User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:07:40 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize companies like BMW don't even offer NA engines anymore? Have you even watched the torture test? I strongly suggest you do. Unless Ford completely rigged this and rebuilt the turbos in the middle of the testing your whole post is busted.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is, however: Stress on the turbo remains the same as 1980s. Unless physics has changed. Turbo lubrication is same as 1980s, actually it's worse. Fully synthetic oils today's aren't actually fully synthetic anymore. The original Mobil 1 was a true PAO, today they are a high percentage PAO. The more worrying part is how many guys will put fully synthetic oil in AND change it every 3,000 miles. Metals have not significantly advanced either. DI while it adds power and fuel economy, we just don't know yet whether the injectors will stand the test of time. There already unsettling reports that the injectors may not have the life span we would like. Replacing them will be very expensive. So the Eco-boost has turbos which we know for certain do not last as long as a regular NA engine. DI which "may" have longevity issues, with the injectors. Did I mention this is made by Ford. Saab, Volvo and VW all have 30 + years experience with Turbos. Even with those guys, they don't last like their NA engines do, hence the decline in popularity. Turbos are coming back because it's one way to meet the communist regulations of the EPA. What could be better for business than making vehicles that don't last. You do realize companies like BMW don't even offer NA engines anymore? Have you even watched the torture test? I strongly suggest you do. Unless Ford completely rigged this and rebuilt the turbos in the middle of the testing your whole post is busted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4
Ford marketing...... 
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:08:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just lost 99.99% of Arfcom  . Been a few years since I've done any thermo, thankfully Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Direct injection gasoline blurs the line between Otto and Diesel cycles. In both torque and thermodynamic efficiency. But to make power, it has to go into a hybrid cycle. Look at P-V diagrams. . Been a few years since I've done any thermo, thankfully Nonsense--GD is expert in everything. This has to do with how RNAi is activated by cleaving of dsRNA into ssRNA, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:09:39 AM EDT
[#3]
That 2.7 actually has me intrigued. 325 hp out of that little motherfucker. 164 cubic inches. Dayum.
I noticed they chose iron for the engine block. Strength concern with aluminum? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:10:44 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ford marketing...... This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is, however: Stress on the turbo remains the same as 1980s. Unless physics has changed. Turbo lubrication is same as 1980s, actually it's worse. Fully synthetic oils today's aren't actually fully synthetic anymore. The original Mobil 1 was a true PAO, today they are a high percentage PAO. The more worrying part is how many guys will put fully synthetic oil in AND change it every 3,000 miles. Metals have not significantly advanced either. DI while it adds power and fuel economy, we just don't know yet whether the injectors will stand the test of time. There already unsettling reports that the injectors may not have the life span we would like. Replacing them will be very expensive. So the Eco-boost has turbos which we know for certain do not last as long as a regular NA engine. DI which "may" have longevity issues, with the injectors. Did I mention this is made by Ford. Saab, Volvo and VW all have 30 + years experience with Turbos. Even with those guys, they don't last like their NA engines do, hence the decline in popularity. Turbos are coming back because it's one way to meet the communist regulations of the EPA. What could be better for business than making vehicles that don't last. You do realize companies like BMW don't even offer NA engines anymore? Have you even watched the torture test? I strongly suggest you do. Unless Ford completely rigged this and rebuilt the turbos in the middle of the testing your whole post is busted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4Ford marketing...... This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:12:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom on that test. Other Ford testing http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ArticleArchives/Red-HotTortureNewEcoBoostEngine%E2%80%99sTurbochargersGlowinDurabilityTesting.aspx To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.
