Ecoboost or Not.

Posted by: tangojetta

Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 10:15 AM

Looking to replace our 06 Ford Freestyle with 220,000 miles with a Ford Flex with 3.5 Ecoboost motor. After doing some looking around, I'm having having second thoughts about it.

Posted by: loyd

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 10:28 AM

The video in the link you posted is talking about the ecoboost 2.0 liter engine, not the 3.5 liter engine. Plus, you can't believe everything you read on the internet. If you want the truth I suggest you call Ford and talk to them about your concerns.
Posted by: GutsyGecko

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 10:52 AM

I just bought my 2nd ecoboost vehicle from ford. Both hve been trouble free in relation to the drivetrain. One has 3k, the other 73k.
Posted by: RISUPERCREWMAN

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 10:54 AM

I would Never my an Eco-Doom Anything since I keep my vehicles well past the factory or extended warranty periods!
Posted by: Drew99GT

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:33 AM

What the guy is talking about isn't so much Ecoboost in and of itself, it's the intake valve problems with GDI engines and how to safely deal with them. If I were to ever buy a GDI equipped vehicle, the first thing I'd do is buy a Mishimoto oil catch can and learn a safe method for cleaning the induction system, such as using CRCs GDI specific intake valve cleaner.
Posted by: Miller88

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:44 AM

If you install a catch can you won't have the inherent issues of intake valve carboning up.

I like the ecoboost engines. Great torque.
Posted by: Trav

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:51 AM

DI and Ecoboost are not on my list of things to own. When the majority of these vehicle hit 100K then we will have a better idea how they will hold up.
It doesn't sound promising if they are really authorizing head replacements because there is no approved induction service, something doesn't sound right there.
Posted by: Drew99GT

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:54 AM

OK, after reviewing both vids that guy posted, I guess it is an Ecoboost problem; turbos blowing up from induction cleaning. Introducing too many hydrocarbons in the engine which heats the turbos up too much and kills them.

Are there any induction/fuel system type cleaners that don't have so many petroleum distillates and are synthetic and wouldn't burn when introduced into the combustion chamber? Is that even possible??? An all PEA based cleaner perhaps, since PEA supposedly survives the combustion process and doesn't actually burn? CRCs GDI cleaner has no PEA and is petroleum distillates on steroids. It's no good in a GDI turbo engine.
Posted by: Drew99GT

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:58 AM



part 2. Great video with visible evidence it's the PCV system that gums up the valves. The manufacturers of GDI engines are going to have to create factory oil breather tanks that are maintenance free and drain the collected condensed oil back to the oil sump. I'm pretty sure some German makes do this as you can buy replacement tanks from Purolator that have inlet and outlet barbs from the PCV line, and a barb that connects a hose to the crankcase.
Posted by: cb_13

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 11:59 AM

Granted they're still relatively new but the only issues I've seen with the 3.5 EB engines is the moisture build up in the charge air cooler on the F150. Of course new technology scares alot of people. Maybe one manufacturer will bring out a push rod, carbureted straight six with 3 spd column shift manual for trucks and full size cars. Should sell since its "proven" technology like so many say they prefer.
Posted by: klt1986

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 12:53 PM

Take this for what it is worth. One of my extra duty's for the department I work for is fleet manager of vehicles. Our department is transitioning from Ford CVPI's to Dodge Chargers(5.7 Hemi's). We decided to go with the Chargers after consulting with mechanics and watching the issues of our neighboring department and their Eco-Boost engines.

The neighboring department went with the Ford Interceptors and has been having quite a few problems with oil consumption, rear end issues, and turbo issues. All at less than 40,000 miles. I feel like the oil consumption and turbo issues are related to each other. I have driven the Interceptors and they are fun to drive, certainly faster than the CVPI's, but I don't see the EB engine taking a lot of long term abuse...in real world applications.
Posted by: earlyre

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 01:23 PM

Good place for this question is over @ TCCA(taurusclub.com) as the flex is on the same platform as the 5th gen Taurus ( including the five hundred/montego/freestyle, and the 6th gen(current) Taurus.) Lots of guys with real world miles in Eco boost Tauri
Posted by: double vanos

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 01:36 PM

I have a 2011 EB FX4 with 69k miles and have only replaced spark plugs (once) and filters. It gets middle grade gas and oil changes at 4k miles with Castrol Edge EP and FL500s filters. It runs stronger now than when new. I worry more about the transmission having to deal 300 - 400 + pounds of torque every day than I do the engine...
Just my experience....
Posted by: 901Memphis

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 02:41 PM

Since you like to keep your vehicle past 200k, i wouldn't recommend going with something that probably doesn't have any examples at 200k yet to see how they last at that age. It might take serious repairs to get them to 200k+.
Posted by: Danh

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 03:59 PM

Interesting video that may have valuable information. Two points, though:

1) Does anyone else find it curious that a Ford tech would go public with potentially damaging information that Ford hasn't released yet? The guy is identifiable and even has a name tag. Maybe he's just brave.

