JExpedition07
That One Member
A big part of the smaller turbocharged engines across the board are cost savings as well.
Drivers turbo replacement...116,000 mile report.
- Thread starter Muddy Bean
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Look I'm not an EcoBoost owner so I have absolutely no right to comment, but I thought it was coolant cooled not oil? Does oil flow through there?
oh wait never mind
https://www.motor.com/magazine-summary/dissecting-fords-ecoboost-engine/
I'll go back to my V8 5.4's and keep quiet
You would have to do the math and see (esp is towing a lot) at what point the turbo fuel savings is offset by a turbo replacement vs a V8 lets say and lower mileage.
Then you could make an educated gamble on whether turbo would fail at or before that number of miles or not.
JExpedition07
That One Member
I’m talking about manufacturing savings not fuel, the MPGs are pretty close and negligible. Electric power steering vs hydraulic is likely the main small difference as far as that goes. It costs more to make a larger cast iron V8 than a smaller aluminum V6 with turbos. You have 2 more cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, etc to make. Same thing comparing a V6 to a turbo I-4.
Last edited:
1955moose
Full Access Members
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Posts
- 6,004
- Reaction score
- 1,351
What's funny to me, is back in 1974, cars and trucks were reduced by 50 percent or more of their horsepower and torque, just to meet these new emmisions standards. Can you imagine how manufacturers would have gotten on the band wagon way back in the sixties, if they knew what was going to hit them like a lead enema. They could have started with fuel or direct injection, computer controlled cars. Basic computers were around as early as the late 60's, for fuel injected foreign vehicles. It's funny how everyone does the ostrich head in the sand bit. It took 45 plus years to not only bring back the power, but exceed it by 50 percent, and make em run so clean, you can be right along side a 740 hp car, and not even smell it. Why do we have to destroy this 3rd rock from the sun, then panic, and try to reverse everything. We're only going to get so many do overs, then it's time to move to Mars, or some other crap hole. I guarantee you, you won't be able to cruise around their in your 400 hp twin turbo kiddy hauler!
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Sent from my N9131 using Tapatalk
Nope.
When buying an F150 the 5.0 V8 is a $1,995 option. The 3.5L Ecoboost is a $2,595 option.
JExpedition07
That One Member
That doesn’t mean much on cost of production. That is sales placement. The 6.2L V8 was a significant upcharge over the Ecoboost in F-150. That doesn’t necessarily translate to cost of production. Just as it doesn’t for the 5.0 or eco.
A Cast Iron V8 like the 5.4L with two more cylinders with more pistons, connecting rods, etc generally will cost more to produce than an aluminum V6....just the way it goes. A product that requires more raw material and resources costs more to make. Not knocking anyone’s taste just stating why some things are done. Same reason why the 4.6 and 5.4 Tritons have aluminum valve covers and steel oil pans compared to now the modular engines use plastic instead....cost and weight savings. Not to say it’s a bad thing just saying it’s a thing. Anyway, I love that big hunk of cast iron under my hood.
Last edited:
I believe the EcoBoost has an expensive, graphite Iron(CGI) composite block. The 5.0l is aluminum head/block and sounds awesome. I doubt two additional pistons and 8 valves, cost Ford more than two turbo chargers. The EcoBoost's exhaust, sounds like a Windstar, with a bad muffler. The EcoBoost sole purpose was to save fuel. It 'can' get about 1 MPG more(vs the 5.0l) and lower Ford's C.A.F.E. The non turbo 3.5l is still 300hp. Is 75hp worth risking out of warranty repairs? Ford wants V8 and diesel buyers, moving up to the F250 or Super Duty. Last time at the dealer, there was an EcoBoost 'rebate', on the $50K F150. I walked away laughing.
Last edited:
JExpedition07
That One Member
The 3.5 Ecoboost uses an aluminum block same as 5.0 Coyote.....a Modular Ford V8 in this class hasn’t had 16 valves since 2004. They are 24 valves beyond 04’. The current modular 5.0 is 32 valves.
Interesting topic though, the 3.5 Eco and 5.0 V8 do have 4 cams instead of 2...that’s another expense, along with the extra valve.
