The toughest engine....In The World?

I think we have two competing discussion points here with one sub-topic:

• Is this the toughest engine in the world?

• How was this test conducted?

• What will Ford have to do to change people's perceptions of U.S. domestic car reliability?

My answers are as follows:

• No. I named this topic "Toughest Engine In The World" as a bit of a joke and a question. We'll never answer that question. A bit like asking who would win in a fight? Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I think that Hillary would kick both their asses.

• I have no idea how this test was conducted. I'd like to see the documentation personally. I'm sure they followed the maintenance schedule. If that is all that was done, and the test is portrayed accurately in regards to the duty cycles this engine was subjected to, color me impressed.

• I'm at a loss on this point as well. I have no idea what Ford will have to do to have a widely held public perception that it's cars are reliable. I think it will be a combination of having at least one or two rock solid cars ala the 90's Honda Civic and the 90's Nissan Maxima. They will have to maintain this level of quality for at least 10 years. Also, some of the older and less reliable models will have to dissipate so that they don't remind us of past follies of which I can't name any. Which is a bit surprising.

I keep wondering - was the test public knowledge from start to finish? Or was it mainly kept under wraps till the end, so that if the motor crapped out early, they wouldn't have a backfire on their hands?

In a way it was, and it wasn't. The tests were announced prior to them being run, but details were scarce. The real test I believe was Baja, and they seemed to have HUGE support for that from Ford. It was announced that they were going to run Baja with the Hero motor beforehand. The coverage from third party sources at Baja was enough to make that run credible.

<- has been watching the hype/coverage for awhile. This latest generation of truck is at the top of my list to get when my 97 f150 finally rusts into 2 pieces.

So you think about it- OEM's all have their own aging cycle, one that they developed so that they can quickly test an engine to see if it can last X miles, and then see what kind of wear it will have.

An actual 150k car that is completed fast enough to be useful isn't all that helpful, either, since it has to be done in 1-2 years, which eliminates the long soak start from the cycle. So it will take 10-15 years to really complete a real work 150k car- which one can't expect anyone to wait for when it needs to make money.

And since each OEM makes up their own proprietary test, the odds of you finding out this test are between zero and nothing. I'm sure Ford does not want to share with any other company what can be seen as a competitive advantage- a test that finishes in 3 normal shift weeks to show what full useful life is.

How much info do you get from companies like Toyota and BMW in terms of their durability testing?

red5_02 wrote:

TuffWork wrote: I agree with the idea that a large understressed engine will pull better and last longer than a small overstressed one. I drive a truck every day (usually pulling a trailer with mowers on it). I would feel more comfortable using my V8 that isn't being stressed out and know that I stand less of a chance of ruining my work day with mechanical problems (i've got enough problems with the rest of my equipment). That being said, it is exciting to see companies trying make more power with less displacement reliably. Next question is this: Not IF but WHEN it does break can the average motorhead like you and I work on it?

The engine makes peak torque at like 1700 rpm. How is that stressing?

I will be honest. I guess in my head small displacement + big vehicle + boost equals stress. I'm one of those people that tries to be open minded, but it's hard to change my perception without years of proof. I will buy another truck this year. It will be a V8. 10 years from now when I buy another truck if they are still building motors like this with good results then I will probably jump on board. You never know, we may all be driving electric or hydrogen powered stuff by then.

A high specific output engine is under higher stress than a low specific output engine. High rpm adds one type of stress, but it's not the only type. But modern metallurgy and design means we can stress engines a lot harder for a lot longer than we used to, and you don't need a 2.25 litre engine that makes 60 hp in order for the engine to last.

I was one of the big skeptics for the "Loveland pass" race, because I felt it was heavily marketing-driven in the venue selection. But this one, I'm impressed with.

alfadriver wrote: So you think about it- OEM's all have their own aging cycle, one that they developed so that they can quickly test an engine to see if it can last X miles, and then see what kind of wear it will have. And since each OEM makes up their own proprietary test, the odds of you finding out this test are between zero and nothing. I'm sure Ford does not want to share with any other company what can be seen as a competitive advantage- a test that finishes in 3 normal shift weeks to show what full useful life is. How much info do you get from companies like Toyota and BMW in terms of their durability testing?

