can someone explain the Ecoboost to me?

[bdcardinal]

Ecoboost is Ford's name for combining direct injection and turbocharging. The 2.0L EcoBoost in my mom's Fusion makes something like 240hp when you use premium. The car boogies.

For the most part they are extremely reliable. When they let go, they let go in a spectacular fashion. This is a 2.0L Ecoboost we are replacing in a 2016 Edge with 15K miles on the factory oil filter. We found pieces of exhaust valve in the turbo.







FWIW the other 3 cylinders look good. Those lines on the deck feed what looks like steam ports in the head. Pretty cool since I last remember seeing those on the Ford Racing Boss 302 and 351 blocks.

 

[columnshift]

Wow lots of responses...

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
There is no naturally aspirated half ton v8 truck that pulls in the heat and altitude like an ecoboost. Full stop.


Except a diesel I assume. :^) It just that it does seem to cost as much as a diesel though, but still (afaik) can't match the BSFC of a diesel under heavy load, even if it may be better than other gas engines under load. It just seems real expensive for what it is - looking at crate motor prices which I assume represent what they actually cost it was thousands more than I was expecting.

I wont disagree turbos are best for altitude whether on gas or diesel engines. Nor am I claiming the Ecoboost doesn't sound like a great quality of tow with a wide flat torque curve starting low and strong. It just doesn't seem all that 'Eco'.


Originally Posted By: Gillsy
I hope this helps although it may not directly address your concern. I drive a 2016 F150 Supercab w 2.7 Eco.


I'll agree those are good figures for a pickup, but they seem like what all the newest pickups are getting?


Originally Posted By: volk06
First off ford does not use cylinder deactivation on the V8 unless that recently changed. Also, the MPG are not near the same. Are you sure you're comparing all Ford engines? Also why does everyone assume these engines are overworked? They build these bottom ends pretty solid.


It's not the bottom end i'm concerned about, it's the rate of wear under real world "start, drive to work, stop and let cool half the day, start, drive back home, let cool overnight" conditions, instead of the 200,000 nonstop duty test that Ford did in their promo videos. Not that i'm ridiculing those videos, that's still impressive, but i'd assume the Chevy (and Dodge) would do the same with a normal v8 too when even the old Chevy LT engines would go half a million in taxi service. I'm wondering whether the Ecoboost will go half a million in real world but we won't know for awhile yet. All I know is that so far nobody has ever made a turbo gas engine last super-long (or as long as the nonturbo version) so i'm a little skeptical.

For MPG https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Standard_Pickup_Trucks_2WD2016.shtml

Chevy 5.3L V8 with it's cyl deactivation lists as 16 city/23 highway with 6 speed automatic
Ford 3.5L V6 Ecoboost lists as 17city/24 highway BUT thats with the new aluminum bodies too

If we roll back to 2014 when the Ecoboost first came out before the aluminum body

Ford 3.5L V6 Ecoboost lists as 16 city/22 highway with the 6 speed automatic

So isn't it the aluminum body responsible for +1/+2 mpg more than the Ecoboost? The ford is a 365hp engine the GM 5.3 V8 a 355hp engine, they seem pretty closely matched.


Please don't get me wrong, i'm not saying it's a [censored] engine. It just seems like throwing alot of money and technology at a problem which i'd then expect should be beating everyone leaving them in distant second place but seems not much better (2014 pickup mpg figure vs chevy v8) when I assumed the whole purpose of a downsized engine was a downsized fuel bill with the same performance. I was hoping it was more than just high altitude tow performance mostly.

That being said i'm still looking forward to what they'll do with their 2nd generation Ecoboosts i'd read about in some tech documents which might be closer to the stated goal of better BSFC under all load conditions.

 

[columnshift]

Continuing responses (if still needed).

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Eccoboost is a turbo. If you drive it with the proverbial lead foot, you will get poor gas mileage like you would in any other turbocharged vehicle. The turbo charged car should get better mileage when not towing.


I'm aware that is the theory. Compare 2014 2wd pickup MPG's before Ford went to the lighter aluminum body though.

Originally Posted By: sopususer

I assumed the OP was comparing the Ecoboost to either the GM Ecotec or Mopar Hemi with cylinder deactivation.