The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured. After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors. “We’ve attained things here the customer would never be able to do in their vehicle,” Plagens said. “Ten minutes of peak power (355 hp, 350 foot-pounds of torque) is something that’s probably only achievable in a vehicle for fractions of a minute, 10 seconds maybe in the extreme. We run it for 10 minutes many, many times over, and that’s far, far more harsh and severe than a vehicle test would be.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:13:20 AM EDT
[#6]
I've got a 2014 with the 3.5 motor. It's so smooth it feels like an electric motor. Kicks serious ass on the performance end, too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:18:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really believe the paint issue hasn't been proven through exhaustive testing and analysis? Ford has major paint issues and has for years. The introduction of aluminum is just going to make it worse. There is tons of info on Google about it and at least one Facebook group that I am aware of with lots of members taking Ford to court over paint issues. My last F150 had these issues, paint coming off the roof in huge chunks. I didn't bother fighting it out with Ford. I'm very happy with my Tundra now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:19:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom on that test. Other Ford testing http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ArticleArchives/Red-HotTortureNewEcoBoostEngine%E2%80%99sTurbochargersGlowinDurabilityTesting.aspx Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom on that test. Other Ford testing http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ArticleArchives/Red-HotTortureNewEcoBoostEngine%E2%80%99sTurbochargersGlowinDurabilityTesting.aspx To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.
The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured. After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors. “We’ve attained things here the customer would never be able to do in their vehicle,” Plagens said. “Ten minutes of peak power (355 hp, 350 foot-pounds of torque) is something that’s probably only achievable in a vehicle for fractions of a minute, 10 seconds maybe in the extreme. We run it for 10 minutes many, many times over, and that’s far, far more harsh and severe than a vehicle test would be.” Don't worry, he ran out of knowledge on turbochargers a while ago. Those of us who actually own turbocharged vehicles know what's up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:24:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't worry, he ran out of knowledge on turbochargers a while ago. Those of us who actually own turbocharged vehicles know what's up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom on that test. Other Ford testing http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ArticleArchives/Red-HotTortureNewEcoBoostEngine%E2%80%99sTurbochargersGlowinDurabilityTesting.aspx To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.
The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured. After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors. “We’ve attained things here the customer would never be able to do in their vehicle,” Plagens said. “Ten minutes of peak power (355 hp, 350 foot-pounds of torque) is something that’s probably only achievable in a vehicle for fractions of a minute, 10 seconds maybe in the extreme. We run it for 10 minutes many, many times over, and that’s far, far more harsh and severe than a vehicle test would be.” Don't worry, he ran out of knowledge on turbochargers a while ago. Those of us who actually own turbocharged vehicles know what's up. Please tell me what I got wrong. Lawsuit already over the engine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:28:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please tell me what I got wrong. Lawsuit already over the engine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Feel free to enlighten us with your wisdom on that test. Other Ford testing http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/ArticleArchives/Red-HotTortureNewEcoBoostEngine%E2%80%99sTurbochargersGlowinDurabilityTesting.aspx To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.
The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured. After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors. “We’ve attained things here the customer would never be able to do in their vehicle,” Plagens said. “Ten minutes of peak power (355 hp, 350 foot-pounds of torque) is something that’s probably only achievable in a vehicle for fractions of a minute, 10 seconds maybe in the extreme. We run it for 10 minutes many, many times over, and that’s far, far more harsh and severe than a vehicle test would be.” Don't worry, he ran out of knowledge on turbochargers a while ago. Those of us who actually own turbocharged vehicles know what's up. Please tell me what I got wrong. Lawsuit already over the engine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/ The lawsuit you posted has nothing to do with long term turbocharger durability. Please tell me your extensive experience owning gasoline turbocharged vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:37:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The lawsuit you posted has nothing to do with long term turbocharger durability. Please tell me your extensive experience owning gasoline turbocharged vehicles. This is a technique called changing the subject. But to address his article this issue was largely corrected on the '13 model year and was always correctable by utilizing the long skinny pedal to the floor more frequently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:49:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The price of diesels a are not going down until people quit paying 20k for a 17yo truck with 200k miles Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wish you guys would just buy all the EBs and drive down the price of diesel offerings. kthx And I don't see that happening anytime soon. I am actually glad, that makes my 05 with 120k miles worth more
