V6 or V8?

[Doug Ram]

Remember the 1984 Turbo 2.3 Liter Ford engines? The Volvo Turbo B23 engines? Those were VERY durable, long term reliable engines. They got good Gas mileage too. 30 years have elapsed. Why is it so darned difficult to make a decent high horsepower small displacement engine today, when they did it 3 decades ago?

I remember Ford's 2.3 liter really well. My Dad loved Fords. He (and my Mom) had a 1958 T-Bird, a 1960 T-Bird, a 69 Mustang, a 72 Mustang, a 1973 Capri, a 1974 Mustang II, a 1978 Ford Fairmont and finally a 1984 Mustang SVO. The last 3 had the 2.3 liter engine and the SVO was the turbo. My personal opinion is that the 1958 T-Bird was Ford at their best and each subsequent car was worse than the one that came before it.

In the Mustang II the under powered 2.3 engine was OK when paired with a 4 speed manual and it lasted for 120,000 miles. But in the Fairmont the same engine was paired with a horrible 3 speed manual and the whole package was a total POS. The engine seized at 35,000 miles. The dealer did a crappy rebuild and despite his repeatedly trying his utter incompetent best, the engine head gasket leaked oil onto the exhaust, it ate PVC valves, and required premium gas to keep from knocking. It was junked at 50,000 miles.

By 1984 Ford managed to build the SVO engine a bit better. It died at about 70,000 miles when the injectors clogged and the lean mix burned a hole in two pistons. So Dad gave it to me and I paid $1,000 to have the engine torn down and completely rebuilt by a true professional who knew what he was doing. I sold it at 150,000 miles when the turbo died.

I have never bought another Found On Road Dead (FORD).

 

[Sherman Bird]

I remember Ford's 2.3 liter really well. My Dad loved Fords. He (and my Mom) had a 1958 T-Bird, a 1960 T-Bird, a 69 Mustang, a 72 Mustang, a 1973 Capri, a 1974 Mustang II, a 1978 Ford Fairmont and finally a 1984 Mustang SVO. The last 3 had the 2.3 liter engine and the SVO was the turbo. My personal opinion is that the 1958 T-Bird was Ford at their best and each subsequent car was worse than the one that came before it.

In the Mustang II the under powered 2.3 engine was OK when paired with a 4 speed manual and it lasted for 120,000 miles. But in the Fairmont the same engine was paired with a horrible 3 speed manual and the whole package was a total POS. The engine seized at 35,000 miles. The dealer did a crappy rebuild and despite his repeatedly trying his utter incompetent best, the engine head gasket leaked oil onto the exhaust, it ate PVC valves, and required premium gas to keep from knocking. It was junked at 50,000 miles.

By 1984 Ford managed to build the SVO engine a bit better. It died at about 70,000 miles when the injectors clogged and the lean mix burned a hole in two pistons. So Dad gave it to me and I paid $1,000 to have the engine torn down and completely rebuilt by a true professional who knew what he was doing. I sold it at 150,000 miles when the turbo died.

I have never bought another Found On Road Dead (FORD).

Clogged injectors are the fault of the owner of ANY car/ truck. That is lack of maintenance. The lean mix valve damage was collateral damage exacerbated by the fact it was turbo. Can't blame the manufacturer for that neglect.
My experiences with MY own ownership of these engines were much better than yours, but, I personally maintained them.
"It ate PCV valves" is not a viable comment. All a PCV valve on those engines was/ is a canister with an orificed opening and check valve to allow positive, instead of passive crankcase ventilation. Does "eating" PCV valves mean they kept clogging? If so, that points to sludge problems. Again, lack of diligent maintenance.

I had a Merkur XR4Ti which never had any problems with that turbo 2.3T engine. I owned 3 Pintos with the 2.3... NONE ever had problems except the occasional broken timing belt!

Fairmonts were Fox-Body attempts at Ford trying to phase out the Mavericks and Granadas. Those were not their best efforts, but look at the domestic field of automotive choices back then. The choices looking back were dismal.... and then came Toyota and Honda who kicked domestic butt!

