Octane rating

[drewactual]

The compression ratio in the EcoBoost engine is 10.0:1 it isn't a high compression engine. Normally you have to be above 10.5:1 to be a the low end of high compression engines.

... and that is the mechanical compression ratio. once valve events are factored in it will be considerably less- measured from the point in the cylinder where all valves are closed. atop that, these things are have variable camshaft timing too, no? the PCM/ECU can adjust the compression too- less dynamic compression when boosting and opportunity for knock is present (as sensed by o2/lambda).

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

... and that is the mechanical compression ratio. once valve events are factored in it will be considerably less- measured from the point in the cylinder where all valves are closed. atop that, these things are have variable camshaft timing too, no? the PCM/ECU can adjust the compression too- less dynamic compression when boosting and opportunity for knock is present (as sensed by o2/lambda).

Actually the intake and exhaust valves are variably independently controlled based on what the computer tells them to do. I'm not sure that I said that correctly, each bank of intake valves and exhaust valves are controlled by their own cam phaser so intake and exhaust isn't slaved together.

 

[powerboatr]

yep we be driving incredible computing machines

 

[LokiWolf]

Ford, GM and Chrysler all tried turbo charging in the 80's. They all phased them out. Why? Now 25+ years, Ford, comes out with the Eco-boost...a turbo, again. Ford is one of the only car maker pushing it. Why? Turbos are spun by super heated engine exhaust at thousands of RPM. Air is compressed and forced into the engine. Compressing air causes it to heat and absorb moisture(damp weather issues). The air is forced through a intercooler, to lower the temp. The increased combustion pressure, causes spark detonation( high octane gas debate) and potential head gasket failure. Constantly overheated turbos can fail. The Obama, 55mpg C.A.F.E mandate(Trump ended), pushed automakers for more fuel efficiency. Maybe Ford worked all the bugs out of turbo charging. The same company that had, V8 spark plugs ejecting and plastic intake, catastrophic failure recall, just a few years ago.

There is so much wrong with your science and understanding of physics, chemistry, and the function of a turbo charged motor that there is no way I could put it in to words to fix your logic. I need a whiteboard!

Just a simple concept, the moistness of the intake charge does not change once it enters the intake. Since no moisture can be added to the system, heating the intake charge, will not cause it to "absorb" moisture.

Another simple concept. There is no such thing as Spark Detonation. There is Detonation, and there is Pre-Ignition. Detonation is AFTER the Normal burn from the Spark, and Pre-Ignition is BEFORE. Both are without the spark plug firing.

A LOT of companies are investing in Turbo Tech. Nissan has several new small turbo motors, vw has very few NA motors left in their vehicles, even GM has jumped on board, just haven't gotten to the bigger motors, other than the Duramax.

Stay in your cave, and ignore the Tech. With computers and variable valve Turbos, it is A LOT different than 24 years ago, in addition to better oils and metals. MANY improvements.

 

[JExpedition07]

At this point someone should make an "explaining ecoboost technology" thread since this is what we have turned it into

 

[rjdelp7]

There is so much wrong with your science and understanding of physics, chemistry, and the function of a turbo charged motor that there is no way I could put it in to words to fix your logic. I need a whiteboard!

Just a simple concept, the moistness of the intake charge does not change once it enters the intake. Since no moisture can be added to the system, heating the intake charge, will not cause it to "absorb" moisture.

A LOT of companies are investing in Turbo Tech. Nissan has several new small turbo motors, vw has very few NA motors left in their vehicles, even GM has jumped on board, just haven't gotten to the bigger motors, other than the Duramax.

Stay in your cave, and ignore the Tech. With computers and variable valve Turbos, it is A LOT different than 24 years ago, in addition to better oils and metals. MANY improvements.

Ford 3.5l ecoboost WERE having issues on damp, humid days. The motor would lose power or go into limp home mode. Owners were complaining about loss of power, at highway speeds. The 3.5ltt, was having issues with carbon build up and excessive knock and ping.. Ford is the only company putting the turbo V6, in full size trucks. The other car companies,all would sell turbos, if they had a good reputation. Turbo has been around, for 40 years. There is no special metals. The oil in the Ecoboost is the same, Ford has used for a decade. I did consider buying a new Expedition and did research on the eco boost. I will never be convinced this motor belongs in the Expedition.