2) He's diagnosed poor DI cold engine performance as caused by intake valve deposits. But, this is a problem associated with PORT injected engines: fuel is absorbed by carbon deposits on cold intake valves, making the mixture leaner than intended. In a DI engine, fuel never washes over the intake valves so no absorption occurs. Maybe there's another explanation but to me it seems he has mixed DI characteristics with PFI problems.

Mind you, I'd be reluctant to buy a new EcoBoost engine, too, but am not convinced this video tells the whole story.
Posted by: itguy08

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 04:00 PM

Love both of mine.

One has been since new and 76k later nothing out of a knock sensor for the engine. Lots of power, decent fuel economy (for a 4500LB AWD sedan), and no oil consumption, turbo, or other issues with it. I fill it up with the cheapest swill I can find, change the oil at the dealer when the OLM either comes on or gets close. I did change the plugs at 75k and that's it.

The truck, got it with 43k in January, it now has 49k and no oil consumption or anything. But not really much other than that as far as history.

I fully expect at least 200k out of them both without major repairs.

I wouldn't worry - Ford has put out well over 600k of them since the middle of 2009 and failures are few and far between. I'm more worried about the 6F55 in the SHO than the Ecoboost. Although it too has given me no issues and I change the fluid every 30k.
Posted by: TiredTrucker

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 04:13 PM

We are in the 21st century and it seems ridiculous that something like the ecoboost is out of the norm and we are still playing with naturally aspirated engines. Just about everything at this point should be turbo or supercharged. Naturally aspirated diesels in vehicles are so old school and not even offered in new stuff, just not sure why gasoline hasn't gone the same route. N/A engines should be confined to kit mods, restorations, and museums. Sure the cost would be more, but in mass production the costs drop dramatically compared to aftermarket.
Posted by: Nick R

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/12/14 04:30 PM

I would have no issues with an ecoboost vehicle. Some people are luddites and afraid of change. I'm not. We almost got a Ford f-150 ecoboost when I got my focus. We ended up with the traverse instead and have been very happy with it. But if you want an engine with lots of torque, and decent fuel economy, and a lot of go power, you can't really go wrong imo.
Posted by: dave1251

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 01:44 AM

This guy is trolling for some cash. Rubes believe anything.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 05:03 AM

I'm hearing mixed reviews about the EB engines. I'm still not ready to gamble with one, and I'm a big FMC fan. In another year or two I'd consider one. Fortunately for me, I want a new vehicle I don't need one.
Posted by: SteveSRT8

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm hearing mixed reviews about the EB engines. I'm still not ready to gamble with one, and I'm a big FMC fan. In another year or two I'd consider one. Fortunately for me, I want a new vehicle I don't need one.


Major mfgrs have used us as the guinea pigs for a long time now, we always should thank the early adopters! But the EB is already pretty much proven viable, it just has some glitches under particular duty cycles. The failure rate on the V6 is quite low and it's only the 4 bangers that have had some issues, we all know about the old V6 intercooler woes, that's all over now.

It's always nice to let that new tech be thoroughly tested before spending your hard earned money...
Posted by: itguy08

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm hearing mixed reviews about the EB engines.


Just curious what? The 3.5 is solid with the exception it likes plugs every 40-50k or so. The F150 had intercooler issues but those are pretty much over now.

I know people complain about the fuel economy but that's about to be expected. Drive it hard and it's about the same as a 7.0 liter engine. Drive it sanely and you will get decent economy. I've seen 26 MPG in long highway with the SHO and with the F150 the average is about 17 (it has max tow, 4x4, and 3.73's). The SHO is fine by me and the F150 is about to be expected with the gearing it has.
Posted by: klt1986

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 09:13 PM

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm hearing mixed reviews about the EB engines.


Just curious what? The 3.5 is solid with the exception it likes plugs every 40-50k or so. The F150 had intercooler issues but those are pretty much over now.

