[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 68gtoMN

Sleepy, in situations like this you must remember the old adage which is timeless:

Never argue with an idiot - he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The Ecoboost 3.5 was not designed to BEAT the Chevy 6.2 or any other engine purely on HP AND be expected to deliver better mileage in all situations. Nope. The goals were more modest. What Ford accomplished was to develop a compact and lightweight engine that produced great Torque (you know...the force the actually moves an object) from a very low RPM and maintain it across a wide RPM band. As a by product of the engine size, when not being called upon to tow heavy loads (twice the payload and towing of the Chevy hybrid 6.0), it would deliver great mileage. In addition, the smaller package and lighter weight would provide better weight distribution, better suspension tuning, better turning, better braking all without having to upgrade these ancillary systems (cost).

Ecoboost provides the equivalent (better) torque, sooner in the RPM range AND across a wider RPM range, from a smaller package all the while delivering equivalent or better fuel consumption figures. The engine was tested, on camera, through more severe duty cycles than most engines can imagine seeing in two lifetimes and it still maintained factory specs upon tear down.

Ford did a great job with their Ecoboost engine line. Perhaps not all will like the styling or brand or colors Ford offers. So be it. GM and Chrysler also make good trucks. The issue here is that Ford has effectively shifted the paradigm and some can't come to terms with it. Just like computer controls would spell the death knell to performance cars...er...oops - that did not happen, people can't grasp smaller, boosted engines replacing cubic inches...

The facts tell the true story. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost delivers equal or better performance than the 6.2 Chevy or the 6.0 Hybrid without sacrificing it's work credentials (towing/payload).

There is another old adage to follow - don't spit into the wind.

With twin turbos, Ecoboost is blowing hard in Chevy's direction...

ford did not re write the laws of physics. they simply put turbos on an engine which dramatically changes it's volumetric efficency. nothing new here, it has been done for decades.

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

Better re read what I stated regarding your 6.0 comment:



[I]

i'll race anyone one. i dont care aboot losing. loser buys beer and helps the winner drink it.

it makes it very difficult for locating and mating parts.

Bad cylinder heads ?

no but it seems you are using it as an excuae for ford. especially with all the modern development tools at hand. were talking about fords heads having massive issues 20 years later.

Didn't Pontiac look at Ford heads in the 60s for further development or lightly copy them ?
Why not mention bad Ford cylinder heads to Bob Glidden ?

and look at them now--- people put them in EVERYTHING! oh wait...

factory ls3 heads flow more than a 4v cleveland.

Bob Glidden cleaned house in the pro stock class with that engine. Obviously the NHRA changed the rules after that.

you missed the point. you said gm uses weak materials. but if a stock 4.8 bottom end can handle over 60 dyno pulls and make over 1200 hp, it can't be all bad.

Ive never heard of boring a 5.3 roughly .120 over to a 5.7 on a late LS. I could be wrong, but I'm calling BS on that: with todays modern casting techniques I somehow doubt any manufacturer will waste that much material on each block. I know the earlier ones were very thin in the walls and I was told not to go more then .020 and on the aluminum blocks the liners were so thin you were not supposed to go .020 over without replacing them.

you can actually bore a 4.8 into an ls1 (5.7) bore. it's a walk in the park for a 5.3. it's pretty common actually

You can order a fully assembled stroker short block for not much more than the cost of machine work and piecing together a stroker. That said, most 4.8 blocks can be bored to 3.900 or 3.905 (basically 5.7 LS1 bore).

http://ls1tech.com/forums/generation...ker-motor.html