F-150 3.5 EcoBoost?

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by Perryb67

There seems to be an unrealistic fear of turbos, but these are highly refined turbos, not the turbos of the 60's.

Perry

It doesn't matter to me what anybody buys, but it is interesting to chat about the relative merits of particular engine designs and the reasons people do what they do. Fixating on the turbo misses the point. It's the design of the engine that uses the turbo, that leads to failure or success. Not the turbo itself.

I don't know anyone who has an "unrealistic fear of turbos". Are they like bogeymen in the closet at night? "OMG! I think there's a turbo hiding in there!" Is there a therapy group for that affliction?

Remember, ALL diesels these days have turbos. ALL of them do or they would not perform above about 1/2 of what they do. It's not just modern direct injection gas engines that use them. Either design benefits greatly from a turbo, but until recently it was not possible to do with a gas engine, what has easily been done with diesel engines for decades. And the turbo wasn't the problem, it was the engine design that used gasoline for fuel.

Modern refinements, such as dual overhead cams with phasers, direct injection with dual injectors for both port and in-cylinder injection, the desire for higher and higher RPM limits and the quest for ever lighter weight, is where the design reaches not only a lot of busy parts, but a thinner and thinner margin of error. Couple that with the inherent problems associated with a V6 and you have to hand it to the modern designers for pushing the tech as far as they have.

Then, to push the idea further, manufacturers put these engines in pick-up trucks for towing.

The Pentastar engine from Chrysler doesn't have a turbo, but it is interesting in that is was designed to be as compact as possible, and easily re-cycled. Easy re-cycling seems like a funny design requirement. It has a lot of plastic parts and is not so easy to work on, but it runs well and is remarkably efficient. In fact, because of the manufacturing technique, it's probably not a good idea to rebuild one. Just toss it and get another one.

Frantic competition amongst auto makers, especially in the most lucrative market segment, leads to more and more risk taking. People demand more power and better fuel economy. Assets that used to be mutually exclusive.

As gas engine design advances and efficiency improves, and diesel engine emission systems get more complex, and as diesel fuel stays more expensive than gas, and as the cost of the diesel engine remains considerably higher than the gas engine, there is a strong argument for staying with a gas engine.

What we need is a breakthrough to get to the next level of efficiency where engines are not wasting 60% or more of the energy we put into them. The Achates engine holds some promise, but is still not the final word. It also will likely reduce the number of flailing parts in the typical piston engine and that would be good too.

So, addressing your point more directly, asking 15-20 people if they have had a problem may be a good enough and honest enough market segment to allow you to comfortably spend $32,000. on a truck. I'm glad it has worked out well. I'm thinking about a new one myself, but am a little more analytical than that.

[thrifty bill]

Thats a lot of truck for $32,000 anymore.

Many years ago, I finally saved up enough $$ to buy a new truck. I took my $20,000 to the local Ford dealer. Only problem, the truck I wanted was $30,000. New truck dream ended at that point.

[Jon in AZ]

I was thinking the same. Perhaps lightening struck, or someone is s better negotiator than most. Others have reported buying a 3/4T for less than an enhanced F-150 (3.5EB, HD towing, HD payload). Some have said they could only get that configuration by special order.

In the context of this thread, though, the more-common 2.7EB with is more than sufficient.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by thrifty bill

For a Scamp 13, I'd get the 2.7EB. For something larger, say the Scamp 16, I'd go the 3.5 EB.

The EB does great mileage wise when empty.

In the end I still like my 2010 F150 with the 5.4 V8. Sure there is a fuel mileage penalty, but it gets comparable mileage towing to the EB, and it was a lot cheaper used.

The thing about TV, you never know when you will get 2 foot fever, nice to have a TV that has more than enough capacity to handle a bigger trailer.

After 15 years of towing my Scamp13D with normally aspirated 4cyl vehicles with great performance and fuel economy, I find your first sentence to be hilarious!

(you did mean it that way...didn't you??)

[thrifty bill]

The more I read about the 2.7 EB, the more capable it appears. I'd be tempted to give it a shot in the OPs case.

[Perryb67]

Originally Posted by Raspy

It doesn't matter to me what anybody buys, but it is interesting to chat about the relative merits of particular engine designs and the reasons people do what they do. Fixating on the turbo misses the point. It's the design of the engine that uses the turbo, that leads to failure or success. Not the turbo itself.

I don't know anyone who has an "unrealistic fear of turbos". Are they like bogeymen in the closet at night? "OMG! I think there's a turbo hiding in there!" Is there a therapy group for that affliction?

.................................................. ......................................

So, addressing your point more directly, asking 15-20 people if they have had a problem may be a good enough and honest enough market segment to allow you to comfortably spend $32,000. on a truck. I'm glad it has worked out well. I'm thinking about a new one myself, but am a little more analytical than that.

You need to read this thread again. Yes, there is an "unrealistic fear of turbos."

Apparently you also missed the part where I said, "I was a Business instructor." You think the only research I did was to ask 15-20 EB owners about their engines? You obviously don't know me.

Enjoy,

Perry

[Perryb67]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

I was thinking the same. Perhaps lightening struck, or someone is s better negotiator than most. Others have reported buying a 3/4T for less than an enhanced F-150 (3.5EB, HD towing, HD payload). Some have said they could only get that configuration by special order.

We have enough money to have a decent retirement, but we have to spend it wisely.

The few times I've purchased a new vehicle I've waited until after the next years models are out and then purchased. After analyzing Ford, Toyota, Dodge, and Chevy for a number of months, I narrowed it down to Ford and Toyota. I went to six different Ford dealers, plus three Toyota dealers, and analyzed each deal carefully. Our 2015 F-150 EB was purchased in November of 2015. There were heavy discounts on XLT's. To get the price I wanted I had to accept a white one (Ford was overstocked with white F-150's at the time). I wanted red, but the few available were around $5,000 more. Ours was driven 450 miles to Rochester, MN and there were around 600 miles on the odo when we drove away with our new truck.

It sometimes takes me six months or more to purchase what I want, at the price I'm willing to pay. Thinking back, it took about four months of analyzing before we drove away with our F-150

For us, vehicles are merely a commodity that gets us from point A to point B. We tend to keep our vehicles over 200,000 miles. I never lug an engine, but want it purring along the road. Our 2003 Honda Odyssey with the new four speed automatic (the four speed was introduced in late 2003), was purchased in 2007 with 90,000 miles. Our Odyssey was chosen to pull our Scamp, and then Casita, has 270,000 miles, and still runs strong.

Our white F-150 looks great pulling our white Escape 5.0!

Enjoy,

Perry

[Raspy]

Perry,

The term "unrealistic fear" of turbos has piqued my interest.

Not sure what that means. Are they mean? Are they scary?

What I see is people claiming the Ecoboost is the greatest thing ever. In some ways it is, but certainly not in every way. And other manufacturer's, like BMW and Honda, are doing the same thing. The turbo is what makes it go, but the rest of the engine's design is based on how to make it actually work. The trick is not the turbo, it's the rest of the design, that is the tricky part. And with constant upgrading, they seem to be getting them worked out. I'm also considering a new Accord with Honda's 2.0 liter turbo 4. At least with Honda, I know it's very unlikely they haven't worked out all the bugs before selling them.

Either way, small turbocharged engines are the way of the future, until we figure out a better design than the common four stroke piston engine with poppet valves. They work well, but only because they have been refined for well over 100 years. But they are too complicated and way too inefficient.

I've been driving diesel vehicles for many years and would not consider one without a turbo. VW, Mercedes and Cummins have all been successful because of their turbos and I've never had one fail.

[Raspy]

Perry,

Sounds like you made a sound buying decision with your F-150.

My buying strategy is somewhat different. First, my motto is "never buy a car when you need it!" Second, shop the price with the owner of the car dealer, or the fleet manager, and nobody else. Don't even talk to anyone else there, except to ask where the owner or fleet manager is. Third, begin your conversation with them in the last few days of the month when they are trying to hit their sales goal.

I don't expect them to sell it below their cost, we all have to make a living, but there is a lot of hidden profit in cars that they can share if they want to. If the pressure begins to ramp up, I tell them never mind and leave, but I might give them my information so they can offer me an even better deal on the phone.

All of this is before even looking at the stock on hand or ordering. Selecting a particular one comes later.

Once the deal is worked out, such as: dealer invoice minus all rebates, minus 1/2 the factory holdback, with all documentation shown, I'll get down to business and order what I want. If it is right at the end of the month, they will really want to get rid of anything on the lot.

