Jump to content

Honey I shrunk the engine!


vtfireman85

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gearclash said:

Yeah but they need more power than a Ford 300 had.  My dad had one for quite a few years.  It looked like a pickup truck but in reality it was a Geo Metro with a box.  Any kind of load behind it brought it to its knees.  Whole new world when I bought a Dodge with a Cummins in it.  That could actually get something done.  And fun to drive too. 

The 300 six is a good engine. If you want to pull a load with it you need deep gears. Unfortunately too many were high geared and couldn't get out of their own way.

But honestly the 5.9 mechanical Cummins is amazing in a pickup. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gearclash said:

Yeah but they need more power than a Ford 300 had.  My dad had one for quite a few years.  It looked like a pickup truck but in reality it was a Geo Metro with a box.  Any kind of load behind it brought it to its knees.  Whole new world when I bought a Dodge with a Cummins in it.  That could actually get something done.  And fun to drive too. 

My first vehicle was a '93 F-150 with a 300 and auto. What a gutless wonder. Would shift out overdrive in a stiff wind on flat ground. The '98 ext cab chevy with the vortec 305 I traded it for ran circles around it on less fuel. Could get to all the spark plugs on the Ferd though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think how many farmers were still hauling grain to the elevator with late 40s and early 50s Chevy trucks with a 14 foot box and a 216 or 235 6 cylinder in the 70s and 80s. They would lug about anything...at about 35 mph.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

We still have the 1969 C/50 that was once the biggest truck my dad had to haul grain. The 292 was replaced with a 350 long ago. My dad always said the 350 has more power with the truck loaded than the 292 did empty. 

Dad had a '66 C60 with 292 that would run circles around the '75 F-600 with 330hd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dirt_Floor_Poor - im with you on the plastic hoods on lawn tractors and BIG tractors now theyre on everything inbetween. I remember when saturn cars came out with some kind of plastic body panels or something like that. 

@sandhiller - i cant get used to the higher revving motors no better than i can get used to the umpteen gears in these transmissions and the shifting all the time. I grew up with a 455, 460, both 3 speed txmissions and they hit drive and never shifted unless you needed to pass someone 😉 or just make up an excuse to blow the cobs out ugh,mmmm 

Ived had 300 6 cyl very reliable gutless wonders, 351M gutless wonder for sure, company rigs with ecobooms in them, a 6.0 ford diesel, now a 6.7, and the suby with a CVT. My first time driving a 4 wheeler that doesnt shift was hard to get used to the motor singing all teh time. Grew up on a 400 and JD B, so torque was all they had. That is why I hated our 560s so bad, they get below 1200 rpm you better be on teh clutch or pto handle, they cant recover. 

The ECOs have the same issues as the V8s, the Cam Phasers are currenly on parts back orders for 3 to 6 mos. My nephews 2017 F150 w/3.5 w/95K on it clacks/ticks at low rpms and ford said drive it will call you when we have parts and put him on the repair list. Pretty sad..............I have blood, sweat, aggravation vested in a 5.4 with that issue also. Not easy work and then had to replace piston on #1 cylinder due to burned hole from something. No head damage, very lil cylinder damage, honed and replaced with used piston and new rings. Did the phasers while in there they were clackin like a couple of knocker balls from the 70s. 

Ive lost a lot of faith in fords of late with their technology issues. I know chevy and dodge has had their fair share and i think a lot if it is trying to meet the emissions requirements and stay in the HP game. 

The biggest anomaly was my 03 6.0, everyone said they were a klunker, well im here to say i wish i had mine back, kinda.......I sold it at 350K, with original turbo and on first set of injectors. It had the head studs, new bulletproof oil and egr cooler at 150Kish.