 

[Sherman Bird]

I agree. There's no free lunch in physics. There has to be a cost associated with squeezing big horsepower numbers out of a 4 cylinder to the extent that they rival the naturally aspirated 8 cylinders. That cost is dependability and longevity. This used to be common sense but I recall people immediately latching on to Ford's EcoBoost when it was first introduced as if it was the second coming. The sheen has worn off since then yet it seems like consumers haven't learned anything.

The only argument that can be made that high horsepower "twinky" engines are on par with the V8's in terms of reliability is that the latest V8's aren't made as well as they could be because of other priorities and that neither have good long-term dependability. When you consider what manufacturer's have been doing in the name of fuel economy alone, there may be something to that. Consider how MDS, Start/Stop etc in the Chevy and RAM V8's has impacted those engines.

To be fair, people are going to believe what they will; based on anecdotal stories told at holiday gatherings and such, by uncle Elmer, Grampa, Cousin Farley et. al., not to mention what Big Bubba Tadsworth said at the Gym the other day.

Folks want free, and believe old urban myths about "100 mile to the gallon" Carburetors, and such. I had a customer bring me a device which sandwiched the fuel pressure line between powerful magnets. He wanted me to install this dubious item on his K2500 GMC Super Crew Cab truck with a 6.0 Liter engine. Supposedly, this was going to straighten up fuel molecules and give the truck a "magic" jump in fuel mileage from single digit to 20+ MPG.

It was all I could do to keep a straight face. I told him that the device wouldn't work, but he was adamant. I charged him 15 dollars for my time whilst letting him know truth. He would have none of the truth as I told it.

This guy drove past my shop every day for years on his commute to work. About 2-3 months after I installed that magic magnetic device, I saw him drive by on a motorcycle. He did that for about a year (the motorcycle thing). Then He stopped going past my shop for about 6 months. One day, he drives up in the K2500 truck and got out, sporting a cane, and showing obvious signs of great physical impairment. He had been in a bad accident on the bike, and had been in rehab for months. I felt truly bad for him in spite of the issue about the truck gas mileage. The truck was covered in heavy dirt/dust from disuse. He had me do a state safety and emissions test so he could drive the truck again.



He and I conversed about the results of this magnetic device. He admitted that it made ZERO difference in mileage. He also lamented that the lesson he learned form that accident was that it is way wiser to drive a huge steel framed vehicle on hostile streets such as here in Houston, Texas. He also was grateful to have survived and got to live to see his family, and his children grow up.

Bottom line: Hurling that 6,000 pound + truck down the road takes BTU's of heat energy converting to kinetic energy. Weight and friction from air and mechanically are THE enemies of high fuel mileage. And the algorithm show how exponentially the factors go up the higher the speed one goes. My thoughts are that the modern manufacturers have reached limits of physics with modern technology in today's terms with bigger vehicles.

Wanna buy a Moped, anyone? Hmm?

 

[ramffml]

To be fair, people are going to believe what they will;

Silverado 5.3 = 15 to 17 mpg

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG - Actual MPG from 2,120 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 owners

The most accurate Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG estimates based on real world results of 50.0 million miles driven in 2,120 Chevrolet Silverado 1500s

www.fuelly.com

Ram 5.7 hemi = 15 to 17 mpg

Ram 1500 MPG - Actual MPG from 2,914 Ram 1500 owners

The most accurate Ram 1500 MPG estimates based on real world results of 72.9 million miles driven in 2,914 Ram 1500s

www.fuelly.com

Silverado 2.7 = 18 to 21 mpg

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG - Actual MPG from 62 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 owners

The most accurate Chevrolet Silverado 1500 MPG estimates based on real world results of 1.1 million miles driven in 62 Chevrolet Silverado 1500s

www.fuelly.com

 

[Jeepwalker]

At one time we had two fairly identical WJ GC Jeeps. One with the famed I-6, the other with a 4.7HO V8. Our neighbor had a ZJ GC a couple years older (1st gen body) with the 318. My neighbor's wife drove a very similar route as my wife did. They all got about the same mpg The I-6 got about 1/2 - 1 mpg better ..when my wife was driving it. The I-6 4.0 is a great engine, but the much stronger 4.7HO completely transforms the driving experience.

