Forum Discussion
- Less...went back to this mornings news readings...
This is what am talking about ONLY and OEM can do the right stuff to the whole engine design...3rd parties can NOT afford to cast a new engine block, heads, etc, etc...
2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 First Test: Out With a Bang
Notice the references to 'heat'...a major issue when stuffing or force feeding any ICE. The bigger the block...the more heat rejection surface area.which is notoriously prone to power-sapping engine-protection mode due to excess heat
andand there are four new heat exchangers (13 “radiators” in total) tucked hither and thither
Boils down to BTU density, thermal mass' ability to move that heat and the ancillary stuff that goes with this common issue...thermal management and the designed in safeties that are mostly based on thermal metrics
And towing heavy is way harder than any sports car, drag racer, etc...as how long do they stay WOT at GVWR & GCWR ??? Add in on inclines 'some times' to 'often'... - Less...agree and say Ford has done an admiral job of it with their EcoBoost...but...
Us boy racers knew and understood about forced fed since our teens. Turtle is an expert 'cuz he does/did that for a living
Always knew it would take an educated OEM to produce a reliable ICE that was force fed 2x-3x or more air/fuel into such a small package
Castings must be way thicker and with bosses/etc everywhere.
Piston oil cooling from spray nozzles from below
Higher rate thermal rejection systems for most all/anything to do with the whole ICE (block, heads, etc, etc, etc)
Because the surface areas needed to reject these much higher amounts of heat (temp, rate of changes, etc) has to have forced everything.
And to the PM...that guy is on my blocked list, so don't see his posts...yes, know of that coolant weeping (siphon) system...but it must not ever, ever has an air bubble in there or any kind of air leak. IMHO, not a solid design, but with higher risk than I'd design in Donnoh wrote:
JIMNLIN wrote:
hmmm...who tows with a 1.0 liter engine with a whoppin' 123 hp 125 torque. Not many I would bet.
LOL. My first truck was a 1986-1/2 Nissan "Hardbody" with a 2.4 liter engine. If I remember correctly it had 106 HP and around 125 lb/ft of torque. I towed a utility trailer with two quads on it for years and it was just as slow with a trailer as it was without one.
Mine was a 1972 LUV which put down a whopping 75hp. I hauled two big 3 wheelers while towing a trailer with a couple more many times. Slowed on the big hills and moved along just fine otherwise.- Less we went over this before
"do I allow turbo engines to idle for cool down"
no - they are wife proof ,google ecoboost siphon(water) cooled turbo. JIMNLIN wrote:
hmmm...who tows with a 1.0 liter engine with a whoppin' 123 hp 125 torque. Not many I would bet.
LOL. My first truck was a 1986-1/2 Nissan "Hardbody" with a 2.4 liter engine. If I remember correctly it had 106 HP and around 125 lb/ft of torque. I towed a utility trailer with two quads on it for years and it was just as slow with a trailer as it was without one.rexlion wrote:
The linked article contains more car photos than useful facts.
This problem reminds me of my former Toyota Highlander 3.5L. A hose to the oil cooler was prone to failure. Toyota issued a tsb but neither dealership in town ever indormed me when I was in for service. At about 140k the hose gave out and emptied the engine of its oil. I got it in to a mechanic before irreparable damage was done and drove it another 45k miles afterward. But IMO that hose should have been the subject of a recall, not a tsb. And my opinion of the service departments of those dealers sank quite low, for not letting me know I had a potential problem.
Had an '07 Toyota Matrix. Problems with an engine computer...took forever to get replaced under warranty. I found out about the issue from news media reports, before any info from Toyota.- I'm curious how many on here are towing RVs with a 1.0L Focus and what RV they're towing?
I guess you can't have drama without good actors. - I have no doubt that the manufacturers push their products right to the edge, but the Ecoboosts in the F150s seem to be pretty darned solid. And the items I have heard about usually weren't complete failures.
- The linked article contains more car photos than useful facts.
This problem reminds me of my former Toyota Highlander 3.5L. A hose to the oil cooler was prone to failure. Toyota issued a tsb but neither dealership in town ever indormed me when I was in for service. At about 140k the hose gave out and emptied the engine of its oil. I got it in to a mechanic before irreparable damage was done and drove it another 45k miles afterward. But IMO that hose should have been the subject of a recall, not a tsb. And my opinion of the service departments of those dealers sank quite low, for not letting me know I had a potential problem. BenK wrote:
It has to do with the design architecture and the biggie duty cycle employed by those Ford Engine engineers...
Yup, a hose, but it says something to a techie like me...
The thermal dynamics of the design has it very close to the thermal rejection design. Not much is left for it to go into a shallow hysteresis curve to allow the thermal sensors to come up to speed and set any one of the limp modes (most limp mode set points (both hardware and software) are based on thermal...both rate of change and ultimate temp)
Meaning that the thermal rejection systems was balls to the wall most of the time...maybe all the time and once the hose let go...no time for the system to warn...go into limp mode...shut down...
Duty cycle and is what Turtle talks to all the time when someone says why don't they put the F150 EcoBoost into the higher class trucks...LOL when he says that 2.x liter is really a 7L-8L when at full boost...lost to most that fine, but biggie point...
Thanks for explaining the technical side Ben.
Having a turbocharger on an engine is something that lately has an appeal for me. This appeal was largely developed due to the introduction of new Chevy truck 2.7 liter, 4 cylinder turbo gas engine ...310 hp, 348 lbs. ft. of torque with full torque from 1500-5500 rpm...sounds very good to me...well it will hinge on two things...MPG...both city and highway and reliability/durability.
For a number of years I had concerns about turbocharger unit lacking engine lifetime durability...being more like a service item that may need to be replaced/repaired ...every so often during the life of the engine.
However the Ford ecoboost V6 engine had me rethinking. I hadn't heard about issues in the area of poor durability/reliability...and particularly not about catastrophic failure of turbo and engine.
But now this. This problem with the Ford 1 liter turbo gas engine maybe restricted to only this engine and not the larger Ford Turbo V6 gassers. Which would be fine, but if it is a pattern problem throughout the Ford turbo gas engine design that of course would be a concern.
A quote from your text, discusses concerns I have in general about turbocharged engines.
" Duty cycle and is what Turtle talks to all the time when someone says why don't they put the F150 EcoBoost into the higher class trucks...LOL when he says that 2.x liter is really a 7L-8L when at full boost...lost to most that fine, but biggie point. "
I have had more than a passing interest in hot rodded (factory and non factory efforts) vehicles since the early 1960's. Car, trucks, motorcycles...all hold my interest.
The thing that I have learned that when it comes to building more power out of an engine, there is no free lunch.
More power means more heat, more stress on ancillary components (drivetrain, cooling parts, etc.) and if...all.. the ancillary components are not upgraded then eventually the weakest link will break down.
So case in point...even a relatively minor part like a cooling system hose (ie; Ford ecoboost 1 liter) is insufficiently specified...disaster can result. The fact that this has happened to a Ford product surprises me on one hand, but doesn't on the other hand. Read Bob Lutz's book regarding 'soft' specified cams in Escorts number of years ago.
Having said that, I'm still interested in the GM 2.7 liter turbo truck four cylinder, but will let other customers do the 'guinea pig' day to day consumer testing, for a couple of years , before proceeding.
The other issue with turbos that I wonder about. Should you let the turbo engine idle for a few minutes after a prolonged run...to bring down turbo speed and allow for cool down of turbo components ?
