F-150 3.5 EcoBoost?

[Jon in AZ]

Recent vehicles in our stable include a 2000 CRV, a 2000 Camry, a 2000 Sienna, a 2006 CRV, and a 2011 Pilot. 850K miles total over 19 years; most were sold at around 200K with everything working and no oil use between changes. With two kids approaching college, I’m going for 300K on our current vehicles... LOL!

Mechanical repairs other than scheduled maintenance: sliding door latch and tailgate latch on the Sienna ($750), lower compression bushings on the Pilot (covered under a warranty extension). That’s it.

The real cost in newer vehicles is scheduled maintenance, and it can vary greatly among vehicles and drivetrains. Our Pilot requires a $1200 timing belt service every 110K. The CRV 2.4L is chain driven, so not much required but to change fluids. It’s been one of the lowest overall cost vehicles I’ve ever owned.

Wonder how the V8 and the EB compare in terms of scheduled maintenance?

[Cliff Hotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Recent vehicles in our stable include a 2000 CRV, a 2000 Camry, a 2000 Sienna, a 2006 CRV, and a 2011 Pilot. 850K miles total over 19 years; most were sold at around 200K with everything working. With two kids approaching college, I’m going for 300K on our current vehicles... LOL!

Mechanical repairs other than scheduled maintenance: sliding door latch and tailgate latch on the Sienna ($750), lower compression bushings on the Pilot (covered under a warranty extension). That’s it.

The real cost in newer vehicles is scheduled maintenance, and it can vary greatly among vehicles and drivetrains. Our Pilot requires a $1200 timing belt service every 110K. The CRV 2.4L is chain driven, so not much required but to change fluids. It’s been one of the lowest cost vehicles I’ve ever owned. New CRV’s now have 1.6L turbocharged engines and CVT transmissions. Progress?

Wonder how the V8 and the EB compare in terms of scheduled maintenance?

🤔There is no specific maintenance on the turbochargers. I would think the replacement intervals would be comparable, 100k spark plugs, fluids and drive belts 150k. This is normal operation for severe duty intervals are shortened. Oil changes depends on usage and vehicle will tell you. This is from my 2016 owners manual. Just got back from 3500 mi trip, mostly in the fast lane, towing at 70 mph at times and see no indication that motor used any oil. The only thing needing topping up was windshield washer. Love that little 2.7 😎

[steve dunham]

One nice thing of many about a free market economy is that if it’s my money , I get to choose . My current vehicle has a V8 engine and my next vehicle will have a V8 engine . I choose not to purchase an eco- boost engine and feel no obligation to explain my choice . People are free to conjecture on my reasoning
I always hear tested or proven technology right before they issue the recall .

[Glenn Baglo]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I choose not to purchase an eco- boost engine and feel no obligation to explain my choice .

What's this then?

[Bruce H]

I had an ecoboost for four years and 100,000 miles and I really liked it. No engine problems of any kind. And I pulled a 7,000 lb trailer a lot of miles with it.



Now to change the subject just a little, I don't know about Ford specifically but you can expect to see more proprietary computer controlled engines (and other components) in new vehicles. By proprietary I mean the manufacturer owns the rights to the engine computer and the vehicle owner doesn't. And he/she (or a regular repair shop) can not access it for diagnosis, repairs or adjustments. Couple that with proprietary replacement parts that can only be obtained from the manufacturer's dealer network and you have a recipe for much increased revenue when the vehicle/part fails. You can expect to see a lot more of that in the future.



I will cite the following example of what I am talking about:


I was in the trucking business and I keep up on the various developments in heavy trucks. In years past any brand of heavy truck came with an engine from one of three engine manufacturers. The three being Caterpillar, Detroit or Cummins. One major manufacturer is Pacarr. They make Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks. So whether it was a Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner or IH it could have any one of the three brands of engines in it. They are all good engines. Caterpillar has recently stopped supplying truck engines. New trucks still come with a Detroit or Cummins engine). They also come with a 500,000 mile warranty on the engines and drive trains. Any truck repair shop could/can work on any of the above three engine brands because the electronic controls are not proprietary and after market replacement parts are available. That competition serves to hold down the prices for "OEM" manufacturers replacement parts. Now Paccar has introduced their own "proprietary" engine. It can not be worked on by anyone but a Paccar shop.



When you consider the torture that heavy trucks endure pulling 80,000 pounds a half million miles, the dependability boggles the mind.



So we know the automotive technology exists to make a vehicle that will be dependable for a half a million miles. Unfortunately that technology is not applied to the manufacture of regular cars and pickup trucks that consumers purchase. It is too profitable for the automotive manufactures to sell the consumer a new vehicle when his old vehicle starts having problems. OR charge him a fortune to repair it when he has to have it repaired. And that is WAY before half a million miles. The exception to this method of operation was the old Checker taxi cabs. They would run a million miles. They made them so good that they ran themselves out of business.


Now I will attempt to tie this all together and prove my point about proprietary computers and vehicle components that force the vehicle owner to take repairs to the dealer:


Around 2012 or 2013 Paccar began manufacturing their own engines and putting them in the Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks. They still offered the other three major engine brands. The Paccar engine is admittedly a better more dependable engine than the other three brands but it is "proprietary". The only shops that can get the computer software to analyze and diagnose them is a Paccar shop. That is ok as long as it is under warranty. Paccar engines also require many proprietary maintenance parts (such as oil filters, which are three times as expensive). A Heavy truck will run two million miles or more but after 500,000 miles the repair and maintenance costs per mile start going up. A truck with 750,000 miles on it is still a good valuable truck but it is going to cost more to run it because parts are beginning to wear out. They are all replaceable but that costs money. The major trucking companies like the Paccar engines because they are good and plan on trading their trucks off when they approach 500,000 miles (usually in three to five years) thus avoiding the increased maintenance costs and down time that will occur the next 500,000 miles.