I know people complain about the fuel economy but that's about to be expected. Drive it hard and it's about the same as a 7.0 liter engine. Drive it sanely and you will get decent economy. I've seen 26 MPG in long highway with the SHO and with the F150 the average is about 17 (it has max tow, 4x4, and 3.73's). The SHO is fine by me and the F150 is about to be expected with the gearing it has.



Major oil consumption/smoking issues in the Interceptors here locally. Also transmission and rear end issues as well. One Interceptor was down for over 30 days awaiting a new rear end from Ford. There were not any parts available...whatever happened Ford wanted the rear end replaced as a unit.

I love the power the EB engine makes in these cars...the performance really is light years ahead of the Crown Vic PI's. However, long term durability under severe service may be an issue for this engine.

Posted by: ukmastermind

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/13/14 11:27 PM

I'm going to start collecting Walnut Shells just in case my buddies EB engine clogs up!
Walnut Shells and Dirty Intake Valves
Posted by: SteveSRT8

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 05:05 AM

Originally Posted By: klt1986
However, long term durability under severe service may be an issue for this engine.


I think that is precisely why Demarpaint and I agree that these get a little more R&D from those brave 'early adopters'!
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 05:57 AM

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I'm hearing mixed reviews about the EB engines.


Just curious what?


Pretty much what was already mentioned in this thread.
Posted by: itguy08

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 07:23 AM

Originally Posted By: klt1986

Major oil consumption/smoking issues in the Interceptors here locally. Also transmission and rear end issues as well. One Interceptor was down for over 30 days awaiting a new rear end from Ford. There were not any parts available...whatever happened Ford wanted the rear end replaced as a unit.

I love the power the EB engine makes in these cars...the performance really is light years ahead of the Crown Vic PI's. However, long term durability under severe service may be an issue for this engine.


Thanks.

There is a new TSB out and new parts for the smoking issue. And it goes all the way back to the 2010 EB in the cars so that may be something that was bad design.

I've heard that the rear in that platform (SHO/Flex/Explorer) is an integrated unit with the clutches and such built into the rear so that may be why it needs to be replaced as a unit rather than a rebuild. Either way I don't think I'd classify a rear end or even transmission a fault with the engine.

I would have hoped that with the Law Enforcement contracts, Ford would have done tons of testing on them but it seems like something slipped through the cracks. They better get it sorted or risk loosing LOTS of sales!
Posted by: badtlc

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 07:33 AM

Originally Posted By: ukmastermind
I'm going to start collecting Walnut Shells just in case my buddies EB engine clogs up!
Walnut Shells and Dirty Intake Valves


If your friend's EB clogs up then he isn't getting it hot enough every now and then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfRcwesqNg
Posted by: Miller88

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 07:44 AM

I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 07:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


I'd put it on now, and take it off if there's a problem while its under warranty and has to go in for service. That is unless they bring it to the dealer for service, something I don't do. My thinking is if the catch can is going to be of any benefit long term, why wait until the warranty is up? Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: badtlc

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 08:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


catch cans do nothing for preventing intake valve deposits if that is what you are going for. This has been shown time and time again on different forums out there.

Catch cans are for increasing the octane rating of your AF mixture when you are running an agressive tune and pushing the limits. The PCV vapors lower the octane just enough for agressive tunes that it can cause detonation. They don't remove enough vapor to prevent valve deposits, though.

Here are the valves of someone who cleaned their valves, installed a BSH catch can hoping for results:

Posted by: Miller88

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 08:57 AM

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


I'd put it on now, and take it off if there's a problem while its under warranty and has to go in for service. That is unless they bring it to the dealer for service, something I don't do. My thinking is if the catch can is going to be of any benefit long term, why wait until the warranty is up? Just thinking out loud.


They do dealer service. Can't really beat $25 for an synblend oil change that someone else is doing.


Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


catch cans do nothing for preventing intake valve deposits if that is what you are going for. This has been shown time and time again on different forums out there.

Catch cans are for increasing the octane rating of your AF mixture when you are running an agressive tune and pushing the limits. The PCV vapors lower the octane just enough for agressive tunes that it can cause detonation. They don't remove enough vapor to prevent valve deposits, though.

