Buying a new Truck

[deerefan]

I believe what you are saying. I have never had any insecurity about my purchase but don't like it when others what to bad mouth what I have chosen. Especially when they have no experience with that particular vehicle. I don't feel comfortable bad mouthing anything others may own until provoked.

It will be interesting to see where this trend of technology goes.

Jeff

The insecurities I was referring to are for folks that put blinders on to other options. Trying to compare a 15yr old design to the eco boost is pointless. The eb is innovative and I give it its due, though I am not really a fan. I pulled 10k lbs of cattle (trailer weight included) on a gooseneck with it and it did fine. No diesel, but did well for a small gas motor. It averaged right at 9mpg for the whole trip (350 miles total, 2 trips back and forth, loaded each way).

 

[toppop52]

What concerns you about towing moderate to heavy loads on a regular basis?

The heat and stress boost puts on smaller engines, especially towing. I owned offshore performance boats for 22 years running boost in several forms N20, turbo and Roots. The boosted engines always, no exception, regardless of how well built had a far shorter lifespan than n/a engines. A boat engine is very close to a tow engine in regard to stress load. They work very hard with little time spent in coast mode, much the same as towing. These were BBC engines, purpose built by the best engine builders and often exceeding $20k per.

 

[toppop52]

I believe what you are saying. I have never had any insecurity about my purchase but don't like it when others what to bad mouth what I have chosen. Especially when they have no experience with that particular vehicle. I don't feel comfortable bad mouthing anything others may own until provoked.

It will be interesting to see where this trend of technology goes.

Jeff

I'm not bad mouthing your truck and hope it serves you well, GM is currently and has been for a couple of years testing a supercharged Verizon of the 3.6 for use in both cars and trucks, they have several boosted engines in their lineup now, it's the current wave, no doubt. I just truly have concerns of durability in towing situations. We will soon know.

 

[Diamondpilot]

The heat and stress boost puts on smaller engines, especially towing. I owned offshore performance boats for 22 years running boost in several forms N20, turbo and Roots. The boosted engines always, no exception, regardless of how well built had a far shorter lifespan than n/a engines. A boat engine is very close to a tow engine in regard to stress load. They work very hard with little time spent in coast mode, much the same as towing. These were BBC engines, purpose built by the best engine builders and often exceeding $20k per.

Yes, I agree to a point. The difference being a BBC was never meant to be juiced, turbo charged, or blown. The Eco was built to be much like a modern diesel.

Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

The heat and stress boost puts on smaller engines, especially towing. I owned offshore performance boats for 22 years running boost in several forms N20, turbo and Roots. The boosted engines always, no exception, regardless of how well built had a far shorter lifespan than n/a engines. A boat engine is very close to a tow engine in regard to stress load. They work very hard with little time spent in coast mode, much the same as towing. These were BBC engines, purpose built by the best engine builders and often exceeding $20k per.

Yeah, I would assume performance engines are being asked to do more than they are engineered to do at times. I was mainly brining in ship engines as the type of load it endures, constant.

Any turbo charged engine built to due constant load such as trains, tractors, ships, semis, etc., are all smaller engines than what would be required if they were normally aspirated. Are you saying all these engines which are know their longevity would be better served by a larger normally aspirated engine? If so, why is that not the norm?

BTW, no offense taken by any of your posts. Appreciate good discussions.

 

[toppop52]

Yes, I agree to a point. The difference being a BBC was never meant to be juiced, turbo charged, or blown. The Eco was built to be much like a modern diesel.

Chris

Actually the engines I ran were purpose built from the block to
the rod bolts to be boosted and twisted hard. Every piece including metallurgy were designed for that purpose. The older ones I first did were not so thorough and lasted less than 200 hours often, the newer boost engines were good for 2000 hours at 9-10 lbs of peak boost and 6200 rpm.

 

[toppop52]

Yeah, I would assume performance engines are being asked to do more than they are engineered to do at times. I was mainly brining in ship engines as the type of load it endures, constant.

Any turbo charged engine built to due constant load such as trains, tractors, ships, semis, etc., are all smaller engines than what would be required if they were normally aspirated. Are you saying all these engines which are know their longevity would be better served by a larger normally aspirated engine? If so, why is that not the norm?

BTW, no offense taken by any of your posts. Appreciate good discussions.

No, but those are low rpm constant load and speed engines, light duty trucks are not.

 

[jejeosborne]

No, but those are low rpm constant load and speed engines, light duty trucks are not.

That makes me feel better because the ecoboost is the lowest rpm engine I have ever owned. Almost too low. My brain is expecting down shifts that don't happen, I learned to not lug an engine early on. This engine and transmission will hold gears going up hills at 1000 rpm and hold speed when my last truck would downshift two gears. Definitely a different feel than what I thought was normal.

 

[toppop52]

That makes me feel better because the ecoboost is the lowest rpm engine I have ever owned. Almost too low. My brain is expecting down shifts that don't happen, I learned to not lug an engine early on. This engine and transmission will hold gears going up hills at 1000 rpm and hold speed when my last truck would downshift two gears. Definitely a different feel than what I thought was normal.

That's impressive, but you don't always operate within a narrow load and rpm range, that's when we find out how well it works. I'm betting they will by and large do fine, but there will be growing pains, always are, not just with the eco boost but the new GM versions as well. GM has little trouble over the last 25 years with boosted gas engines, but they haven't been running them in trucks, we'll see.
By the way, I'm impressed with the eco and hope the longevity is great!:thumbsup:

 

[Dmace]

OMG, you are posting and using Chrysler published dyno numbers from a test stand comparing to the Ford numbers at the rear wheels on the dyno. Does that sound fair? I was comparing apples to apples.

It's obviously not Apples to apples since no dyno has been able to prove Ford's rediculous engine dyno showing 90% torque at 1500 rpms.
ALL automatics are tough to dyno so I'm sure you won't find many proving the low end power of these engines.
Either way, you can argue all day long that it makes the same power as a simple V8 but it's still just another engine only with plenty more that can go wrong for little to no gain and more money. Add on top of that Ford's reputation for poor engine design and it's not worth it in my eyes.

He just can't admit that the Hemi can lose the torque game to a 6 cylinder. It really hurts his feelings. He is sensitive in that way.

Ahh there it is, the typical Phord Phan reply. Can't act like an adult in a grown-up conversation so they have to resort to personal attacks. Grow up!
I'm not just a Dodge fan with "insecurities", compare it to the GM 6.2l, Toyota 5.7l and even Ford's 6.2l and you see similar comparisons but with tried and true designs that are easy to fix if needed...