With the ecoboost it seems you either have "eco" or "boost" but not both at the same time. Just my $0.02


Well it's an impressive performance figure for a 3.5L V6, and it's impressive towing performance, and if they could get the cost down to literally not one penny more than a traditional v8 i'd be sold.

But i'll try from another angle... "This is just a 3.5L V6 with a turbocharger. What is so Eco about it vs any other V6 with a turbo?"

The THEORY from the tech documents was a design to maximize the maximum BSFC under a wide range of load and RPM conditions, where peak BSFC is normally is a very small island of high load lower RPM operation, such as a normally aspirated engine on a stick shift with your foot at 65% throttle at 2200rpm going up a hill. (where an automatic would normally shift down) This is the root of "pulse and glide" driving/where the Ecomodder crowd gets higher than EPA mileage figure by almost lugging the engine around with stick shifts - i've beat even old optimistic EPA figures doing this.


Mazda is trying to do something similar - maximize BSFC - with their Skyactiv engine, they just do it without the expensive turbocharger, and get what was it 42mpg in a compact which is I think worldbeating.

 

[columnshift]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
If all you compare is the freeway mileage on a GM to a 3.5 Ecoboost, you are right - the numbers for fuel mileage look similar. If you look at the overall though, the Ecoboost generally gets better mileage. Different ways to get to similar ends - minimize fuel consumption when its not needed, but have the power on hand when it is. I don't know that one is right and one is wrong, just different.


Well yes that's my assumption. :^) It just seems that Ford is selling the Ecoboost as some kind of "new idea" and worldbeating technology. And maybe it really is getting better 'under load' BSFC figures than everyone else but everyone uses their foot more because they love how strong it feels up hills. It's just when I hear on some boards that so and so was getting 8-9 mpg... well poop... my 454 V8 big block could tow a trailer at 8-9 mpg. It just wouldn't get better than 8-9 mpg empty either...

It's a question i've been curious at for awhile. I understand the lowest load highway cruise conditions being kind of gaming the system, but anyone who tows especially varying conditions (not just the same thing all the time) it's about MPG under load. Where sometimes a person steps up to a bigger engine and gets BETTER tow mileage (even if worse unladen mileage) because when you have a certain range of load or constant HP needed (between wind drag and uphill weight) certain engines seem to get into a "niche". What i'm trying to do is really narrow down that niche better - where the Ecoboost is the best game in town beating all comers, ie trailers from 4000-7000lbs in the mountains lets say or campers 9ft tall but not 11ft where the v8 is better.


Originally Posted By: MNgopher
That being said, go drive them if you haven't already. It will make some more sense after you do.


Oh I have and yes I was impressed with the power. So far my preference is still diesel though. :^) The Ecoboost sounds like a real winner for guys who tow infrequently, and sometimes have to tow very heavy so want the reserve capacity which I may be in the future. What i'm not sure about is if it's a winner for guys who are loaded 80% or more of the time like I will expect to be (when I get my next truck) from no less than 4k up to 12k, with 7-8k being common. I'm aware there's Ecoboost ratings up to 11k tow but if you're running that heavy is it going to beat a Chevy V8 for loaded MPG under the same conditions? (I assume it will perform better in higher mountains) Or a diesel for nearly the same money? (esp when I like to buy a few years old and would have to get the newer Fords to get the aluminum body that even shows the better mileage so i'm guessing no)

 

[SwampSurvivor]

There's millions of turbocharged direct injection engines that go well over 500K miles. Why is it that everyone is in love with a turbodisel, but a GTDI engine they are afraid of?

I do not understand the logic.

There are videos of people doing various pulls up a hill with a 12000 pound trailer. Believe it's 12% grade. The 3.5 EB outpulls, from a stop, a 7.3L powerstroke. That's impressive.

 

[itguy08]

It's all the advantages of a diesel (flat torque, negligible power loss in the mountains, etc) with none of the downsides (DEF, emissions, expensive oil changes, etc). Yes, loaded fuel economy is not that great but they will pull a mountain if you want. I know we can hook up our camper (almost 10k and 35 Ft) and the Ecoboost pulls it like crazy. Acceleration in the mountains of the east is not an issue. I'll keep up with cars on the interstates and can easily go over the speed limit while towing.

