Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





F150 with the 3.5L twin turbo eco boost

1356710

Comments

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited July 2011
    "...EcoBoost develops its max torque at lower RPM..."

    Well, yes, but ONLY when WOT or very close thereby.

    At lower RPM cruise mode, partial throttle openings, there is simply not enough WASTE exhaust energy to SPIN the turbine section, so the wastegate is left in the bypass position.

    Therefore, in comparison, the Ecoboost engine does not provide a reasonable level of torque for simply cruising along towing even a light load, and certainly not uphill. In point of fact the Ford Ecoboost design actually sacrifices cruise power, MPG (***), in order to produce "stellar" WOT "on-boost" torque levels.

    *** The "standard" compression ratio for DFI engines is now at 12-14:1, but Ford runs the Ecoboost in detuned/derated mode, ~10:1 CR during simple cruise mode in order to provide for the effective CR to be above 14:1 ONBOOST/WOT.

    Take away the turbo and raise the CR to 12:1 and cruise HP/torque/mpg would rise substantually. Or adopt Toyota's E-VVT-i intake valve closing delay technique and run the engine with 12-13:1 CR, Otto mode, for cruising, and revert to 10:1 CR with the wategate closed, on-boost, simulated Miller cycle.
  • cat125cat125 Posts: 36
    So what does this really mean - it has torque but not optimal torque - the truck feels like its quick and light but yoiu are saying its not because of torque ???? its more a matter of speed and not power ??? what is WOT ???
  • ironjasperironjasper Posts: 21
    I have an ecoboost F-150 with a 3.55 LS rear and it has plenty of torque for cruising (even up hill) without wide open throttle ..... I have not towed anything yet, but I would imagine when you do the gas mileage will suffer.

    However, for normal cruising to work or around town there is plenty of power and the mileage has been about 18 mpg with 23 on the highway. This is even better than I expected.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    "...EcoBoost develops its max torque at lower RPM..."

    Well, yes, but ONLY when WOT or very close thereby.


    Duh, that's the case for any engine. Your posts are comical.

    The 5.4 v8 in my Expedition produces something like 365ft-lbs of torque at 3600rpm or so and it has pretty good off idle torque output. Trust me, when I'm towing my boat or travel trailer, I MUST FLOOR it to get max towing power whether at 2k rpm or 4k+.

    Have you ever driven a DI turbo engine? I've driven a few 4cyl DI turbos and I've found the power to be very linear. I never needed to floor them to get power and it they were noticeably more powerful at part throttle and low rpm vs a n/a 4cyl and v6's I've driven.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...I've found the power to be very linear..."

    Yes, lots of "magical-like" things can be done with/in the DBW firmware between the accelerator pedal position sensors and the throttle plate servomotor.

    The accelerator pedal can have a perfectly linear "feel" while the throttle plate (and Turbo waste-gate) movement can be totally erratic, non-linear, in response.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    Yes, lots of "magical-like" things can be done with/in the DBW firmware between the accelerator pedal position sensors and the throttle plate servomotor.

    The accelerator pedal can have a perfectly linear "feel" while the throttle plate (and Turbo waste-gate) movement can be totally erratic, non-linear, in response.


    That's all I care about is how well it works.

    Ford is far from the only manufacturer using turbo charging with DI. You should be bashing VW, Mazda, BMW, Hyundai and others that use the same basic design. Turbocharging is not going away.

    DI and high compression alone isn't going to produce usable torque like a much larger engine. Boost is currently the only way to do it.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 814
    Good luck convincing wwest of anything.

    One of the benefits of two small turbos instead of one big one is that they spool up and generate boost more quickly - even at part throttle. Most of the critics of the 3.5 ecoboost engine have never experienced it.

    http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/2011-ford-f-150-ecoboost-v-6-photos-and-add- itional-engine-details.html

    The above link shows the torque curve of the ecoboost at part throttle and at WOT. It also shows the torque curves of some competitors.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    Good luck convincing wwest of anything.


    Oh I know.

    The above link shows the torque curve of the ecoboost at part throttle and at WOT. It also shows the torque curves of some competitors.

    Great post. Gotta love that torque curve even at...um part throttle.
  • sevenmansevenman Posts: 6
    I am a Retired 30 year Freightliner diesel mechanic. In those years I saw and had to learn the new technologies that would come out day in and out.Lets look at multiplexing for example.Who ever thought we could eliminate three quarters of the wires in a vehicle. And send signals over a twisted pair of wires?If we all believe in simplicity we should be starting our vehicles with hand cranks! I just purchased a new F-150 with ecoboost.I didn't buy a diesel due to cost and mileage issues.I have had it only two weeks but I love it so far!Lots of power!Very hard to believe that this is a 3.5 V6. TAKE A DRIVE
  • Taking a V-6 turning it to high-RPM's and thinking it is going to last is not very smart. The cost of ownership will be very interesting espicially when you start talking turbo failure or complete gernading the fragile high-tech motor.

