Rumor - The GT500 thread

[9secondko]

:doh::doh:

Lol

You must admit that THE truck having an ecoboost 6 is... A little different.

Sponsored

 

[krt22]

Lol

You must admit that THE truck having an ecoboost 6 is... A little different.

Not if its making 450 ftlbs+

 

[9secondko]

I wouldn't say so. He said it's the small EcoBoost. He didn't say this V6 EcoBoost is smaller than a V8. He said small EcoBoost. Totally different.


AFAIK the V6 is the BIG EcoBoost, because the other production EcoBoost engines are all 4 cylinders. Am I wrong here?


I think this is a definitive answer as to whether Ford is working on a V8 EcoBEAST. :eyebulge:


Of course nothing is official.




I totally agree.



I'm thinking the Coyote will be getting direct injection at some point, so this might be a way to develop a few things Ford wants/needs for future cars.

I don't think the name ECOBEAST makes any sense for an engine in the GT500.

Firstly, the "boost" part of name is nixed. Then you keep the "Eco" part, which has nothing to do with the GT500.

 

[9secondko]

Not if its making 450 ftlbs+

considering it would be making plenty more with an 8... yes it is.

The N/A Raptor is nearly there as it is.

 

[68fbjjz109]

Yea at 12 MPG with a Tail wind, prob would get 15 or so in the new body.

The 2017 Raptor will eclipse the old one.

 

[9secondko]

Yea at 12 MPG with a Tail wind, prob would get 15 or so in the new body.

The 2017 Raptor will eclipse the old one.

Of course. It has boost.

But a properly developed 8 with boost would eclipse that.

It's all I'm saying. Just logic.

Of course Ford must contend with government regulations, do it will elk best in ways to make the company as a whole succeed providing what everyone needs, while offering what we all "want" in a few select areas. Such as evening things out elsewhere do that a new hot rod 5.2 v8 can exist. And quite possibly a TT gt500 v8.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Lol

You must admit that THE truck having an ecoboost 6 is... A little different.

It is different but I embrace change. The new Raptor is going to be a slick ride.

 

[Hack]

I don't think the name ECOBEAST makes any sense for an engine in the GT500.

Firstly, the "boost" part of name is nixed. Then you keep the "Eco" part, which has nothing to do with the GT500.

I bet it would get better fuel economy than the GT350 while making double the power (if they choose to), so ECO makes sense to me.

I like the name eco beast.

 

[9secondko]

I bet it would get better fuel economy than the GT350 while making double the power (if they choose to), so ECO makes sense to me.

I like the name eco beast.

Sure, FI helps, but the car isn't going to be economical as any Shelby or cobra owner will tell you.

So it really doesn't seem to fit.

Helping a 4 banger make power is one thing. Take my an economical motor and boosting it.

But taking a powerhouse and boosting it is something else.

Really hope they choose a name more suitable to the intent of the engine.... That would be POWER.

 

[krt22]

That is the beauty of FI motors though, you can have both. When you are are in closed loop mode (i.e. not loading the engine), it operates much like a standard NA motor would...and when you get on it, it operates much like a larger NA motor would. So it really wouldnt be a stretch to see similar fuel economy numbers in the much larger truck

Im guessing something like 15/22 for the GT350

 

[9secondko]

That is the beauty of FI motors though, you can have both. When you are are in closed loop mode (i.e. not loading the engine), it operates much like a standard NA motor would...and when you get on it, it operates much like a larger NA motor would. So it really wouldnt be a stretch to see similar fuel economy numbers in the much larger truck

Im guessing something like 15/22 for the GT350

Preaching to the choir.

But gt500 FI gas mileage shouldn't have the word "Eco" anywhere near it IMHO. Lol.

 

[krt22]

Yes true, especially if you are driving it as intended

 

[Hack]

Preaching to the choir.

But gt500 FI gas mileage shouldn't have the word "Eco" anywhere near it IMHO. Lol.

I guess we have different standards. To me, if I can get 22-25 mpg on a long trip and make 800+ hp with the same engine it totally qualifies for both being ECOnomic and a BEAST.

That is a completely plausible performance window for a twin turbo Coyote.

 

[9secondko]

I guess we have different standards. To me, if I can get 22-25 mpg on a long trip and make 800+ hp with the same engine it totally qualifies for both being ECOnomic and a BEAST.

That is a completely plausible performance window for a twin turbo Coyote.

I guess we do.

I'm thinking of economical in a broad sense as in no one calling 22-25 mpg "economical." You are thinking in a comparative sense as it contrasts with the gas guzzling potential of the same engine making big power.

It's all good. I think there is some room for interpretation until Ford does something official. Everyone has a different perspective of looking at the same thing and usually, multiple facets of one idea can be explored, credited, discredited, validated, etc. during discussions like these. That's the beauty of forums.

But at least we can agree that an FI V8 with "beastly" power is a proper fit for the GT500.

 

[Barrel]

I'm thinking of economical in a broad sense as in no one calling 22-25 mpg "economical."

Plenty of people call that economical in lots of applications, chief among them SUVs and full size trucks. The Explorer, Flex and F150 all have the named EcoBoost motors but none get over 25MPG. I don't see the issue putting out a high-HP car that also gets low 20s highway with an "EcoBoost" powerplant.

Sponsored