MPG #'s for mine (4x4, 3.73s, super crew, max tow) go from 19 to 8 depending on if I'm towing or not. I've hit 7 in the mountains or a headwind and seen 20 not towing. It's good enough for me given I've got one of the "thirstiest combinations.

Quote:
What i'm not sure about is if it's a winner for guys who are loaded 80% or more of the time like I will expect to be (when I get my next truck) from no less than 4k up to 12k, with 7-8k being common. I'm aware there's Ecoboost ratings up to 11k tow but if you're running that heavy is it going to beat a Chevy V8 for loaded MPG under the same conditions? (I assume it will perform better in higher mountains)

It's decent loaded or unloaded.
PickupTrucks.com MPG test

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
There's millions of turbocharged direct injection engines that go well over 500K miles. Why is it that everyone is in love with a turbodisel, but a GTDI engine they are afraid of?

I do not understand the logic.

There are videos of people doing various pulls up a hill with a 12000 pound trailer. Believe it's 12% grade. The 3.5 EB outpulls, from a stop, a 7.3L powerstroke. That's impressive.


Took 'em years to figure out direct injection gas. Ok fine we are coming up on 10 years now; but diesels had a good 70 year head start?

*

If we look across a range of engines, does BSFC really change that much across the various engines? In the end, every pony needs x lbs of fuel per hour.

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: columnshift
Wow lots of responses...
Except a diesel I assume. :^) It just that it does seem to cost as much as a diesel though, but still (afaik) can't match the BSFC of a diesel under heavy load, even if it may be better than other gas engines under load. It just seems real expensive for what it is - looking at crate motor prices which I assume represent what they actually cost it was thousands more than I was expecting.


Have you priced actually in a truck? A big difference in cost between gas and diesel is the emissions equipment required for the diesel if you factor this in the cost for diesel quickly rises. If I go to Ford's site now I'm seeing the 3.5L Ecoboost being a $715 premium over the 5.0L V8. That's much cheaper than any diesel option.

FWIW: I'm running a 2.7L Ecoboost. About 30% of my time is spend at >85% GVWR and the rest unloaded commuting. I'm getting 24 mpg in mixed driving, upwards of 29-30 mpg on pure highway (60-65mph), and 23 running 75-80 mph. Towing my 22' trailer I'll get 8-11 mpg at 70mph depending on the wind.

I went for the Ecoboost due to the additional drive ability afforded by the turbos and the outstanding fuel mileage when unloaded. I worked on the development team for one of the small diesel's currently on the market but still couldn't justify buying one when accounting for my needs and the price/performance tradeoff.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

For the most part they are extremely reliable. When they let go, they let go in a spectacular fashion. This is a 2.0L Ecoboost we are replacing in a 2016 Edge with 15K miles on the factory oil filter. We found pieces of exhaust valve in the turbo.


Ouch. Bet that owner wishes he paid the $30 for the oil change!

 

[4WD]

HP is good on both - but the "early to rise" torque curve is there on the 3.5 eB - I'd say Ford has done decent engineering when you look at the 2.7 eB. Tell me 10 hears ago we'd predict a 2.7L in an F150 being all the talk over coffee (in the US that is).
I buy only from the two companies in this thread - as does family & company. Do I think the eB will run as long as the 5.3L? We will see - but it is only natural to ask how far each turbo will need to go to be considered reliable ...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

For the most part they are extremely reliable. When they let go, they let go in a spectacular fashion. This is a 2.0L Ecoboost we are replacing in a 2016 Edge with 15K miles on the factory oil filter. We found pieces of exhaust valve in the turbo.


Ouch. Bet that owner wishes he paid the $30 for the oil change!

He did not say the oil was not changed for 15K miles.

 

[4WD]

What was the connection with the oil filter - did it mechanically fail ?

