Buying a new Truck

[Groo]

Why is the Eco boost hard to run on a dyno? Why would it throttle back? I don't understand.

From what I read about some testing at a big name shop, that it was the most difficult vehicle to dyno they have ever dealt with.
Its just looks at many more sensors than most others and errors on the side of caution when it sees something that doesn't add up. I've heard it is looking at things like front wheel speed that most other don't care about. I think it is also cautious about detonation from a hot intake charge or just overdoing it, and will back off when being tortured on a dyno repeatedly without a break. Does that mean it will back off when towing heavy loads up mountains too? Maybe. Either way, I am more interest in real world testing than dyno testing.

 

[deerefan]

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.

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...

The last sentence of your first paragraph is the only reason I am a little leary of the new eb. I currently own a ford, a 97 F150 4wd with the 4.6. At 140k miles it needed a new motor and I maintained it very well. Stack on the diesel engine issues and it makes me a little hesitant. Being they are an american car company and I want them to succeed for the economy and jobs, I hope the eb does well. If so, I may own one in a couple years. As for the insecurities, I guess jealousy or envy would have been a better choice of words. To make the same or similar hp and torque to a V8 with that small of an engine is impressive, regardless the manufacturer. The Hemi and LS engines are tried and true but are also seriously outdated. The new 8 speed looks to help the hemi economy. Not sure what GM will do...yet.

 

[ricksmith5645]

like the cummins engine in the dodge but you need to be carefull when having anyone do front end repairs if they install a aftermarket steering stabalizer you can get what they call "the dodge death wobble" google it and you will see what i mean. it happened to us but we installed the factory stabalizer and it went away.

 

[Dmace]

To make the same or similar hp and torque to a V8 with that small of an engine is impressive, regardless the manufacturer.

Honestly, it's not. My 4 cylinder 2.0l Eagle Talon made 200 hp from the factory and now makes 520 hp to all four wheels. It's not difficult with a turbo and huge fuel pump. If this engine could do it without the help of forced induction or if it got much better fuel mileage I would be impressed which is why I feel there are better options.

 

[jejeosborne]

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.

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...

Man, you made me loose my bet. I had a bet with a couple of people you wouldn't pull your standard misspelled "phord phan" phrase until your tenth post. BTW you realize that is against forum rules don't you? Don't worry about me though, I am not sensetive to this childish behavior.

Hum, two engine manufacturer supplied dyno graphs are not "apples to apples". What was I thinking?

Yeah, they couldn't test the hemi truck on the dyno either but that was because they called the transmission "downshift happy". The turbo motor presented different issues based on steady state loads. Did you read the article?

Ford "ridiculous engine dyno" must be accurate as mentioned in the article. What do you find ridiculous? How is this obvious?

Did you read and reasons why they had problems? Maybe you should design a dyno that can measure a turbo motor output. That is the problem not the engine.

 

[jejeosborne]

Honestly, it's not. My 4 cylinder 2.0l Eagle Talon made 200 hp from the factory and now makes 520 hp to all four wheels. It's not difficult with a turbo and huge fuel pump. If this engine could do it without the help of forced induction or if it got much better fuel mileage I would be impressed which is why I feel there are better options.

What side of the fence you on? I thought you didn't like all the gadgets and technology of the ecoboost and now it is "not difficult" to make the power of a V8 with a 4 cylinder. Confused!

 

[Dmace]

Man, you made me loose my bet. I had a bet with a couple of people you wouldn't pull your standard misspelled "phord phan" phrase until your tenth post. BTW you realize that is against forum rules don't you? Don't worry about me though, I am not sensetive to this childish behavior.

Hum, two engine manufacturer supplied dyno graphs are not "apples to apples". What was I thinking?

Yeah, they couldn't test the hemi truck on the dyno either but that was because they called the transmission "downshift happy". The turbo motor presented different issues based on steady state loads. Did you read the article?

Ford "ridiculous engine dyno" must be accurate as mentioned in the article. What do you find ridiculous? How is this obvious?

Did you read and reasons why they had problems? Maybe you should design a dyno that can measure a turbo motor output. That is the problem not the engine.

