Ford Ecoboost Failure.

[AzGeo]

They have a 5.7 LS so that makes it a small block. rolleyes

The '50 year old small block design' ended with the "LT" and the "fast burn Vortec" motors as in the Corvettes and C/F's, crates, and a few trucks . All the "LS and it's derivatives" are not similar to the '50 year old design', but they are considered 'small blocks', due to outside dimensions .

The question that I cannot answer is the "LSX" block, as to it being a 'small or big block' . I have friends who are still on both sides of the fence on that one . Outside it's small, but inside displacement and the classes it has been raced, it has been considered as both . :bowdown:

 

[77charger]

The '50 year old small block design' ended with the "LT" and the "fast burn Vortec" motors as in the Corvettes and C/F's, crates, and a few trucks . All the "LS and it's derivatives" are not similar to the '50 year old design', but they are considered 'small blocks', due to outside dimensions .

The question that I cannot answer is the "LSX" block, as to it being a 'small or big block' . I have friends who are still on both sides of the fence on that one . Outside it's small, but inside displacement and the classes it has been raced, it has been considered as both . :bowdown:

True its a one size fits all deal to me.Small block size big block inches.Like ponitacs the 326-455 was externally the same size but bore and stroke decided the cubic inches.

 

[RCDave]

True its a one size fits all deal to me.Small block size big block inches.Like ponitacs the 326-455 was externally the same size but bore and stroke decided the cubic inches.

That's what she said!

 

[pronstar]

The point I was attempting to make with my "50 years of SBC" comment was that GM has been making small, powerful, reliable and efficient V8's for half a century, and they're quite good at it.

I wasn't trying to state that it's been the same engine in series production for the whole time.
Clearly, "GM small V8 engines" have evolved a lot in 50 years.

But...those days may be numbered.
At some point, GM will be forced into the boosted small engine" fray, even for trucks.

Carry on :thumbup:

 

[Cray Paper]

Ford has never said that these engines are more durable, they are just looking for another way to put the same power output into a smaller package. As long as the engines go past 100,000 miles that puts them past the warranty threshold, then they are free and clear.

You are right, a smaller harder working engine that is always at it's peak output will not last as long as a larger more powerful engine that is designed to be a workhorse. But when the engine is not being worked the smaller engine will be the more efficient one - which is usually 90% of the time.

Maybe I am the minority, but I use my trucks as a truck. WTF buys a truck and doesn't need a truck? Who prances around with a truck and doesn't haul stuff or tow stow with it most of the time? I do not understand this if it is happening. There are really cool SUV's and cars that can make do as pretend trucks, why buy a truck and only use it as a truck 5% of the time???

 

[Cray Paper]

IrocDave, show me a picture of any 1/2 ton truck, either from Chevy or Dodge, jumping the same height as that Raptor did when it bent its frame. You need the righthly set up truck[ a Ford ] to do it.
My son's POS Ford could do it all day long.
Boy oh boy, lot of Ford haters are here.

IroDave's quote; "a smaller harder working engine that is always at it's peak output"

Ps; the Ecoboost's peak power [ torque ] is at a low 2700 rpm vs 4-5000 for most V-8's.

GM and Dodge never advertised their trucks as being to run the Baja 1000 or take jumps. Ford did. [video=youtube;uEuxw9ffoSoMost]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEuxw9ffoSoMost[/video]

have seen the pictures of bent frames, maybe the advertising department at Ford should chill out?
Here is a link to photos of bent frames.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rap...ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIkYXXvvGsxwIVT0-ICh3dRgEQ
And Yes, that little gas powered 3.5 liter at max boost at a low RPM is under duress. The worst thing you can do to a boosted engine is put a large amount of boost to it at low RPM, same as nitrous. The Eco Boost is a mass produced engine with low cost as job (priority) #1, then longevity.

I know you know a GM V8 will live happily at those RPM's under load, just the like the engines in your boat. Your boat is awesome BTW. Just need to get over buying a short term tow vehicle. You and I both now it will be traded in or sold before 100K miles.

 

[AzGeo]

The point I was attempting to make with my "50 years of SBC" comment was that GM has been making small, powerful, reliable and efficient V8's for half a century, and they're quite good at it.

