2000 EB to 2017 eco boost - hesitant

[LokiWolf]

I deleted it because it was a long post... Andy those sales figures you post mean nothing to this conversation that's including all powertrains. I'll repost it I hammered down against a new expy out of the tolls at 20mph because he was trying to fly past me threw the EZpass lane to the left of me to cut me out... there was barely any difference in speed at all and I won because I maintained a straight line and he had to hit the breaks where it reduces to two lanes... he didn't have the speed to overtake me and flipped out when he lost and told me I was number one with his finger. He may have been faster over a long haul but from 20-80 mph he couldn't pass me and he had a long run to do it, and oh how much he tried to no success. 0-60 on 07 is 7.5 seconds the new one is 6.5 seconds that's not two seconds FYI. That 6.2 is now available in the Tahoe RST btw sick looking truck... the difference there is that powertrain will have double or triple the life of ecoboost. I have never heard anyone down talk the 5.0 coyote everyone says how great it is.

2007 Ford Expedition Limited EL 4X4 0-60 mph 8.9 | Quarter mile 16.6 - Motor Week actually has it at 9.1

2015 Ford Expedition EL 4X4 0-60 mph 6.5 | Quarter mile 15.1 -

2.4 Seconds...Sorry. I can find no documented instrument test from any of the many that publish that puts the 2007 Expedition EL ANYWHERE near 8.0, yet 7.5, regardless of EL, No EL, 4x2 or 4x4.

I still promise you, a 15+ would walk away from you with ease from a stop. Add a couple thousand pounds to the bumper, and it would be like you were standing still because the Peak torque is low and flat on the 3.5EB.

I HAVE NEVER said the 5.0 was a bad motor.

the difference there is that powertrain will have double or triple the life of ecoboost.

Huh, so just because it has a turbo it won't last as long? You do realize that all over the road trucks have Turbos? Some have Millions of miles. Adding a Turbo does not mean it won't last long. There are MANY other factors. Modern turbos and engine management remove A LOT of the shortcomings from 20/30 years ago. These are NOT your grandfathers turbo motors.

I am done with this conversation...it is beating a dead horse. I drive one, and love it. Loved it so much, that my DD is a 2016 Edge Sport with the 2.7EB. It is a rocket!

 

[jeff kushner]

"The 'blow by" that gets drawn into motors PCV system, has moisture and crap that can leave deposits on turbo fins. Too much build up will unbalance the turbo and kill it. Shutting down a hot engine, before turbo cools is not good. The oil protecting it, stops flowing and burns off. That creates a dry start conditions and will lead to turbo a fail. Just changing oil, before required will not help. Synthetic oil and a "catch can", is the way to go."

This is where a clear understanding of these systems is required. The turbo's are actually situated to enhance capillary attraction. This is where the hot turbo body causes the continued circulation of the engine oil after the engine has shut down. All we are worried about is having oil at the shaft bearing surface. The "reserve loop" in the oil line ensures that the bearing is flooded with oil even before the engine starts.....

By using the thinking above, the 200K miles on my supercharged Mercedes engine should have it running horrible with no boost and clouds of burnt oil coming from it, but it doesn't. It runs great....and yes, they have their issues too with oil being sucked past the oil separator and into the intercooler too....but guess what, it doesn't leave deposits on the fins that ever cause issues. Those blades as they're called, spin roughly 200,000RPM....nothing sticks to them!

jeff

 

[JExpedition07]

The 2007 is 7.5 seconds buddy... I posted pics to make it easy for you. I don't drive an EL don't know why you keep saying that. been there done it... the ecoboost couldn't walk away from me or let alone get in front of me... certainly didn't feel like I was sitting still looking at him in the rear view mirror, but this was starting rolling at 20MPH. I'm sure he would have been faster over distance but not when it counted like in real world scenarios. There you go again comparing your ecoboost to diesels.... can't be done different animals stop trying to compare it to Cummins and powerstrokes they aren't the same animal. They have 860 lb ft of torque dude your seriously trying that? 6.7 LITERS OF DISPLACEMENT and a totally different engine design all the way through made for longevity. Ford won't put ecoboost in super duty over a NA V8 for gas and they have reasons why.

 

[LokiWolf]

View attachment 21613 View attachment 21614

The 2007 is 7.5 seconds buddy... I posted pics to make it easy for you. I don't drive an EL don't know why you keep saying that. been there done it... the ecoboost couldn't walk away from me or let alone get in front of me... certainly didn't feel like I was sitting still looking at him in the rear view mirror, but this was starting rolling at 20MPH. There you go again comparing your ecoboost to diesels.... can't be done different animals stop trying to compare it to Cummins and powerstrokes they aren't the same animal. They have 860 lb ft of torque dude your seriously trying that? Ford won't put ecoboost in super duty over a NA V8.

