Naturally Aspirated (NA) V8 Engines

skrypj said:
That’s exactly right, its not the point of the test. But using TFL’s ike tests to compare motors is dumb, which is my whole point. My 300 hp 4.6L Lexus GX could probably pull that trailer up the hill at 60mph and hit the same time. Or it would be very close.

does that mean I would want to do it in my GX all the time? Or for hours on end? No, absolutely not. Just because an engine can pull a trailer up the ike in the middle of the winter at a 60mph speed limit doesnt mean anything. Its about how the engine pulls the trailer and that is what differentiates the ecoboost. It pulls like a diesel but has the top end of a gasser.

And the ike might be bigger/taller than things in Wyoming, but the winds, temps and other items are more extreme in Wyoming. The hardest pulls i have ever done were heading westbound in Wyoming. The grades are just as steep, the speed limits are higher, the winds are insane, and the temps can get pretty high all while you might be at 7-8000’. The sustained power i have had to use to cut my trailer through winds there on flat ground was probably approching the power needed to pull the ike.
Click to expand...
Where in WY do you have interstate stretch almost 100 miles long with grades constantly going up and down 6-9% peaking at 11,000ft?
 
Pew said:
I will be surprised if ANY turbo vehicles have positive PSI cruising at highway speeds up to 80mph; that'll just be outright inefficient. Both my Evo and focus don't see positive PSI cruising under 80mph at all. Towing would be a different story, although I would imagine towing at 80mph with any engine is inefficient regardless.
Click to expand...
Why would it be inefficient? I could only see that as a problem if it had to run rich while under boost so as to prevent pinging.

I *think* my TDi ran positive boost going down the road, too long to remember for sure.
 
skrypj said:
I've had to do my exhaust manifolds twice now cause ford’s original design was so poor.
Click to expand...
Just an FYI for those who might be concerned, the 2.7 and the 2.3 EB engines do not have exhaust manifolds. Instead, the turbo bolts directly to the cylinder head. Completely eliminating any risk of manifold problems.
 
supton said:
Why would it be inefficient? I could only see that as a problem if it had to run rich while under boost so as to prevent pinging.

I *think* my TDi ran positive boost going down the road, too long to remember for sure.
Click to expand...

More boost = more fuel, so just for cruising you would want to minimize all of that.
 
Anyone else find it funny being lectured about doing things cheaper by someone using a $3000 early 00's Tundra as the example?

If you've looked at $3000 trucks lately, good luck I guess...

I bought my truck brand new. I'll run it out to 200k. The rust will have taken over things based on the years at that point, and its time to move on - and in the long run, per mile, I'll still be ahead in my new truck versus buying used. It was true 5 years ago when I bought, and its even more so now. My truck that I bought in 2016 for 37k out the door, just had 31k offer from the dealer to purchase it... Let alone what the sales price would be for the next buyer... Of course, you have to pay for the replacement, but used pricing is insane!

I can state that my 2.7 ecoboost is usually into some boost at 65+ miles per hour... And you can watch that the fuel mileage drops about there too - can't change the laws of physics...
 
Pew said:
More boost = more fuel, so just for cruising you would want to minimize all of that.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I don't see the correlation. Let's say they put in an 1L I3 into a truck. [Don't laugh: did you ever think a full size would come with a 2.7L I4?] Rolling down the road I would bet that I3 would have to be in boost in order to have enough HP to turn 80mph.

Without a doubt, less boost should equal more mpg. Just like how higher vacuum used to mean more mpg. But I don't see the need to fear boost. If the engine is running boost to get down the road... why should I care? Drive slower so as to make mpg.

In the end, if the A/F is running 14.7:1 or leaner then I don't see the problem. It'd only be if it's running richer that I'd be concerned about wasting mpg.
 
supton said:
Sure, but I don't see the correlation. Let's say they put in an 1L I3 into a truck. [Don't laugh: did you ever think a full size would come with a 2.7L I4?] Rolling down the road I would bet that I3 would have to be in boost in order to have enough HP to turn 80mph.

Without a doubt, less boost should equal more mpg. Just like how higher vacuum used to mean more mpg. But I don't see the need to fear boost. If the engine is running boost to get down the road... why should I care? Drive slower so as to make mpg.

