Why not put turbos on 2500 gas trucks

[evanrem]

I hear all these great reviews on the Eco-Boost engine and all the power it creates. Somewhere I read a few years back it had more HP and torque then my 2500 HD gas. Why doesn't Ford or Chevy offer that engine on a 3/4 ton truck or put the twin turbo's on the V8 gas engines?

[burningman]

You'll never get the fuel economy under a load that diesels will. ALL big trucks are diesels for a reason. Diesels generally outlast gas engines too.
For short term ownership, gas engines are more cost efficient.
A gas motor truck will pull all your stuff, a diesel will do it a LOT better, its up to you whether it's worth the price for twice the torque. That's why they offer both.
I wouldn't call the Cummins overrated. It's been around about 30 years providing extremely reliable power in tractors, school busses, medium duty trucks and pickups.
Look at the hotshot haulers. They almost all run Cummins trucks. Those and the old Ford 7.3 diesels have very good track records.
I've never seen one run a gas truck.

I own two 4x4 duallies, one gas, one diesel. I'm not on one team. This is just how it is.

[itguy08]

mkirsch wrote:

Ford simply isn't confident enough in the EB engine to handle that kind of continuous work, and don't see enough of a benefit in designing a larger turbo gas engine to make it worthwhile.

It would be nice to have the option of getting the 3.5L EB in an F250 or F350, if you're going to use the truck for occasional towing only, but I'm sure Ford is afraid that people will order trucks in with EB's to do "real work" and be disappointed in the longevity of the engine.

Yet they are confident to put it in the Transit vans, which are subject to the same duty cycles of SD pickups - high loads, long periods of use, and maybe towing.

There's a lot of ignorance and whatnot in this thread.
From the people that complain about "turbos at 150k" and forget that Diesels run turbos too and don't get replaced that frequently. It's all in the DESIGN, which you can design for.

They also complain about a V6 forgetting that Big Rigs are I6's and even the much overrated Cummins is an I6....

I suspect the real reason is that it would tank Diesel sales. If I could get the benefits of Diesel (flat torque, no loss of power at high altitudes) with none of the negatives (expensive fuel and maintenance) why would I buy that expensive Diesel?

I own 2 Ecoboost 3.5's, one in a car and one in an F150. One with 118k and one with 82k. Both have been stellar powerplants and one tows a 9900 lb trailer just fine.

My next truck will be an F350 as we're wanting a 5th wheel as our next. If Ford put a Ecoboost 5.0 in there I'd buy that over a Diesel all day and twice on Sunday.

[mkirsch]

A modern turbo truck is not going to use any more fuel than a normally aspirated truck. If anything it will use slightly LESS fuel than an engine of the same displacement, but the engine wouldn't be the same displacement. It would be SMALLER just like the Ecoboost 3.5L is now vs. the 5.0L V8.

That was the whole point of the Ecoboost in the first place. Small efficient engine for moving the truck around empty, big horsepower and torque when you need it.

The reason that Ford hasn't put the 3.5L Ecoboost in the SD trucks yet is because of the way SD trucks are typically used. Your average everyday F150 is a commuter, grocery getter, take the kids to soccer practice. Typical "heavy" use is towing the travel trailer to the local campground a few times every summer with one or two longer trips. Ford SD trucks are meant to be WORK trucks, and while some end up being grocery getters, far more of them get loaded up with thousands of pounds of weight, hooked to heavy trailers, and/or saddled with snow plows and run like that 5-6 days a week.

Ford simply isn't confident enough in the EB engine to handle that kind of continuous work, and don't see enough of a benefit in designing a larger turbo gas engine to make it worthwhile.

It would be nice to have the option of getting the 3.5L EB in an F250 or F350, if you're going to use the truck for occasional towing only, but I'm sure Ford is afraid that people will order trucks in with EB's to do "real work" and be disappointed in the longevity of the engine.

[Grit_dog]

While I still agree with myself....lol, with the phobia around diesel emissions and the $8-9k up charge and those that still want a gasser, I bet one of the big 3 could capitalize on a turbo or blown V8 HD pickup for a little while at least while gas is cheap and economy is good.
Sort of surprised Dodge hasn't done it yet. They have all the parts sitting there in a bin already ala Hellcat. Would be some great marketing. Diesel killer Ram 2500 supercharged 6.4 Hemi ftw! Mild pump gas boost with mid 5s for hp and tq.