I can post pics countering that...including Motor Week, one of the most respected auto publications out there. They don't use user tests, they test the actual vehicle themselves with actual instruments, not a stop watch on a phone. So your data and my data don't match. I check 3 places, and they ALL put the 2007 at high 8, low 9. Your ONE source put it at 7.5. I used the EL 4x4, because It in theory is the heaviest and slowest, and where I could find a number for both a 2007 and 15+ on the same site. I also have an EL, so it applies to what I know.
2007 EL 4x4 - Motor Week
2015 4x4 - Car and Driver
0-60 Times Website

OMG, I am using the Diesels as proof of Turbo longevity! How can you not get it...Dense? Where do you think Direct Injection came from...Diesels! Same tech. EGT Temps on diesels are HIGHER, and there is the added issue of Particulate matter(Soot), and Regen's. Now that they have worked out some of the issues with Regen, there are VW(Small) and GM/Dodge/Ford(Larger) with hundreds of thousands of miles, on the original turbo, just changing fluids! Throw our motor in to that equation, apply the same metals, and tech, and the longevity is not a issue. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

 

[rjdelp7]

"The 'blow by" that gets drawn into motors PCV system, has moisture and crap that can leave deposits on turbo fins. Too much build up will unbalance the turbo and kill it. Shutting down a hot engine, before turbo cools is not good. The oil protecting it, stops flowing and burns off. That creates a dry start conditions and will lead to turbo a fail. Just changing oil, before required will not help. Synthetic oil and a "catch can", is the way to go."

This is where a clear understanding of these systems is required. The turbo's are actually situated to enhance capillary attraction. This is where the hot turbo body causes the continued circulation of the engine oil after the engine has shut down. All we are worried about is having oil at the shaft bearing surface. The "reserve loop" in the oil line ensures that the bearing is flooded with oil even before the engine starts.....

By using the thinking above, the 200K miles on my supercharged Mercedes engine should have it running horrible with no boost and clouds of burnt oil coming from it, but it doesn't. It runs great....and yes, they have their issues too with oil being sucked past the oil separator and into the intercooler too....but guess what, it doesn't leave deposits on the fins that ever cause issues. Those blades as they're called, spin roughly 200,000RPM....nothing sticks to them!

jeff

All turbos have a center bearing and they do wear out. Contamination on blades and bad/leaking oil seals, are 2 other possibilities. Restricted intercooler(known problem),blocked pcv and bad oil, will shorten there life. It is not if... but when.

 

[bobmbx]

So....if I were in market for a dragster I should probably not waste my time looking for an Expedition. Got it.

This was a great thread, lots of useful info.

 

[JExpedition07]

I can post pics countering that...including Motor Week, one of the most respected auto publications out there. They don't use user tests, they test the actual vehicle themselves with actual instruments, not a stop watch on a phone. So your data and my data don't match. I check 3 places, and they ALL put the 2007 at high 8, low 9. Your ONE source put it at 7.5. I used the EL 4x4, because It in theory is the heaviest and slowest, and where I could find a number for both a 2007 and 15+ on the same site. I also have an EL, so it applies to what I know.
2007 EL 4x4 - Motor WeekView attachment 21615
2015 4x4 - Car and DriverView attachment 21616
0-60 Times WebsiteView attachment 21617

OMG, I am using the Diesels as proof of Turbo longevity! How can you not get it...Dense? Where do you think Direct Injection came from...Diesels! Same tech. EGT Temps on diesels are HIGHER, and there is the added issue of Particulate matter(Soot), and Regen's. Now that they have worked out some of the issues with Regen, there are VW(Small) and GM/Dodge/Ford(Larger) with hundreds of thousands of miles, on the original turbo, just changing fluids! Throw our motor in to that equation, apply the same metals, and tech, and the longevity is not a issue. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

I cannot begin to fathom the stupidity this post has. You have demonstrated you have absolutely know knowledge of engines let alone powerstroke. No gasoline engine turbo or not can come close. A diesel is a very low stress engine and btw they are still pushrod engines with four overhead valves per cylinder, a gasoline turbo engine isn't comparable in the least. The diesels have high pressure common rail fuel delivery, are low revving, have six head bolts per cylinder, no spark plugs. No comparison can be made.

