Clevy - when money is cheap - like it is now - use other peoples money. Having money in the bank, or invested, is better than having it tied up in an appliance. Buy a short term bond or a solid dividend paying stock like ExxonMobil or ConocoPhilips. In an emergency, you'll be glad to have the money stashed away. I know some people don't like to make payments, but if you already have the cash, what's the big deal? If you get a windfall, you can always pay them off early.
Ford Eco-boost vs silverado 5.3
- Thread starter Clevy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: wag123
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
Really?
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around sicnce mid 2009. They have sold over 1 million Ecoboost (4 and 6) engines since then. Many of these have racked up lots of miles, well into 100k and issues are few and far between.
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
See my sig - I own 2 EB 3.5's. Outside of a knock sensor on the SHO, excellent service and 0 issues from both.
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
Really?
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around sicnce mid 2009. They have sold over 1 million Ecoboost (4 and 6) engines since then. Many of these have racked up lots of miles, well into 100k and issues are few and far between.
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
See my sig - I own 2 EB 3.5's. Outside of a knock sensor on the SHO, excellent service and 0 issues from both.
the industry has been building OTR truck turbos in diesel applications for years--- I'd think Ford likely hired folks with experience there to make sure the pump itself is suitable.
I'd be mostly concerned about all the small parts around it and the engine itself to a smaller degree--- ford has had some engine design hiccups that should never have happened in the past decade (spitting plugs, PSD heads) that make me a litte wary but more so.... it's going to be the little things that worry-- sensors, control systems, the wrong rubber used in a seal...
For a work truck I'd probably skip the EB until it is "known good." for a personal vehicle I'd probably still bite since I like the style and I like the tech, and am ok working on them as a hobby on my own time.
I'd be mostly concerned about all the small parts around it and the engine itself to a smaller degree--- ford has had some engine design hiccups that should never have happened in the past decade (spitting plugs, PSD heads) that make me a litte wary but more so.... it's going to be the little things that worry-- sensors, control systems, the wrong rubber used in a seal...
For a work truck I'd probably skip the EB until it is "known good." for a personal vehicle I'd probably still bite since I like the style and I like the tech, and am ok working on them as a hobby on my own time.
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: itguy08
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
Are we including the 6.blow and the 6.4 Powerjoke engines in that?
Sure. Throw in the DuraCr@p and C-*-n-t-i-m-e-n-s in there too.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
Are we including the 6.blow and the 6.4 Powerjoke engines in that?
Sure. Throw in the DuraCr@p and C-*-n-t-i-m-e-n-s in there too.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: meep
the industry has been building OTR truck turbos in diesel applications for years--- I'd think Ford likely hired folks with experience there to make sure the pump itself is suitable.
I'd be mostly concerned about all the small parts around it and the engine itself to a smaller degree--- ford has had some engine design hiccups that should never have happened in the past decade (spitting plugs, PSD heads) that make me a litte wary but more so.... it's going to be the little things that worry-- sensors, control systems, the wrong rubber used in a seal...
For a work truck I'd probably skip the EB until it is "known good." for a personal vehicle I'd probably still bite since I like the style and I like the tech, and am ok working on them as a hobby on my own time.
So now you are concerned about the engine and not the turbo. Interesting moving targets you are throwing out there.
the industry has been building OTR truck turbos in diesel applications for years--- I'd think Ford likely hired folks with experience there to make sure the pump itself is suitable.
I'd be mostly concerned about all the small parts around it and the engine itself to a smaller degree--- ford has had some engine design hiccups that should never have happened in the past decade (spitting plugs, PSD heads) that make me a litte wary but more so.... it's going to be the little things that worry-- sensors, control systems, the wrong rubber used in a seal...
For a work truck I'd probably skip the EB until it is "known good." for a personal vehicle I'd probably still bite since I like the style and I like the tech, and am ok working on them as a hobby on my own time.
So now you are concerned about the engine and not the turbo. Interesting moving targets you are throwing out there.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
That pretty much echos what we have learned and experienced with AFM in our '11. The implementation of Dexos that year, on top of the earlier incremental revisions, seems to have fully resolved the consumption issue. I would expect those AFM revisions to be passed along to the new models.