In the end, if the A/F is running 14.7:1 or leaner then I don't see the problem. It'd only be if it's running richer that I'd be concerned about wasting mpg.
Click to expand...

I think my wording of "efficient" may have been improperly used. Fuel economy would have been a better term, otherwise I agree with you.
 
4WD said:
I think 99% of members understand vehicles are not investments … Unless one considers modern safety improvements an “investment “ …
Click to expand...

Weird. Several of my vehicles purchased used last year have appreciated in value this year... :)
 
john_pifer said:
Why the bubble with used truck prices?
Click to expand...
There's a 1990 T100 locally with 150k miles for a staggering $15,000. It looks really nice but good gravy... these used trucks (of which I have 2) are skyrocketing in price.

Maybe the market is speaking in support of what MrLemonade has been saying ... nobody wants to pay $50,000 - $80,000 for a "new" truck.
 
MNgopher said:
Anyone else find it funny being lectured about doing things cheaper by someone using a $3000 early 00's Tundra as the example?

If you've looked at $3000 trucks lately, good luck I guess...

I bought my truck brand new. I'll run it out to 200k. The rust will have taken over things based on the years at that point, and its time to move on - and in the long run, per mile, I'll still be ahead in my new truck versus buying used. It was true 5 years ago when I bought, and its even more so now. My truck that I bought in 2016 for 37k out the door, just had 31k offer from the dealer to purchase it... Let alone what the sales price would be for the next buyer... Of course, you have to pay for the replacement, but used pricing is insane!

I can state that my 2.7 ecoboost is usually into some boost at 65+ miles per hour... And you can watch that the fuel mileage drops about there too - can't change the laws of physics...
Click to expand...

HA, lectured. The $3000 Tundra I bought last year when people were nearly giving away vehicles is now probably wroth $10,000 - $15,000 or more on the open market. I'm the dummy. lol.

That Tundra will do anything a modern ecoboost will do, and probably last longer doing it. The MAX HP and Torque numbers are just that, maximums. You push that ecoboost to the max for 100k and it'll meet an untimely demise. The Tundras are widely known and respected in the truck world for being workhorses that will give you 3/4 million miles of service...
 
MrLemonade said:
Weird. Several of my vehicles purchased used last year have appreciated in value this year... :)
Click to expand...
Yeah … getting nagged by the dealership to sell them our Tahoe … they even have Carmax guys at the Chevy dealer so you get competitive offers … Indeed, used vehicles are hotter than normal from the pandemic impacts.
 
dareo said:
You might be discounting the highway miles a bit too much. There is still wear taking place. A lot of fuel is burned at highway speed. An ecoboost turbo truck will likely be producing positive boost pressure at highway speed. That is a lot of rotations for a turbine to spin 400k miles.
Click to expand...

That comment had me curious, so I went and looked. Granted, I know the debate is mostly regarding the 2.7 and 3.5, but I don't have one of those, so I went and took a look at my little 2.3 with the help of the Torque app.

At 80mph in 10th on a flat road, the 2.3 runs about 1.2psi of boost according to what the ecm is reporting to torque. At 70mph it is slightly less, around .9 to 1. Maximum boost appears to be slightly over 20psi and it seems to limit it in the lower gears, although that could be a side effect of the damp highway here tonight.

Not wading into the argument, just data for you fellow data junkies. I didn't log the drive, this is just me looking at the gauge and making a mental note of it.

I suspect that the bigger frontal area of the F150 yet higher unboosted power of the 2.7 and 3.5 might not be in boost at highway speeds, or it is very minor like the 2.3.
 
I’ve owned two naturally aspirated V8’s in the past ten years (a Lexus LS460 and a 2018 Silverado). And prior to that a Hemi (2004 Dodge Ram).

I think people fail to realize that not all V8’s give you poor fuel economy. The Lexus LS460 was averaging 26 MPG for me and the Silverado was averaging 24 in the winter and 25 in the summer. With the Lexus the 8 speed transmission really helped with fuel economy and with the Silverado the AFM and transmission really did wonders for me. Granted I have an easy highway commute, but 20 years ago I would have struggled to get 18 mpg out of a V8...in fact my Dodge Ram barely gave me 14 mpg despite the same easy highway commute...that thing just never seemed to be able to glide - it always geared down - and it always felt like the brakes were dragging (they weren’t).