All of this only takes a short visit or even a phone call from afar. Pretty soon you'll know what the best deal is on the vehicle you want, and when a better deal pops up, you can grab it. If you see a preferred color with the same equipment package at another dealer you can simply tell them what you are willing to pay and be totally ready to walk if they can't decide or want you to come in and talk. I don't go in and talk. "I'm here and ready to go, can you sell it for that?" is the the extent of the conversation.

Another interesting trick, if you want a Honda Accord for instance, is to look at dealers in the mountains. They have to compete with Subaru and others that have All Wheel Drive and Accords don't offer it. I found a Honda dealer next door to a Subaru dealer and they openly complained that they could not sell the Accords because of the competition. Hmmm, I thought. Nice bargaining chip. He had no idea I would never buy a Subaru. And sure enough the owner went out of his way to offer me the best deal I had seen, by far, on a Accord.

You can also use the absolute best internet loss leader price on a similar one and tell the dealer you want to buy from, that you are considering one from the other dealer, at the shown price. They will rush to the computer and find it too. Then they have no argument that you should pay them more.

But again, I don't worry about them making a reasonable profit or beating them down until it becomes a winner/loser game. Not at all. Too much stress, it's rude and I don't want them to go out of business.

[Perryb67]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Perry,

The term "unrealistic fear" of turbos has piqued my interest.

Not sure what that means. Are they mean? Are they scary?

I said, "There seems to be an unrealistic fear of turbos, but these are highly refined turbos, not the turbos of the 60's." For most here, this would be self-explanatory. Again, read the thread.

Perry

[Steve Carlson]

Originally Posted by Raspy

I'm also considering a new Accord with Honda's 2.0 liter turbo 4. At least with Honda, I know it's very unlikely they haven't worked out all the bugs before selling them.

You would think Honda is pretty safe, but they have had a ton of problems with the 1.5L turbo in the CRV. Don't know if any of it translates over to the Accord though.

[Glenn Baglo]

Originally Posted by Raspy

shop the price with the owner of the car dealer, or the fleet manager, and nobody else. Don't even talk to anyone else there, except to ask where the owner or fleet manager is.

I bought my RAV4 at Jim Pattison Toyota, which is next door to Jim Pattison Hyundai, near Jim Pattison Kia, etc. etc.
I'd like to see you negotiate with Jim Pattison.


James Allen Pattison, OC OBC (born October 1, 1928) is a Canadian business magnate, investor and philanthropist. He is based in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he holds the position of chief executive officer, chairman and sole owner of the Jim Pattison Group, Canada's second largest privately-held company, with more than 45,000 employees worldwide, and annual sales of $10.1 billion.[2]

[Raspy]

What is the difference between a 60's turbo and a new one, besides the double scroll, the water cooled bearing, the sliding ring brake, the variable vane geometry or the controlled waste gate?

The theory is still the same. The rest is for throttle response, engine management, emissions, braking or possible longevity. Those are good things. And they are still simple devices.

The main fear might be the cost of replacement, or the cost of replacing both of them on an Eco, but is seems unlikely.

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

I'd like to see you negotiate with Jim Pattison.

Why would I? And why would he? He is obviously able to make lots of money off of others.

[Cliff Hotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Perry,

I found a Honda dealer next door to a Subaru dealer and they openly complained that they could not sell the Accords because of the competition. Hmmm, I thought. Nice bargaining chip. He had no idea I would never buy a Subaru. And sure enough the owner went out of his way to offer me the best deal I had seen, by far, on a Accord.


But again, I don't worry about them making a reasonable profit or beating them down until it becomes a winner/loser game. Not at all. Too much stress, it's rude and I don't want them to go out of business.

🤔 I'm curious, nothing at all to do with this post, but why would you never buy a Subaru?

[C&G in FL]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Perry,

The term "unrealistic fear" of turbos has piqued my interest.

Not sure what that means. Are they mean? Are they scary?

What I see is people claiming the Ecoboost is the greatest thing ever.

John,

It is interesting that people perceive things differently. You have stated what “you see.”
What I saw was an OP stating that she was a “Ford” person asking about the reliability of the EB and if it would make a good tow vehicle. Some people who actually own them chimed in with overwhelmingly positive comments. Then I saw a bunch of posts from people with little or no personal EB experience commenting why the EB is troublesome with implications that it will break down in relatively short order.
You yourself questioned the appropriateness of turbos on small gasoline engines. I understand that some people rely on personal experiences, sometimes decades old, color their opinions. Many of us have been “guilty” of it at one time or another. I am in no way questioning or criticizing you perceptions or your past experience. You come across as a knowledgeable guy. But I for one am not going to avoid a cruise because I don’t want to die falling off the edge of the Earth because my ancestors thought it was flat. And I have stored automotive batteries directly on a concrete floor. Nor do I wish to have a tooth pulled without Novocaine because that was the standard way it was done 100 years ago. My point is that up to date experience trumps out of date experience, and those who post comments with no personal experience are contributing answers or advice of questionable validity to the OP.

[Cliff Hotchkiss]

Originally Posted by CPW

John,

It is interesting that people perceive things differently. My point is that up to date experience trumps out of date experience, and those who post comments with no personal experience are contributing answers or advice of questionable validity to the OP.

🤔 Exactly 👍

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Raspy

Perry,

The term "unrealistic fear" of turbos has piqued my interest.

Not sure what that means. Are they mean? Are they scary?

What I see is people claiming the Ecoboost is the greatest thing ever. In some ways it is, but certainly not in every way. And other manufacturer's, like BMW and Honda, are doing the same thing. The turbo is what makes it go, but the rest of the engine's design is based on how to make it actually work. The trick is not the turbo, it's the rest of the design, that is the tricky part. And with constant upgrading, they seem to be getting them worked out. I'm also considering a new Accord with Honda's 2.0 liter turbo 4. At least with Honda, I know it's very unlikely they haven't worked out all the bugs before selling them.

Either way, small turbocharged engines are the way of the future, until we figure out a better design than the common four stroke piston engine with poppet valves. They work well, but only because they have been refined for well over 100 years. But they are too complicated and way too inefficient.

I've been driving diesel vehicles for many years and would not consider one without a turbo. VW, Mercedes and Cummins have all been successful because of their turbos and I've never had one fail.

So buy a Honda if you can trust them, Ford has earned my trust and I have the experience and the records to justify it.

You are right, turbos seem to be the way of the future and the SOBs (like Honda) are quickly trying to play catch-up to Ford's leadership!

Cars and light trucks are remarkably reliable across the board today so it is reasonable to buy most any brand.


While writing this, I just saw a Chevy commercial which said...
"Why do we switch (to Chevy) ?... just look at it." referring to the styling, not the drivetrain. That is ironic when you consider that styling is pretty much the same from one make to another!

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Hotchkiss

🤔 I'm curious, nothing at all to do with this post, but why would you never buy a Subaru?

Cliff,

I have nothing against Subaru at all. I was only making the point that having a Subaru dealer next door gave additional bargaining power when buying a Honda. That additional bargaining power came because Subarus are so good and are offered in AWD.

It was simply a weakness in the Honda line, that they pointed out to me, and that caused them to reduce their prices.

[Raspy]

Carl,

You make some very good points and clearly see my bias in some posts. I'll own up to it happily.

I don't want to whip a dead horse here, but I'll clarify a bit further.

These new turboed aluminum gas burners are a wonder. Performance with durability that was never available until recently. And only now because of several breakthrough achievements. I've carefully watched their development for a few years and think it's great.

I'm also an old diesel gearhead. I see so many people celebrating the new Ecoboost engines and eager to have one, but who have very little knowledge about how they work or their track record. That's fine too, as long as the engines do hold up under heavy use. They seem to be establishing a good record for themselves. Here's where my bias comes in and this is for full disclosure purposes only, so take it for what it's worth. I want to be cautious with this technology because it is new, is constantly being upgraded to fix it and make it better and I have a disappointing record with this manufacturer. As an example, I saw Ford rush their diesels onto the market under heavy competition and a desire to stay ahead in that field. The result was the largest warrantee disaster in Fords history and the eventual building of those engines under court order. These are facts and not speculation, and admittedly, they are not the Ecoboost. But the marketing strategy and development process is the same. Ford went through a major revision of the 3.5 in 2017 to improve it's durability and to get better mileage. So waiting until then to buy one was lucky.

I've had two bad Ford engines and two of my buddies did too. My neighbor just sold his Ecoboost after being stranded by it for the third time. Now, I realize that this is not a huge market analysis, but it is enough to make me pause. And it's enough to make me not jump on the band wagon and tell others how great they have proven to be. It reminds me of the diesel fiasco.