I sold it to my neighbor and he now uses it in his work fleet and put a flatbed on it. The shop that does our work said he should put a turbo in it before it goes and wrecks other stuff and he decided with 380K to do it. Its had one new FICM. Never had a water pump or fan clutch. So now with over 415K he told me just last week his workers fight over who gets to drive it cause of the whistle and straight exhaust i had put on it. Not many 6.0 have that kind of good history. The transmission has never been touched outside of oil/filter chngs. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hillman said:

anyone know what the bottom ends are like on those 4 cylinders, with the torque and the 4 cylinder inline they could have a very stout bottom end 

Pressure on top = pressure on the bottom, boosted it should have a strong bottom end

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hillman said:

anyone know what the bottom ends are like on those 4 cylinders, with the torque and the 4 cylinder inline they could have a very stout bottom end 

Pressure on top = pressure on the bottom, boosted it should have a strong bottom end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, sandhiller said:

So, I am from the bygone era of no replacement for displacement

I am a dinasaur

I prefer the big 4 stroke thumper over the little 2 stroke screamer

Diesel over gas

Big block over small block

I like my power made at low rpm's

I can't get used to these high revving new motors

My 6.2 redlines at 6 thou

I know I have never been above 3000

What am i missing in that upper 3000

Is that where the performance is?

I just can't make my right foot go there. 

 

I’m with you. Old school I guess. Retired from heavy equipment repair most of my working days. Slower lasts longer. If they can engineer smaller displacement engines with power ratings equal to much larger engines why can’t they do it at lower rpm’s? We all know that the slower something turns the less wear it has. I guess I can’t compare today’s throw away engines to yesterday’s built to last ones. Surely there is engineering to make more hp besides just increasing rpm’s?  Just listen to your 3-4000 rpm reving engine in your nice expensive truck and wonder just how long it’s going to last at those speeds. Just wondering…..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hardtail said:

Pressure on top = pressure on the bottom, boosted it should have a strong bottom end

That's what I was thinking. With the inline configuration the bottom end is easier to beef up. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I stick with my v8 for now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I change spark plugs proactively at 50 or 60,000 miles, changing them in the 3.5 eco-boost wasn’t even a job. I can’t say that for some of the othersIn the last 26 years, I think I’ve owned every large displacement engine option offered by each manufacturer with the exception of the Ford V 10 and the newer GM (6.0?) and  I had actually ordered one of those in 19 but then they couldn’t get it.  
I change spark plugs proactively at 50 or 60,000 miles, changing them in the 3.5 eco-boost wasn’t even a job. I can’t say that for some of the others I’ve done.  
 
I also immediately remove the half ton car tires off of new trucks and replace them with oversized big heavy 10 ply tires, (because they look cool) and they certainly help with towing when need be. The eco-boost handled a change and tire diameter and mass so much better than any truck I’ve ever had.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, smfarms said:

If they can engineer smaller displacement engines with power ratings equal to much larger engines why can’t they do it at lower rpm’s? We all know that the slower something turns the less wear it has. I guess I can’t compare today’s throw away engines to yesterday’s built to last ones. Surely there is engineering to make more hp besides just increasing rpm’s?  

It’s just physics. Power is force over time. A small engine can get a boost in power by adding air (turbo) and more fuel but it’s still small. So it needs to turn faster in the same amount of time as a larger engine. 
There is only so much juice to squeeze from a gallon of fuel. A large displacement engine is very inefficient when not loaded and wastes a lot of fuel. One of the small turbo engines when not under load can operate very efficiently and use less fuel. 
A large heavy equipment engine spends most of its time at a relatively constant RPM. A vehicle engine goes from idle to high RPM repeatedly during the drive cycles. Having 8-10 speed transmissions keeps the engine in its optimal operating range as much as possible. 
A properly designed and manufactured engine should be able to live a long life running at 3,000-6,000 RPM. They have small displacement so the rotating mass isn’t nearly as great as a larger engine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smfarms said:

I’m with you. Old school I guess. Retired from heavy equipment repair most of my working days. Slower lasts longer. If they can engineer smaller displacement engines with power ratings equal to much larger engines why can’t they do it at lower rpm’s? We all know that the slower something turns the less wear it has. I guess I can’t compare today’s throw away engines to yesterday’s built to last ones. Surely there is engineering to make more hp besides just increasing rpm’s?  Just listen to your 3-4000 rpm reving engine in your nice expensive truck and wonder just how long it’s going to last at those speeds. Just wondering…..

Lower rpms is where fuel is saved and emissions are reduced. They are making the power (moslty) at lower rpms with lots a gears in the transmission. Now I don't know about towing as I don't own any pick ups with these engines.  

