Jun-01-2018 03:12 AM
Jun-03-2018 07:37 AM
Jun-03-2018 06:59 AM
Lessmore wrote:srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.
I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.
You might be wrong with this assumption.
According to Autoweek who had a brief drive of the 2019 Chev 1500 4 cylinder turbo four, lag doesn't appear to be a problem.
I quote from their recent online article:
" To help cut down turbo lag, the I4 uses a very nifty dual-volute turbo setup: Exhaust hits the turbine from two outlets, each fed by two cylinders, set at opposite edges of the turbine (picture two people blowing on a pinwheel from opposite sides, working in concert to spin it up quickly). From our limited drive experience, this setup does seem to yield a very responsive engine with no perceptible lag. "
Jun-03-2018 06:54 AM
alexleblanc wrote:srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.
I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.
Depending on how hard you were pushing it from a stop it probably was the traction control reducing power a bit, I know that my 3.5 would pull better and hard if you eased into the throttle than if you just put it to the floor.
Jun-03-2018 05:06 AM
alexleblanc wrote:srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.
I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.
Depending on how hard you were pushing it from a stop it probably was the traction control reducing power a bit, I know that my 3.5 would pull better and hard if you eased into the throttle than if you just put it to the floor.
Jun-03-2018 02:37 AM
srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.
I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.
Jun-02-2018 10:51 PM
srt20 wrote:
As a side note on this topic, I've been test driving 1500's because I dont need an old 2500 diesel anymore. And the Ford 2.7L Eco has a stupid amount of lag from a dead stop going WOT. I noticed this on more than one 2.7 Eco. I believe its from a small displacement engine with not alot of HP without the turbo singing. I notice the 3.5 eco has much much less lag at dead stop Wot. More displacement and more hp to get the ball rolling.
I expect the GM will suffer the same issue. I know its not a big deal for some, or even most people, but its a deal breaker for me.
Jun-02-2018 09:11 PM
Jun-02-2018 09:05 PM
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.
Back in the day I refused to run oil with graphite in it because of detonation issues. Looking back I'm glad I didn't join in on the graphite trend because I had turbocharged engines back then and even with good pump fuel, detonation was an issue.
Just a side talk. One day I was pulling a mountain with my 6.5 diesel when it was well over a 100 degrees out. My WT was about 265. Everything was in the red. All of a sudden my engine sounded like it was pinging. Just like a gas engine does. I'm like what the???? Is this thing detonating??
I can't really find anything to this day if that is even possible. I think my engine got so hot the diesel fuel started to detonate in the combustion chamber. Only a guess though.
As far as the little 4 banger goes. I just hope they get the duty cycle up on it. They have the power; it's the duty cycle I'm worried about.
Jun-02-2018 06:49 PM
Lynnmor wrote:
Thirty four years ago, Smokey Yunick said: "In the long run, small-displacement engines with turbochargers will be the only performance engines."
I remember that and wondered how those things with extreme temperatures, and RPM would be durable enough for consumer use. I don't know if Smokey foresaw computer controls to keep things in check, but he was way ahead of his time.
Jun-02-2018 04:37 PM
Jun-02-2018 02:44 PM
jerem0621 wrote:
I'm pretty excited about this motor. The new Ranger will also be getting a Turbo 4 Ecoboost. That will be the only engine option for that truck.
The tech in our vehicles are changing for sure.
I am excited to see what the tow specs are for these 4 cyl trucks. These things have more power and TQ than my 97 F150 with a 5.4l rated for 8,000 lbs towing.
Thanks!
Jeremiah
Jun-02-2018 02:20 PM
Jun-02-2018 01:33 PM
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Oil can cause detonation issues especially with questionable ring seal but I would like to see what % of detonation issues it causes. My "guess" is less than 10% where fuel causes 90% of the issues.
Jun-02-2018 11:20 AM
hone eagle wrote:
Isn't that what DI prevents -detonation- because they can have the injection event after top dead centre?
after all these compression ratios are in the 10/1 range,well into detonation territory?