[RinconVTR]

I have many direct automotive design and engineering related contacts working for all the big names (and large vendors of the big names) and they either don't know anything except the project they are currently on or they cannot say a word about it. They are practically sworn to keep their mouth shut.

I can tell you as a matter of fact though...Automotive Engineers do not set
(have the final word) for any intervals found in our manuals.

And we'll never know what any given OEM considers to be a typical life cycle of any given major component or entire vehicle.

In short, an OEM will NEVER tell owners a specific time or mileage when to replace a turbo! That's sales and marketing suicide.

[SidecarFlip]

mich800 wrote:

atwowheelguy wrote:

intheburbs wrote:
My only concern with the 3.5EB would be durability. Ford recommends replacing the turbos at 150k miles. I'm guessing that's not a cheap job. I drive my trucks until they fall apart. Won't be getting an EB any time soon.

Forced induction puts more stresses on driveline components. Why do you think it took so long for Jeep to come out with the AWD Trackhawk, with the Hellcat motor? They were having durability issues with the AWD system handling a 700-hp motor. I believe in the end, the engine is slightly detuned to 650 hp.

I love my hotrod all-aluminum 6.2 Sierra Denali, but for towing, I'll take my cast-iron block 6.0. She loves to rev, and does fine for me. 170k miles and she still purrs like a kitten and uses no oil.

I can't find that turbo replacement recommendation anywhere in the scheduled maintenance section of my owner's manual. I'm at 112,000 miles now and I need that information. Give us a link to that documentation somewhere.

Because there is none.

I read that and called my BIL who is a design engineer at Ford in Dearborn and asked him.. He said in his typical engineer speak.... ah, don't think so.:R

[mich800]

atwowheelguy wrote:

intheburbs wrote:
My only concern with the 3.5EB would be durability. Ford recommends replacing the turbos at 150k miles. I'm guessing that's not a cheap job. I drive my trucks until they fall apart. Won't be getting an EB any time soon.

Forced induction puts more stresses on driveline components. Why do you think it took so long for Jeep to come out with the AWD Trackhawk, with the Hellcat motor? They were having durability issues with the AWD system handling a 700-hp motor. I believe in the end, the engine is slightly detuned to 650 hp.

I love my hotrod all-aluminum 6.2 Sierra Denali, but for towing, I'll take my cast-iron block 6.0. She loves to rev, and does fine for me. 170k miles and she still purrs like a kitten and uses no oil.

I can't find that turbo replacement recommendation anywhere in the scheduled maintenance section of my owner's manual. I'm at 112,000 miles now and I need that information. Give us a link to that documentation somewhere.

Because there is none.

[atwowheelguy]

intheburbs wrote:
My only concern with the 3.5EB would be durability. Ford recommends replacing the turbos at 150k miles. I'm guessing that's not a cheap job. I drive my trucks until they fall apart. Won't be getting an EB any time soon.

Forced induction puts more stresses on driveline components. Why do you think it took so long for Jeep to come out with the AWD Trackhawk, with the Hellcat motor? They were having durability issues with the AWD system handling a 700-hp motor. I believe in the end, the engine is slightly detuned to 650 hp.

I love my hotrod all-aluminum 6.2 Sierra Denali, but for towing, I'll take my cast-iron block 6.0. She loves to rev, and does fine for me. 170k miles and she still purrs like a kitten and uses no oil.

I can't find that turbo replacement recommendation anywhere in the scheduled maintenance section of my owner's manual. I'm at 112,000 miles now and I need that information. Give us a link to that documentation somewhere.

[rhagfo]

burningman wrote:
I'm with Grit Dog... it's simple... because if you want power like that, they DO already offer it, with Cummins, Powerstroke or Duramax engines! When you want heavy duty towing power you don't want a gas engine, turbo or not. It'll use fuel like mad.

