoboost didn't get decent mileage. I believe that is part of the reason Ford has gone down that path. Smaller more efficient engines that get good fuel mileage under light loads and yet still have decent MPG when in the boost and need the extra power. Now if you compare the Ecoboost to the 5.0 Coyote in the F150, you will find that if towing and or carrying heavy load most often, then 5.0 actually will return slightly better MPG than the Ecoboost. Again larger displacement has less stress on it than a smaller boosted engine. This is exactly what Ford is designing the 7.3 for, heavy loaded and or towing commercial vehicles. The 7.3 will return better MPG with less wear and tear in the long run compared to a smaller displacement or even a smaller displacement Ecoboost engine.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    I never stated that the Ecoboost didn't get decent mileage.
    But I did. I suppose part of accounting for this is Ford having to set up the engines to do well in the mpg government testing. Too bad those tests don't better reflect the real world.

    I quite enjoy the low range power in our EcoBoost Fusion too. It's pretty funny to see where average fuel economy sits when my wife drives it vs. when I drive it.
    Brad

    '79 Mercury Zephyr ES 5.0L GT40 EFI, T-5
    '17 Ford Focus ST
    '14 Ford Fusion SE Manual

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    I never stated that the Ecoboost didn't get decent mileage.
    I was just making a general response and was not toward anyone lol

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •