Ecoboost question for DP

[jejeosborne]

All this takes is more & more $$$$$$$$$$ to create these science fair engines. What about reliability, durability, and the ability of the average guy (since there is little middle class left) to afford these things? We'll all be driving econoboxes by the time they're through.
:soapbox:

You have a valid point about the dollars. Reliability and durability has only improved in general terms as technology has advanced. Most of this is accomplished with software that is pretty stable. I love working on these new engines because a monkey with a scanner can pinpoint the problem. Quick Google search and a YouTube video later and my most recent issues with modern vehicles are fixed myself. Science fair? These are some excellent projects if they are in my opinion.

 

[dodge man]

I always here people say they can't fix new vehicles because of all the electronics. I agree, most of the time the vehicle tells you what is wrong. I remember fixing my wifes 2005 Chrysler 300C. It came up with a code that said it was an EGR problem. At the time I had the shop manual for that car on CD. It gave a long series of complicated tests to check the wiring and circuits to see if it was a electric problem or if it was just the EGR valve. The EGR valve was only $30 so it was easier and cheaper just to throw the part at the car and see if that fixed, which it did.

 

[mikehaugen]

I always here people say they can't fix new vehicles because of all the electronics. I agree, most of the time the vehicle tells you what is wrong. I remember fixing my wifes 2005 Chrysler 300C. It came up with a code that said it was an EGR problem. At the time I had the shop manual for that car on CD. It gave a long series of complicated tests to check the wiring and circuits to see if it was a electric problem or if it was just the EGR valve. The EGR valve was only $30 so it was easier and cheaper just to throw the part at the car and see if that fixed, which it did.

Yes, and with the diagnostic equipment getting cheaper it is well within the realm of "diy" most of the time. Though for certain things a factory oem tool is required. Still, I am one that is likes the newer (ish) stuff.

Mechanically, however, I see more and more stuff that requires special tools to repair, but it seems necessary repairs are becoming less and less frequent.

 

[puckgrinder85]

I always here people say they can't fix new vehicles because of all the electronics. I agree, most of the time the vehicle tells you what is wrong. I remember fixing my wifes 2005 Chrysler 300C. It came up with a code that said it was an EGR problem. At the time I had the shop manual for that car on CD. It gave a long series of complicated tests to check the wiring and circuits to see if it was a electric problem or if it was just the EGR valve. The EGR valve was only $30 so it was easier and cheaper just to throw the part at the car and see if that fixed, which it did.

Really depends on the problem. We get people everyday that get their cars "scanned" at autozone, they sell them the "offending" part and more often then not it doesn't fix it. That's where I come in. You got lucky, as the EGR's were a pretty known issues with most of the Chryslers in the era. You start mixing computers and mechanical issues and you get some really weird acting engines. Its not that they are harder to fix, its just a different way to go about it. Now I need a 5k$ scanner that gives me the data I need. Sometimes you might get by, and get lucky, other times, no friggin' way. Don't dumb down the profession, its as easy as welding, in that it looks easy and you think you know how to do it but when you get into it you realize the pro's earn their money.



Regarding the original topic- volumetric efficiency is what these people are after. The advent of VVT and all of its variants is a good example of them trying to up the VE of engines, turbo/supercharging is just another big step in that. The EPA is really pushing regulation for emissions and mileage. Now they combine everything, VVT, displacement on demands systems, turbo/ supercharging.

 

[dodge man]

I've had pretty good luck getting my vehicles scanned at Autozone and the part fixing it. Lucky? I don't think so but your are correct, its not always so easy. The cheap scanner don't read anywhere near all the stuff the dealers have available.

 

[Stimw]

So I have 2 questions while everyone's talking all technical...

1) why a turbo instead of supercharger, I think the answer is that turbos are more efficient, but maybe someone can elaborate.

2) something I have always wondered about the high fuel pressure (paticularly di) with diesels is if there is enough pressure in the fuel rail to overcome cylinder pressure, which is enough to cause combustion... what would keep the fuel lines from combusting if there was even a tiny bit of air in them?

A turbo provides FREE energy. It is propelled by exhaust gases, it takes nothing away to run it.
A supercharger requires energy/HP to turn it.
IIRC on a top fuel engine there is something like 1-2 tons of force pulling down on the nose of the supercharger by the drive belt.
While there is a net gain it does require hp to turn it.

 

[Garandman]

The Ecoboost family combines several technologies.

• The truck engines use two relatively small turbines. These turbines have little mass so they can generate boost at low engine RPM. By having two turbos on a V engine they can position them for a shorter tubing run, yielding less lag and more efficiency because the gases are hotter.
• Direct injection allows the use of relatively high compression ratios without detonation. This makes the engine more efficient when off boost and allows the use of regular gas. I believe the compression ratio of the 3.5 is 10:1, while my 2009 Subaru WRX has a compression ratio of 8.7:1 and requires Premium fuel.
• The engines have variable valve timing for both intake and exhaust.
• The engines are very compact for their output.
• Most of the Ecoboosts have aluminum blocks and cylinder heads and are very light for their size.

So I have 2 questions while everyone's talking all technical...

1) why a turbo instead of supercharger, I think the answer is that turbos are more efficient, but maybe someone can elaborate.

A supercharger has no lag, but requires energy to operate. Turbochargers recover exhaust gas energy so they are more efficient. But there is a certain amount of lag and the efficiency of the turbo can be greatly affected by the proximity to the exhaust stream and location of the intercooler (an air-to-air heat exchanger that cools the intake stream). Superchargers are generally used for high performance engines while turbos are used for both low rpm high torque and high rpm high power applications.

 

[sld]

I've had pretty good luck getting my vehicles scanned at Autozone and the part fixing it. Lucky? I don't think so but your are correct, its not always so easy. The cheap scanner don't read anywhere near all the stuff the dealers have available.

I have gone thru several 10-12 year old cars with 100-150k miles for the kids in the last few years. All Fords as that is what I am familiar with.

With a scan tool (I use the SCT programmer for my truck), a decent manual and a volt meter the average guy can do some pretty good trouble shooting. It's just a different type of problem solving than stuff from the 70's and early 80's.

Generally the only thing I will pay for is cooling system flushes just because it's messy to do in my garage and dispose of the old antifreese.

I look at it as a challenge and don't mind the trouble shooting part of it.

 

[jejeosborne]

I've had pretty good luck getting my vehicles scanned at Autozone and the part fixing it. Lucky? I don't think so but your are correct, its not always so easy. The cheap scanner don't read anywhere near all the stuff the dealers have available.

Same with me. I purchased the torque app and use a blue tooth reader to my phone. My last 4 issues on
4 different vehicles it nailed down the exactly problem. Two oxygen sensors on a jeep, a variable valve control module on a toyota, a crank position sensor on an oldsmobile, and a coolant temperature sensor in a Ford. All easily replaced. Hard part is locating some of these sensors.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I'm with you guys. I have a hand held scan tool I got off Amazon. It's fixed 2 of my vehicles, my Titan had a bad gas cap and my Saturn had a faulty neutral safety switch.

In addition it fixed my neighbors Aviator with a vacuum leak and a number of other friends vehicles with stuff like O2 sensors, faulty relays, ect.

For me it's done all I have needed.

Chris

 

[handirifle]

OK thanks for all the goodies on the 3.5. I do seem to remember that most of the injection events were at or after TDC, thus killing the knock causing pre-detonation normally caused by high compression ratio. That would also add more torque to the engines power band.

Ford's had a few years and this engine has proven very reliable, from what I have read. Good for them. They've had a history of poor engines (diesel) for a long time, the current 6.7L not included, and it's good to see an American car company kick but on power and fuel efficiency over the imports. Now, if the EB engines will last 200-300,000 miles, then it's a no brainer. I am seeing quite a number of them for sale after exceeding 100,000 though, so that is a concern.

Do the 4 cyl Ecoboosts work the same way?

One poster asked about high fuel rail pressures, and yes, they do run high enough to overpower cylinder pressure (diesel, I do not know about the EB, but I assume it does as well). That's why diesel fuel rail pressures will run as high as 26K. The high pressure also atomizes fuel better, which means more efficiency.

I assume the additional fuel events, are burned from the existing cylinder heat, and not from an additional spark event?

 

[handirifle]

1) Definitely more efficient, although some of the supercharger advances have probably closed this gap. When you don't need the boost, the turbo has almost no losses in the system while the supercharger always saps some energy.

2) The combustion is partially dependent on the atomization of the fuel as it expands to a lower pressure. I'm not really sure if it would be possible to ignite the fuel without a large surface area but it certainly would be less likely to ignite in liquid form than when it sprays.