Otherwise, we have had zero problems with our '11 other than a sloppy dealer, which is not the truck's fault. It's a solid machine so far. And ours seems to have dodged the recent recalls. Admittedly, the NNBS was a mature model by '11.
As to the new model Chevy full-size trucks, I can't otherwise speak to the new engine or the rest that has changed. I do think the first couple years of any new model is prone to have more teething issues. That's true of any automaker, and not just GM or Ford. it's the cost of being the first with the latest on the block.
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
That pretty much echos what we have learned and experienced with AFM in our '11. The implementation of Dexos that year, on top of the earlier incremental revisions, seems to have fully resolved the consumption issue. I would expect those AFM revisions to be passed along to the new models.
Otherwise, we have had zero problems with our '11 other than a sloppy dealer, which is not the truck's fault. It's a solid machine so far. And ours seems to have dodged the recent recalls. Admittedly, the NNBS was a mature model by '11.
As to the new model Chevy full-size trucks, I can't otherwise speak to the new engine or the rest that has changed. I do think the first couple years of any new model is prone to have more teething issues. That's true of any automaker, and not just GM or Ford. it's the cost of being the first with the latest on the block.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Really?
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around sicnce mid 2009. They have sold over 1 million Ecoboost (4 and 6) engines since then. Many of these have racked up lots of miles, well into 100k and issues are few and far between.
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
See my sig - I own 2 EB 3.5's. Outside of a knock sensor on the SHO, excellent service and 0 issues from both.
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
Turbochargers have been around for a VERY long time. I know that there are some people who have never had a problem with them, and not ALL of them will fail prematurely, but history proves that a relatively high percentage of turbochargers WILL fail at relatively low miles, particularly the smaller ones. A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles). We all have known from past experience that any vehicle make/model needing transmission replacements at relatively high rates earn themselves very bad reputations. I don't think that ECOBoost turbocharger failures will be any different.
Regardless, IMHO, in the long run I don't believe that the ECOBoost is an economically viable alternative to the same truck equipped with a 5.0L V/8.
Really?
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around sicnce mid 2009. They have sold over 1 million Ecoboost (4 and 6) engines since then. Many of these have racked up lots of miles, well into 100k and issues are few and far between.
What is your view on Turbo Diesels? Are they also timebombs waiting to explode?
See my sig - I own 2 EB 3.5's. Outside of a knock sensor on the SHO, excellent service and 0 issues from both.
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
Turbochargers have been around for a VERY long time. I know that there are some people who have never had a problem with them, and not ALL of them will fail prematurely, but history proves that a relatively high percentage of turbochargers WILL fail at relatively low miles, particularly the smaller ones. A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles). We all have known from past experience that any vehicle make/model needing transmission replacements at relatively high rates earn themselves very bad reputations. I don't think that ECOBoost turbocharger failures will be any different.
Regardless, IMHO, in the long run I don't believe that the ECOBoost is an economically viable alternative to the same truck equipped with a 5.0L V/8.
This is directed to user "whip" and others. Ok now we are getting other people saying that new tech may not be perfect. Are you going to criticize them too or just me?
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Look like we did not have to wait long for the new tech to fail...
Other vehicles called back by GM Thursday include 103,158 older Chevrolet Corvettes for a headlight problem, 140,067 Chevrolet Malibus from the 2014 model year for a hydraulic brake booster malfunction, 19,225 Cadillac CTS 2013-14 models for windshield wiper failures and 477 full-size trucks from the 2014 and 2015 model years for a tie-rod defect that can lead to a crash
I've missed your Chicken Little new car rants. Welcome back!
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Look like we did not have to wait long for the new tech to fail...
Other vehicles called back by GM Thursday include 103,158 older Chevrolet Corvettes for a headlight problem, 140,067 Chevrolet Malibus from the 2014 model year for a hydraulic brake booster malfunction, 19,225 Cadillac CTS 2013-14 models for windshield wiper failures and 477 full-size trucks from the 2014 and 2015 model years for a tie-rod defect that can lead to a crash
I've missed your Chicken Little new car rants. Welcome back!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wag123
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
We're coming up on 5 years now for the early Ecoboosts.