The childish personal attacks are against the rules too but you must of missed that...
Again, ALL automatic transmission vehicles are tough to dyno low not just the RAM and the trouble with dyno testing the Ecoboost was NOT because it's turbo, it was because the active torque convertor has to "slip" to allow the turbos to spool which is another thing to go wrong that NA V8's don't need. Another add-on tech that won't deal with "truck" use on a daily basis. Of course as a grocery getter, yours should be fine.

What side of the fence you on? I thought you didn't like all the gadgets and technology of the ecoboost and now it is "not difficult" to make the power of a V8 with a 4 cylinder. Confused!

Boy you sure get confused easily. Re-read my post, I'm not against the technology BUT it should at least offer more of a gain compared to a plain and simple pushrod V8...

 

[toppop52]

100 h.p. per liter in a boosted engine is very mild by modern standards and well it should be, it's not intended as a race application, and in normal use should be fine, my concern is towing loads. When going up grades in hot weather for several miles, are you going to get the dyno effect? Is it going to default to the "protect it's self" mode and you're stuck going 5 miles at 30 mph? Those are real world issues that the dyno results hint at. Maybe not, but we don't know.

 

[jejeosborne]

The childish personal attacks are against the rules too but you must of missed that...
Again, ALL automatic transmission vehicles are tough to dyno low not just the RAM and the trouble with dyno testing the Ecoboost was NOT because it's turbo, it was because the active torque convertor has to "slip" to allow the turbos to spool which is another thing to go wrong that NA V8's don't need. Another add-on tech that won't deal with "truck" use on a daily basis. Of course as a grocery getter, yours should be fine.

Boy you sure get confused easily. Re-read my post, I'm not against the technology BUT it should at least offer more of a gain compared to a plain and simple pushrod V8...

I agree with the childish personal attacks as well. This thread was started by thegoose about buying a new truck. Soon after he mentions choosing an ecoboost for his new shiny ride, you come into the picture and make negative comments about what he has choosen. Raining on his parade is such an adult behavior.

As far as the dyno, hear is a quote from the testers:

"Geeky tech note: Chassis dyno plots of turbo engines rarely match the shape of those published by automakers. In the latter case, you see these perfectly flat tabletop torque plateaus that appear drawn with a ruler, and the plateau usually starts at a lower engine speed than what you see on a chassis dyno plot.
One big reason for this is that the automakers use engine dynos. These load the engine much differently than do chassis dynos.
On an engine dyno the operator can load the engine at very low engine speeds for as long as he/she likes, which gives the turbos all the time necessary to reach the speed they "want" to reach for that condition. Engineers call this "quasi-steady" operation.
Inertia chassis dynos -- like the Dynojet 248 we use here -- don't have load-holding capability. The engine speed during a pull is continually changing in real time, and the turbos have to play catch-up to the accelerating engine. And the shorter the gear, the more pronounced this catch-up effect.".

This issue is why the long discussion about engines operating at a constant load took place. I agree, the automatic transmission throws an addition challenge into testing on a chassis dyno. Saying the ecoboost torque converter has to slip is only during these tests. I will bet the torque converter on the ecoboost stays locked at a much higher percentage than most or all of the engines discussed.

The confusion is all based on what you are posting. I only say that when I have to correct your post that make no sense.

I forgot to comment on your calling my truck a "grocery getter". Today I have 1600 lbs of landscape stone in the bed, Friday I will be pulling a 7500 lb track hoe on a 2000 lb trailer 50 miles to and from a job site, and on the way home tonight I do plan on stopping and grabbing some steaks for the grill. So you are partially correct. You must have not read the part where i mentioned owning a construction business.

 

[jejeosborne]

100 h.p. per liter in a boosted engine is very mild by modern standards and well it should be, it's not intended as a race application, and in normal use should be fine, my concern is towing loads. When going up grades in hot weather for several miles, are you going to get the dyno effect? Is it going to default to the "protect it's self" mode and you're stuck going 5 miles at 30 mph? Those are real world issues that the dyno results hint at. Maybe not, but we don't know.

I have never heard of this happening, but anything is possible I know this has been tested by ford on the race track full throttle for 24 hours towing 11,300 lbs. but this could be considered marketing. Individuals have put it through severe loads without complaint. I think you nailed it on the head and hopefully ford had balanced performance and durability and not pushed any limits.