Here are the valves of someone who cleaned their valves, installed a BSH catch can hoping for results:



Wouldn't the catch can keep the pcv vapors from entering the intake? What about just sticking a filter on and venting it out into the open?
Posted by: badtlc

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 09:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Miller88


Wouldn't the catch can keep the pcv vapors from entering the intake? What about just sticking a filter on and venting it out into the open?


Removing PCV from the intake is the only sure fire way.
Posted by: demarpaint

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


I'd put it on now, and take it off if there's a problem while its under warranty and has to go in for service. That is unless they bring it to the dealer for service, something I don't do. My thinking is if the catch can is going to be of any benefit long term, why wait until the warranty is up? Just thinking out loud.


They do dealer service. Can't really beat $25 for an synblend oil change that someone else is doing.



I'd pass on the catch can then.
Posted by: bdcardinal

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 12:20 PM

Originally Posted By: klt1986
There were not any parts available...whatever happened Ford wanted the rear end replaced as a unit.


Individual parts are not available for those rear end assemblies. They are only serviced in a complete assembly. A lot of the rear drive units on the AWD vehicles are like that.
Posted by: ukmastermind

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 07:41 PM

What car is that??
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


catch cans do nothing for preventing intake valve deposits if that is what you are going for. This has been shown time and time again on different forums out there.

Catch cans are for increasing the octane rating of your AF mixture when you are running an agressive tune and pushing the limits. The PCV vapors lower the octane just enough for agressive tunes that it can cause detonation. They don't remove enough vapor to prevent valve deposits, though.

Here are the valves of someone who cleaned their valves, installed a BSH catch can hoping for results:

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


catch cans do nothing for preventing intake valve deposits if that is what you are going for. This has been shown time and time again on different forums out there.

Catch cans are for increasing the octane rating of your AF mixture when you are running an agressive tune and pushing the limits. The PCV vapors lower the octane just enough for agressive tunes that it can cause detonation. They don't remove enough vapor to prevent valve deposits, though.

Here are the valves of someone who cleaned their valves, installed a BSH catch can hoping for results:

Posted by: hattaresguy

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 08:27 PM

Turbo charged motors have been around for a long time, back in the 80's Volvo, Saab, and Porsche had them pretty well figured out.

I'd have no heartburn buying one. Just stay on top of the oil.

OTOH I think the average person who does not stay on top of maintenance will find ownership expensive. They are not as tolerant as NA motors are of abuse.
Posted by: dave1251

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/14/14 10:46 PM

I agree with this.
Posted by: wtd

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/17/14 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I reallllllly want to put a catch can on my parents Escape. I may end up doing it once its out of warranty.


catch cans do nothing for preventing intake valve deposits if that is what you are going for. This has been shown time and time again on different forums out there.

Catch cans are for increasing the octane rating of your AF mixture when you are running an agressive tune and pushing the limits. The PCV vapors lower the octane just enough for agressive tunes that it can cause detonation. They don't remove enough vapor to prevent valve deposits, though.

Here are the valves of someone who cleaned their valves, installed a BSH catch can hoping for results:



You also have to realize that not all catch cans are as effective as others. There are quite a few cans out there that still let a lot of oil through to the intake. The manufacturer of RX catch cans claims that their cans capture 95%+ of oil and contaminants and have done quite a bit of testing with ecoboost vehicles, I think mostly the F150. Go to f150.com and they have some various threads on this issue and catch cans.
Posted by: sciphi

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/17/14 06:38 PM

Turbos have been around for a long time. I'd trust a major OEM like Ford to get it right, especially in a truck.

My turbo (but not DI) Cruze is doing fine at 89k miles, most of those highway miles at 55-60 mph.
Posted by: hattaresguy

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/18/14 09:12 PM

You guys are also assuming those valve deposits mean something. Most EGR diesels have valves like that and they run fine forever.

Those deposits might mean nothing and the motor will perform to design specifications for its service life with them looking just like that.
Posted by: TiredTrucker

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/18/14 10:50 PM

It probably is a sure thing that a catch can won't catch everything, but the right can will catch a mighty amount of gunk that would have went to the intake. The catch can I have on my 5.3L in my Silverado captured enough in 13,000 miles to fill a 16 oz drinking water bottle to the top. So it prevented at least a half quart of oil and condensation from pooling up in the intake manifold, and just that much less crud not making it to the valves.

It may not be the cure all, end all for everything that ails an engine, but it sure seems like a worthy addition. I understand how some feel it is not necessary, in theory, but for the reality I have to face with my vehicle, it was a good addition.
Posted by: rjundi

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/19/14 07:09 AM

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Turbos have been around for a long time. I'd trust a major OEM like Ford to get it right, especially in a truck.