3 years for the F150.
How much time do you want to give them?
Quote:
A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles).
It gets funnier and funnier from you...
According to fordparts.com, one Ecobost turbo is $820 and the other is $754.02. Both rarely fail at the same time.
I'd estimate 4 hours of labor, so at $100/hr: $1220. Where can you get a quality transmission done for that?
And that's IF they fail. With 1 million of these on the road for the past 5 year and climbing every day, turbo failures on stock units are pretty rare. Even as they age.
As an owner of 2 of them I follow the engines very closely. Very few turbos are failing.
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
We're coming up on 5 years now for the early Ecoboosts.
3 years for the F150.
How much time do you want to give them?
Quote:
A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles).
It gets funnier and funnier from you...
According to fordparts.com, one Ecobost turbo is $820 and the other is $754.02. Both rarely fail at the same time.
I'd estimate 4 hours of labor, so at $100/hr: $1220. Where can you get a quality transmission done for that?
And that's IF they fail. With 1 million of these on the road for the past 5 year and climbing every day, turbo failures on stock units are pretty rare. Even as they age.
As an owner of 2 of them I follow the engines very closely. Very few turbos are failing.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wag123
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
Turbochargers have been around for a VERY long time. I know that there are some people who have never had a problem with them, and not ALL of them will fail prematurely, but history proves that a relatively high percentage of turbochargers WILL fail at relatively low miles, particularly the smaller ones. A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles). We all have known from past experience that any vehicle make/model needing transmission replacements at relatively high rates earn themselves very bad reputations. I don't think that ECOBoost turbocharger failures will be any different.
Regardless, IMHO, in the long run I don't believe that the ECOBoost is an economically viable alternative to the same truck equipped with a 5.0L V/8.
Do you have any reputable source to backup any of that?
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
Turbochargers have been around for a VERY long time. I know that there are some people who have never had a problem with them, and not ALL of them will fail prematurely, but history proves that a relatively high percentage of turbochargers WILL fail at relatively low miles, particularly the smaller ones. A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles). We all have known from past experience that any vehicle make/model needing transmission replacements at relatively high rates earn themselves very bad reputations. I don't think that ECOBoost turbocharger failures will be any different.
Regardless, IMHO, in the long run I don't believe that the ECOBoost is an economically viable alternative to the same truck equipped with a 5.0L V/8.
Do you have any reputable source to backup any of that?
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: wag123
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
We're coming up on 5 years now for the early Ecoboosts.
3 years for the F150.
How much time do you want to give them?
Quote:
A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles).
It gets funnier and funnier from you...
According to fordparts.com, one Ecobost turbo is $820 and the other is $754.02. Both rarely fail at the same time.
I'd estimate 4 hours of labor, so at $100/hr: $1220. Where can you get a quality transmission done for that?
And that's IF they fail. With 1 million of these on the road for the past 5 year and climbing every day, turbo failures on stock units are pretty rare. Even as they age.
As an owner of 2 of them I follow the engines very closely. Very few turbos are failing.
I speak from experience. The MazdaSpeed3 that I used to own (and carefully maintain) blew it's turbo at 70k miles. The turbo replacement was $3500, I would call THAT expensive! When I complained about it, the Mazda dealer told me that turbo failures were fairly common on these cars with those kind of miles on them. I wish I would have known that at 65K miles, I would have sold the car. I have every right to be down on turbochargers given my own personal experience. BTW, the last car that I had to have the transmission rebuilt on I had done for $1300
Remember, I said that not ALL turbos will fail prematurely. It is still a bit early to predict how high a percentage of the ECOBoost turbos WILL fail prematurely. Give them a couple more years. Then we will see.
I am NOT down on F150s, I STILL believe that an F150 with the 5.0L V/8 is a better buy for the LONG run and will end up having a lower cost of ownership when it is all said and done!
Originally Posted By: wag123
Only time will tell on the Ford ECOBoost turbos.
We're coming up on 5 years now for the early Ecoboosts.
3 years for the F150.
How much time do you want to give them?