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

I deleted it because it was a long post... Andy those sales figures you post mean nothing to this conversation that's including all powertrains. Not to be a A hole. I'll repost it I hammered down against a new expy out of the tolls at 20mph because he was trying to fly past me threw the EZpass lane to the left of me to cut me out... there was barely any difference in speed at all and I won simply because I maintained a straight line and he had to hit the breaks where it reduces to two lanes... he didn't have the speed to overtake me and flipped out when he lost and told me I was number one with his finger. He may have been faster over a long haul but from 20-80 mph he couldn't pass me and he had a long run to do it, and oh how much he tried to no success. I will say he was slightly quicker but the speed came on way to slow. 0-60 on 07 is 7.5 seconds the new one is 6.5 seconds that's not two seconds FYI. That 6.2 is now available in the Tahoe RST btw sick looking truck... the difference there is that powertrain will have double or triple the life of ecoboost. I have never heard anyone down talk the 5.0 coyote everyone says how great it is. The 5.0 has 395 horsepower and 400 lb ft of torque the thing flies... they use a blown 5.0 in the Shelby F-150 and get 750 horsepower out of it. I understand I sound like an ultra opinionated A hole but I do recognize the ecoboosts high output and usefulness I'm not saying it's a bad engine, I'm just saying it's not a replacement for the bigger V8 in HD application. In our trucks I think reluctantly that it's fine and will work great because we don't work these all that hard.

Actually they are relevant to your comment

"JExpedition07 said: ↑
Ford is learning this lesson with the explorer their smaller ecoboost fails to sell and it is lowest selling in its class"

While it doesn't break down engine size it does show that the Explorer sales have been growing steadily since 2010 and out selling the Expedition (based on the previous Sales figured posted further up #25)

Just for the record. The Tahoe in the video with the big V8 was the one that struggled to maintain speed up the hill running at over 4500 rpm at 60 MPH - but it was accelerating. It was 10 seconds slower up the hill than the Navigator but it did show 4.5 Miles Per Gallon vs 3.6 MPG for the Navigator.

 

[LokiWolf]

I cannot begin to fathom the stupidity this post has. You have demonstrated you have absolutely no knowledge of engines let alone powerstroke.

Have you owned a Diesel? Have you pulled the cab off of a Super Duty? Have you torn down a 6.0 VGT? Have you owned a VW Diesel? Worked on one? All are yes for me.

Owned a 2006 F250 PSD for 10 years. Sold it last summer. Have owned a 2006 TDI Jetta, and a 2013 TDI Passat. All 3 tuned within an inch of their life. The Jetta, when I sold it at 160K still had the stock clutch and timing chain, with no signs of issues, gave the new owner a $800 deal on the car so he could go do the timing chain if he chose. The 250 had 95K when I sold it, but it had had some major work done around 70K, because like I said, tuned within an inch of its life. Pictures attached are of that teardown.

With the help of a Diesel Certified Tech that now owns his own independent shop I did about 50% of the work myself. Could have done it all myself, but wanted the experience of the guy who had torn down tons before, plus it went MUCH faster. I learned many tricks during that endeavor. Try again. Hands on here. Been there, done that.

You are the one that can't seem to grasp that there is no way your Expy can do 7.5 0-60, unless it is going downhill with a tail wind!

 

[JExpedition07]

My expy does 7.5 seconds all day long sorry that offends you buddy. Obviously you understand the two aren't comparable with the experience you have so this convo is useless to be had. A turbo gasser and turbo diesel are galaxies apart.

 

[rjdelp7]

I cannot begin to fathom the stupidity this post has. You have demonstrated you have absolutely know knowledge of engines let alone powerstroke. No gasoline engine turbo or not can come close. A diesel is a very low stress engine and btw they are still pushrod engines with four overhead valves per cylinder, a gasoline turbo engine isn't comparable in the least. The diesels have high pressure common rail fuel delivery, are low revving, have six head bolts per cylinder, no spark plugs. No comparison can be made.

I agree. A diesel is a much more robust engine. The heavy engine parts, must rotate much slower. The redline is around 3000 rpm. The slower RPM's starve the engine for air. Forced induction , is needed to compensate. Older Detroit's all had blowers. Gasoline fuel to air ratio, results in a hotter burn. Gas engines rev twice as high.

 

[JExpedition07]

I agree. A diesel is a much more robust engine. It works less at a lower rpm. The fuel is oil and adds to cooling of motor. The redline is around 3000rpm. Forced induction aids and needed in combustion and on older Detroit's all had blowers.

Yes and diesels are almost always turbo because it aids in combustion and power, gasoline engines dont need it nor is it made for it. Gasoline engines rev high and at combust totally different parameters. This guy just tries to justify in his mind how great his puny little engine is and is trying to compare it to legendary platforms it should never even be used in the same sentence with. Gasoline engines produce much more horsepower with gasoline combustion compared to a diesel.... a diesel requires a turbo to get higher horsepower.

