ecoboost longevity

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27


Actually, survey data show that about one out of every seven cars you see every day has passed 200K.
You know those old beaters you see every day, especially in the lower income parts of town?
Most of those cars have passed 200K.
Most engines will survive well past 200K as long as the owner keeps oil in them. No meticulous maintenance required.
Link? A quick search only found this.

Quote:
Conclusion: In the search for the top 12 vehicles that have clocked at least 200,000 miles, only one was a car. In last place, in a three-way tie, came the Honda Accord. The rest of the list has nothing but trucks—pickups or SUVs, which shouldn’t come as a surprise.


Quote:
The vehicles and the percentage of them showing at least 200,000 miles

1. Ford F-250 Super Duty, 4.3%

2. Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD, 3.6%

3. Chevrolet Suburban, 3.6%

4. Toyota 4Runner, 3.5%

5. Ford Expedition, 3%

6. GMC Sierra 2500HD, 2.7%

7. Chevrolet Tahoe, 2.1%

8. GMC Yukon XL, 1.9%

9. Toyota Sequoia. 1.7%

10. GMC Sierra 1500, 1.6%

11. GMC Yukon, 1.6%

12. Honda Accord, 1.6%

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

That's the one...the $10,000+ ticking time bomb. Every Bosch CP4 is a hand grenade with the pin pulled.


OK, but Ford isn't the only one with the "time bomb" and apparently the issue is with the substandard diesel in North America? Not that they shouldn't have done their homework but it really isn't an "engine" issue (IE, the 6.7 being a toilet) as it is a fuel pump issue, which I admit full well they should perhaps revisit, but it isn't an issue with the actual engine.


Ford is the only company reaming their customers when it fails.

 

[rjundi]

If longevity is your goal 150k+, turbo vehicles simply drop your chances of trouble free/low cost life vs normal aspirated. I hit a nasty problem of burned valve(required engine pull) in my 2005 turbo legacy. Apparently specific problem to stock tune of this particular application in Subaru. Amazingly the turbo itself is in exceptional condition as everything was removed/inspected since an engine pull was required to fix. (3500 mile OCI dino changer since new).

That being said the motor has some flutter 2500-3500 RPM which is somewhere in the turbo plumbing. The problem is no check engine light and honestly you can mask it over since its a manual transmission.

My brother replaced the turbo on 2004 Saab Aero at 151k.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: fdcg27


Actually, survey data show that about one out of every seven cars you see every day has passed 200K.
You know those old beaters you see every day, especially in the lower income parts of town?
Most of those cars have passed 200K.
Most engines will survive well past 200K as long as the owner keeps oil in them. No meticulous maintenance required.
Link? A quick search only found this.

Quote:
Conclusion: In the search for the top 12 vehicles that have clocked at least 200,000 miles, only one was a car. In last place, in a three-way tie, came the Honda Accord. The rest of the list has nothing but trucks—pickups or SUVs, which shouldn’t come as a surprise.


Quote:
The vehicles and the percentage of them showing at least 200,000 miles

1. Ford F-250 Super Duty, 4.3%

2. Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD, 3.6%

3. Chevrolet Suburban, 3.6%

4. Toyota 4Runner, 3.5%

5. Ford Expedition, 3%

6. GMC Sierra 2500HD, 2.7%

7. Chevrolet Tahoe, 2.1%

8. GMC Yukon XL, 1.9%

9. Toyota Sequoia. 1.7%

10. GMC Sierra 1500, 1.6%

11. GMC Yukon, 1.6%

12. Honda Accord, 1.6%


Interesting. Would not have guessed that. I still think darn near anything can pass 200k, it's only a matter of the owners willingness to pay for repairs. But it is interesting still that few car owners do so.

Or is it? I wonder how many of these trucks were company vehicles and thus more likely to be fixed and driven--and not private cars? I wonder if the results are skewed a bit. The 4Runner tho I dint think I've ever seen as a company vehicle, so that does seem to praise it.