I wasn't trying to state that it's been the same engine in series production for the whole time.
Clearly, "GM small V8 engines" have evolved a lot in 50 years.

But...those days may be numbered.
At some point, GM will be forced into the boosted small engine" fray, even for trucks.

Carry on :thumbup:

Please think back to 1962 Olds F85's, aluminum 315" V8 (now in the Rover vehicles) with a TURBOcharger on them . They had 10.0 to 1 static compression with the boost (non-intercooled like today) and factory WATER injection .

Buick offered a number of 'Turbo V6 configurations' back in the 70's and 80's . I worked on a few way back then at GM . One year of Trans Am's had a 'Turbo Buick V6', instead of a big V8 .

Of course we can't forget the 'Turbocharged Corvairs' of the 60's either .

Today GM uses a Turbo 2.0 in a number of their new cars .

Mopar has also had a few 'Gas Turbos', albeit Asian in origins, but they took the heat when the motors went south .

One can never tell what any US car builder will do in the future . Look at the future of 'road gasoline quality' and how it will effect the vehicles that use it . Heavy loads are being hauled by Diesel, because it burns at a lower temp, and the unleaded gas of today has 'unreliable equality' across this nation .

Exhaust valves, cylinder heads and their gaskets can only be held at 'threshold temperatures' for short periods of time, even using 'NASA QUALITY' materials . Racing engines produce tremendous power and heat, while 'smog motors' produce reasonable power but tremendous heat, due to smog restraints .

GM is 'all about the money', and frankly a 2 or 4 cylinder motor with a Turbo is a LOT cheaper to produce than a V6 or V8 . GM may go 'Turbo gas' in a light truck, but you should see that motor in a car first, unless 'the idiots are running the asylum' .

 

[Blubyu]

Any update?

 

[Outdrive1]

Any update?

No. Haven't heard a word from them.

 

[530RL]

Please think back to 1962 Olds F85's, aluminum 315" V8 (now in the Rover vehicles) with a TURBOcharger on them . They had 10.0 to 1 static compression with the boost (non-intercooled like today) and factory WATER injection .

Buick offered a number of 'Turbo V6 configurations' back in the 70's and 80's . I worked on a few way back then at GM . One year of Trans Am's had a 'Turbo Buick V6', instead of a big V8 .

Of course we can't forget the 'Turbocharged Corvairs' of the 60's either .

Today GM uses a Turbo 2.0 in a number of their new cars .

Mopar has also had a few 'Gas Turbos', albeit Asian in origins, but they took the heat when the motors went south .

One can never tell what any US car builder will do in the future . Look at the future of 'road gasoline quality' and how it will effect the vehicles that use it . Heavy loads are being hauled by Diesel, because it burns at a lower temp, and the unleaded gas of today has 'unreliable equality' across this nation .

Exhaust valves, cylinder heads and their gaskets can only be held at 'threshold temperatures' for short periods of time, even using 'NASA QUALITY' materials . Racing engines produce tremendous power and heat, while 'smog motors' produce reasonable power but tremendous heat, due to smog restraints .

GM is 'all about the money', and frankly a 2 or 4 cylinder motor with a Turbo is a LOT cheaper to produce than a V6 or V8 . GM may go 'Turbo gas' in a light truck, but you should see that motor in a car first, unless 'the idiots are running the asylum' .

I am pretty sure they were 215's not 315's as they were 215 cubic inches. And for the record, what a piece of shit.

 

[Taboma]

I am pretty sure they were 215's not 315's as they were 215 cubic inches. And for the record, what a piece of shit.

I dunno, my ole 63' F85 / 215 CI with 4 on the floor, ran pretty good. Very light car, only engine problem I had with the aluminum V8 was keeping it from overheating when I ran it hard, heading up to Lake Arrowhead during the summer.

Once I got the radiator and cooling system flushed and started running antifreeze I don't recall having any other issues. Seems (Best I can recall) that the aluminum block and lack of antifreeze created tiny oxidation balls that would clog the system.

I must admit, I was much happier once I traded it in on a new 396/350 hp El Camino

 

[Taboma]

Oh, suppose I should have added, I've also got a 12' EcoBoost :rolleyes Seems some of us just never learn

In my case however, zero problems and it out-runs and out-pulls my previous 07' Sierra Denali 6.2 :thumbup:

Prior to OD-1 sharing his Ka-Boom and this subsequent post, I had no worries regarding my engine, now however :yikes

Thanks !!