A buddy knows some of the guys that are or were working at local dealer. They disabled the turbo some how and said whatever it was they were working on, was a dog with the turbo/s disabled and came to the conclusion the turbos were doing more at wider rpms than most would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smfarms said:

I’m with you. Old school I guess. Retired from heavy equipment repair most of my working days. Slower lasts longer. If they can engineer smaller displacement engines with power ratings equal to much larger engines why can’t they do it at lower rpm’s? We all know that the slower something turns the less wear it has. I guess I can’t compare today’s throw away engines to yesterday’s built to last ones. Surely there is engineering to make more hp besides just increasing rpm’s?  Just listen to your 3-4000 rpm reving engine in your nice expensive truck and wonder just how long it’s going to last at those speeds. Just wondering…..

Tell me, when running a hydro to you lug it in RPM and run in a higher range to protect it and prevent excess wear? Do you do this for PTO work? Running a diesel at its rated high RPM is no different than a gas at its rated high RPM, my motorcycles all ran around happily at 5,6,7,8k rpm because they were designed to do so. Running around with a gas truck and never going above 3k makes as much sense as writing with the eraser end of a pencil? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vtfireman85 said:

Tell me, when running a hydro to you lug it in RPM and run in a higher range to protect it and prevent excess wear? Do you do this for PTO work? Running a diesel at its rated high RPM is no different than a gas at its rated high RPM, my motorcycles all ran around happily at 5,6,7,8k rpm because they were designed to do so. Running around with a gas truck and never going above 3k makes as much sense as writing with the eraser end of a pencil? 

Even a $100 air cooled lawnmower engine from Harbor Freight can run hundreds of hours at 3600 RPM without breaking a sweat. There would be no reason a modern liquid cooled  engine can’t easily surpass that. 
I’m with you, rev it up into the work zone. Even the pre-OD trucks with 4.10 gears would have highway cruise speeds near 3000 RPM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smfarms said:

I’m with you. Old school I guess. Retired from heavy equipment repair most of my working days. Slower lasts longer. If they can engineer smaller displacement engines with power ratings equal to much larger engines why can’t they do it at lower rpm’s? We all know that the slower something turns the less wear it has. I guess I can’t compare today’s throw away engines to yesterday’s built to last ones. Surely there is engineering to make more hp besides just increasing rpm’s?  Just listen to your 3-4000 rpm reving engine in your nice expensive truck and wonder just how long it’s going to last at those speeds. Just wondering…..

Nobody cares anymore. These trucks will be in the shredder by the time the engine is shot. It’s a totally different mentality today, which is sad. If they wanted engines that would last they would all be diesels with sleeves. But those have been all but destroyed because of mandated design flaws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget computer controlled ignition, variable valve timing, 4 valve heads, electronically waste gated turbos, variable transmission shift patterns based on load, 2x and 3x overdrives.

It's a lot more that cubes and rpm these days to be both powerful and efficient. 

For my 10% 5000-6000# trailering and 90% road time the 3.5 EB is the perfect ticket.

YMMV....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are Eco OR Boost.......NOT Eco + Boost!!!!   Put a boost gauge on one and watch instantaneous mileage read out.....when you cross from vacuum to boost your fuel mileage crosses back the other direction!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr. Plow said:

They are Eco OR Boost.......NOT Eco + Boost!!!!   Put a boost gauge on one and watch instantaneous mileage read out.....when you cross from vacuum to boost your fuel mileage crosses back the other direction!

Ha.  Yup.  Reminds me of a guy I know that hauled a round baler in from out of state with his Eco or Boost.  Went 70 mph home loaded  . . . and got 3 mpg for his trouble.  I can’t even get my Cummins down that low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 4 door 2017 F150 with 164,000 miles and so far it doesn't use any oil.  I use it to pull a 14' long 7' wide 7' high 2 axle 7K enclosed trailer.  The 2.7 ecoboost is highly impressive.  It will hold its speed pulling most grades at under 2000 rpm or right about there.  Works as well or better than the 2006 5.3 GMC I used to have.  Mileage approaches 30 mpg on long trips.  So far I love it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The newer turbo engines generally make their power at low rpms. Max torque is normally coming in at 1,500 rpm in a turbocharged gasoline direct injected engine. Older hondas from the late 90s through the mid 2000s used to make their power at over 6,000 rpm. Most gas turbos today don't rely on those kinds of rpms to make power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...