The ecoboost was in part about saving fuel and costs but they did so in a way that made a great engine with great torque! The 3.5 NA is a laughing stock if you’ve ever driven one. They lack any form of torque and it’s peak hp is at 7,000 RPM.....it would be hard pressed to try and keep up with a 4.6L 3V empty and haul with them and the 4.6L with its torque advantage outshines the V6 big time despite the close hp. Once you introduce those two turbos it’s a game changer....should also mention ecoboost has different internals.
Last edited:
Turbo motors have quite a bit of extras to go along with them as well that dependent upon the nonboosted motor may or may not need.
Forged internal cost much more than cast parts, you have intercoolers, intercooler piping, bypass valves, wastegates, and actuators, then let alone the turbos (most cases these day 2). Then you generally have to have a bit more of a sophisticated enginmanagment system which calls for more sensors.
Forged internal cost much more than cast parts, you have intercoolers, intercooler piping, bypass valves, wastegates, and actuators, then let alone the turbos (most cases these day 2). Then you generally have to have a bit more of a sophisticated enginmanagment system which calls for more sensors.
jeff kushner
Full Access Members
Since I "do math" for a living (Mr Manziello would have been proud), I love these discussions.
If the debate is "which engine costs more/less" then don't forget to add in development/engineering cost and extrapolate across the number of engines produced to date. This tends to typically run at a higher % of an engines cost over the first 3 yrs of production, makes sense, right? How long has the 5.4 been around vs the 3.5? This can also skew your results if you are solely looking for dead costs of manufacturing.
My guess is that JE is correct, the material costs(pistons, rods block material,cams, etc) & their associated labor probably outweigh the 3rd party vendor deal for a half million turbochargers at a huge discount added to their other assoc. costs like the wastegates, valves and tubing.
The more modern computer control sys is installed on all vehicles with varying degrees of utilization by model/trim, so that's a tricky one to quantify because the base software allows for boosted or N/A operations on the same platform.
The thing is, don't we really need to know the number of steps in the production line, number of operations to quantify the labor for each? I'm not sure.....
I remember my fiance in the 70's had a '75 Bonneville....last of the Big Boats. I forget the engine size but it was a big v8, maybe a 390 or 402?.....but when I pulled the heads to replace the hyd lifters, I found it had teeny tiny valves....no wonder it barely had 200HP!! That was the 1st step taken to reduce emissions....reducing valve size it was reasoned, would work because a car can't burn what it's not able to breath.
jeff
If the debate is "which engine costs more/less" then don't forget to add in development/engineering cost and extrapolate across the number of engines produced to date. This tends to typically run at a higher % of an engines cost over the first 3 yrs of production, makes sense, right? How long has the 5.4 been around vs the 3.5? This can also skew your results if you are solely looking for dead costs of manufacturing.
My guess is that JE is correct, the material costs(pistons, rods block material,cams, etc) & their associated labor probably outweigh the 3rd party vendor deal for a half million turbochargers at a huge discount added to their other assoc. costs like the wastegates, valves and tubing.
The more modern computer control sys is installed on all vehicles with varying degrees of utilization by model/trim, so that's a tricky one to quantify because the base software allows for boosted or N/A operations on the same platform.
The thing is, don't we really need to know the number of steps in the production line, number of operations to quantify the labor for each? I'm not sure.....
I remember my fiance in the 70's had a '75 Bonneville....last of the Big Boats. I forget the engine size but it was a big v8, maybe a 390 or 402?.....but when I pulled the heads to replace the hyd lifters, I found it had teeny tiny valves....no wonder it barely had 200HP!! That was the 1st step taken to reduce emissions....reducing valve size it was reasoned, would work because a car can't burn what it's not able to breath.
jeff
NASCAR Mike
Full Access Members
Petroleum motor oils are prone to boil or vaporize within the normal operating temperature of the engine. This is commonly referred to as breakdown. Once the oil begins to breakdown, it usually results in oxidation, creating hardened oil deposits -more commonly know as sludge- in your engines components. Synthetics by contrast, are able to withstand greater heat temperatures, resulting in greater protection against breakdown
Conventinal (dino) oil breaks down at 240F. Synthetic oil keeps going until 500F. I think you will be fine if you idle your Expy for less than a minute before you turn it off. It's very unlikely the synthetic oil will breakdown if you don't.