But then again I dont know if I could sell it, I like it to much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:51:32 AM EDT
[#13]
I have a 2014 FX4 Supercrew w/5.0. Love it. That said, the 2.7 would be high on my list for my next one, if I go with another F150.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:56:01 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please tell me what I got wrong. Lawsuit already over the engine. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/ shit, how do I get involved in this 2013 lawsuit for my 2015 engine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:18:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is, however: Stress on the turbo remains the same as 1980s. Unless physics has changed. Turbo lubrication is same as 1980s, actually it's worse. Fully synthetic oils today's aren't actually fully synthetic anymore. The original Mobil 1 was a true PAO, today they are a high percentage PAO. The more worrying part is how many guys will put fully synthetic oil in AND change it every 3,000 miles. Metals have not significantly advanced either. DI while it adds power and fuel economy, we just don't know yet whether the injectors will stand the test of time. There already unsettling reports that the injectors may not have the life span we would like. Replacing them will be very expensive. So the Eco-boost has turbos which we know for certain do not last as long as a regular NA engine. DI which "may" have longevity issues, with the injectors. Did I mention this is made by Ford. Saab, Volvo and VW all have 30 + years experience with Turbos. Even with those guys, they don't last like their NA engines do, hence the decline in popularity. Turbos are coming back because it's one way to meet the communist regulations of the EPA. What could be better for business than making vehicles that don't last. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for displacement! I can't see how you can cram all that fuel and air in a small lightweight motor and expect it to pull or last like a larger motor. Maybe I am stuck in the past but turbo charging a small 4 or 6 cylinder motor and ask it to pull a loaded trailer or just work like a real truck in general and your asking for problems in my opinion. Sure if you want a truck to be cool or pull a small trailer or dump runs every other weekend fine it may work for you. Good luck on your purchase I truly hope it works out for you and please keep us informed. You are correct. Gasoline turbos fell out of mainstream favour 15-20 years ago because they don't last. Changing gasoline turbos at 80,000-120,000 miles isn't fun or cheap. Unless the laws of physics have changed since then, they still won't last. Ford's PR on this was good though. They didn't want to call it a Turbo, so it's an "Eco-boost"........ There has been more technological advancement in the car industry in the last 20 years than every year prior. A turbo engine today is far superior to anything built in the 70's or 80's. It is, however: Stress on the turbo remains the same as 1980s. Unless physics has changed. Turbo lubrication is same as 1980s, actually it's worse. Fully synthetic oils today's aren't actually fully synthetic anymore. The original Mobil 1 was a true PAO, today they are a high percentage PAO. The more worrying part is how many guys will put fully synthetic oil in AND change it every 3,000 miles. Metals have not significantly advanced either. DI while it adds power and fuel economy, we just don't know yet whether the injectors will stand the test of time. There already unsettling reports that the injectors may not have the life span we would like. Replacing them will be very expensive. So the Eco-boost has turbos which we know for certain do not last as long as a regular NA engine. DI which "may" have longevity issues, with the injectors. Did I mention this is made by Ford. Saab, Volvo and VW all have 30 + years experience with Turbos. Even with those guys, they don't last like their NA engines do, hence the decline in popularity. Turbos are coming back because it's one way to meet the communist regulations of the EPA. What could be better for business than making vehicles that don't last. The 80's was a huge time of transition. Fuel injection, intake manifolds, ignition were way behind pollution control requirements. By the 90's, engines were making enough power through improving all those areas that turbo's were not needed for most applications. The turbo's in gasoline engines in the 80's were a quick bolt on solution to provide power. The turbos on the Ecoboost engine are water cooled to prevent coking. When the engine is shutdown, the water continues to circulate by natural convection and cools the turbo to prevent coking. Water cooling is what changed on gasoline engine automotive turbo's since the 80's. Also, testing was done on Ecoboost engines specifically to prove that even under extreme conditions the turbo will be cooled sufficiently by the water cooling system to prevent oil coking. ETA: Somebody already posted a link describing the water cooling test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:38:53 AM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 1:57:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tailwinds FTW? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like my 3.5 EB, though I have had a couple issues with it. I love that with $200, you can add a tune and gain approximately 100HP and 100lbft.  It's quicker than anything I've put it up against, and I'm getting spectacular mileage on mine. 2012 FX2 (RWD model) with 3.15 gears. I get 18 city, and up to 25+ highway @ 65 mph on summer gas. I've even gotten 30 mpg in a 30 minute stretch of highway driving before, according to the on board calculator.