I love it when you post. I can't add anything except to point out the blatantly obvious piece of your quote that everyone seems to be missing. I know, let's design a new truck and then drive it on real roads for 20 years before releasing it! just like Honda did with the Civic! Reality bites, people. The sooner they can get the test over and done the sooner they can sell it. I have done enough long term tests to know that they are typically a lot harder on the equipment than actual real life.

I for one welcome our new turbo charged overlords.

The only thing that I think is wanting in accelerated tests is issues that have to do with aging - particularly of soft parts. I'm quite sure that the engine itself is tested VERY well via the 300 hour cycle.

But while the hoses, wiring, clips, plastic valve covers and intake manifold, etc. can be simulated pretty well with UV, salt, temp cycling, etc., that is still the part where I'm more comfortable with real world, real time data. Fortunately, that stuff seems to be pretty damn stout and getting better, Euro brands excluded.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Fortunately, that stuff seems to be pretty damn stout and getting better, Euro brands excluded.

Funny how quality versus perception of quality doesn't always correlate. Seriously though that line made me LOL.

My thoughts on the "understressed vs. overstressed" debate is that it's always going to be a balancing act. You could build a 1.0L 4-cylinder with a 500lb block and giant main bearings and a 6:1 compression ratio and it would probably literally run forever with minimal maintenance. It would also be esseintally useless in powering a vehicle.

I can see the argument that a GTDI 3.5L V6 is more highly stressed than a 5.0L V8 producing similar power and less torque, but this test, among other things, satisfies me that the durability is good enough that I'd never find the limits of it. I'm not one of those "put 300k on a vehicle" guys, anyhow.

By far my biggest question about this engine is what the REAL WORLD (not EPA) fuel mileage will be when installed in a 4x4 F-150. I'll be keeping up with some Ford truck web forums to see what people get, understanding that it's different for everyone.

in defense of DILYSI Dave - how long would a BMW radiator last in the 1970s and 1980 vs the ones in the 1990 and 2000+ cars?

To me German engineering used to mean something a lot different then the recycled plastic parts and crappy window regulators that pop to my mind now.

OK I don't want to come off sounding like a blue oval basher since I'm sure all you Ford guys are very defensive. I'm not, I like some Fords, and I love the 5.0

That said this is not a Ford thing, it is a reality thing. Do you honestly think other manufactures don't dyno stress their engines? Do you think they don't "simulate" 10 years of driving in a couple months time? Do you honestly believe this is the engine to surpass them all? It is marketing hype. I HOPE this is the start of the American Car Revolution (apologies to the one that Chevy started a couple years ago...is that war over yet?). I would love American cars to take over the world again. I just don't think this stress test is without fault.

miatame wrote: OK I don't want to come off sounding like a blue oval basher since I'm sure all you Ford guys are very defensive. I'm not, I like some Fords, and I love the 5.0 That said this is not a Ford thing, it is a reality thing. Do you honestly think other manufactures don't dyno stress their engines? Do you think they don't "simulate" 10 years of driving in a couple months time? Do you honestly believe this is the engine to surpass them all? It is marketing hype. I HOPE this is the start of the American Car Revolution (apologies to the one that Chevy started a couple years ago...is that war over yet?). I would love American cars to take over the world again. I just don't think this stress test is without fault.

Of course they do. But they typically don't take that stress tested engine, tow 11,000# at somewhere in the neighborhood of triple digit speeds for 24 hours, and then go run Baja with it.

Yes, of course it's marketing. But it beats the hell out of "My car can talk to my iPod" marketing.

Of course this is a marketing event, Ford can't come and say "Look at this guise! we built this twin turbo DI v6 engine that makes as much powa as a v8, and its mega tuff, srsly, why r u laffing?" So they put together something much more tangible, hauling logs, racing across baja, public tear-down.

Yes, of course it's marketing. But it beats the hell out of "My car can talk to my iPod" marketing.

personally I'd rather see my prospective truck towing up a flaming steel mountain, as that's clearly the only real measure of a truck!

