Buying a new Truck

[jejeosborne]

GM had a twin turbo direct injected engine...? No
Funny how you think "Eco-Boost" just means added a turbo. Turbo charging a direct injected engine IS pretty new technology and is nothing like an old turbo GNX or diesel engine. I'm not gonna bother explaining the differences as the majority here think a turbo diesel engine is the same as a turbo gas engine...

Since you don't want to explain it I will try.

Turbo charging is not new nor is direct injection. There is little difference I can think of between adding a turbo to a diesel vs adding a turbo to a gas engine. In both cases, you are just adding more air. Please take the effort and explain the major differences you see.

The diesel engine is undergoing more stresses than the gas engine because of the higher compression ratios required. The gas engine requires much more thought and computer control to manage injection timing and boost.

Agreed, the technology in the ecoboost goes to the next level to achieve the numbers it produces by combining these two proven technologies. Most of this "technology" is a computer program. All the mechanical components are not "new" technology. Yeah, they engineered the combustion chamber to take full advantage of this combination, strengthened the crankshaft, etc., but nothing rocket science. It took some thought and trials to get what they have but a majority of it is a computer program. It sounds like you just haven't yet gained trust in the engineers that have thought this through. When Chrylser figures it out will you trust it then? Come on Chrysler, you developed the Hemi back in the 50's.

 

[toppop52]

Supercharging is certainly not new to the industry, it was being done in the 30's. And before anyone jumps up yelling, turbos are indeed supercharges just as are Roots type, centrifugal, etc... GM sold hundreds of thousands of 3800 supercharged engines that would make great power for the era and deliver 30 mpg on open road driving. My wife put 230k miles on a supercharged Bonneville SSEi and the people that now have it are well over 350k. So supercharging is both dependable and economical when done correctly as GM did in those cases. Direct injection isn't new to diesels but is somewhat new to gas engines on any kind of large scale, been around a while but still relatively new. No reason why it won't be successful. GM has been selling direct injected 3.6 engines with 320 h.p. and 30 mpg naturally aspirated for several years, so imagine what the output will be when the supercharged version hits the streets. Early testing in a Camaro and Silverado have shown the supercharged versions at around 385 h.p. with limited boost to burn regular fuel and getting 30+ mpg in the Camaro and 24-26 in the truck depending on gearing, with 2wd. So it appears this the wave of the immediate future.

 

[Groo]

The turbos of today are a far cry from the turbos of the 60s and 90s. One newish turbo technology is variable vane geometry, that has the turbo come into play early on and quickly and not waste boost with bypass valves on the top end.

 

[Dmace]

Turbo charging is not new nor is direct injection. There is little difference I can think of between adding a turbo to a diesel vs adding a turbo to a gas engine. In both cases, you are just adding more air. Please take the effort and explain the major differences you see.

Agreed turbo charging and direct injection is not new BUT turbo charging AND direct injection together ARE pretty new. Direct injection adds multitudes of stress to the injection system and valves, adding the very high effective compression ratios from a turbo charger greatly increases these stresses and difficulties. Again, I'm NOT against the technology, I'm just sick of people thinking the Ecoboost is a "diesel like" engine that makes tons more power and uses tons less fuel than curent V8's when in the real world it makes the same or less power, has slightly better fuel mileage empty but less when towing, and adds plenty of higher risk hardware (2 turbos, 8 expensive fuel injectors, intercooler, etc...) with little gain. Wait until your first boost leak, in my little race car it's easy to find since it doesn't even have power steering let alone a/c or a heater. On a cramped engine bay like that F150, it will take days to find.

I'm also not as against Ford as many think, I think the 5.0l V8 should be getting much more attention then it does. That's a great engine!

 

[TheGoose]

I know the GN's were not direct injected so it's not an apples to apples comparison. It was just a generalization. In any case, they were far ahead of their time and the "little V6" was regularly blowing the doors off of V8 Mustangs and Camaros.

As far as I'm concerned the engine compartment is not cramped at all. There are some tight places down by the turbo's but the rest is actually pretty well laid out.

I don't expect it to use "tons" less fuel, but I do expect it to get slightly better fuel mileage yet have equal or better power than a comprable V8.

Honestly, does it really matter that much that the towing mileage is slightly worse than with a V-8? If you get 10 mpg with a V8 but 9 with your EB (which I don't believe) is there really even a valid point there other than nit-picking? I'd venture to say that most people are unloaded 99% of the time, and the rest of us get equally bad fuel mileage. I'll find out soon enough when I tow my 21' center console boat. which I normally got 9-10 mpg in my chevy. If I can still get 9-10 in my EB I'll be happy. I'll be estactic if I can get 12.

