Drivers turbo replacement...116,000 mile report.

[jeff kushner]

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

 

[NASCAR Mike]

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.

 

[rjdelp7]

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.

 

[TobyU]

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.

 

[TobyU]

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

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.

 

[hueyf4i]

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

 

[sjwelds]

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.

HA! You just compared an Ecoboost to a locomotive!

And here I thought you were an Ecoboost hater!

 

[TobyU]

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

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..

 

[hueyf4i]

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

 

[rjdelp7]

HA! You just compared an Ecoboost to a locomotive!

And here I thought you were an Ecoboost hater!

HA! You just compared an Ecoboost to a locomotive!

And here I thought you were an Ecoboost hater!

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.