 

[hatt]

I doubt the results are very accurate. Probably no more accurate than the "survey" that I was asking to be linked.

It's just common sense that trucks will be on the road longer. Would you spend $1500 to put a new trans or other repair in a decent shape 94 Taurus. Probably not. Would you spend $1500 to put a trans or other repair in a 94 1/2 ton in decent shape. Most likely.

 

[itguy08]

It's the devil you know vs the devil you don't....

$1500 into a rust free (or low rust), 3.0 1994 Taurus with 100k you've owned since new? Sure thing. Cause the 3.0 is a decent engine and will most likely outlive the chassis.

$1500 into a 94 1/2 ton rust free with 100k you've owned since new? Sure thing.

$1500 into a 94 1/2 ton with 200k? Probably not.
$1500 into a 94 Taurus with 200k? Probably not.

Or if that $1500 is what you need to go to work vs buy another $1500 heap o junk, you spend it regardless of the vehicle.

 

[supton]

One thing that gets me is, if you think about spending $1500, then you need to make sure there is a second $1500 in the other pocket. Just in case something else goes. I mean, how many people do all sorts of work, then ditch when it need yet another repair?

Three (?) years ago the flywheel went bad in the Jetta. $700. Month later the turbo went. $1500. Then the electric fuel pump went. $350. I think I did tires that year too. $500. Car had about 250k on it, and "everything" came due at once. But I was pretty committed to keeping it (couldn't figure out what to replace with), and it's done another three years/50k since then.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

That's the one...the $10,000+ ticking time bomb. Every Bosch CP4 is a hand grenade with the pin pulled.


OK, but Ford isn't the only one with the "time bomb" and apparently the issue is with the substandard diesel in North America? Not that they shouldn't have done their homework but it really isn't an "engine" issue (IE, the 6.7 being a toilet) as it is a fuel pump issue, which I admit full well they should perhaps revisit, but it isn't an issue with the actual engine.


Ford is the only company reaming their customers when it fails.


Still doesn't make the engine defective though

Just makes Ford a bit of a d-bag on the problem.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: supton
One thing that gets me is, if you think about spending $1500, then you need to make sure there is a second $1500 in the other pocket. Just in case something else goes. I mean, how many people do all sorts of work, then ditch when it need yet another repair?

Three (?) years ago the flywheel went bad in the Jetta. $700. Month later the turbo went. $1500. Then the electric fuel pump went. $350. I think I did tires that year too. $500. Car had about 250k on it, and "everything" came due at once. But I was pretty committed to keeping it (couldn't figure out what to replace with), and it's done another three years/50k since then.


On an upper mileage paid for vehicle like my wife has. She simply looks at a replacement payment at $350/month and divides repair prices out and think will it make it x months more. I was a bit surprised she is happy if our Subaru makes it one year repair free with our recent $3000+ repair.

 

[GBL]

98k on my 2011 F150 Ecoboost. No problems yet. The gas mileage is way ahead of my 2001 F150 5.4. Towing is tremendous. The 5.4 struggled big time with the load while the 3.5 can power up anything. My 2001 would get about 7 mpg pulling my horse trailer while my 2011 gets almost 11 mpg pulling the same rig. The 5.4 would get 14/16 while the 3.5 currently gets 17/20.

I can't compare it with the 5.0 as I've never driven or owned one.

Will it last the 240k my 5.4 did? We'll see. So far so good.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

That's the one...the $10,000+ ticking time bomb. Every Bosch CP4 is a hand grenade with the pin pulled.


OK, but Ford isn't the only one with the "time bomb" and apparently the issue is with the substandard diesel in North America? Not that they shouldn't have done their homework but it really isn't an "engine" issue (IE, the 6.7 being a toilet) as it is a fuel pump issue, which I admit full well they should perhaps revisit, but it isn't an issue with the actual engine.


Ford is the only company reaming their customers when it fails.


Still doesn't make the engine defective though

Just makes Ford a bit of a d-bag on the problem.


No different than any other mfgr. If they can find a way, they will...