My turbo (but not DI) Cruze is doing fine at 89k miles, most of those highway miles at 55-60 mph.


A lot more to turbo's then the part itself. Subaru has been doing it forever(1980ish) but mucked up tuning on my specific model(legacy gt/outback xt 2.5L) leading to this(burned valves):


My turbo is perfect though!! Interestingly the tuned Subaru's do not suffer this fate apparently so Subaru mucked up factory tune is a likely culprit.
Posted by: sciphi

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/19/14 07:41 AM

True, tuning does play a large part in how reliable the engine is. I hope that the OEM's would stand behind the products they sell. Although that's up to the dealer first, and not every dealer is equal.
Posted by: Nate1979

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/19/14 10:58 AM

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
It probably is a sure thing that a catch can won't catch everything, but the right can will catch a mighty amount of gunk that would have went to the intake. The catch can I have on my 5.3L in my Silverado captured enough in 13,000 miles to fill a 16 oz drinking water bottle to the top. So it prevented at least a half quart of oil and condensation from pooling up in the intake manifold, and just that much less crud not making it to the valves.

It may not be the cure all, end all for everything that ails an engine, but it sure seems like a worthy addition. I understand how some feel it is not necessary, in theory, but for the reality I have to face with my vehicle, it was a good addition.

Was that in the summer or winter? I recently installed a catch can (Conceptual Polymer brand) on my Silverado but dont catch nearly as much as you.
Posted by: Trav

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/19/14 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Turbos have been around for a long time. I'd trust a major OEM like Ford to get it right, especially in a truck.


I would not trust that just because Ford did it it will be done right. True Turbo has been around a long time, it been done in Europe for decades.
The difference is most older units and aftermarket kits are a little further downstream where they run slightly cooler.

You would think that Honda would get the VCM down pat but even after almost 10 years they made a nightmare even worse. Or..
Ford, GM and Chrysler after building some of the best transmissions in the world the TH400, C6, 727, would know enough about how to build one stronger than a wet noodle they put in some late model vehicles

Piston slap issues from many major manufacturers? You would think they know enough to fit a piston in a hole properly.
There are so many examples of major manufacturers engineering failures you could fill a book.

Just because a major manufacturer does something means nothing about it being done right IMO.
I wouldn't trust ecoboost with DI further than i can throw the truck this early in life.
Posted by: Volvohead

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/20/14 11:35 AM

If they pilfered Volvo's turbo expertise, it will likely be a more durable setup.

But my opinion on passenger vehicle gasoline turbos is that high mileage ones, even if well-designed, are hen's teeth unless meticulously maintained. And that includes more than oil changes. It's the nature of the beast.
Posted by: rationull

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/20/14 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
If they pilfered Volvo's turbo expertise, it will likely be a more durable setup.

But my opinion on passenger vehicle gasoline turbos is that high mileage ones, even if well-designed, are hen's teeth unless meticulously maintained. And that includes more than oil changes. It's the nature of the beast.


What, specifically, more than oil changes is required in your opinion in order to get good longevity out of one?
Posted by: Fatboymoe

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/21/14 11:32 AM

I have a 2012 F 150 Lariat and couldn't be more happy. I can consistently beat the fuel economy numbers, especially the highway numbers. It very easy to get an honest 24+ MPG cruising at posted speeds.

My truck has 33k and is completely stock except for the dual Moroso oil catch cans that I installed. I never disconnected anything in the PCV system. I just ran both driver's side and passenger side breather systems into the catch cans before returning the oil vapor to the intake manifold. My intercooler hoses were mostly dry inside and I want to keep them that way.

Changed the spark plugs at 30k just to be on the safe side. I bought the Motorcraft plugs from O'Reilly's. They cost $26.09 with tax for 6 and they are SP-534, CYFS-12Y-T3 Iridium. All the installed plugs gaps were over .040. The new ones were all .030. It took about an hour. This was more a preventative action than anything. I never had the problems some have had with the dreaded shudder and limp mode stalling.

I have the full service contract from the dealer and change the oil every 5k, using Motorcraft full synthetic 5w30 and the Motorcraft filter. I also have the 100k extended warranty through Ford.