Quote:
A turbocharger replacement is a VERY expensive repair, roughly the same cost as a transmission replacement (and sometimes more, LOTS more on some vehicles).
It gets funnier and funnier from you...
According to fordparts.com, one Ecobost turbo is $820 and the other is $754.02. Both rarely fail at the same time.
I'd estimate 4 hours of labor, so at $100/hr: $1220. Where can you get a quality transmission done for that?
And that's IF they fail. With 1 million of these on the road for the past 5 year and climbing every day, turbo failures on stock units are pretty rare. Even as they age.
As an owner of 2 of them I follow the engines very closely. Very few turbos are failing.
I speak from experience. The MazdaSpeed3 that I used to own (and carefully maintain) blew it's turbo at 70k miles. The turbo replacement was $3500, I would call THAT expensive! When I complained about it, the Mazda dealer told me that turbo failures were fairly common on these cars with those kind of miles on them. I wish I would have known that at 65K miles, I would have sold the car. I have every right to be down on turbochargers given my own personal experience. BTW, the last car that I had to have the transmission rebuilt on I had done for $1300
Remember, I said that not ALL turbos will fail prematurely. It is still a bit early to predict how high a percentage of the ECOBoost turbos WILL fail prematurely. Give them a couple more years. Then we will see.
I am NOT down on F150s, I STILL believe that an F150 with the 5.0L V/8 is a better buy for the LONG run and will end up having a lower cost of ownership when it is all said and done!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wag123
I speak from experience. The MazdaSpeed3 that I used to own (and carefully maintain) blew it's turbo at 70k miles. The turbo replacement was $3500, I would call THAT expensive! When I complained about it, the Mazda dealer told me that turbo failures were fairly common on these cars with those kind of miles on them. I wish I would have known that at 65K miles, I would have sold the car. I have every right to be down on turbochargers given my own personal experience. BTW, the last car that I had to have the transmission rebuilt on I had done for $1300
Remember, I said that not ALL turbos will fail prematurely. It is still a bit early to predict how high a percentage of the ECOBoost turbos WILL fail prematurely. Give them a couple more years. Then we will see.
I am NOT down on F150s, I STILL believe that an F150 with the 5.0L V/8 is a better buy for the LONG run and will end up having a lower cost of ownership when it is all said and done!
Your jaded comments have been noted. Premature failure period for ECOboosts ended about 2 years ago. Thank you for your time.
I speak from experience. The MazdaSpeed3 that I used to own (and carefully maintain) blew it's turbo at 70k miles. The turbo replacement was $3500, I would call THAT expensive! When I complained about it, the Mazda dealer told me that turbo failures were fairly common on these cars with those kind of miles on them. I wish I would have known that at 65K miles, I would have sold the car. I have every right to be down on turbochargers given my own personal experience. BTW, the last car that I had to have the transmission rebuilt on I had done for $1300
Remember, I said that not ALL turbos will fail prematurely. It is still a bit early to predict how high a percentage of the ECOBoost turbos WILL fail prematurely. Give them a couple more years. Then we will see.
I am NOT down on F150s, I STILL believe that an F150 with the 5.0L V/8 is a better buy for the LONG run and will end up having a lower cost of ownership when it is all said and done!
Your jaded comments have been noted. Premature failure period for ECOboosts ended about 2 years ago. Thank you for your time.
Been following this turbo conversation inattentively.
I don't have any dog in your fight, and I know next to nothing about this particular Ford engine.
But in my experience, blown car/LT engines (not the bigger diesels) do not have the longevity of a NA counterpart. It's more than the turbo or supercharger; the entire engine is under greater stress.
But usually even the high pressure versions can hold up well for many miles if they are well-designed and maintained. Just not quite as long as the NA ones. That's just the way it is.
I'm sure the Ford engine is well designed. Perhaps this engine is also very low boost, which would minimize that factor further. I'll leave that for you guys to figure out.
But if that means the difference between a 250k and a 450k engine life, then it may be -- or may not be -- important. Even at 250k miles, that's a very respectable service life that often outlives the body and chassis.
Again, I'll leave whether that is important to you gentlemen.