 

[PVHCA]

No. Haven't heard a word from them.

If they are willing to assist they are fully aware of these issues and have been down this road before, insist they cover everything and extend the warranty as well. They won't back out of the original agreement so don't think that way, they should cover it all and will if you insist.

 

[Flying_Lavey]

This article is the Car and Driver comparison between the big 4 1/2 ton pick-ups.

http://m.caranddriver.com/compariso...5-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-comparison-test

I find it hilarious that the 6.2 with an 8 speed trains gets the SAME mileage as the Eco-boom. Kinda negates all the advantages of the turbo V6 I'd think.

 

[Vegaskeith]

This article is the Car and Driver comparison between the big 4 1/2 ton pick-ups.

http://m.caranddriver.com/compariso...5-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-comparison-test

I find it hilarious that the 6.2 with an 8 speed trains gets the SAME mileage as the Eco-boom. Kinda negates all the advantages of the turbo V6 I'd think.

Plus on top of that, Ford recommends 91 octane to get advertised horsepower rating.

 

[HavasuHank]

This article is the Car and Driver comparison between the big 4 1/2 ton pick-ups.

http://m.caranddriver.com/compariso...5-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-comparison-test

I find it hilarious that the 6.2 with an 8 speed trains gets the SAME mileage as the Eco-boom. Kinda negates all the advantages of the turbo V6 I'd think.

Eco-boom

 

[TPC]

I am pretty sure they were 215's not 315's as they were 215 cubic inches. And for the record, what a piece of shit.

They ended up in Land Rovers

 

[rivergames]

Dammit! I wish I saw this thread prior to seeing you on Sunday so I could have busted your balls on being a fricken ford lover! :cool

Burn that fucker down to the ground and do your self a favor and get a new Silverado!

 

[Taboma]

This article is the Car and Driver comparison between the big 4 1/2 ton pick-ups.

http://m.caranddriver.com/compariso...5-ram-1500-2014-toyota-tundra-comparison-test

I find it hilarious that the 6.2 with an 8 speed trains gets the SAME mileage as the Eco-boom. Kinda negates all the advantages of the turbo V6 I'd think.

I don't find it hilarious, I find it comforting to know there's another truck in the wings I'd give serious consideration to. There's a difference in rear end ratios between the two you've used as an example. Perhaps why the Ford was a nudge faster to 60 and a nudge slower in the 1/4 ?

I haven't driven a new Chev or GMC with the newer 6.2, when I bought my 12' F-Plat ecoboost they hadn't changed the Denali's one bit and after five years I was seeking something different. Hence my migration back to Ford, I've gone back and forth numerous times over the years. I did check out a new Denali the other day and my Ford Platinum interior blows it away. It's much quieter than my Denali and gets 2 mpg better, but then my Denali didn't have that FUCKING cylinder de-activation bullshit. I don't buy trucks to get good mileage, I didn't buy the Ecoboost because of any mileage claims either.

What I can attest to is that I can pull a trailer up grades with the Ecoboost @ 70 mph well below 3K rpm, whereas with the 6.2 I'd be bumping or over 4K rpm, so I love the way it tows, even with an old funky 6 speed !!

If the Ecoboost fucker blows, then I'll be more than happy (Because of the very long extended warranty) to head back to the GMC camp and run a 6.2. So yup, I'm happy that truck and engine are getting rave reviews, I love options and Dodge or Toyotas aren't on my list.

 

[AzGeo]

I am pretty sure they were 215's not 315's as they were 215 cubic inches. And for the record, what a piece of shit.

Even worse than I remember . It was just a 'mini version' of the iron 394" big Olds V8's . Rover STILL uses that motor for it's current V8 models . I had a friend at a Hollywood studio that loved those motors, he put them in MG's . Trying to recreate a special model that was actually 'factory built' .

My point was the fact that GM has built 'small displacement boost assisted motors', and not just recently .

Today with 'high pressure direct injection' (of gas) SOME of the detonation can be controlled, but not all of it . Those "Turbo F85's", had a glass bottle under the hood to hold either 'water' or 'alcohol and water', for the 'detonation suppression' . "Keeping the water bottle full", may have been the 'weak point' in GM's design here .

