Downsized engines=shorter life?

[MossRoad]

The number one reason for most otherwise sound vehicles heading for scrap is emission test failure.

In California just about everything 1976 and newer is tested.

Rust is NEVER an issue.

Send 'em to Indiana! We'll buy em. :laughing:

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have a 3/4 ton GMC with the 8.1 and 4.10 gears....it has been quite trouble free and is a beast when towing although it eats up gas.

I have had the 8.1, aka 496, in some boats. Only complaint was oil usage.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

You're saying a 213.583 cubic inch engine outpulls any 454 you ever had? 1997 454 = 410 ft pounds of torque and 290HP Gotta be wrong.... so I looked it up... Well heck, the 3.5 gets well over 300hp and 420 on torque. Who'da thunk it? :confused2: Its the electronics on these new engines that really bothers me. Time. Not mileage. Electronics don't last as long as the mechanicals. Only time will tell.

Yes, and it makes 90% of that torque below 2000 rpm. Its a little beast.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

The number one reason for most otherwise sound vehicles heading for scrap is emission test failure. In California just about everything 1976 and newer is tested. Rust is NEVER an issue.

Here it's rust!

Chris

 

[MossRoad]

Yes, and it makes 90% of that torque below 2000 rpm. Its a little beast.

Chris

What's the bore and stroke on that engine? Is it long arms or high boost or both or none?

 

[DarkBlack]

Another indication of how tough the ecoboost is built - as I understand it, the weight of the 3.5 EB and the 5.0 are almost identical. Some of the weight is the turbo but some is probably a really strong block and crank.

More likely, the additional weight of the balance shaft V6's require.

 

[Retiredguy2]

:laughing:

Here it's rust!

Chris

Chris said it well...in the Rust Belt the tin worm is a major cause of vehicle scrapping. After maybe 12-15 years of ownership you run into so many issues (brake lines, gas lines, etc) it often is not practical to pay for repairs. My GMC was Ziebarted when new and is a full frame truck and I have taken super care of it, but: Back about 1989 I saw a sign outside a car wash that read:

"The rust family cordially invites your car for dinner...." :laughing: I still have a print photo of it someplace.

 

[ultrarunner]

I remember seeing cars from the East and Midwest that were rusted as a kid when families where moving West...

Guess the myth of the California car has some basis in truth...

Lots of otherwise good older cars get scrapped because of smog fails or lapse in DMV fees... I've seen 20 year old cars/pickups with $1500 against them so they often get scrapped too.

 

[MossRoad]

Find me a 67 Nova solid body no engine for $1500 please. :laughing: I'd take a 70 as well.

 

[Diamondpilot]

What's the bore and stroke on that engine? Is it long arms or high boost or both or none?

Here are all the Specs. 3.5L EcoBoost V-6 Specs

It actually builds 90% of its 420 ft lbs of torque at 1700 rpms. That and 365 HP makes it a blast to drive.

Chris

 

[Garandman]

Sorry but I think you missed my point...I know today's engines produce much more horsepower. Look at a drag racing engine, for example...it produces huge amounts of horsepower but the service life may be only one or two trips down the strip. AND...does anybody really know for certain today's downsized engines WILL last longer?

Fleet buyers like me are buying them. Four of our eight vehicles are turbocharged (two gas, two diesel).

Our Ecoboost Ford Transit gets better mpg, is faster and can tow much more than the E250 HD or Express 2500 we had previously.

 

[300UGUY]

I worked on gaging systems for engine components for 30 years. The one thing I can tell you is that tolerances are much, much, tighter now than when I started. And the surface finish is a whole science unto itself. The new engines are made to much tighter tolerances, out of much better materials.

Most cranks are now forged, most connecting rods are powdered metal, bore liners are powdered metal also. Much better service life.

 

[MossRoad]

Here are all the Specs. 3.5L EcoBoost V-6 Specs

It actually builds 90% of its 420 ft lbs of torque at 1700 rpms. That and 365 HP makes it a blast to drive.

Chris

Relatively short stroke so the torque's coming from the pressure, not the crank. Pretty neat. Thanks.

 

[Copperhead]

Even a lot of heavy commercial truck diesels are getting downsized, with similar hp and torque levels as larger displacement diesels of day gone by. Navistar, Volvo/Mack, and Paccar (KW and Pete) are all offering 13L engines with impressive performance as opposed to the 15L that have been so common. In that class of engine, there does not seem to be any detriment to engine life. I know it is not an apple to apples comparison to an Ecoboost vs larger block V8. Just some perspective.

Time will tell if similar results are with the pickup engines. Problem is, they are piling on all kinds of technical aspects to modern motors, that I am not sure one can really determine if displacement had the largest effect on longevity so much as the more technical aspects. As Scotty on Star Trek said so clearly....."the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

 

[ultrarunner]

Find me a 67 Nova solid body no engine for $1500 please. :laughing: I'd take a 70 as well.

I sent a perfect body 70 nova to scrap 3 years ago... it was taking up space... a friend wanted the 350 motor and auto...

Original green metallic paint was still good...

 

[MossRoad]

I sent a perfect body 70 nova to scrap 3 years ago... it was taking up space... a friend wanted the 350 motor and auto...

Original green metallic paint was still good...

Please tell me it wasn't misty turquoise..............

 

[MossRoad]

 

[Bird]

I've owned 460 Ford, 454 Chevrolet, and 440 Chrysler products in the past, but been driving a little 2001 Ford Ranger with the 4.0L engine the last 10 years, and a 2.0L ecoboost 2014 Ford Escape the last year and a half. But we really haven't needed 2 vehicles, although I do need a pickup occasionally, and sometimes the Escape was a bit too small, so yesterday I traded both of them for a 2015 Ford F150 Supercrew with the 2.7L ecoboost.:laughing:

But I did pay a little more for a 6 year, 100k mile, bumper to bumper warranty.

 

[Retiredguy2]

I've owned 460 Ford, 454 Chevrolet, and 440 Chrysler products in the past, but been driving a little 2001 Ford Ranger with the 4.0L engine the last 10 years, and a 2.0L ecoboost 2014 Ford Escape the last year and a half. But we really haven't needed 2 vehicles, although I do need a pickup occasionally, and sometimes the Escape was a bit too small, so yesterday I traded both of them for a 2015 Ford F150 Supercrew with the 2.7L ecoboost.:laughing:

But I did pay a little more for a 6 year, 100k mile, bumper to bumper warranty.

Thank you for the input, Bird. Not trying to hijack my own thread here, but I think extended warranties are a ripoff for low mileage drivers like myself. If I purchased any new vehicle, it would take me at least 15 years to get to the 50,000 mile mark and perhaps longer. The only extended warranty I ever purchased was on a 1985 Ford LTD and it cost $615. Although I was an average mile driver back then I still lost money on the extended warranty. Our primary vehicle is a 2004 Saturn..purchased new...currently has 72,000 miles on it and had I bought the extended warranty it would have not covered anything in the way of repairs needed during the covered period.

 

[chopped]

I've owned 460 Ford, 454 Chevrolet, and 440 Chrysler products in the past, but been driving a little 2001 Ford Ranger with the 4.0L engine the last 10 years, and a 2.0L ecoboost 2014 Ford Escape the last year and a half. But we really haven't needed 2 vehicles, although I do need a pickup occasionally, and sometimes the Escape was a bit too small, so yesterday I traded both of them for a 2015 Ford F150 Supercrew with the 2.7L ecoboost.:laughing:

But I did pay a little more for a 6 year, 100k mile, bumper to bumper warranty.

Congrats on your new vehicle..