Ecoboost vs Hemi

[charszy]

Hey guys I need some guidance. I have a 2013 F150 3.5L Ecoboost with the 3.55 axle. I have 70,000 miles on it. I bought it used about 2 years ago and have been up with it until this past month. I pulled our camper (30’ Jayco, approx. 7,000lbs loaded) about 3 weeks ago and the turbo went out. I took it to the dealer and they replaced the solenoid on the exhaust. I pulled our camper again this past weekend and the same thing happened. The truck is back at the dealer and I’m waiting for the verdict. The truck does seem overloaded by the weight when I’m pulling the camper and the truck rocks from side to side when I accelerate from a stop.

My father-in-law has a 2006 1500 Ram Hemi and swears by it. He also pulls a comparable size camper and said he’s also had plenty of power. I have a bad feeling I’m going to start having continuous problems with the truck and wonder if now if the time to trade. Has anyone else gone from an Ecoboost to a Hemi? Also, is the Ram just better designed for pulling a load than the Ecoboost?

Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Craig

[ShinerBock]

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ScottG wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

ScottG wrote:

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

I never heard of that with the 3.5L Ecoboost. I heard it with other direct injected engines with an EGR Loken the 2.0L Ecoboost or the VW 2.0L, but not on the non-EGR engines like the 3.5L.

I cant help what you've haven't heard.
Regardless, it's happening and that's why I would not buy one or any other DI gas engined vehicle. If they redesigned that element I would be interested.

LOL, that's funny right there! Link

🙂 Hi, this Ford tech in the video changes his story and is a whiner. He wanted an F-150 but, in his words, the sales dept. didn't make things go his way so he bought a Dodge. This is a dealer that he works for.

Not only that, but the Ecoboost engine he is talking about is the 2.0L Ecoboost, which has an EGR valve, and not the 3.5L Ecoboost which does not have an EGR valve.

[ShinerBock]

ScottG wrote:


I cant help what you've haven't heard.
Regardless, it's happening and that's why I would not buy one or any other DI gas engined vehicle. If they redesigned that element I would be interested.

That is what I am trying to tell you if you would just read.

The major carbon buildup is not happening on DI engines without an EGR valve like the 3.5L Ecoboost that we are talking about. Only DI engines where this is a major issue are in engines with EGR valves like the 2.0L Ecoboost and the VW 2.0 turbocharged engines. Hence the reason why I said I never heard of it being an actual engine failure issue with the 3.5L Ecoboost.

[charszy]

Thanks everyone for all the comments. Prior to the turbo issues, the truck seemed to pull the camper ok, except for the shaking at takeoff. I will say that when I first got the truck it did not pull the camper as easily as I thought it would. Prior to this truck I had a 2006 3/4 chevy with the 6L and 4.10 axle. This ecoboost was supposed to have more horsepower and torque, but that wasn't evident when pulling the camper. The simple answer might have already been posted when one of the guys stated it all comes down to cubic inches.

Well I talked to the dealer last night and I need 2 new turbos ($3,500)and a timing chain ($1,200). I have an extended warranty and they are requesting service records prior to agreeing to cover these expenses. If it's not covered then I'm definitely unloading it as is because I'm not putting that much money into a truck and that hasn't impressed me. Even if they cover the expenses, I'm still thinking about unloading it because the only time I've heard of having to replace a timing chain at 70,000 miles was due to other issues. I've googled ecoboost and timing chains and there are a lot of complaints about this issue with the timing chain stretching. May be the simple fact is this one is just a lemon and if I had a different ecoboost I'd have a completely different experience. I hope all the ecoboost guys here understand that given these issues I can't see myself buying another one.

I'll continue to post to this thread and let you know what happens.

Thanks
Craig

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

ScottG wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

ScottG wrote:

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

I never heard of that with the 3.5L Ecoboost. I heard it with other direct injected engines with an EGR Loken the 2.0L Ecoboost or the VW 2.0L, but not on the non-EGR engines like the 3.5L.

I cant help what you've haven't heard.
Regardless, it's happening and that's why I would not buy one or any other DI gas engined vehicle. If they redesigned that element I would be interested.