 

[Taboma]

Plus on top of that, Ford recommends 91 octane to get advertised horsepower rating.

I tell ya what, in three years my Ecoboom hasn't tasted a sip of 91 octane, except the 7 month old premium I transfer from my jetskis, because I sure don't want to pop a piston in my jetski
So if I'm not getting the advertised HP, I should try it, because even with 87 octane mixed with junk gas, it pulls like a mammy jammer and runs perfect. :thumbup:

When my four wheel mistress no longer meets my expectations or bores me, I move on and don't look back, must be traumatic for you brand loyal nut swingers :yikes

 

[OCMerrill]

They ended up in Land Rovers

Yep and used in the Discovery until only the latest LR body style. My daughter's girlfriend has a 2003 Discovery running one of these engines. Big dog and 10 mpg.

 

[spectras only]

OD1, did you try contacting Crystal on the Ecoboost forums? Her handle is 'Ford Service'. She seem to be able to push buttons at the higher levels to get your claim resolved.

https://twitter.com/fordservice

 

[rivrrts429]

This thread went about as well as you'd expect, Chevy vs Ford vs Dodge lol

No manufacture, Ford or otherwise, tries to reinvent the truck world by going to a V6 platform as its flag ship. It's a massive gamble considering how profitable trucks in the V8 configuration are. Mind you, Ford kicks the shit out of the other automakers in that line unless GM pulls their head out of their ass and merges the Sierra & Silverado line.

Ford's Eco-Boom is less about being unique and more about the EPA and National Highway Safety Board breathing down truck manufacturers necks.

Dodge recently added a smaller diesel to their half ton line because of it. Ford doubled down with first, the V6 turbo combo, and most recently the aluminum body to meet fuel mileage requirements for today and keeping in mind with what those requirements will be in 2030.

I'd wager GM is working on similar ideas behind the scenes.

The ecoboost has already proven to be a winning combo if they can keep life in them for 100k + miles. It's nearly half the weight, makes better power at lower RPM's and turbo's don't rob any power from the motor like a supercharger does.

In the coming years I think you're going to see more turbo type motors and smaller displacements. It's the easiest way to comply with the EPA and still increase horsepower that the consumer craves.

It'll be interesting to see what GM does. It's pretty clear what path's Ford and Dodge have chosen.

 

[pronstar]

Ford doubled down with first, the V6 turbo combo, and most recently the aluminum body to meet fuel mileage requirements for today and keeping in mind with what those requirements will be in 2030.

One spec that I do find interesting:
For all they hype that Ford put into their use of aluminum, the truck's weight is within 100 lbs or so of the all-steel GM offerings.

 

[spectras only]

This thread went about as well as you'd expect, Chevy vs Ford vs Dodge lol


Ford's Eco-Boom is less about being unique and more about the EPA and National Highway Safety Board breathing down truck manufacturers necks.

All I care about how the Ecoboost pulls my toys, period. Friend owns a Chrysler dealership, another friend is a fleet manager at a GM dealership.
I can borrow and try out any model I want, none of their 1/2 tons towed my 8300# boat uphill as well as this POS Ecoboom I have now..
I like the Silverado High Country:thumbup:. Would have to get it with a 6.2 and 3.73 gears for towing. Forget the 5.3 with 3.55 gear with good fuel economy:thumbsdown

 

[OCMerrill]

One spec that I do find interesting:
For all they hype that Ford put into their use of aluminum, the truck's weight is within 100 lbs or so of the all-steel GM offerings.

Beat me to it. Inside all that Alum. is a heavy structure to enable crash ratings. It's also 3x the money for the material so I don't really understand all to touting to its awesomeness. The bottom line is it's easier to stamp and is faster production wise so maybe that why Ford is shining the spotlight.

I like the trucks but trusting the company is the hard part for me. Then again I was BK'd over for my Lemon Law deal by GM so WTF do I know.

 

[rivrrts429]

One spec that I do find interesting:
For all they hype that Ford put into their use of aluminum, the truck's weight is within 100 lbs or so of the all-steel GM offerings.

They added a shit ton of corner and cross bracing to the frame.