Having said that, yeah, I understand why people might prefer the turbo V6.
 
MrLemonade said:
Weird. Several of my vehicles purchased used last year have appreciated in value this year... :)
Click to expand...
That's the case for pretty much everything right now. I was offered what I paid for my SRT on trade for a Mach-E and our RAM is worth about 10K more than we paid for it right now, despite us having driven it for more than two years and 40,000km.
 
MrLemonade said:
I'm not a mechanic but here's my understanding. Disclaimer, I love the V8 and 6 of my 7 vehicles are NA V8s, the other is a 4.0 V6. One variable is the maker/design and known issues. Hondas make excellent small engines, for instance. Some big engines are terrible... so there's a lot behind the scenes...

FYI- the Dodge 5.7 is plagued with cam and lifter problems and MDS and timing chain issues...

I have:
One 4.0L Ford V6
Two 4.6L Ford V8s
Three 4.7L Toyota V8s
One 6.4L Dodge V8.

First of all, cost and complexity. Getting smaller motors to perform to bigger motor standards costs a lot more than just having a bigger NA motor.

Second, effort. A augmented 4 or 6 is going to be pushing higher RPMs and redlines to do what V8 can do with a lot less effort. Towing, speed, etc. And RPMs ultimately are what add up in a motor. This goes to longevity.

Third, efficiency. You're going to diminish any efficiency pushing a smaller motor hard to keep up with a NA V8. These MPG numbers by companies are best case conservative driving. You push a turbo 6 to keep up with a V8 and you're MPGs go thru the floor.

I'm not opposed to smaller motors, and I'd buy one for long commutes or milk runs. But I am generally of the mindset don't buy a small augmented motor if you are going to try to do what bigger motors are doing. Just get a bigger motor!
Click to expand...
This is wrong.
Most turbo engines for daily use street drivers have their power much lower than NA V8. The turbos efficiency range is lower than most V8 redlines. My 2.0 TGDI has a redline on the tachometer of 5500rpm. Though it shifts before that. And it runs over the power curve closer to 5000rpm. Same with my 3.5L ecoboost. It falls on its face after 5000rpm.
IDK how you come up with they have to work harder than a V8. They both have to make the same amount of power to move the same amount of mass. No way around it. Is it because you think since there is fewer cylinders, it has to "work harder"? If so I would make an argument the other way. crank shaft is longer on a V8 than a V6 and therefore is more prone to breakage.
My turbo engines pull much more like a diesel engine than a NA. That is why I bought them. They are much more lively to drive than a NA V8.
I have owned many V8 engines in many different vehicles, and auto raced V8 for many years. Ive owned diesel pickups. And these turbo engines are just fun to drive. More than most. Though the exhaust note leaves a lot to be desired...

One last thing, the fuel mileage is so close on all of them. V8 or the 3.5L eco the mpg is close enough to not be a factor.

Im not trying to talk anyone into buying one way or the other. They are all so similar to say one is better is a bunch of malarky. Buy the one that fits you. I chose to buy the lower end power. If you like to hear a V8 turn some rpm then buy that one.
Most people dont work on their vehicles so that shouldn't be an issue either. I do all my own stuff. Dealer will only ever see it for warranty work or safety recalls. And even then, it has to be a pricey fix for me to let them touch it. My trust in car dealership technicians is 0%.
Yet I still bought direct injected turbo engines.... Its really not rocket science.
 
Wouldn't the stress on the crank be measured by HP or TQ /main bearing journal area?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
No Engine Oil Dipstick
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
12K
Vern_in_IL
C
Valvoline Synpower for a flat tappet
Replies
18
Views
4K
mojocvh
RRJar
10’ Land Rover Range Rover - 5.0 V8 NA (138k) (5,382 Mile interval) (LM 0W-40)
Replies
4
Views
908
Brons2
dogememe
Explorer engine options
2 3
Replies
49
Views
12K
Warlord
RRJar
2010 Land Rover Range Rover - 5.0 V8 Naturally Aspirated
Replies
6
Views
2K
1BadManVan
Back
Top Bottom