Finally, I hope they are great because this technology is the way of the future. Light, powerful, efficient. Excellent. And as far as Honda goes, if they make a car that suits my purposes, I'll buy it with confidence because my limited knowledge of them is that they do very good engineering, have a great reputation and their products are refined before they go on sale.

One of the things I, as a designer and tinkerer, appreciate, is simplicity of design. The best machines are the ones that do their jobs with the fewest parts. Not to give up any functions, but to achieve an elegance of design. Simplicity is both beautiful and difficult to achieve. Sometimes I'll marvel at a machine that performs duties in a way that is so simple I can't figure it out, and I know then I've found another fine example of this goal. One of my best friends is an accomplished mechanical engineer. He and I go round and round about how to keep it simple and what really works. He wants to design elaborate fixes for simple problems, and I point out ways to do it cheaper and and simpler.

I've been criticized for critisizing the V6 design. It's more that I look at them askance and wish for something better. I've owned two of them and have studied the design and the reasons for it. In-line fours are very simple. V6s package better than V8s, but are more complicated than 4s and have balance considerations. They also have better overlapping power strokes compared to four's. V8s are very well balanced and run very well, but are larger in dimensions. In-line 6s are balanced very well, are simple in design, easy to work on, but don't package well in front drive applications. BMW has used a lot of in-line sixes. The 5 cylinder in-lne is an interesting compromise and I've had a couple of those too. My Mercedes 5 cylinder turbodiesel has a lot of character and is just fun to have. A full sized luxury Mercedes that gets 30 MPG if driven reasonably. All while delivering it's own distinctive sound. Decisions, decisions.

At first, V6s were just attempts to reduce engine size, fit those smaller engines in tighter places, and maybe get better mileage. Manufacturers were able to just remove two of the eight cylinders from a V8 and they had a marketable V6. Chrysler did this with their 318 and it was terrible. It still got bad mileage, and had the added feature of vibrating like a paint mixer. Buick tried it and had an engine that fired unevenly. People didn't like it. Neither of those attempts were about good running. The inherent problem was that a 90 degree cylinder layout fires unevenly and a 60 degree layout is out of balance. Take your choice. This was worked on and improved by making offset crank throws, but the traditional counterweights don't work for total balancing. Next they came up with "flying arms" to educe the problems, and also balance shafts. Ford used a balance shaft in their 3.8 that was set in the engine valley. This worked but added weight, complexity and a parasitic loss. Now days, after lot of work on the subject, the combination of offset pins, flying arms, careful bore and stroke relationships, limited overall displacement and vibration dampening engine mounts, these engines are user friendly. But they are still buzzy. Then, in order to get higher performance they have overhead cams with phasers that are driven by a set of chains running frantically up to each head and back. So, bottom line, it's been a hard process to get them to be user friendly and they are complicated. They have twice as many heads, camshafts and turbos as an inline 6. They work well in their current form, but are complicated and difficult to work on.

Combine all of that development to make a complicated design acceptable, then make it as light as possible, then make it into a turbocharged gas burner, and you have quite an animal.

The reason gas engines and turbocharging have been so hard to match up and get a lot of reliable power is that gas is mixed with air and compressed before being ignited with a spark. The fuel mix has traditionally been ready to burn before being compressed. So if you turbocharge the engine you force more air and fuel into the cylinder before compression. Then when compressed there is much higher pressure, and much more heat. This leads to pre-ignition and severely limits the power you can get with this process. Direct injection solved this by adding the fuel during compression instead of before compression.. That leads to it's own set of problems, and so a port injector was also added to help keep the valves clean and to limit the time required to add sufficient fuel at high RPM. Each solution leads to a new problem. As you know, diesels never had the problem of pre-ignition, so they can be boosted to the physical limits of the pistons, rods and cranks, etc. Diesels are a perfect match for turbocharging and can be done with old school technology, especially if they have direct injection where the fuel is injected into the combustion chamber instead of into a pre-combustion chamber. Cummins does this and was a leader in this field. Mercedes and International used the pre-combustion tech, and the result was lower power and harder starting. This is why Ford 7.3 diesels are hard to start and must have glow plugs. Great engines, but not real powerful. And it's part of the reason they had to go all-in in the diesel wars with new designs. That lead to the warrantee disaster I mentioned.

Sorry to be so long winded.