I don't think the aluminum body's are as much a part of the rigidity of the overall structure as the steel.

Pretty cool how they built the aluminum body with repairs in mind. Not nearly as difficult or costly to repair as people thought.

 

[pronstar]

Beat me to it. Inside all that Alum. is a heavy structure to enable crash ratings. It's also 3x the money for the material so I don't really understand all to touting to its awesomeness. The bottom line is it's easier to stamp and is faster production wise so maybe that why Ford is shining the spotlight.

There's definitely a learning curve with aluminum, carmakers are still figuring it out.

Audi and Jaguar aluminum cars aren't really lighter than their steel competitors, either.

"Adding lightness" will become increasingly important to meet upcoming fuel economy regs. And the easiest way to accomplish this, is in materials.

 

[pronstar]

I don't think the aluminum body's are as much a part of the rigidity of the overall structure as the steel.

You're right about that.

It's just over-hyped from a marketing POV, the actual benefit didn't result in a lighter truck...though its payload and tow ratings are impressive.

 

[Taboma]

This thread went about as well as you'd expect, Chevy vs Ford vs Dodge lol

No manufacture, Ford or otherwise, tries to reinvent the truck world by going to a V6 platform as its flag ship. It's a massive gamble considering how profitable trucks in the V8 configuration are. Mind you, Ford kicks the shit out of the other automakers in that line unless GM pulls their head out of their ass and merges the Sierra & Silverado line.

Ford's Eco-Boom is less about being unique and more about the EPA and National Highway Safety Board breathing down truck manufacturers necks.

Dodge recently added a smaller diesel to their half ton line because of it. Ford doubled down with first, the V6 turbo combo, and most recently the aluminum body to meet fuel mileage requirements for today and keeping in mind with what those requirements will be in 2030.

I'd wager GM is working on similar ideas behind the scenes.

The ecoboost has already proven to be a winning combo if they can keep life in them for 100k + miles. It's nearly half the weight, makes better power at lower RPM's and turbo's don't rob any power from the motor like a supercharger does.

In the coming years I think you're going to see more turbo type motors and smaller displacements. It's the easiest way to comply with the EPA and still increase horsepower that the consumer craves.

It'll be interesting to see what GM does. It's pretty clear what path's Ford and Dodge have chosen.

I'm not sure what Dodge is doing with that small diesel. It seems like a good fit for the Jeep Grand Cherokee lineup, my neighbor bought one and seems happy, but he doesn't tow. Another neighbor bought a new Dodge truck with it and when I drove it empty it seemed OK, but disappointing acceleration wise. From the towing tests I read it seems like the torque will get your loaded trailer up a hill, eventually. But during that long eventuality, you're going to have Steve in his motorhome passing you with his Cheetah or toyhauler in tow.

I agree Ford is taking a huge gamble on this Ecoboost, especially with it pushed even harder powering the upcoming Raptor. I hope I picked the right horse and based on my own experience I feel I did, but then I read of problems like OD-1's, and it does give me concern. I just hope GM keeps making the 6.2, just in case

I admit that I'm getting a bit concerned because the past several years we've had some seriously good high horsepower options, both in cars and trucks. Let's face it, fullsize crew cab trucks running 0-60 in the mid 5's bone stock is awesome. These numbers eclipse many if not most of the "Muscle Cars" I grew up with back in the late 60's early 70's.

The question is, are we approaching or at the point where the curve is heading back down due to current and future EPA mandates ? And how long will these new generation turbo-engines last ?

I'm hoping my next truck will be the 2017 Ford Raptor, just because I'm older and other life thrills are getting fewer and further between. So for me getting a new Raptor will be for no other reason than for fun. BUT, if my current ecoboost doesn't live up to my expectations, Ford will probably lose me as a future customer and I'll be back to patting my GMC or Chebby on the ass

 

[pronstar]

I'm not sure what Dodge is doing with that small diesel. It seems like a good fit for the Jeep Grand Cherokee lineup, my neighbor bought one and seems happy, but he doesn't tow. Another neighbor bought a new Dodge truck with it and when I drove it empty it seemed OK, but disappointing acceleration wise. From the towing tests I read it seems like the torque will get your loaded trailer up a hill, eventually. But during that long eventuality, you're going to have Steve in his motorhome passing you with his Cheetah or toyhauler in tow.

