Ford Ecoboost Problems

BeerCan wrote:

nitrohorse wrote:

BeerCan wrote:

mlts22 wrote:


I might stand corrected on this, but in a lot of engine applications, there is no substitute for cubes.

Yes, because where would we be without the Fiat 4cyl 28.3 liter 300hp behemoth or the Bugatti 12.7 liter 275hp etc etc? :) Time moves on and smaller engines become more efficient reliable and powerful. Although nothing sounds as good as a big block :)

Using your analogy, then the heavy class trucks should no longer be using 2700lb., 14.8 liter 455 hp diesel engines. I've been in the transportation/logistics field for over 30 years. "If" there was a viable, smaller, lighter, alternative to the behemoth diesels in today's class 8 trucks, it would be in production now. You cannot expect a smaller displacement engine to maintain the same consistency or durability as a larger displacement engine. Currently, the rice burner crowd is pushing roughly 400hp and 330lb of torque out of the 4 cyl. Honda engines. It's not reaching that HP or torque that's the issue, it's the durability and sustainability that's at stake. You spread the torque demands and stress out over more area (cylinders, crankshaft, cam) in a larger engine than a smaller version. I think the Ecoboost is great for a mild "weekend hot rod" and to haul mulch, etc, but I would not want it for sustained towing duties and I believe it will not have longevity in that environment.
Time will tell....

So HP, torque and mpg numbers for class 8 engines have not gone up in 30 years? If the 14.8L does make more power than it did 30 years ago and is more fuel efficient, where is the error in what I said?

Sure, all the engine performance specifications went up over the last 30 years. The point is made which I think was lost is that there's no substitution for cubic inches. Limited race applications aside, durability is still tied to the displacement of the engine. Weight is a major consideration in a class 8 truck as payload is profit. If the big three (Detroit, Cummins, or Cat) could be the first to market a smaller, lighter, diesel, they would own the market. So far, it hasn't happened, and I doubt it will.

The ford ecoboost V6 in the F150 has a small turbo on each exhaust manofold that produces about 3-6lbs of boost but not untill they are spolled up. At idle there is little or no boost but at full throtle it take a small amont of time for the boost to develope. If there is any restiction in the exhaust (cat. converters,mufflers or sharp bends in pipes) this will limit what the turbos can do and sometimes cause turbo stall and limits how fast the turbo will spin.

Ps. The demo they have on TV between the ecoboost V6 and the chev V6 is not a viable comparison also how much does the ecoboost option ad to the cost of the truck.

Just my opinion.

nitrohorse wrote:

BeerCan wrote:

mlts22 wrote:


I might stand corrected on this, but in a lot of engine applications, there is no substitute for cubes.

Yes, because where would we be without the Fiat 4cyl 28.3 liter 300hp behemoth or the Bugatti 12.7 liter 275hp etc etc? :) Time moves on and smaller engines become more efficient reliable and powerful. Although nothing sounds as good as a big block :)

Using your analogy, then the heavy class trucks should no longer be using 2700lb., 14.8 liter 455 hp diesel engines. I've been in the transportation/logistics field for over 30 years. "If" there was a viable, smaller, lighter, alternative to the behemoth diesels in today's class 8 trucks, it would be in production now. You cannot expect a smaller displacement engine to maintain the same consistency or durability as a larger displacement engine. Currently, the rice burner crowd is pushing roughly 400hp and 330lb of torque out of the 4 cyl. Honda engines. It's not reaching that HP or torque that's the issue, it's the durability and sustainability that's at stake. You spread the torque demands and stress out over more area (cylinders, crankshaft, cam) in a larger engine than a smaller version. I think the Ecoboost is great for a mild "weekend hot rod" and to haul mulch, etc, but I would not want it for sustained towing duties and I believe it will not have longevity in that environment.
Time will tell....

So HP, torque and mpg numbers for class 8 engines have not gone up in 30 years? If the 14.8L does make more power than it did 30 years ago and is more fuel efficient, where is the error in what I said?

mlts22 wrote:
The EB is a decent engine, but a V6 is a V6, no matter how you force air down its throat. For general MPG, the EB engine is amazing, and the engine keeps its HP at higher elevations compared to a normally aspirated gasser. However, for towing tasks on the long haul, I much rather have the 6.2 because it is a relatively simpler engine with fewer parts that can fail.

I might stand corrected on this, but in a lot of engine applications, there is no substitute for cubes.

You nailed it.

BeerCan wrote:

mlts22 wrote:


I might stand corrected on this, but in a lot of engine applications, there is no substitute for cubes.

Yes, because where would we be without the Fiat 4cyl 28.3 liter 300hp behemoth or the Bugatti 12.7 liter 275hp etc etc? :) Time moves on and smaller engines become more efficient reliable and powerful. Although nothing sounds as good as a big block :)

Using your analogy, then the heavy class trucks should no longer be using 2700lb., 14.8 liter 455 hp diesel engines. I've been in the transportation/logistics field for over 30 years. "If" there was a viable, smaller, lighter, alternative to the behemoth diesels in today's class 8 trucks, it would be in production now. You cannot expect a smaller displacement engine to maintain the same consistency or durability as a larger displacement engine. Currently, the rice burner crowd is pushing roughly 400hp and 330lb of torque out of the 4 cyl. Honda engines. It's not reaching that HP or torque that's the issue, it's the durability and sustainability that's at stake. You spread the torque demands and stress out over more area (cylinders, crankshaft, cam) in a larger engine than a smaller version. I think the Ecoboost is great for a mild "weekend hot rod" and to haul mulch, etc, but I would not want it for sustained towing duties and I believe it will not have longevity in that environment.
Time will tell....

Well ... this last Tuesday I rode on a road test (with my BIL driving) in both a Ford EB half ton PU and a RAM 5.7 Hemi half ton PU. My BIL punched both trucks several times on both the level and going uphill to get and idea on how they might do pulling a TT.

Hands down, the Hemi socked you in the seat of the pants and kept you glued to the back of the seat way harder/longer than the EB. The EB also had a delay in response each time he floored it, while the Hemi's torque was instantaneous and continuous.

The Hemi with the 8-speed tranny and it's 4-cylinder shutdown is claimed to get about 22 MPH highway - I believe this is very close to what is claimed for the EB on the highway. The RAM also had several other features that Ford didn't offer on any of it's half ton models.

I was skeptical of RAM trucks until I went on this road test last Tuesday ... not any more.

Twin force oringinaly

ok now everyone knows everything there is to know about eco-boost thanks for the education, but that has be mentioned already, but the term used was twin turbo instead of 2 turbo’s… :B
so you are saying there will be 2 turbo’s to replace at 150,000… my problem is I think that is just past the break-in mileage… think I will keep the old 350 and see if it can make 300k, that’s only about another 90k…

If you guys really knew what you are talking about you would realize there are 2 turbo's

down home wrote:
The design service life of the turbo is only 150,000 miles.

first of all, I'm not a Ford fan and am old school .... when it comes to towing with a gasoline motor, I like a V8 or V10 .... that said, after watching the reports and talking with several friends who have an ECO Boost I've really been impressed .... the power it generates is clear and for me the main question still centers on longevity .... I can't help but wonder what would be the cost of turbo replacement and what the life of the motor is projected to be

Jim