2nd relevant experience: There was a time I used to drive Toyota 4x4 pickups. Had a few of them. Good ole 22R engine/s. They're very fun and practical for occasional truck use. There's something magical about them Toyota got 'right'. But they're also cramped inside, noisy interiors, doggy acceleration, bad brakes, crappy stereos, missing a lot of creature comforts and not many safety features (but they're still fun!!). Best I used to get was ~18mpg on average between fill-ups, sometimes not even that. I ended up getting a 1989 OBS RC/SWB GMC 4x4 that averaged 16.5 mpg between fill-ups on the same routine commuter route. It was superior in every way. 2x more hauling space/capacity, interior space & comfort (had the highest package) ...all for 1.5 mpg less. On straight highway it'll do better than that. And that's bc it was a heavier vehicle.

So that pretty much supports your point.

 

[Sherman Bird]

At one time we had two fairly identical WJ GC Jeeps. One with the famed I-6, the other with a 4.7HO V8. Our neighbor had a ZJ GC a couple years older (1st gen body) with the 318. My neighbor's wife drove a very similar route as my wife did. They all got about the same mpg The I-6 got about 1/2 - 1 mpg better ..when my wife was driving it. The I-6 4.0 is a great engine, but the much stronger 4.7HO completely transforms the driving experience.

2nd relevant experience: There was a time I used to drive Toyota 4x4 pickups. Had a few of them. Good ole 22R engine/s. They're very fun and practical for occasional truck use. There's something magical about them Toyota got 'right'. But they're also cramped inside, noisy interiors, doggy acceleration, bad brakes, crappy stereos, missing a lot of creature comforts and not many safety features (but they're still fun!!). Best I used to get was ~18mpg on average between fill-ups, sometimes not even that. I ended up getting a 1989 OBS RC/SWB GMC 4x4 that averaged 16.5 mpg between fill-ups on the same routine commuter route. It was superior in every way. 2x more hauling space/capacity, interior space & comfort (had the highest package) ...all for 1.5 mpg less. On straight highway it'll do better than that. And that's bc it was a heavier vehicle.

So that pretty much supports your point.

The Toyota 22R had an "E" after the nomenclature, thus, the 22RE. E standing for electronic port fuel injection. The caveat to that particular engine? Toyota had gone to a single chain timing set in the final year of production of the predecessor, the 20R engine. Up until 1980, the 20R was carbureted, and 1981 sported the first year of single chain/ plastic guides. The 22 series came out in 1982. That singel chain/ plastic guides would become THAT engine's Achille's heel. The timing chain in single row form was woefully inadequate for longevity. The chain would stretch, begin to flail about, then break the plastic guides.
Blissfully unaware of this malady, the unaware owner kept driving the vehicle, running quite well, thank you! All the while, aforementioned flailing chain ate a groove through the timing cover casting (aluminum). This would break into the coolant passage behind the water pump, and, VOILA! One had a milkshake concoction of oil/coolant! There went the main bearings, especially the thrust for the crankshaft..... and the unaware owner kept on a'drivin! The thrust bearing would get shucked into the oil pan and the crank throw would eat the block. By the time I would see these (often), I'd better serve the customer buying a salvage engine, and rebuilding it. I saw them regularly with sub 100,000 miles and that problem.

ALL cars/trucks have weaknesses. and the quoted fuel mileages you catalog are close to the physical limits of the weight/engine displacement/ point of volumetric efficiency before the laws of averages tank.
Enter DOD, AFM, or whatever name one would give cutting the engine in half, displacement wise... and fuel mileage go up to. oh, what? 23-25 mpg? Perhaps a bit more with aluminum and weight reduced parts?

Years ago, I had a customer telling me and my mechanic how his 70's big block Pontiac Trans Am got 25 mpg. I didn't believe it then, And I don't now. Not with a factory 3:73 differential, no lock up converter, and no overdrive. Maybe he was going downhill with a tail wind... who knows?

One interesting statistic was how much better fuel mileage averages went up at Federally mandated 55 MPH speed limits. Nowadays, people go much faster. Ya think the offset which levels the mileage figures has something to do with different "N" values?