Tailwinds FTW? Only if I was getting a tailwind every day to and from school. 3.15 gears and RWD extended cab will net you fantastic mileage. I have an average of 21.5 mpg in the last 30k miles. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:10:19 PM EDT
[#18]
So far I have yet to see any EB owners complain about their trucks. So far only morons who don't own one or claim their friend, neighbor or others have issues with their EBs.
You can just feel the Ford hate from these people. Stay classy GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:10:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5.0 is the right choice IMO. We even get folks looking for them on a GM lot, EB's not so much. This! The only one I'd buy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:23:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford has major paint issues and has for years. The introduction of aluminum is just going to make it worse. There is tons of info on Google about it and at least one Facebook group that I am aware of with lots of members taking Ford to court over paint issues. My last F150 had these issues, paint coming off the roof in huge chunks. I didn't bother fighting it out with Ford. I'm very happy with my Tundra now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You really believe the paint issue hasn't been proven through exhaustive testing and analysis? Ford has major paint issues and has for years. The introduction of aluminum is just going to make it worse. There is tons of info on Google about it and at least one Facebook group that I am aware of with lots of members taking Ford to court over paint issues. My last F150 had these issues, paint coming off the roof in huge chunks. I didn't bother fighting it out with Ford. I'm very happy with my Tundra now. to be fair, a lot of those paint issues are probably the result of the EPA. They set limits on VOCs from the manufacturers, which is causing them to use inferior paints. Seriously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:53:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So far I have yet to see any EB owners complain about their trucks. So far only morons who don't own one or claim their friend, neighbor or others have issues with their EBs. You can just feel the Ford hate from these people. Stay classy GD. There was a thread here a while back started by a dude who went through multiple engines because they kept grenading themselves for some reason. I think he was in Canada, maybe. If I remember right he had an oilfield job which required him to travel to remote places and the truck kept breaking down on him in the middle of nowhere. He made a big ole stink about it (Cant blame him). Examples of lemons can be found with anything , Ecoboosts are no exception. I don't sense Ford hate from GD. There are old school guys who will always be skeptical of new technology. Some guys have just started to accept the Overhead-cam design, and now Ford goes and pulls this shit. Right or wrong, the Ecoboost will be compared to engines of yester-year by gearheads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:47:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if I was getting a tailwind every day to and from school. 3.15 gears and RWD extended cab will net you fantastic mileage. I have an average of 21.5 mpg in the last 30k miles. http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/ARFCOM/20140702_061959_zps8d6d10e8.jpg http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/20140730_143716_zpsabadaa18.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my 3.5 EB, though I have had a couple issues with it. I love that with $200, you can add a tune and gain approximately 100HP and 100lbft. It's quicker than anything I've put it up against, and I'm getting spectacular mileage on mine. 2012 FX2 (RWD model) with 3.15 gears. I get 18 city, and up to 25+ highway @ 65 mph on summer gas. I've even gotten 30 mpg in a 30 minute stretch of highway driving before, according to the on board calculator.
Tailwinds FTW? Only if I was getting a tailwind every day to and from school. 3.15 gears and RWD extended cab will net you fantastic mileage. I have an average of 21.5 mpg in the last 30k miles. http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/ARFCOM/20140702_061959_zps8d6d10e8.jpg http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/20140730_143716_zpsabadaa18.jpg I drive speed limit ~+ a couple miles, and right now I've got a lifetime average of 18.6 mpg; 
however, my 3.5L EB really likes to be about 55-65mph, when I do I get results like this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 4:15:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who told you that the 3.5 is faster from 0-60 than Chevy's 6.2? I can tell you from first-hand experience, in the real world, that that is 100% false. The 3.5 is better than I expected to be, but I still wouldn't buy one. And their mileage is not as good as Ford claims it to be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23O-hS-r0gQ Was the new Chevy 6.2 in there? I can't remember but wanted to hit the link here for discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:28:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if I was getting a tailwind every day to and from school. 3.15 gears and RWD extended cab will net you fantastic mileage. I have an average of 21.5 mpg in the last 30k miles. http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/ARFCOM/20140702_061959_zps8d6d10e8.jpg http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/20140730_143716_zpsabadaa18.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like my 3.5 EB, though I have had a couple issues with it. I love that with $200, you can add a tune and gain approximately 100HP and 100lbft. It's quicker than anything I've put it up against, and I'm getting spectacular mileage on mine. 2012 FX2 (RWD model) with 3.15 gears. I get 18 city, and up to 25+ highway @ 65 mph on summer gas. I've even gotten 30 mpg in a 30 minute stretch of highway driving before, according to the on board calculator.