The Dodge EcoDiesel is designed for the 90% of half-ton owners who daily drive their trucks and don't tow heavy or often.

It's not for everyone, that's why choice in the marketplace is good. I will say that I would much rather have the EcoDiesel and the fuel efficiency it offers, versus the Ecoboost and the speed/power it offers.

Hell, the Ecoboost will pull a load faster than a 3/4-ton diesel, but that's not really the point.

 

[OCMerrill]

The Dodge EcoDiesel is designed for the 90% of half-ton owners who daily drive their trucks and don't tow heavy or often.

It's not for everyone, that's why choice in the marketplace is good. I will say that I would much rather have the EcoDiesel and the fuel efficiency it offers, versus the Ecoboost and the speed/power it offers.

Hell, the Ecoboost will pull a load faster than a 3/4-ton diesel, but that's not really the point.

I wouldn't want to pull my 12' dump trailer with a pintle mount in a 1/2 ton's receiver. But I am getting an Eco Diesel or the Nissan Titan Cummins 5.0 next year to daily drive. This way I can still move stuff around and save my 2500 for the big shit.

 

[Taboma]

The Dodge EcoDiesel is designed for the 90% of half-ton owners who daily drive their trucks and don't tow heavy or often.

It's not for everyone, that's why choice in the marketplace is good. I will say that I would much rather have the EcoDiesel and the fuel efficiency it offers, versus the Ecoboost and the speed/power it offers.

Hell, the Ecoboost will pull a load faster than a 3/4-ton diesel, but that's not really the point.

It's certainly MY point and why I bought the damned thing :thumbup: I'm to old for slow, I don't have enough time to be wasting time (Writes the guy pissing away time on RDP )

When I'm passing 14 cars on a two lane road, while towing, I do not want to be fuckin around :yikes

 

[spectras only]

I wouldn't want to pull my 12' dump trailer with a pintle mount in a 1/2 ton's receiver. But I am getting an Eco Diesel or the Nissan Titan Cummins 5.0 next year to daily drive. This way I can still move stuff around and save my 2500 for the big shit.

The Ecodiesel is a really nice truck. Interior is greatly improved over previous 1/2 T Ram's:thumbup:. Tow capacity is way too low with 4x4, little better with 4x2, even though it's a capable truck. Great DD.

 

[OCMerrill]

The Ecodiesel is a really nice truck. Interior is greatly improved over previous 1/2 T Ram's:thumbup:. Tow capacity is way too low with 4x4, little better with 4x2, even though it's a capable truck. Great DD.

Just not sure I want a Fiat Diesel even if it also goes into Maserati's, LOL.

 

[pronstar]

Just not sure I want a Fiat Diesel even if it also goes into Maserati's, LOL.

It definitely requires a leap of faith...neither brand brings reliability to the table LOL

 

[spectras only]

Just not sure I want a Fiat Diesel even if it also goes into Maserati's, LOL.

You Chevy guys should embrace this engine > http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/07/fiat-chrysler-3-0l-diesel-v6-is-actually-a-gm-engine/

BTW, I had a Renault turbocharged 2.1 L diesel engine in my 1985 Cherokee Chief. It was a great little engine ,towed my 20 Spectra with it no issues.:thumbup:

Both, Fiat and Renault knows how to build a diesel.

If GM was smart, they should team up with Steyr to build small disp diesels for small trucks and SUV's. http://www.steyr-motors.com/automotive/engines/

M16 SCI
Cylinders 6 6 6
Displacement (cm?) 3,2 3,2 3,2
Bore (mm)/Stroke (mm) 85/94 85/94 85/94
Combustion system direct injection diesel engine direct injection diesel engine direct injection diesel engine
Injection control electronic electronic electronic
Charge system turbocharged with aftercooler turbocharged with aftercooler sequential charged with intermediate cooler
Rated power [kW] 135 160 200
Rated speed [rpm] 3800 3600 4000
Max. torque [Nm] at 420/1800 500/2050 610/2000
Specific fuel cons. [g/kwh]] 205 205 205
Exhaust emission EURO III/IV/V EURO III/IV/V EURO III/IV/V
Weight (kg) 250 260 290
Generator 14V or 28V/65-100A 14V or 28V/65-100A 14V or 28V/65-100A
Vacuum pump option option standard
Starter motor 12V or 24V/2.0-4.0 kW 12V or 24V/2.0-4.0 kW 12V or 24V/2.0-4.0 kW
Fuel feed pump electrical electrical electrical
A/C compressor option option option
Power steering pump option option option
Air compressor option option option
Auxilary poly-V-drive standard standard standard

 

[pronstar]

^^^ That's sorta right...VM Motori has changed hands quite a bit.

