Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Why do some seem to discount completely Fords testing?
I don't think anyone is "completely discounting" Ford's testing. If they hit it out of the park here, good for them.
But a little healthy caution is not unreasonable. They're dropping very small displacement engines into full-size trucks -- not a subcompact pocket rocket -- and blowing the heck out of them, to do what a much larger V-8 had to. That's not something that's been done before.
All new engines should pull strong. But three or four years in the field is not enough time or enough miles in my opinion to judge long-term durability in that application.
You may be too young to remember, but GM's V-8 diesels in the '70 were "tested", too. So label me cautious when I don't blindly accept everything a manufacturer claims.
Let me put it to you another way. If you are staring at two used 2014 commercial trucks seven years from now, both with 200,000 hard miles on them, one has a Chevy 5.3, the other has an Ecoboost 2.7, and all else being equal (including what was invested on maintenance), which one are you going to have less concern about buying?
The historical rap on turbocharged gasoline engines is that they are more maintenance and repair prone and are ultimately not as durable as their NA counterparts. Running one in heavy-duty use exasperates those old issues. Maybe Ford figured out all the problems to overcome these decades-old realities. They would be the first to do so.
Not too parrot others, but the early buyers are doing us all a favor. There is something to be said for the bleeding edge.
That's where I am at with these trucks. Sure, Ford tested it. It will also have problems. Just because manufacturers test something doesn't mean they ironed out everything. My concern is the problems this truck could potentially have are likely to be much more expensive and complex to repair than problems on a simpler, naturally aspirated pickup that isn't trying to replace displacement with boost.
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Why do some seem to discount completely Fords testing?
I don't think anyone is "completely discounting" Ford's testing. If they hit it out of the park here, good for them.
But a little healthy caution is not unreasonable. They're dropping very small displacement engines into full-size trucks -- not a subcompact pocket rocket -- and blowing the heck out of them, to do what a much larger V-8 had to. That's not something that's been done before.
All new engines should pull strong. But three or four years in the field is not enough time or enough miles in my opinion to judge long-term durability in that application.
You may be too young to remember, but GM's V-8 diesels in the '70 were "tested", too. So label me cautious when I don't blindly accept everything a manufacturer claims.
Let me put it to you another way. If you are staring at two used 2014 commercial trucks seven years from now, both with 200,000 hard miles on them, one has a Chevy 5.3, the other has an Ecoboost 2.7, and all else being equal (including what was invested on maintenance), which one are you going to have less concern about buying?
The historical rap on turbocharged gasoline engines is that they are more maintenance and repair prone and are ultimately not as durable as their NA counterparts. Running one in heavy-duty use exasperates those old issues. Maybe Ford figured out all the problems to overcome these decades-old realities. They would be the first to do so.
Not too parrot others, but the early buyers are doing us all a favor. There is something to be said for the bleeding edge.
That's where I am at with these trucks. Sure, Ford tested it. It will also have problems. Just because manufacturers test something doesn't mean they ironed out everything. My concern is the problems this truck could potentially have are likely to be much more expensive and complex to repair than problems on a simpler, naturally aspirated pickup that isn't trying to replace displacement with boost.