It's definitely not a drivetrain durability issue, or they couldn't offer the 800+ ft/lbs diesel engines either.

Generalizing almost too much, supercharged (or turbo'ed) gas engines are for situations requiring high output and light weight, such as muscle cars and race cars that haul "tail" not trailers.
Diesels are the way to go in heavier applications.

X3 with Grit Dog also!
If you want more power than a NA gas engine and still want reliability, then simply step up to a diesel.

[burningman]

I'm with Grit Dog... it's simple... because if you want power like that, they DO already offer it, with Cummins, Powerstroke or Duramax engines! When you want heavy duty towing power you don't want a gas engine, turbo or not. It'll use fuel like mad.

It's definitely not a drivetrain durability issue, or they couldn't offer the 800+ ft/lbs diesel engines either.

Generalizing almost too much, supercharged (or turbo'ed) gas engines are for situations requiring high output and light weight, such as muscle cars and race cars that haul "tail" not trailers.
Diesels are the way to go in heavier applications.

[intheburbs]

My only concern with the 3.5EB would be durability. Ford recommends replacing the turbos at 150k miles. I'm guessing that's not a cheap job. I drive my trucks until they fall apart. Won't be getting an EB any time soon.

Forced induction puts more stresses on driveline components. Why do you think it took so long for Jeep to come out with the AWD Trackhawk, with the Hellcat motor? They were having durability issues with the AWD system handling a 700-hp motor. I believe in the end, the engine is slightly detuned to 650 hp.

I love my hotrod all-aluminum 6.2 Sierra Denali, but for towing, I'll take my cast-iron block 6.0. She loves to rev, and does fine for me. 170k miles and she still purrs like a kitten and uses no oil.

[SidecarFlip]

wowens79 wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:
Problem with the 150's in any form is thay may have the balls to yank about anything but brakes, not enough and not enough frame to be stable. IMO, the only thing a 1/4 ton truck is good for is 5 bags of groceries.

That's the point of this thread is wanting the brakes, payload, and frame of a 3/4 ton, with an engine with a more advanced and powerful engine than what is offered without having to go all they way to a diesel.

For me, I'm towing around 8000lbs, so my 2002 GM 6.0 with a 4 speed struggles, but I really don't need a diesel, but would like a good bump in power. Currently I'm leaning to a Ram 6.4 gasser. It seems to have the most power, yet with the cylinder shut off, it gets decent milage.

My renter just leased one, his 'payload' is probably a bit less because it's a Powerwagon' 4x4 and while I'm not a FCA fan, it is a nice truck. bed is too short for me, but plenty of room inside (4 door). The only thing I don't care much for is the coil spring rear suspension with the 4 link control arm's. He got the 6.4 hemo. He had the smaller one (6.2 I think) and had issues with the motor (making valve noise so he turned it in and got this one. Seems to have plenty of power but he's not all that fuzzy with the fuel mileage.

People rave about the Ford eco-boost motors and I'm a Ford berson but in my opinion, it's too small displacement wise. I'm a no replacement for displacement person.

[wowens79]

SidecarFlip wrote:
Problem with the 150's in any form is thay may have the balls to yank about anything but brakes, not enough and not enough frame to be stable. IMO, the only thing a 1/4 ton truck is good for is 5 bags of groceries.

That's the point of this thread is wanting the brakes, payload, and frame of a 3/4 ton, with an engine with a more advanced and powerful engine than what is offered without having to go all they way to a diesel.

For me, I'm towing around 8000lbs, so my 2002 GM 6.0 with a 4 speed struggles, but I really don't need a diesel, but would like a good bump in power. Currently I'm leaning to a Ram 6.4 gasser. It seems to have the most power, yet with the cylinder shut off, it gets decent milage.

[SidecarFlip]

Problem with the 150's in any form is thay may have the balls to yank about anything but brakes, not enough and not enough frame to be stable. IMO, the only thing a 1/4 ton truck is good for is 5 bags of groceries.

[SidecarFlip]

Myself, I'd rather have a Roots type supercharger over a hairdryer anyday. Boost is not dependent on exhaust gas flow at all.

You can supercharge / turbocharge any engine, including your lawnmower if you have the funds.