Tailwinds FTW? Only if I was getting a tailwind every day to and from school. 3.15 gears and RWD extended cab will net you fantastic mileage. I have an average of 21.5 mpg in the last 30k miles. http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/ARFCOM/20140702_061959_zps8d6d10e8.jpg http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/Torque556/20140730_143716_zpsabadaa18.jpg I average 13.5 on my 09 5.4. Must be nice to see numbers like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:51:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... They won't last like the 5.0 will, which is great tried and tested engine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great synopsis. People don't understand how the Ford tech is changing the ball game right now. It is sad that the 302 will not benefit from a factory Ecoboost setup. The next generation Ecoboost will be the cat's meow from what I see. .... They won't last like the 5.0 will, which is great tried and tested engine. The only thing the 5.0 they're running now has in common with the "tested" 5.0 that I think you're talking about is that it has 8 cylinders and roughly 302ci of displacement. The tech in these Ford motors is damn amazing and are miles away from anything else on the road. Variable Cam Timing, Direct Injection, on and on. The fact that these motors are going untouched turning over 250k miles on a regular basis, that says something about their durability in my mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:15:58 PM EDT
[#26]
I would love to have the 3.5 EB motor. I just don't want the rest of the truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:20:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ford has major paint issues and has for years. The introduction of aluminum is just going to make it worse. There is tons of info on Google about it and at least one Facebook group that I am aware of with lots of members taking Ford to court over paint issues. My last F150 had these issues, paint coming off the roof in huge chunks. I didn't bother fighting it out with Ford. I'm very happy with my Tundra now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You really believe the paint issue hasn't been proven through exhaustive testing and analysis? Ford has major paint issues and has for years. The introduction of aluminum is just going to make it worse. There is tons of info on Google about it and at least one Facebook group that I am aware of with lots of members taking Ford to court over paint issues. My last F150 had these issues, paint coming off the roof in huge chunks. I didn't bother fighting it out with Ford. I'm very happy with my Tundra now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:23:51 PM EDT
[#28]
I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:35:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal. You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:40:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal. You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. I had a 96 F150. It was a little stripey on top of the cab but not bad enough to get it redone. It might have been a regional thing. I paint for a living and can't seem to remember seeing issues with Fords. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:48:42 PM EDT
[#31]
that all sounds great but i'm glad to have a 5.4 in my '12 expedition
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:56:22 PM EDT
[#32]
How doe the EB sound? How would you compare it to the 5.7 in the ram?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:56:54 PM EDT
[#33]
G
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is, however: Stress on the turbo remains the same as 1980s. Unless physics has changed. Turbo lubrication is same as 1980s, actually it's worse. Fully synthetic oils today's aren't actually fully synthetic anymore. The original Mobil 1 was a true PAO, today they are a high percentage PAO. The more worrying part is how many guys will put fully synthetic oil in AND change it every 3,000 miles. Metals have not significantly advanced either. DI while it adds power and fuel economy, we just don't know yet whether the injectors will stand the test of time. There already unsettling reports that the injectors may not have the life span we would like. Replacing them will be very expensive. So the Eco-boost has turbos which we know for certain do not last as long as a regular NA engine. DI which "may" have longevity issues, with the injectors. Did I mention this is made by Ford. Saab, Volvo and VW all have 30 + years experience with Turbos. Even with those guys, they don't last like their NA engines do, hence the decline in popularity. Turbos are coming back because it's one way to meet the communist regulations of the EPA. What could be better for business than making vehicles that don't last. You do realize companies like BMW don't even offer NA engines anymore? Have you even watched the torture test? I strongly suggest you do. Unless Ford completely rigged this and rebuilt the turbos in the middle of the testing your whole post is busted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4
Ford marketing......