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
HP is good on both - but the "early to rise" torque curve is there on the 3.5 eB - I'd say Ford has done decent engineering when you look at the 2.7 eB. Tell me 10 hears ago we'd predict a 2.7L in an F150 being all the talk over coffee (in the US that is).
I buy only from the two companies in this thread - as does family & company. Do I think the eB will run as long as the 5.3L? We will see - but it is only natural to ask how far each turbo will need to go to be considered reliable ...


10 years ago if you had told me that a 2.7L engine would be moving around a pickup truck and be able to tow 7500 pounds I would have said you were out of your mind!

If I had the money to buy a brand new F150 I'd have a hard time not getting the 2.7. I could really use a truck and the 2.7 has towing capacity in my range. Of course, the 3.5NA does as well ...

 

[09_GXP]

Originally Posted By: Miller88

10 years ago if you had told me that a 2.7L engine would be moving around a pickup truck and be able to tow 7500 pounds I would have said you were out of your mind!

If I had the money to buy a brand new F150 I'd have a hard time not getting the 2.7. I could really use a truck and the 2.7 has towing capacity in my range. Of course, the 3.5NA does as well ...


But the towing experience would be quite a bit different. Having all the power of the Ecoboost in reserve is really nice when you have to merge or go through hills.

 

[UncleDave]

Except a diesel I assume. :^) It just that it does seem to cost as much as a diesel though, but still (afaik) can't match the BSFC of a diesel under heavy load, even if it may be better than other gas engines under load. It just seems real expensive for what it is - looking at crate motor prices which I assume represent what they actually cost it was thousands more than I was expecting.

I wont disagree turbos are best for altitude whether on gas or diesel engines. Nor am I claiming the Ecoboost doesn't sound like a great quality of tow with a wide flat torque curve starting low and strong. It just doesn't seem all that 'Eco'.

There are no half ton naturally aspirated or turbo v8 diesels pickups. The v8 diesels are all 3/4 ton class trucks and turbocharged.
Those trucks are 10-30K more than the EB half tons

True The EB will not get the mileage under a full or load a diesel will as diesel fuel has 20% more energy per unit.

- but it will equal or beat any gas half ton with the same rear end ratio if you can keep your foot out of it, plus I don't know of any other half ton with a 34 gallon tank so your range under load is quote a bit more than any competing half ton.

If you look at the torque curve chart id say its doing exactly what the engineers intended it to do which is slay outright any competitive NA engine of even close to double it cubes with a massive wall wall of torque right off idle.

UD

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

For the most part they are extremely reliable. When they let go, they let go in a spectacular fashion. This is a 2.0L Ecoboost we are replacing in a 2016 Edge with 15K miles on the factory oil filter. We found pieces of exhaust valve in the turbo.


Ouch. Bet that owner wishes he paid the $30 for the oil change!

He did not say the oil was not changed for 15K miles.


I bolded the relevant part. Ford's OCI's are 10k or OLM for the oil AND filter. So having the Factory filter means proper maintenance was not followed. Going 150% on on OCI is hard to excuse.

Page 403:
http://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_C...-US_10_2015.pdf

Quote:

Normal Maintenance Intervals
At every oil change interval as indicated by the information display*
Change engine oil and filter.**

* Do not exceed one year or 10000 miles (16000 kilometers) between service intervals.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

For the most part they are extremely reliable. When they let go, they let go in a spectacular fashion. This is a 2.0L Ecoboost we are replacing in a 2016 Edge with 15K miles on the factory oil filter. We found pieces of exhaust valve in the turbo.


Ouch. Bet that owner wishes he paid the $30 for the oil change!

He did not say the oil was not changed for 15K miles.


I bolded the relevant part. Ford's OCI's are 10k or OLM for the oil AND filter. So having the Factory filter means proper maintenance was not followed. Going 150% on on OCI is hard to excuse.

Agreed, but you said oil change. That's all I was pointing out.

 

[4WD]

I service 6 (on road) vehicles - and the eB is the easiest to get to spin on filter ...

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Agreed, but you said oil change. That's all I was pointing out.

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Agreed, but you said oil change. That's all I was pointing out.

It is a rental, aka the world's fastest car. In service date was March of this year. Not the first time we have seen something like this on a rental. Usually they get towed in with a rod or 2 ventilating the block with the factory oil filter still on.