 

[KingJ2]

The Toyota 22R had an "E" after the nomenclature, thus, the 22RE. E standing for electronic port fuel injection. The caveat to that particular engine? Toyota had gone to a single chain timing set in the final year of production of the predecessor, the 20R engine. Up until 1980, the 20R was carbureted, and 1981 sported the first year of single chain/ plastic guides. The 22 series came out in 1982. That singel chain/ plastic guides would become THAT engine's Achille's heel. The timing chain in single row form was woefully inadequate for longevity. The chain would stretch, begin to flail about, then break the plastic guides.
Blissfully unaware of this malady, the unaware owner kept driving the vehicle, running quite well, thank you! All the while, aforementioned flailing chain ate a groove through the timing cover casting (aluminum). This would break into the coolant passage behind the water pump, and, VOILA! One had a milkshake concoction of oil/coolant! There went the main bearings, especially the thrust for the crankshaft..... and the unaware owner kept on a'drivin! The thrust bearing would get shucked into the oil pan and the crank throw would eat the block. By the time I would see these (often), I'd better serve the customer buying a salvage engine, and rebuilding it. I saw them regularly with sub 100,000 miles and that problem.

ALL cars/trucks have weaknesses. and the quoted fuel mileages you catalog are close to the physical limits of the weight/engine displacement/ point of volumetric efficiency before the laws of averages tank.
Enter DOD, AFM, or whatever name one would give cutting the engine in half, displacement wise... and fuel mileage go up to. oh, what? 23-25 mpg? Perhaps a bit more with aluminum and weight reduced parts?

Years ago, I had a customer telling me and my mechanic how his 70's big block Pontiac Trans Am got 25 mpg. I didn't believe it then, And I don't now. Not with a factory 3:73 differential, no lock up converter, and no overdrive. Maybe he was going downhill with a tail wind... who knows?

One interesting statistic was how much better fuel mileage averages went up at Federally mandated 55 MPH speed limits. Nowadays, people go much faster. Ya think the offset which levels the mileage figures has something to do with different "N" values?

According to this study where they compared the Fuel Economy (FE) of vehicles from MY 2005 to 2013:

Thomas, J., "Drive Cycle Powertrain Efficiencies and Trends Derived from EPA Vehicle Dynamometer Results," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 7(4):1374-1384, 2014.

You can download the PDF here

Manufacturers going from 4-5 drive transmissions to 6 is the main reason for the increase in FE from the MY 2005 to 2013.

Pay attention to this observation made in Figures 2 and 3:

Also notable is a general drop in n/V, the engine speed (rpm) divided by the vehicle speed at 50 mph (average values are shown in Table 2). These n/V values are taken from the EPA database and show an average drop of about 11% from MY 2005 to 2013. All but six of the vehicle pairs showed some degree of downspeeding. This general downspeeding trend presumably contributes to improved powertrain efficiency (and FE). However, no significant correlation was found between paired vehicle n/V change and change in FTP or HFET powertrain efficiency."

 

[Sherman Bird]

THE glaring omission here is: At WHAT speed? from 55 mph to 75-80 mph, the decline in fuel mileage is in inverse proportion to wind resistance and friction factors.
My own 2008 F-150 Lariat Super Crew had the 5.4L 3 valve engine and the 4R75W auto trans with the 3:42 differential. On one trip at 60 mph, it got an astonishing 19.8 MPG. Conversely, on another identical trip, at 75 MPH, the mileage dropped to 15.6 MPG. That's a huge drop, given all else being equal (such as tire pressures! there goes that darned friction coefficient!).
Also, I have heard (unofficially) that manufacturers fudge every tiny detail to eke out the best MPG they can. One manufacturer's engineer told me that they will up tire pressure oh, maybe 4-5 PSI above stated maximum as one of their ways of enhancing CAFE compliance.

Your quote is great... if volumetric efficiency was the single issue. EVERY time I've lowered my speed (thus, reduce rolling frictions) My mileage has increased across the board.

