Ford Ecoboost Engines

[Koz1]

Well if you test engines with an average simulated speed of 500 mph to pump up the mileage data Id have to call [censored].

Edit
Forgot to add, what they did here was easier on the engine not harder.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Koz1
Well if you test engines with an average simulated speed of 500 mph to pump up the mileage data Id have to call [censored].

What do you not understand about it being based not on actual mileage, but the abuse endured during that period?

Let me put it in a manner you may understand, based on your stated field of expertise. When the landing gear for an aircraft is designed for a given aircraft's lifespan, do you think that they test it for that many years? No, they put it through a condensed, highly abusive, truly horrific process of repeated heavy-impact landings. That landing gear is cycled through anything and everything that could possibly be imagined that the landing gear might endure over many years of service, in just a matter of days. Does that make the simulation a load of garbage? No, in fact the operational aircraft's likelihood of experiencing the gruesome kind of life that the prototype endured is essentially zero.

Now do you see the light?

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Koz1
Edit
Forgot to add, what they did here was easier on the engine not harder.

Just as one example, when was the last time that you dumped a full load of ice-cold water into the cooling system of an engine running at maximum operating temps?

 

[Koz1]

Believe it or not I know this fact because I work in that field.
I am Very familiar with load stresses on Air frames.
Its not accomplished in days either.

And yes real life is much harder on Landing gear than simulations even with less high stress landings.
There are dozens of variables that amplify the stated problem.

 

[Koz1]

The only thing tougher is the Temp change that's it.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Koz1
Believe it or not I know this fact because I work in that field.
I am Very familiar with load stresses on Air frames.
Its not accomplished in days either.

I'm not referring to the process of bringing an aircraft to fruition, I'm talking about a simple simulation. The torture test that Ford used in their demonstration wasn't the witnessing of bringing the Eco-Boost into existence, either.

You'll notice that the engine in question was taken off the assembly line. They put an engine that was beyond final approvals through a simulation that the design had to endure repeatedly to make it into production in the first place. It is a test that Ford has developed and used over a period of decades, based on everything they've learned through pushing vehicles to the limit over millions and millions of miles during research and development.

The science behind the simulations, and their validity, is no different for the aerospace industry. You simply condense the life of abuse into a shorter but far more severe and intensive time period. It's not about revolutions, it's about cycles.

Oh, and I think you might have got that I knew what your field was, as I'm the one that brought it up...

 

[Koz1]

Skim reading doesn't catch everything.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Cheers.

I would like to pose a question before I log off.
Do you really think one hour of full throttle is harder on an engine than say stop and go traffic.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Koz1
Skim reading doesn't catch everything.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Cheers.

I would like to pose a question before I log off.
Do you really think one hour of full throttle is harder on an engine than say stop and go traffic.

Where would you get the idea that one type of use in an automobile was automatically tougher than another? There are so many factors that come into play that no two designs, or installations, will be the same. Ford Motor Company understands this too. That's why their engines are put through extensive simulations of all duty cycles. High temps, cold temps, repeated idle-to-redline-to-idle runs, long periods at WOT and rapid and massive thermal shifts are just a few of the things that an automobile engine commonly endures in testing.

Considering your question, and its supposition that operating for extended periods at higher RPM is easier on an engine, I have a question for you. Why do automobile-derived piston engines have issues with being adapted for use in aircraft, when they will be seeing steady-state throttle conditions for extended periods of time? I'm in no hurry, take your time on the research.

 

[unDummy]

All that testing and they leave out the all important soccer mom test, the whoops its how many quarts low test, the I can't remember when I changed my oil test, and the commute to/from work in NYC test, the evening run to the liquor store test, or quick stop to the cigarette shop test....

I understand the accelerated testing. But, sorry to say, the real world can and will put the fancy testing to shame, and does so regularly.

I'm hoping that DI issues are addressed with fuel and oil improvements. If not, there are going to be a bunch of class-actions brewing in the next decade.

Ecoboost would be a cool swap into any 1950's to 90's RWD or 4x4 iron... Fairlane Bronco LTD Cougar F100 Mustang...

 

[bigbird_1]

My only concern about the Ecoboost, or any DI engine for that matter, is the carbon fouling on the back of the intake valves. Until gasoline or oil formulations or some new technology surfaces to address this problem, no DI for me.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
All that testing and they leave out the all important soccer mom test, the whoops its how many quarts low test, the I can't remember when I changed my oil test, and the commute to/from work in NYC test, the evening run to the liquor store test, or quick stop to the cigarette shop test....

I understand the accelerated testing. But, sorry to say, the real world can and will put the fancy testing to shame, and does so regularly.

I'm hoping that DI issues are addressed with fuel and oil improvements. If not, there are going to be a bunch of class-actions brewing in the next decade.

Ecoboost would be a cool swap into any 1950's to 90's RWD or 4x4 iron... Fairlane Bronco LTD Cougar F100 Mustang...