LOL, that's funny right there! Link

🙂 Hi, this Ford tech in the video changes his story and is a whiner. He wanted an F-150 but, in his words, the sales dept. didn't make things go his way so he bought a Dodge. This is a dealer that he works for.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

🙂 Hi, gas engines have had carbon build up issues for ever. Run them hard and run name brand fuels. This will eliminate most of the carbon.

[Triker33]

Who is your tune through?

It was all done at the Livernois Motorsports & Engineering Shop

[FishOnOne]

The '17 Eco Boost engines will not have the carbon build up issue since it will also have a sequential fuel system along with the DI fuel system.

This will be a power house with improved fuel economy.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

ScottG wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

ScottG wrote:

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

I never heard of that with the 3.5L Ecoboost. I heard it with other direct injected engines with an EGR Loken the 2.0L Ecoboost or the VW 2.0L, but not on the non-EGR engines like the 3.5L.

I cant help what you've haven't heard.
Regardless, it's happening and that's why I would not buy one or any other DI gas engined vehicle. If they redesigned that element I would be interested.

LOL, that's funny right there! Link

[ScottG]

ShinerBock wrote:

ScottG wrote:

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

I never heard of that with the 3.5L Ecoboost. I heard it with other direct injected engines with an EGR Loken the 2.0L Ecoboost or the VW 2.0L, but not on the non-EGR engines like the 3.5L.

I cant help what you've haven't heard.
Regardless, it's happening and that's why I would not buy one or any other DI gas engined vehicle. If they redesigned that element I would be interested.

[ShinerBock]

ScottG wrote:

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

I never heard of that with the 3.5L Ecoboost. I heard it with other direct injected engines with an EGR Loken the 2.0L Ecoboost or the VW 2.0L, but not on the non-EGR engines like the 3.5L.

[ScottG]

theoldwizard1 wrote:

ScottG wrote:
Since I keep vehicles a long time, I will avoid anything with direct injection.

I am not a big fan of direct injection gasoline engines. Too complicated (non-DI are complicated enough now a days).

But, it is hard to argue with the success Ford has had.

Their success has been mixed. Engines with higher mileage have sometimes carboned up and Fords fix has been to replace the heads.

[spoon059]

The Ford is going to produce more usable HP and torque then the Ram will due to the turbos. The Ford is capable (with max tow etc packages) of carrying more payload weight.

I think the Ram is more than capable of handling those weights, just as the Ford is more than capable of handling those weights. If you are used to the lower RPM, higher boost power of the twin turbo, you might find yourself disappointed with the different traits of a naturally aspirated Hemi.

Either truck should work, hope they can fix the Eco for you though!

[joshuajim]

I had a 5,7 hemi and traded it for a F150 Eco with HD payload due to my 8000# trailer. The hemi pulled good as long as the RPM's were up, but the biggest difference was at altitude. At 10,000 msl the hemi huffed and puffed, the Eco just keeps cruising along with little loss of HP.

Living in the west, you're "always" in the mountains.

[Greene728]

theoldwizard1 wrote:
First, anytime you have the same failure twice in a short period, it makes me think that the "root cause" of the original problem was not discovered and corrected.

Second, all FCA product seem to have slipped in quality over the past 5-10 years. They have an above average number of electrical issues on vehicles 3+ years old. Some of these happen early enough the are fixed under warranty. Many are out of warranty. Some models have been recalled or had extended warranties for electrical parts but other models, with the exact same part, have not.

If you are the type to keep a vehicle for a number of years (I just traded in traded in my 9.5 year old car for a new one because the transmission was acting "weird".) I would stay away from ALL FCA vehicles !

Wow. Yes I own a 2015 Ram. But I am not brand loyal, nor do I drink the Kool Aid.
But. Oh NM. Not even worth it.

[BenK]

Boils down to total PSI on the piston top...

The Ecoboost is forced fed small displacement ICE, so the total PSI on
its piston top is much higher than the Hemi you are looking at

The higher stresses can be designed for, but for me, the jury is still
out on the longevity of this design...

If the OP is having problems with their forced fed...first find out why
and if too costly, sure thing...look at a change in ICE architecture