GM owned 50% of VM Motori, so development was shared with with Penske, who owned the other 50%. But ownership isn't the same as "GM developed it" though they certainly did have a role in the development.

There are a ton of FCA parts in that engine, Fiat was a supplier to VM during the development as well.

 

[rivrrts429]

^^^ That's sorta right...VM Motori has changed hands quite a bit.

GM owned 50% of VM Motori, so development was shared with with Penske, who owned the other 50%. But ownership isn't the same as "GM developed it" though they certainly did have a role in the development.

There are a ton of FCA parts in that engine, Fiat was a supplier to VM during the development as well.

Doesn't sound much different in how people associate the Isuzu Duramax to a Chevrolet, it's never the other way around.

 

[pronstar]

Doesn't sound much different in how people associate the Isuzu Duramax to a Chevrolet, it's never the other way around.

Subtle differences for sure, between corporate co-ownership of a company (VM Motori), and a joint venture between two companies (DMAX).

 

[rivrrts429]

Subtle differences for sure, between corporate co-ownership of a company (VM Motori), and a joint venture between two companies (DMAX).

No matter if each is owned 50/50, one acquired the other, a merger, or joint venture... One side always assume they own the other [emoji1]

I understand what you are saying and agree with ya. Just having fun with it lol.

 

[wsuwrhr]

Is this a call out thread?

 

[ColdSteel]

Hell, the Ecoboost will pull a load faster than a 3/4-ton diesel, but that's not really the point.

Huh?

 

[Ol Man]

Sorry for the problems the OP has with his Ecoboost and hope it gets resolved to his satisfaction. I love my 2012 and have 40,000 trouble free miles, a lot pulling a variety of stuff. A good friend of mine is a service manager at a large Ford dealership here in So Cal. I never bought a long term warranty for the truck and asked him a couple of weeks ago about his experience. He does not see issues and recommended not buying one. I usually own my vehicles for 100 to 175,000 miles. I am not concerned. I know every manufacturer has a failure rate, but modern vehicles are very well built and will go a very long time before significant issues.

 

[Outdrive1]

Still haven't heard what they will help with. The motor is back ordered and hadn't shipped as of today. It's going great at this point. [emoji106]. In the mean time I don't have a truck I paid 51 thousand dollars for and I'm driving a shitbox rental for 250 a week.

 

[milkmoney]

That sucks. I think I would of burnt ford down by now. They are nice trucks.
Sorry for luck Paul. [emoji107]

 

[pronstar]

Hell, the Ecoboost will pull a load faster than a 3/4-ton diesel, but that's not really the point.

Huh?

Comparisons like this have a ton of asterisks...

It's all about power to weight.
Put 4,000 lbs behind the Ecoboost, and it will also pull the load faster than a cabover tractor that's rated to tow 80k lbs...but that's not the point either.
As the load increases, the gap closes.

Speed and tow capacity aren't related.
Diesel trucks are heavy - about 2,500 lbs more than the Ecoboost.
The Ecoboost will smoke any bone-stock 3/4-ton diesel truck, empty or loaded up to a point.

 

[RCDave]

The motor is back ordered k.

Backordered doesn't sound positive

 

[milkmoney]

Comparisons like this have a ton of asterisks...

It's all about power to weight.
Put 4,000 lbs behind the Ecoboost, and it will also pull the load faster than a cabover tractor that's rated to tow 80k lbs...but that's not the point either.
As the load increases, the gap closes.

Speed and tow capacity aren't related.
Diesel trucks are heavy - about 2,500 lbs more than the Ecoboost.
The Ecoboost will smoke any bone-stock 3/4-ton diesel truck.

I always refer to what do you see on the road hauling everything around this country. ?

Answer= diesel [emoji2]