 

[LokiWolf]

Yes and diesels are almost always turbo because it aids in combustion and power, gasoline engines dont need it nor is it made for it. Gasoline engines rev high and at combust totally different parameters. This guy just tries to justify in his mind how great his puny little engine is and is trying to compare it to legendary platforms it should never even be used in the same sentence with.

What do you think the turbo in a Gas motor is doing? It also adds in power.

The turbo has ZERO to do with combustion. Man, you really don't understand motors do you? Neither of you do. Just because you agree with each other doesn't make your info correct.

Turbo's exist to get more air into an engine, so more fuel can be added, because more burned fuel, means more energy, which means more power(HP, LB/FT). Turbo's make it easier to use smaller displacement and get the same power.

 

[LokiWolf]

I agree. A diesel is a much more robust engine. The heavy engine parts, must rotate much slower. The redline is around 3000 rpm. The slower RPM's starve the engine for air. Forced induction , is needed to compensate. Older Detroit's all had blowers. Gasoline fuel to air ratio, results in a hotter burn. Gas engines rev twice as high.

You are stuck in the past Modern diesels rev higher, have common rail fuel systems, and did Direct injection way before it was popular on Gas motors. The reason being the diesels needed the precision of Direct injection to meet the emissions requirements, and decrease particulate matter(Soot) that is generated when a diesel over fuels to get more power. Blowers(SuperChargers) are just mechanically driven turbos, or turbos are exhaust driven Superchargers. They both have advantages. Procharger Superchargers look and function like turbos... Hell some rigs, and new Volvos have BOTH.

 

[rjdelp7]

What do you think the turbo in a Gas motor is doing? It also adds in power.

The turbo has ZERO to do with combustion. Man, you really don't understand motors do you? Neither of you do. Just because you agree with each other doesn't make your info correct.

Turbo's exist to get more air into an engine, so more fuel can be added, because more burned fuel, means more energy, which means more power(HP, LB/FT). Turbo's make it easier to use smaller displacement and get the same power.

LokiWolk, are you the "Edge Sport/VW" guy always chiming in on Expedition Fourm?

 

[ranger024x4]

Uhh...it was 8 Ford mechanics mate, not 1, 8 out of 10 and one of the 10 admitted he didn't know because he was new to Ford. All 8 mechanics cited the same basic reasoning for the 5.0 v8, reliability, ease of maintenance, cost of maintenance, forced induction on small engine.

Who else but a Ford mechanic's word would you take, someone who has a 60 month car payment on an eco boost?

this was my experience with a 5.0 @ 30k miles

 

[LokiWolf]

LokiWolk, are you the "Edge Sport/VW" guy always chiming in on Expedition Fourm?

We have been through this. I currently own a 2017 Expedition with 11K, that replaced a 2015 with 27K. Out of the 38K, I have put 25K on. It is my Wife's daily driver, but our main family vehicle, I drive it when we are going anywhere as a family. My Edge Sport is my DD, and has 17K. Before that my DD was a 2013 Passat TDI, before that, a 2006 TDI Jetta, and before that a 2006 F250 PSD. My wife drove the 250 DD for a few years before we bought the Expy, and it was our 3rd vehicle(Which is when it got its overhaul, for EVEN more power).

Why is this hard for you to grasp...Nevermind... You are a guy claiming to know SOOO much about the EB, but don't actually own one. Hold on, with your logic, you shouldn't be allowed here, because you don't even own a 3rd gen Expedition. I own one, I drive it. I have towed with it, albeit up the puny mountains/hills we have it VA, but regardless it handled 5500+ pounds like it wasn't there.

 

[LokiWolf]

this was my experience with a 5.0 @ 30k miles

View attachment 21620

Ranger, what was the issue...that seems serious!

 

[bobmbx]

this was my experience with a 5.0 @ 30k miles

Thats what known as "infant mortality" in reliability engineering. There will always be some part of a population that fails very early in its life. Its part of the 'bathtub curve' which exhibits a high failure rate at "birth", then the failure rate drops to nearly zero for some period of time, then the rate jumps back up at the end of life. Its this curve that companies use to establish their warranty periods, and explains why the part fails just after the warranty expires. Its not magic...its math.

 

[ranger024x4]

This guy just tries to justify in his mind how great his puny little engine is and is trying to compare it to legendary platforms it should never even be used in the same sentence with. Gasoline engines produce much more horsepower with gasoline combustion compared to a diesel.... a diesel requires a turbo to get higher horsepower.

I think the point he was trying to make is just because an engine has a turbo, doesn't automatically make them less reliable.