Now here is the rub, and you can look it up yourself:


A new truck will cost from $120,000 to $160,000 or more. There is a used truck market. A used truck with 500,000 miles on it will generally sell for $45,000 to $75,000.
You can look up the price of used trucks for sale on line. One of the sites is "Truck Paper". They list hundreds of them of all makes, ages and mileage. If a Peterbilt or Kenworth truck with 500,000 miles on it has the admittedly better Paccar engine in it, it will be priced at $10,000 to $20,000 LESS than the same truck with a Detroit or Cummins engine. That is because the Paccar engine MUST go to the Paccar shop for work because of the proprietary software. And the work will cost SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than taking a Detroit or Cummins engine in to another shop for repair or maintenance. That is the free market at work.



Another proprietary related software problem is being experienced by farmers who are having a real problem with it in farm tractors. Especially John Deere. Deere owns the software and the farmer does not. The tractor will quit in the field and it must be returned to the John Deere shop for diagnosis and repair. That often takes days. Planting dates are missed and crops are lost because of it.



Just a side note: You can go to an auto parts store (or on line) and buy a a little electronic car analyzer which can be plugged into a plug under the dash. It will give you codes that tell you what parts are failing etc. If a manufacturer really wanted to help their customers they would build an analyzer into the dash of the vehicle and the owner could figure out for himself why the "check engine" light is on. (Of course only when the car is in park).



Now lets talk about computer flight controls on 737 Max airplanes.

[Raspy]

Cliff,

Your picture helps make my point about overly complicated designs, that are in a quest for a few more percentage points of horsepower vs weight. Not all v8s are aluminum, double overhead cam with VVT.

I hope we will eventually find a better solution that favors simplicity instead of complication, to achieve our goals. Not saying we need Model T engines. And not saying turbos are complicated. Not at all. Just saying that if you can get results with a simpler design, why choose a more complicated design? The Achates Engine is a step in that direction because it eliminate the ridiculous complication of the valve train on modern engines. We are all so used to 35% efficiency, and having a transmission to adapt the engine to the wheels. It would be nice if we could do better. And as Leonardo Da Vinci said: "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". It's a goal I strived for in all my designs for many years.

As far as towing with simplicity goes, and just to make a comparison with the picture you posted, look at a Cummins design. Much fewer parts, no flailing chains and can be run at full throttle all day if needed, while getting more HP per gallon of fuel. The question isn't whether it will get through the warrantee period or not, it's more about how far beyond 500,000 miles will it go while towing. In the 10,000 mile oil change interval, not one of mine has ever used a quart of oil in over 500,000 miles total on the three of them. As the trucks deteriorated around them, they each sold easily and ran as good or better than when new.

As kind of a gearhead, and one who fixes my own stuff as much as possible, and one who appreciates performance, I applaud engines that run well. I also like turbos and have been fascinated by the injection system re-design that has allowed such great gas engine power gains from boosting. I'm not afraid of turbos at all. In fact, I've studied them for a long time and wrote to Clessie Cummins when I was 17 about the turbos installed on their Cummins engines, and why they worked so well.

BTW, I'd like to have a Merlin too. Where can I find a tow vehicle with one under the hood, as you mentioned. Hmmm, just as I thought. Well, I can fantasize too. I'd like to have 1,000 ft lbs of torque and get 60 MPG, with a lifetime warrantee and initial cost of under $10,000. Just saw one the other day, but it was a purple one and I wanted red, so the search continues.

[Raspy]

Bruce,

It is interesting how one can buy a vehicle and not own the computer, and/or not have access to it's programming. That has been the case for some time with modern diesels. On the one hand, it protects the manufacturer from damage cause by tuners, and it retains the emissions compliance, but it it weird to buy something and not own it or have access to it. Aftermarket manufacturers are always trying to crack the codes.

The computer flight controls on the 737 is an interesting subject and begins to reveal a severe breakdown in the design and sales philosophy of Boeing.

As I understand it, by trying to save the basic 737 design, but update it, they had to reposition the larger diameter engines because of a ground clearance problem. The new engines are 22" larger in diameter and the plane needs a minimum of 17" ground clearance. Moving the engines changed the weight balance. The more powerful engine would force the nose up during high thrust and potentially stall the plane. The automatic MCAS system would intervene and bring the nose down automatically. It relied on a single sensor. Boeing wanted to charge more for a switch to disable it in emergencies and some airlines didn't want that extra charge, such as the Ethiopian Airlines plane. The training for the Max 8 didn't include familiarizing pilots with this system or instructions on how to turn it off. So, when the sensor failed, the planes could go into a nose down attitude that was not recoverable.

Apparently, the day before the Lion Air crash, an off duty pilot got a ride home on that plane. It acted up, he knew how to disable the MCAS system, and saved them from a crash. But that plane was allowed to take off again and did crash. I read the pilots were pulling back on the wheel as hard as they could and said a prayer before the crash.

To me it's outrageous that Boeing had only one sensor, with no redundancy, that the switch to turn it off was an option, and that the training didn't include how the system worked. And the whole thing was only needed because of trying to save money on the new design that saved as much of the older 737 as possible, but threw off the flying character.

Second, after a failure and near crash, only saved by luck, the airline didn't ground the plane. A tragic and inexcusable error.