Conventinal (dino) oil breaks down at 240F. Synthetic oil keeps going until 500F. I think you will be fine if you idle your Expy for less than a minute before you turn it off. It's very unlikely the synthetic oil will breakdown if you don't.
It takes up to 30 minutes for a turbo to cool. They can be 1200 degrees. One or two minutes will not matter. Locomotive diesel engines have a 30 minute battery, oil pump delay or they are left running. A turbo is always spinning at high rpm regardless of throttle. The huge turbos on locomotives still fail. It's not a 'lifetime' part. That is the problem with them.
True but on an average turbo car unless you are racing on the street, by the time you come off highway...stop at a light or two, turn into the parking lot, wait for people to get out of your way, find a spot and park....it has cooled to a very respectable safe level to turn off.
Synthetic oil is KING in turbos though.
All true but we would have to make some parameters as to what or who's cost we are takling about.
If ford can save money on a V6 vs GMs V8....is the price lower for the comparable GM suv? I think not.
If they can save money they just make more profit.
I was referring to the owner's cost over a ownership period of a set number of years.
If you buy new and warrant takes car of for x years, how long you keep it and at what point the turbo (in this case ) fails, what it cost to repair.....vs the cost of extra fuel you would be putting in a Suburban over the years with no turbo to fail or replace.
We were talking about fuel savings I though since someone said the 3.5 shines in mileage or under towing or something like that.
I don't care much what the company costs are; just the cost of the vehicle. This is just for these kind of comparisons as I will never buy a new car. I'm just too cheap!
It is also a cost concern when buying used vehicles. When you are considering one with a known history of certain failures or needed repairs, you have to take this into consideration with a vehicle you are looking at and whether or not these repairs have already been done and what the mileage is on the vehicle.
Like when I bought a used navigator.
It has factory air susp on it.
That is a negotiation point. Anyone with any knowledge of these cars knows they will all need repairs eventually and the repairs are typically very expensive. People often put 2500 into sinking navigators. Big rip off but that's what occurs.
Where as an Expedition without air susp can very well last the entire ownership and never have new shocks/struts/springs replaced.
So you have to figure this into the price if you are buying an air susp suv. Even if it works fine when they are selling it....don't care. It will need attention sooner rather than later.
I would rather not have air susp and not have turbos on daily drivers and work vehicles.
This is always what I come back to.
Ford: Stop forcing me to have these things if I want your certain products.
Why can's a navigator NOT have air susp?? Give me an option.
Give me a V8 or non turbo option.
Do you know how many people buy GM or Dodge or other JUST because the ford has a V6 with twin turbos??? Quite a few!
Brand loyalty only goes so far. Too far with most people unfortunately.
To add my bit, my 5.3l v8 in my suburban got better gas mileage than my 3.5l EcoBoost expedition. Not sure what fuel savings you speak of. I drive both trucks the same way almost always loaded up with my family of 8.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
HA! You just compared an Ecoboost to a locomotive!
And here I thought you were an Ecoboost hater!
Yes. I've heard it both ways. Many people say the V8 gets the same mileage or even better. While most people who say the EcoBoost is better are EcoBoost owners.
I can absolutely guarantee you'll never have to replace a turbo on your 5.3..
Sadly my trans went out on my suburban and couldn't afford a Chevy this time
I hope my savings now isn't gonna bite me in the end......Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
20yrs as locomotive Engineer. Plenty of experience with diesel. I believe they use a clutch turbo. Both GE and EMD are both turbo charged. There are stickers by control panel, warning about hot shutdown. I have walked through a 'covered wagon', running in notch 8. The 3' turbo is not red hot. They have hundreds of gallons of oil and massive,multiple filters I seen a few turbos fail. Oil, black smoke and fire out the stack. I am not a fan of the EcoBoost. I don't want one in a Expedition. People say they are decent, but not fuel savers. Based on Ford's past engine fails(ejecting spark plugs, plastic manifold), I don't trust Ford to make a problem free one.
Similar threads