Just a year ago, I was taking several trips in my 2004 Ford Ranger with the 3.0 cast iron "U" engine, a 3:42 differential, and the 5-speed automatic (5R55E). My fuel mileages were most controllable in 2 ways. One was going slower (much to the chagrin of the speed demons of SE Texas!) At 65 MPH, (our posted speed limits for most roads) I kissed 20MPG. At 80-90 MPH, keeping pace with everybody else, my mileage dropped to the high 14's to the mid 15's. I made sure to keep the A/C running all through these trips to make the comparison fair to me. That is a HUGE difference!

I once owned a 1970 Chevy Impala 4 door hardtop with the 3:08 differential, 350 Cubic inch 2 BBL carbureted engine, and the TH 350 automatic 3-speed transmission. It got a rock steady 9-11 MPG bone stock. That number changed very little on the highway or around town.

I decided to change out the intake manifold to a stock 4 barrel intake and a stock 750CFM Quadra-jet carb. With the smaller more fuel efficient front (primary) 2 barrels, my normal driving around town went up to 16 MPG, and highway mileage at the then limit of 55 MPH shot up to just shy of 21 MPG. These results were as I expected, and mileage went into the toilet if and when I opened the throttle enough to open the secondary fuel circuit. So, this bears out the volumetric efficiency of your quoted article.

These factors were known back in the early years when Rambler, Studebaker, and all those gone by the wayside manufacturers were touting there "fuel efficient and safety minded" cars. Their sales were in the Toilet compared to the big 3. Why? Because Americans want Power and conveniences above all else, and the want cool looking vehicles.

 

[SitKneelBend]

Well thanks to all of you I’m more open to either now. That 100k mile service is an eye opener but so be it.
I’m still bouncing around ‘14 thru ‘18
model years. I’m finding a lot of Express models but the radio and steering wheel controls are lacking in those. I did find a ‘14 Outdoorsman with about 75k on a Pentastar engine
with a nice options but it needs a new half shaft on the right front. Not sure what else it may need. Dealer wants $20k.

I have a 3.6 and I've been very happy with it since new in 2014. If you don't need to tow consistently and heavy it's the better choice in my opinion. That being said, I think you'll be happy with either engine (just don't get 3.21 gears).

As far as features like steering wheel buttons and radios, don't sweat that. That's what this forum is for and adding those things is fairly easy. Maybe use their lack as a bargaining chip to drive down the price.

 

[NightmareRCSB]

In this thread I posted a video of a GM engineer who goes into detail on how they lined the cylinders with material harder than Compacted Graphite Iron, fully forged bottom end, how the turbo is fed clean oil, how the engine minimizes turbo lag (larger cylinders and physical placement of the turbo right beside the exhaust manifold), electric water pump to keep the turbos cooled when RPMs drop off a cliff but turbo is still hot (towing and pulling up to a stop light) etc etc. The video shows the state of lifters, cam, cylinder walls etc after running constant wide open throttle pulls for 24 hours a day for a couple of weeks. So yes that engine can take a beating.

What you posted is nonsense. An opinion with no facts, and on top of it all you're a new poster whose first and second posts were to trash this engine with nothing more than "believe me, I know a guy... " type of assertions.

I also happen to be on several other truck forums, GM included. There are 0 issues with it beyond a few "one off" glitches that happen to every thing on this planet engineered by mankind.

So you're not believable in the slightest. Shocker, eh?

If you're here for information than grow up and stop picking fights like an offended fangirl. You may not agree with my opinion, but you're certainly not here "just for information".

you're posting videos of GM technicians, I'm actually working on them. if you dont like me or what I said, tough ****.

 

[MADDOG]

@ramffml & @NightmareRCSB

Cool your jets, gentlemen. Let's keep it civil in the open forum.

 

[Atcer2018]

As long as the waffles are square she good to me!

How about these waffles?

 

[ramffml]

you're posting videos of GM technicians, I'm actually working on them. if you dont like me or what I said, tough ****.

No, I'm posting videos of GM engineers, the guy who built it.

 

[ramffml]

@ramffml & @NightmareRCSB

Cool your jets, gentlemen. Let's keep it civil in the open forum.

No worries, I dropped the guy in my ignore users list. He can chill in there for a while.