Would a blower dissuade me from buying an F-150? Probably not.
I don't have any dog in your fight, and I know next to nothing about this particular Ford engine.
But in my experience, blown car/LT engines (not the bigger diesels) do not have the longevity of a NA counterpart. It's more than the turbo or supercharger; the entire engine is under greater stress.
But usually even the high pressure versions can hold up well for many miles if they are well-designed and maintained. Just not quite as long as the NA ones. That's just the way it is.
I'm sure the Ford engine is well designed. Perhaps this engine is also very low boost, which would minimize that factor further. I'll leave that for you guys to figure out.
But if that means the difference between a 250k and a 450k engine life, then it may be -- or may not be -- important. Even at 250k miles, that's a very respectable service life that often outlives the body and chassis.
Again, I'll leave whether that is important to you gentlemen.
Would a blower dissuade me from buying an F-150? Probably not.
Turbomachinery, when properly designed, will outlast conventional engines. I can't speak to the quality of the turbo's on the Ford Ecoboost, but I can say that I'm not afraid of them.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Turbomachinery, when properly designed, will outlast conventional engines. I can't speak to the quality of the turbo's on the Ford Ecoboost, but I can say that I'm not afraid of them.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
I agree with what you say, in principle.
From what I understand, Ford's turbochargers are manufactured by Borg Warner. The turbocharger in my MazdaSpeed3 was also manufactured by Borg Warner. Remember, up until 2009 Ford owned Mazda, and there was a LOT of shared engineering and technology between them, which is still VERY evident in both manufacturer's vehicles today. Having had a bad experience with a Mazda turbo, and knowing that the two companies were umbilically connected for a number of years, I don't get a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling about Ford's ECOBoost vehicles, the development of which occurred during the Ford/Mazda marriage. I have a feeling that there is a LOT of Mazda engineering in the ECOBoost engines. At the time they were designed, Mazda was building/selling several different turbocharged vehicles and had been continuously building at least one turbocharged model since 1986. Ford was not building any, and had not built any since the ill-fated turbocharged cars they built in the 1980s.
If you are only getting 14 mpg from a F150 5.0L V/8, something is wrong. I have several friends that have 5.0L F150s and they are all getting in the 18 to 20 mpg range, about the same as the other people I know that have the ECOBoost engines.
Turbomachinery, when properly designed, will outlast conventional engines. I can't speak to the quality of the turbo's on the Ford Ecoboost, but I can say that I'm not afraid of them.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
I agree with what you say, in principle.
From what I understand, Ford's turbochargers are manufactured by Borg Warner. The turbocharger in my MazdaSpeed3 was also manufactured by Borg Warner. Remember, up until 2009 Ford owned Mazda, and there was a LOT of shared engineering and technology between them, which is still VERY evident in both manufacturer's vehicles today. Having had a bad experience with a Mazda turbo, and knowing that the two companies were umbilically connected for a number of years, I don't get a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling about Ford's ECOBoost vehicles, the development of which occurred during the Ford/Mazda marriage. I have a feeling that there is a LOT of Mazda engineering in the ECOBoost engines. At the time they were designed, Mazda was building/selling several different turbocharged vehicles and had been continuously building at least one turbocharged model since 1986. Ford was not building any, and had not built any since the ill-fated turbocharged cars they built in the 1980s.
If you are only getting 14 mpg from a F150 5.0L V/8, something is wrong. I have several friends that have 5.0L F150s and they are all getting in the 18 to 20 mpg range, about the same as the other people I know that have the ECOBoost engines.
Last edited:
A stock 5.0L F150 is .1 of a second slower than the Ecoboost in the 1/4 mile. That is nearly imperceptible to most people. My 5.0L with a CIA and cat back rips bum. I also average 17-18 and get 15-16 towing my Jeep.
If someone is only getting 13-14 then they're hitting the go pedal more often then not.
If someone is only getting 13-14 then they're hitting the go pedal more often then not.
Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Turbomachinery, when properly designed, will outlast conventional engines. I can't speak to the quality of the turbo's on the Ford Ecoboost, but I can say that I'm not afraid of them.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
I agree with what you say, in principle.