This where you admit you don't know what you talking about. 5.0 with supercharger ftw |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:57:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had a 96 F150. It was a little stripey on top of the cab but not bad enough to get it redone. It might have been a regional thing. I paint for a living and can't seem to remember seeing issues with Fords. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal. You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. I had a 96 F150. It was a little stripey on top of the cab but not bad enough to get it redone. It might have been a regional thing. I paint for a living and can't seem to remember seeing issues with Fords. I was doing auto body back in the 90s and all the shops were handling Ford warranty work do to paint issues across the top of the bed, roof, and hood. From a quick google search. Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:06:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great synopsis. People don't understand how the Ford tech is changing the ball game right now. It is sad that the 302 will not benefit from a factory Ecoboost setup. The next generation Ecoboost will be the cat's meow from what I see. I have no idea what the engineering complications would be, but would that set up not be just a frickin MONSTER?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:18:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How the fuck do I change the oil in my air filter? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no substitute for displacement! I can't see how you can cram all that fuel and air in a small lightweight motor and expect it to pull or last like a larger motor. Maybe I am stuck in the past but turbo charging a small 4 or 6 cylinder motor and ask it to pull a loaded trailer or just work like a real truck in general and your asking for problems in my opinion. Sure if you want a truck to be cool or pull a small trailer or dump runs every other weekend fine it may work for you. Good luck on your purchase I truly hope it works out for you and please keep us informed. You are correct. Gasoline turbos fell out of mainstream favour 15-20 years ago because they don't last. Changing gasoline turbos at 80,000-120,000 miles isn't fun or cheap. Unless the laws of physics have changed since then, they still won't last. Ford's PR on this was good though. They didn't want to call it a Turbo, so it's an "Eco-boost"........ You are aware that you need to change both the oil in the engine and the air filter right? If you dont change those things then yes, you may have problems with your turbo. Also, dont turn the vehicle off when the turbo has just been whipped like a race horse. Give it a minute to cool down a bit before turning off the vehicle. Drain it, clean it, fill it to the "oil level" line. Not rocket surgery Oh wait, it is not 1956  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:29:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How doe the EB sound? How would you compare it to the 5.7 in the ram? No comparison, Hemi hands down. Ive had 3 Hemis ( 2 of 5.7, 1 6.4) and currently have the EB. EB is nice, but sound wise it doesnt even compare |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:32:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How doe the EB sound? How would you compare it to the 5.7 in the ram? Unfortunately the sound of the EB leaves much to be desired. It'll never sound like a V8, no matter what exhaust you get. You can do a few tricks to get the turbos a bit louder, and that helps for most people. I love the sound of turbos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:45:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately the sound of the EB leaves much to be desired. It'll never sound like a V8, no matter what exhaust you get. You can do a few tricks to get the turbos a bit louder, and that helps for most people. I love the sound of turbos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How doe the EB sound? How would you compare it to the 5.7 in the ram? Unfortunately the sound of the EB leaves much to be desired. It'll never sound like a V8, no matter what exhaust you get. You can do a few tricks to get the turbos a bit louder, and that helps for most people. I love the sound of turbos. ZOOOOOOOOOOOSHEEW ZOOOOOOOOOOOSHEEW 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:47:51 PM EDT
[#40]
just wondering if anybody has ran in to the carbon on valve problem on eco boost?