Last comment before I leave this thread: The title is part of what rubs people wrong. There's no way that we can tell if this motor is the most reliable or not. The testing is impressive in it's own right. But it's just one data point, not something one can base a solid blanket statement on.

miatame wrote: OK I don't want to come off sounding like a blue oval basher since I'm sure all you Ford guys are very defensive. I'm not, I like some Fords, and I love the 5.0 That said this is not a Ford thing, it is a reality thing. Do you honestly think other manufactures don't dyno stress their engines? Do you think they don't "simulate" 10 years of driving in a couple months time? Do you honestly believe this is the engine to surpass them all? It is marketing hype. I HOPE this is the start of the American Car Revolution (apologies to the one that Chevy started a couple years ago...is that war over yet?). I would love American cars to take over the world again. I just don't think this stress test is without fault.

Of course everyone tests their engines and of course it's marketing. I think the point of this test, at least what I got out of it, is to prove that it's DURABLE ENOUGH to take a hell of a beating and hold up to it.

Ford knows what they are up against in selling this engine to truck buyers. The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves, and pretty much everyone is impressed with them. But, truck buyers being a traditional lot, Ford needs to convince people that it has the durability that they want because it's a different engine configuration than they're used to. It's all about getting rid of that fear of the unknown. Joe Average Truck Buyer will look at that test and say "Well, that's a lot more than I'm going to do to it, so it should be fine". It's not for him to say "It's the most durable engine ever!"

I think that it is a great F-150 engine....and one helluva Ranger engine.

Tom_Spangler wrote: ...The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves..

Well, the first two have spoken, but cost of maintenace is unknown, and they haven't posted fuel economy numbers yet, which better be ~20%+ better than their V8.

kb58 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: ...The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves..

Well, the first two have spoken, but cost of maintenace is unknown, and they haven't posted fuel economy numbers yet, which better be ~20%+ better than their V8.

Actually they have 16/22

kb58 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: ...The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves..

Well, the first two have spoken, but cost of maintenace is unknown, and they haven't posted fuel economy numbers yet, which better be ~20%+ better than their V8.

I would imagine that the maintenance costs would be similar to the similar engines used in the SHO/Flex/MKS/etc. I know Eric said they weren't exactly the same, but how different can they be? I'll wager it's the usual schedule for a recent Ford (semi-synthetic 5w20 every 7500 miles, etc).

red5_02 wrote:

kb58 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: ...The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves..

Well, the first two have spoken, but cost of maintenace is unknown, and they haven't posted fuel economy numbers yet, which better be ~20%+ better than their V8.

Actually they have 16/22

Okay, fair enough. I was looking on the F150 webpage and it's not listed... yet.

So... how long has this twin-turbo V6 been available, since it's going into the truck after several of their other cars?

kreb wrote:

Yes, of course it's marketing. But it beats the hell out of "My car can talk to my iPod" marketing.

personally I'd rather see my prospective truck towing up a flaming steel mountain, as that's clearly the only real measure of a truck! Last comment before I leave this thread: The title is part of what rubs people wrong. There's no way that we can tell if this motor is the most reliable or not. The testing is impressive in it's own right. But it's just one data point, not something one can base a solid blanket statement on.

I think the title was simply a nod to Jeremy Clarkson's brand of overstatement.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I think the title was simply a nod to Jeremy Clarkson's brand of overstatement.

Shoulda called it "The toughest engine in The Woooooooooorld!"

could be the greatest engine in the world, but the 2004 F150 I just sold was the biggest POS truck I have had in 20+ years of driving full size American trucks. And it was the only one that I didn't use much as a truck.

It was reliable, but felt cheap and had so many little problems and quality issues. It was disappointing because the 2001 F350 I had right before it was the best truck that I have had.

kb58 wrote:

red5_02 wrote:

kb58 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote: ...The power, torque, and fuel economy numbers speak for themselves..

Well, the first two have spoken, but cost of maintenace is unknown, and they haven't posted fuel economy numbers yet, which better be ~20%+ better than their V8.

Actually they have 16/22

Okay, fair enough. I was looking on the F150 webpage and it's not listed... yet. So... how long has this twin-turbo V6 been available, since it's going into the truck after several of their other cars?

"early 2011"

FWIW, the f150 specs page says TBD right now. the 3.7l N/A V6 is rated at 17/23, while the 5.0 v8 is rated 15/21.