 

[Ps4acc88]

The octane rating, is in your owners manual. Using premium, when 87 is required is a waste of money. The "Eco-boost" is not a high performance engine, it is a fuel saver, hence "eco". From what I read about it, it does not save, all that much. Paying for premium, would defeat any savings. The EB engine adds $1400 to the price of the truck. It has more parts, to fail, out of warranty. Ford went all in, with eco-boost(v6 turbo charging), but GM and Ram trucks, still have V8s. Ford should give a V8 option. I personally will never own a full size truck, with a V6.

Agree with everything you said about using higher octane than required.

 

[JExpedition07]

Ford 3.5l ecoboost WERE having issues on damp, humid days. The motor would lose power or go into limp home mode. Owners were complaining about loss of power, at highway speeds. The 3.5ltt, was having issues with carbon build up and excessive knock and ping.. Ford is the only company putting the turbo V6, in full size trucks. The other car companies,all would sell turbos, if they had a good reputation. Turbo has been around, for 40 years. There is no special metals. The oil in the Ecoboost is the same, Ford has used for a decade. I did consider buying a new Expedition and did research on the eco boost. I will never be convinced this motor belongs in the Expedition.

There are many guys with 200,000 plus miles on 150s with the ecoboost but then again get I'm not so sure how hard they worked. It is a great engine and has been proven to be since 2011 for daily drivers that haul once in a while. the water gets murky when you are hammering on it all the time for work however. As with any new engines there were kinks they had to work out and they have done well at it thus far.

 

[Ps4acc88]

Ford 3.5l ecoboost WERE having issues on damp, humid days. The motor would lose power or go into limp home mode. Owners were complaining about loss of power, at highway speeds. The 3.5ltt, was having issues with carbon build up and excessive knock and ping.. Ford is the only company putting the turbo V6, in full size trucks. The other car companies,all would sell turbos, if they had a good reputation. Turbo has been around, for 40 years. There is no special metals. The oil in the Ecoboost is the same, Ford has used for a decade. I did consider buying a new Expedition and did research on the eco boost. I will never be convinced this motor belongs in the Expedition.

You sound like a younger me, for every issue you find on the ecoboost you will find just as many issues people have with the 5.4. For the most part the eb motor has proved to be reliable and powerful . I work next to a company who uses f150s with eb for work trucks, some of them have over 220k miles and owner said all he has done is keep up with normal maintenance.

 

[LokiWolf]

Ford 3.5l ecoboost WERE having issues on damp, humid days. The motor would lose power or go into limp home mode. Owners were complaining about loss of power, at highway speeds. The 3.5ltt, was having issues with carbon build up and excessive knock and ping.. Ford is the only company putting the turbo V6, in full size trucks. The other car companies,all would sell turbos, if they had a good reputation. Turbo has been around, for 40 years. There is no special metals. The oil in the Ecoboost is the same, Ford has used for a decade. I did consider buying a new Expedition and did research on the eco boost. I will never be convinced this motor belongs in the Expedition.

So you are saying that Metal science has not changed in 25 years...??? Really. You really do live in a cave. The tolerances, process, and alloys have definitely improved. Not to mention, just the CAD aspect in the design phase.

You just said, the oil hasn't changed in 10 years, that still makes it 15 years newer than you self set 25 year mark. The chemistry of modern synthetics has definitely improved. The flash points are higher, and the resistance to coking.

WERE having issues...do you hear of those any more. Regardless if they had issues on damp humid days, that is tuning. THERE IS NO WAY THE AIR CAN ABSORB ANY MORE MOISTURE AFTER GOES THROUGH THE TURBO THAN WHAT IT ENTERED THE INTAKE WITH. That is assuming you aren't doing water or meth injection...

Carbon build up has ZERO to do with the turbo, and having less cylinders or displacement...Let me say that one more time, Carbon Build up has ZERO to do with the turbo, and having less cylinders or displacement. It is a VERY common occurrence on direct injection motors, because the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder, not before, like in port injection. The fuel is not there to clean the intake valve, so it builds up burnt carbon. The new 2nd gen motor fixes that partially by having both types of injection. Port injection will also help with MPG, at lower power output levels, and idle.