Most of the internet problems with the 3.5L EcoBoost engines are in high humidity climates. In these cases, in IMHO, the intercooler actually works too good and allows water collection in the cooler itself. Full throttle and too much water in the intercooler from driving in high humidity conditions is a potential problem. I live in the central valley of California and don't have this problem. Some of the factory fixes are covering up some of the intercooler and some ECU changes. I don't have any of these.

I am sure there were some teething problems with this platform. DI engines have their own set of problems. So far, I am a very happy EcoBoost owner..
Posted by: Volvohead

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/21/14 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: rationull
What, specifically, more than oil changes is required in your opinion in order to get good longevity out of one?


What else? Just off the top of my head:

Cooling system. Coolant levels must be very carefully observed, and coolant quality cannot deteriorate. Even a slightly low coolant level can result in a cylinder or head failure under higher boost levels, particularly with any deckless block design.

Fuel system. Injectors must be kept near maximum efficiency, or misfires will result. Partial injector clogs or any other fuel system deficiency resulting in a lean fuel mixture can result in quickly overheating the combustion chambers, and causing damage. This demands more regular fuel filter replacements and complete fuel system cleaning.

Ignition. Spark plugs must be more regularly inspected and changed than in a NA engine, or misfires and detonation will quickly result. Turbos are more sensitive to spark plug selection, and some behave badly with plugs that an NA version would be fine with. Coils must be more regularly tested for minimum HV levels or spark blowouts can more frequently occur. In older designs, this extends to more regular replacement of cap/rotor/wires.

Vacuum line maintenance. Vacuum line integrity is much more critical on a turbo engine, as leaks anywhere in the system can result in boost and wastegate irregularities that can reduce performance or cause damage. Higher underhood temperatures are much harder on vacuum lines/fittings - and all other components - in a turbocharged engine compartment.

Sensor and control valve maintenance. TCVs and wastegates must be periodically checked and adjusted or replaced if out of spec. A malfunctioning TCV or wastegate can result in no boost, or excessive boost, or boost spikes, and engine damage. A sensor failure mode in a turbo is more pronounced than with an NA engine. When a sensor failure occurs in most modern turbo engines, the ECM will often - but not always - drop into limp home mode. When it does not, there is trouble. Boost irregularities and spikes can also excessively wear or damage transmissions and other driveline elements over time.

Intake tract. Intercoolers must be regularly inspected for road impact damage and pressure leaks, as do all pressurized intake lines and connections. Many turbocharged engines will oil soak intake hoses, requiring more regular cleaning and replacement. None of this equipment is present on a NA engine.

Turbocharger maintenance. Turbocharger oil and coolant lines and fittings must be regularly inspected for leaks, which do occur due to the very high ambients in that area.

Heat shield and hood liner maintenance. Some turbos (depending on placement) can overheat the hood or firewall (affecting coatings and shielded components) if heat shields and hood liners are allowed to fail or degrade.

This is in addition to the common need for higher than average quality fuels and oils.

There's more to keep an eye on, but I'm pressed for time today.
Posted by: sciphi

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/22/14 04:42 PM

Guide to getting high mileage from a gas turbo: maintain it like a BITOG'er!
Posted by: rationull

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 07/23/14 10:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: rationull
What, specifically, more than oil changes is required in your opinion in order to get good longevity out of one?


What else? Just off the top of my head:

...


Ok .. good list.

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Guide to getting high mileage from a gas turbo: maintain it like a BITOG'er!


Hah!

I gotta admit, it's not so much that I was thinking turbo engines didn't need any attention, but I was not really taking into account the idea that you could really ignore lots of that stuff on naturally aspirated engines smile

A lot of those items are much less likely to be a problem on modern, well designed turbo vehicles I would think. How often do wastegates really need adjustment? How often would a modern, stock turbo car actually cause hood/firewall paint damage due to excess heat?

Fair point about coolant maintenance, higher quality fluids, and having the extra piping and intercooler to inspect. However plenty of non-turbo cars have components with extra piping (e.g. oil coolers) or just poorly laid out mechanicals that can lead to problems too.

Aside from shorter maintenance intervals (oil, spark plugs) I'm just not convinced that the "average" driver of a turbo vehicle (including the millions of turbo diesels on the roads in addition to the various gas turbo cars that have been around for years) really does much more to keep their vehicles running. Maybe they do suffer earlier failures, I don't know.
Posted by: tangojetta

Re: Ecoboost or Not. - 08/13/14 09:03 PM

Ended getting non ecoboost Flex.