 

[jejeosborne]

Agreed turbo charging and direct injection is not new BUT turbo charging AND direct injection together ARE pretty new. Direct injection adds multitudes of stress to the injection system and valves, adding the very high effective compression ratios from a turbo charger greatly increases these stresses and difficulties. Again, I'm NOT against the technology, I'm just sick of people thinking the Ecoboost is a "diesel like" engine that makes tons more power and uses tons less fuel than curent V8's when in the real world it makes the same or less power, has slightly better fuel mileage empty but less when towing, and adds plenty of higher risk hardware (2 turbos, 8 expensive fuel injectors, intercooler, etc...) with little gain. Wait until your first boost leak, in my little race car it's easy to find since it doesn't even have power steering let alone a/c or a heater. On a cramped engine bay like that F150, it will take days to find.

I'm also not as against Ford as many think, I think the 5.0l V8 should be getting much more attention then it does. That's a great engine!

I agree there is a higher risk of hardware. I still don't think it is such the great risk you are describing. My "first boost leak" makes it sound like I am going to be fraught with boost leaks. The odds are, I will never have one. "Days to find", there really aren't many places to look so I don't get that either. Engine bay is much less cramped than any vehicle I have recently owned.

The engine being diesel like is that the direct injection allows the engine to produce high torque at lower rpms not necessarally how it is built. In fact that is what adds to the appeal for a truck engine.

I needed towing capacity when I purchased my ecoboost. My options were between the ecoboost and the 6.2 liter. The 6.2 liter cost $3100 more than the ecoboost which has the same towing capacity and 20% better fuel economy. One other important plus for most truck owners is the added payload capacity with the ecoboost over the 6.2 liter, 200lbs. I operate very close to max payload and need that extra 200 lbs often.

I chose the ecoboost. If you were buying a Ford, would you have in this example?

 

[timswi]

I'll still take my normally asperated 400+HP and sacrifice 3 or 4 mpg...The hang ons are too much risk for me...Comparing passenger cars and trucks with turbos is rather bizzare to me, I've never seen a BMW or Volvo pulling a 9,000# trailer...Then again, I wouldn't want either based on the repair experiences of those that I work with.....Diesel truck turbos fail as well at a not insignificant cost.

 

[Dmace]

I agree there is a higher risk of hardware. I still don't think it is such the great risk you are describing. My "first boost leak" makes it sound like I am going to be fraught with boost leaks. The odds are, I will never have one. "Days to find", there really aren't many places to look so I don't get that either. Engine bay is much less cramped than any vehicle I have recently owned.

Odds are better than you think, rubber hoses get worn, plastic fittings break and weather deteriorates clamps. As far as "less cramped than any vehicle I have recently owned", well it's not as open as anything I've owned. Have you been driving vans...?

The engine being diesel like is that the direct injection allows the engine to produce high torque at lower rpms not necessarally how it is built. In fact that is what adds to the appeal for a truck engine.

Again, it's not "diesel like". "Diesel like" to me is making near max power at low rpms, a little comparison:
A Cummins diesel makes 100% of it's 800 lb.ft. torque at just 1600 rpms.

The HEMI makes 80% at 1500 rpms. http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/2012/ram_1500/capability/powertrain/
Ecoboost only makes about 60% at 1500 rpms.
Ford V8 5.0l makes 77% at about 1500 rpms. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/0...ter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html
Not so "diesel like" is it...

I needed towing capacity when I purchased my ecoboost. My options were between the ecoboost and the 6.2 liter. The 6.2 liter cost $3100 more than the ecoboost which has the same towing capacity and 20% better fuel economy. One other important plus for most truck owners is the added payload capacity with the ecoboost over the 6.2 liter, 200lbs. I operate very close to max payload and need that extra 200 lbs often.
I chose the ecoboost. If you were buying a Ford, would you have in this example?

Personally I would choose the 5.0l. Ford is pushing the sales of the Ecoboost by only allowing the 5.0l in lighter GVWR configurations which is crap. Even pickuptrucks.com said the 5.0l is a better work engine for mainly towing. I use trucks only when a truck is needed, no grocery store runs or soccer games. It rarely leaves the driveway without a trailer.

 

[Pixguy]

I've bought an '11 EB 150, and love it, so I've followed this thread from the start and still not sure where my fellow Granite stater Dmace stands.

Is he a EB supporter or a Dodge lover?

Just not sure......

 

[Groo]

I'll still take my normally asperated 400+HP and sacrifice 3 or 4 mpg...The hang ons are too much risk for me...

I bet you are one of those guys who ranted about having to spend $8,000 on new batteries for the Prius after a few years. I doesn't happen and they have been out for over a decade. Last I checked no consumer has ever had to buy a battery pack. I assume Toyota covered the few that failed.

lets look at the numbers;

50,000 miles @ 15mpg = 3333 gallons @ $5/gal = $16,667
50,000 miles @ 19mpg = 2632 gallons @ $5/gal = $13,158

I'll risk it for $3,500, especially since they tested the snot out of this engine.

If this was going to be a super low mile vehicle, then no, I wouldn't risk it either. heck, I went out of my way to get a V10 for the farm truck, but it replaced a vehicle that averaged less than 2,000 miles a year.

If I start hearing stories about them munching turbos or what have you down the line, I'd use my fuel savings money to get a new truck sooner than I would otherwise.