Engine builders around the world give the owner of the vehicle a manuel to read and go by as for maint. If the owner decides to be negligent and let the oil get several qts low, or doesn't change their oil, then what can you say? There is no test for this kind of motorist.

 

[demarpaint]

I'm waiting on the sidelines. I don't think the engines have proven themselves, especially in soccer mom use or severe service, stop and go applications, in the real world. I don't think oil or fuel additives are going to be the solution, it's the design that's to blame. It looks like the engine mfgs are pushing their problems on the oil and fuel companies, looking for a solution. JMO

Yes I know these the DI concept is not new, but this is gasoline fueled vehicles we're talking about here, and many people are having issues. I'd rather not be a product tester who paid for the vehicle, let someone else have that job.

 

[rossn2]

I have a 2011 XLT F150 4x4 Supercrew, with 3.55 limited slip rear end and the Ecoboost engine. Have slightly over 2400 miles now and decided to dump the factory fill and filter last night. These engines call for 5w-30 semi-synthetic oil and there's an Jan 2011 upgrade to a FL-2055 filter. I about [censored] myself last night as the filter was a little over $23 at the dealer and it's huge. With the new filter, the fill limit changes to 6.2 quarts from 6.0 quarts too. Put in Pennzoil Platinum 10w-30. I've been averaging 17.8 mpg combo driving and I'm really easy on the gas...hopefully it will go up to the rated 21mpg...

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: rossn2
I've been averaging 17.8 mpg combo driving and I'm really easy on the gas...hopefully it will go up to the rated 21mpg...


I had one of these as a loaner recently (and may again because the seal leak in my FX4 is not fixed). If you scroll to the bottom of this page you will see my thoughts on it. You should see quite a bit of improvement in MPG; I feel very comfortable in saying this engine could average 24MPG without any difficulty.

Ecoboost Final Thoughts

 

[Ken2]

Originally Posted By: bigbird_1
My only concern about the Ecoboost, or any DI engine for that matter, is the carbon fouling on the back of the intake valves. Until gasoline or oil formulations or some new technology surfaces to address this problem, no DI for me.
What is the source of material to provide the carbon that bakes on the back of the intake valves? They should be in contact with filtered air, maybe some very minor blowby from the PCV. There isn't gasoline mixed into that air.

I agree with most of the postings...an old timer had this saying he often used about trying something new, "Pioneers get arrows in their backs" (with apologies to our indigenous American neighbors).

 

[bigbird_1]

Originally Posted By: Ken2
What is the source of material to provide the carbon that bakes on the back of the intake valves? They should be in contact with filtered air, maybe some very minor blowby from the PCV. There isn't gasoline mixed into that air.


The intake valve opening overlaps at the end of the exhaust/beginning of the intake stroke, so the intake valves are mostly exposed to small amounts of burned gasses after the power stroke has completed rather than any raw fuel. Ideally there should be as little unburned fuel as possible after combustion. Fuel chemistry certainly still plays a large part in keeping the valves clean, but in an entirely different manner than on port injection engines where they are constantly exposed to unburned fuel.

 

[Hokiefyd]

You also have EGR and breather tubes going into the intake system. You also have hydrocarbon vapor soak after shutdown. This is why throttle butterflys sometimes have to be cleaned.

There are a number of sources for the deposits on an intake valve that don't get washed off in a DI engine.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: bigbird_1
The intake valve opening overlaps at the end of the exhaust/beginning of the intake stroke, so the intake valves are mostly exposed to small amounts of burned gasses after the power stroke has completed rather than any raw fuel. Ideally there should be as little unburned fuel as possible after combustion. Fuel chemistry certainly still plays a large part in keeping the valves clean, but in an entirely different manner than on port injection engines where they are constantly exposed to unburned fuel.


Note that overlap varies wildly by cam specs. It's not always present. Many cars now have NO egr, their cam timing accomplishes the same thing. Now that's overlap!

But with Variable Cam Timing there is the chance that Ford is using the VVT to adjust into an overlap condition to clean the valves. This is an exciting possibility, but these engines are too new to tell for sure.

 

[Jeff_in_VABch]

Originally Posted By: bigbird_1
My only concern about the Ecoboost, or any DI engine for that matter, is the carbon fouling on the back of the intake valves. Until gasoline or oil formulations or some new technology surfaces to address this problem, no DI for me.


I just take my valves out every 5,000 miles and clean them.

 

[Gearhead]

Originally Posted By: rshunter

Why do automobile-derived piston engines have issues with being adapted for use in aircraft, when they will be seeing steady-state throttle conditions for extended periods of time?


I'll attempt to add something to the answer. Piston driven aircraft engines are designed to operate & deliver 75% power at approx 2500 rpm, where as an automotive application is designed to deliver 75% of it's power at a much higher rpm range. Torque multiplication is achieved through gearing to match the varied vehicle speed, where as (possibly) the propeller speed is more of a constant, designed to deliver cruise & climb speeds. My guess is the flaps are similar to gearing.

Back to OP topic, the real world conditions of slow speed, short-trip runs is what I'd like to see replicated.