part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynGWxzJHjA part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2eXdaydqI |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 12:13:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
just wondering if anybody has ran in to the carbon on valve problem on eco boost? part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynGWxzJHjA part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2eXdaydqI Nobody that I know has... I think the guy in those videos is just.. making videos, to make videos. I wouldn't trust him to work on my truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 12:20:57 AM EDT
[#42]
well the thing is it seems like it would make sense and im wondering how this may also effect the chevy direct injected engines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 3:16:23 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal. You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 3:46:05 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately the sound of the EB leaves much to be desired. It'll never sound like a V8, no matter what exhaust you get. You can do a few tricks to get the turbos a bit louder, and that helps for most people. I love the sound of turbos. I came from an i4 Jeep Patriot, the EB sounds way more beastly when I put it to the floor. Still, its pretty neat having a 6 cylinder which produces more torque and hp than the v8 and sounds stealth bomber quiet and gives me the advertised mpg -- I think I can live with performance and gas efficiency over a lower rumbling sound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 5:28:46 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct. Gasoline turbos fell out of mainstream favour 15-20 years ago because they don't last. Changing gasoline turbos at 80,000-120,000 miles isn't fun or cheap. Unless the laws of physics have changed since then, they still won't last. Ford's PR on this was good though. They didn't want to call it a Turbo, so it's an "Eco-boost"........ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is no substitute for displacement! I can't see how you can cram all that fuel and air in a small lightweight motor and expect it to pull or last like a larger motor. Maybe I am stuck in the past but turbo charging a small 4 or 6 cylinder motor and ask it to pull a loaded trailer or just work like a real truck in general and your asking for problems in my opinion. Sure if you want a truck to be cool or pull a small trailer or dump runs every other weekend fine it may work for you. Good luck on your purchase I truly hope it works out for you and please keep us informed. You are correct. Gasoline turbos fell out of mainstream favour 15-20 years ago because they don't last. Changing gasoline turbos at 80,000-120,000 miles isn't fun or cheap. Unless the laws of physics have changed since then, they still won't last. Ford's PR on this was good though. They didn't want to call it a Turbo, so it's an "Eco-boost"........ Interesting….I guess I better tell my Passat with 210k miles on it that it's time to have the turbo go up, you know since Passat 1.8s are known for their extraordinary reliability and longevity and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 5:38:16 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my wife has the Escape...we lined up at a light with my '78 280z and she left me standing practically.....ate my lunch/blew my doors off. Wife got a 2014 Escape 2.0EB and it amazes me every time I drive it that a 4 - cylinder motor is that strong. Will spin the stock 19 - inch tires all day long. Car is fun as hell to drive. My uncle in law just picked up a 2015 F-150 screw with the 3.5EB....i can't fathom what damn near double the Escape motor must be like? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 8:45:43 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still have a 97 F250 and a 98 F150, both have excellent paint. The only spots where there was damage have any issues. In particular the 97 I have never even waxed and the paint looks great. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have never seen a Ford with paint issues. I have seen lots of GMs with peeling clearcoat and Dodges with paint flaking off down to bare metal. You must have missed the 90s F series paint issues. Here is the Facebook group I referred to earlier. Lot's of first hand experience with paint issues and Ford's lack of response. Lots of photos including current lines and some 2015 autoshow images of possible problems. https://www.facebook.com/groups/fordpeelingpaint/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 8:57:28 AM EDT
[#48]
Since the day I turned 16, I've never owned a vehicle less than a 5.4L V8.
I wouldn't be hung up in the slightest on checking out the 2.7L Ecoboost for my next truck. Looks pretty damn good on paper and I don't give a fuck about redneck pissing contests over engine size. My first truck had a 5.8L V8 and it was downright limp wristed compared to these new 2.7L engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 9:10:52 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I came from an i4 Jeep Patriot, the EB sounds way more beastly when I put it to the floor. Still, its pretty neat having a 6 cylinder which produces more torque and hp than the v8 and sounds stealth bomber quiet and gives me the advertised mpg -- I think I can live with performance and gas efficiency over a lower rumbling sound. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately the sound of the EB leaves much to be desired. It'll never sound like a V8, no matter what exhaust you get. You can do a few tricks to get the turbos a bit louder, and that helps for most people. I love the sound of turbos. I came from an i4 Jeep Patriot, the EB sounds way more beastly when I put it to the floor. Still, its pretty neat having a 6 cylinder which produces more torque and hp than the v8 and sounds stealth bomber quiet and gives me the advertised mpg -- I think I can live with performance and gas efficiency over a lower rumbling sound. I got better MPG, or more consistent, from both my 5.7 Hemis (06 Durango Limited, 11 JGC Laredo) than my EB FX4. The only Hemi I had that got worse than my EB was my 12 SRT8 Jeep, but thats a different Hemi
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2015 9:16:32 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got better MPG, or more consistent, from both my 5.7 Hemis (06 Durango Limited, 11 JGC Laredo) than my EB FX4. The only Hemi I had that got worse than my EB was my 12 SRT8 Jeep, but thats a different Hemi as long as I drive near the speed limit, my EB gets about advertised. It really likes to suck down gas if I go faster than 70 though, which I avoid doing because the OSP really likes to hide along my route. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