Since I do not know how the EB fuel system works, it COULD operate at lower pressures, like the older diesels did, and use an outside source to force the fuel into the cylinder. The older diesels used high pressure oil to actually push a small piston inside the injector, and THAT created the ultra high pressure needed to force fuel into the cylinder, and atomize it enough for efficient combustion.
Personally, I doubt they would go backwards in technology, but who knows.

Gasoline is much harder to ignite, if at all, in liquid form. I have watched demonstrations, on film, of someone putting out a match in liquid gasoline. They moved very fast, but it worked. It's the VAPORS of gasoline, that ignite. That's one reason gas cars never needed an additional shot of fuel in the exhaust to ignite unburned gasses, like diesels do, such as in the CAT convertors or DPF diesel particulate filter. The DPF uses a urea based fuel.

Gas engines use exhaust heat to preheat the catalytic converter, and that heat vaporizes and burns the raw gas in the exhaust system.

 

[CJONE]

Just a little tidbit on how good a computer controlled turbo engine can work. Look up Larry Larson on youtube and check out his 5 second street car [s-10] This truck will drive over 1000 miles to get to the different races without a support truck on pump fuel. So it is street driven. CJ

 

[timswi]

I personally have nothing against turbos even though they aren't my thing. What I do find strange was an article a couple of weeks ago that said Ford was pumping V8 type sound throu the speakers of their perfomance turbo vehicles. Very odd.

 

[jejeosborne]

I personally have nothing against turbos even though they aren't my thing. What I do find strange was an article a couple of weeks ago that said Ford was pumping V8 type sound throu the speakers of their perfomance turbo vehicles. Very odd.

Ford isn't the only manufacturer to do this. They also do it on the mustang.

 

[xring100]

Didn't realize the DI reduced detonation. I guess it makes sense, the fuel cannot PRE DETONATE if it's not in there until time for spark.

I believe You also get a cooling effect from the fuel being introduced at high pressure in the DI gas engines. The rapid expansion causes it to cool.

 

[sd455dan]

Just a little tidbit on how good a computer controlled turbo engine can work. Look up Larry Larson on youtube and check out his 5 second street car [s-10] This truck will drive over 1000 miles to get to the different races without a support truck on pump fuel. So it is street driven. CJ

That's impressive -reminds me of a 63 Pontiac Lemans Built by Nelson racing back a few years For a street driven car this thing was crazy fast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa63hH55cfE

 

[mikehaugen]

Ford isn't the only manufacturer to do this. They also do it on the mustang.

?????

 

[jejeosborne]

?????

Poor wording I guess on my part. Other manufacturers do similar fake sounds. In addition to the f150, Ford also does this in the mustang.

Faking It: Engine-Sound Enhancement Explained - Tech Dept. - Car and Driver

 

[firemanmike69]

Since I do not know how the EB fuel system works, it COULD operate at lower pressures, like the older diesels did, and use an outside source to force the fuel into the cylinder. The older diesels used high pressure oil to actually push a small piston inside the injector, and THAT created the ultra high pressure needed to force fuel into the cylinder, and atomize it enough for efficient combustion. Personally, I doubt they would go backwards in technology, but who knows..

Some diesels used this technology,invented by cat also used by international called a HEUI injector, others used a high pressure inline or rotary injection pump to develop the pressure and timing needed back in those days the injection pressures were much lower than they are today. The reason this system was abandoned was due to not being able to meet tighter restrictions on particulate emissions.

Gasoline is much harder to ignite, if at all, in liquid form. I have watched demonstrations, on film, of someone putting out a match in liquid gasoline. They moved very fast, but it worked. It's the VAPORS of gasoline, that ignite. That's one reason gas cars never needed an additional shot of fuel in the exhaust to ignite unburned gasses, like diesels do, such as in the CAT convertors or DPF diesel particulate filter. The DPF uses a urea based fuel. Gas engines use exhaust heat to preheat the catalytic converter, and that heat vaporizes and burns the raw gas in the exhaust system.

The function of the DPF is to trap particulate matter in the exhaust something gas engines do not have. Occasionally the DPF gets too full if particulate matter and had to convert the particulate matter to ash by burning it or "regen" . The DEF is used to reduce NOx emissions from the latest round of emissions engines