From what I understand, Ford's turbochargers are manufactured by Borg Warner. The turbocharger in my MazdaSpeed3 was also manufactured by Borg Warner. Remember, up until 2009 Ford owned Mazda, and there was a LOT of shared engineering and technology between them, which is still VERY evident in both manufacturer's vehicles today. Having had a bad experience with a Mazda turbo, and knowing that the two companies were umbilically connected for a number of years, I don't get a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling about Ford's ECOBoost vehicles, the development of which occurred during the Ford/Mazda marriage. I have a feeling that there is a LOT of Mazda engineering in the ECOBoost engines. At the time they were designed, Mazda was building/selling several different turbocharged vehicles and had been continuously building at least one turbocharged model since 1986. Ford was not building any, and had not built any since the ill-fated turbocharged cars they built in the 1980s.
If you are only getting 14 mpg from a F150 5.0L V/8, something is wrong. I have several friends that have 5.0L F150s and they are all getting in the 18 to 20 mpg range, about the same as the other people I know that have the ECOBoost engines.
Oy...Ford never "owned" Mazda. They owned a stake in mazda. Mazda did not help Ford engineer their ECOBoost. That was an in house project done by Ford engineers. The DISI turbo by Mazda is not a similar engine to the ecoboost other than maybe the turbo itself. All of Mazda's help went into the design of the original Fusion and some models of the focus. Ford designed the 4-cylinder Duratecs based off of Mazda's MZR engines.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Turbomachinery, when properly designed, will outlast conventional engines. I can't speak to the quality of the turbo's on the Ford Ecoboost, but I can say that I'm not afraid of them.
Our 2011 Ecoboost is motoring along just fine on it'd diet of synthetic oil and regular gas. I get 19MPG. That's fantastic, considering I have a nearly identical truck with the V8 that is A) slower, B) gets 13.5 to 14MPG.
I agree with what you say, in principle.
From what I understand, Ford's turbochargers are manufactured by Borg Warner. The turbocharger in my MazdaSpeed3 was also manufactured by Borg Warner. Remember, up until 2009 Ford owned Mazda, and there was a LOT of shared engineering and technology between them, which is still VERY evident in both manufacturer's vehicles today. Having had a bad experience with a Mazda turbo, and knowing that the two companies were umbilically connected for a number of years, I don't get a particularly warm and fuzzy feeling about Ford's ECOBoost vehicles, the development of which occurred during the Ford/Mazda marriage. I have a feeling that there is a LOT of Mazda engineering in the ECOBoost engines. At the time they were designed, Mazda was building/selling several different turbocharged vehicles and had been continuously building at least one turbocharged model since 1986. Ford was not building any, and had not built any since the ill-fated turbocharged cars they built in the 1980s.
If you are only getting 14 mpg from a F150 5.0L V/8, something is wrong. I have several friends that have 5.0L F150s and they are all getting in the 18 to 20 mpg range, about the same as the other people I know that have the ECOBoost engines.
Oy...Ford never "owned" Mazda. They owned a stake in mazda. Mazda did not help Ford engineer their ECOBoost. That was an in house project done by Ford engineers. The DISI turbo by Mazda is not a similar engine to the ecoboost other than maybe the turbo itself. All of Mazda's help went into the design of the original Fusion and some models of the focus. Ford designed the 4-cylinder Duratecs based off of Mazda's MZR engines.
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
This is directed to user "whip" and others. Ok now we are getting other people saying that new tech may not be perfect. Are you going to criticize them too or just me?
It's just you. Other people are having logical conversations. They're not claiming all new technology is going to fail. I haven't seen other people make up claims about resonance between two different materials ruining a vehicle, or saying the Ecoboost is going to fail after 2 years, even thou they haven't.
This is directed to user "whip" and others. Ok now we are getting other people saying that new tech may not be perfect. Are you going to criticize them too or just me?
It's just you. Other people are having logical conversations. They're not claiming all new technology is going to fail. I haven't seen other people make up claims about resonance between two different materials ruining a vehicle, or saying the Ecoboost is going to fail after 2 years, even thou they haven't.
Cool, just wanted to know where I stand.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