    The entire 'Green' agenda is the stupidest thing on planet earth, for starters oil is naturally occurring but people have been brainwashed into thinking mother earth is going to implode.

    Heat, electronics and turbos what a great match up, with the Ford Triton's blowing out spark plugs I can't wait till these get out in the field and start racking up dollars in repairs.

    I find it quite hypocritical Al Gore & Oboma the planet messiah's do not stop flying around in 'Corporate Jets', BIG SUV's and living lavishly.

    I hope the numbnuts enjoy the Keynesian economic policies and their 'green' unemployment benefits.

    Keep this fragile truck, make sure you got the pocket book to fix it. *If* anyone can find one running after 5 years, I am sure it will be a money pit.

    A diesel is the ONLY sane approach, however the 'greenies' will not allow it. So they build this POS 'eco crap'.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Personally I'm holding out for the upcoming Otto/Atkinson/Miller multimode 2L I4, 16 base compression ratio.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    Taking a V-6 turning it to high-RPM's and thinking it is going to last is not very smart. The cost of ownership will be very interesting espicially when you start talking turbo failure or complete gernading the fragile high-tech motor.

    The v6 EB develops more power at lower rpm than most most gas v8s. Peak HP is at 5,000rpm vs 5,500 for the 5.0v8. Max torque is available at 2,500rpm vs over 4k rpm for the 5.0 as well, so the idea the the EB has to scream at high rpm to make power is more BS.

    Sure it's a more complicated engine so durability is a huge question mark. Considering how well the EB has been selling we'll learn fairly quick how it holds up.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...the v6 EB develops more power at lower rp that most v8s...."

    You make that up or did you find a factual, trustworthy, statement somewhere...?

    ~5000 RPM is NOT considered "low".

    You neglected to mention the actual rating of V6's peak HP at 5,000 rpm vs the V8's at 5,500 rpm...?

    Same thing with torque, need the actual numbers in order to judge fairly.

    "...the idea that the EB has to scream at high rpm to make power is pure BS..."

    NOT...!!

    You can't quickly spool up those turboes without LOTS of exhaust gas flow into the turbine section. Plus you do not want BOOST at normal cruisng speed/rpm.

    I'm not a fan of V8s by any means, but the gas-guzzling gas-hoggish EB is nothing more than a Ford marketing SCAM. I'll take a V6 with DFI and NO turbo, thank you. Maybe an SC if it's Miller cycle.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    "...the v6 EB develops more power at lower rp that most v8s...."

    You make that up or did you find a factual, trustworthy, statement somewhere...?


    I should have said torque instead of power.
    From Ford.com
    3.7 v6 302HP@6500RPM 278ft-lbs@4000rpm
    3.5 EB 365hp@5000rpm 420ft-lbs@2500rpm
    5.0 v8 360HP@5500rpm 380ft-lbs@4250rpm
    6.2 v8 411HP@5500rpm 434ft-lbs@4500rpm

    GM (per gmpowertrain.com)
    4.8 v8 302HP@5600rpm 305ft-lbs@4600rpm
    5.3 v8 315HP@5200rpm 338ft-lbs@4400rpm
    6.2 v8 403HP@5700rpm 417ft-lbs@4300rpm

    Dodge
    5.7 v8 390hp@5600rpm 407ft-lbs@4000rpm.

    So there you go, those are the numbers from each manufacturers website. Which engine generates it's max HP and torque at the lowest rpm?

    I'll take a V6 with DFI and NO turbo, thank you.

    You can have it, because that would be horrible in a truck/fullsize SUV for towing. For comparison, GM's DI 3.6 produces 273ft-lbs@5200rpm. How is that better the EB 420ft-lbs@2500rpm. That would be fine in an empty truck, but put 5klb+ trailer on back and it will be horribly slow while having to spin 5k+rpm to produce much pulling power. No thanks.

    You can't quickly spool up those turboes without LOTS of exhaust gas flow into the turbine section. Plus you do not want BOOST at normal cruisng speed/rpm.

    Well all I can say is a friend of mine just traded his v8 powered pickup for a EB f150 and so far he loves it. He's towed his 7k lb boat with it and he claims it feels much stronger than his previous v8 truck ever did. He's getting 20+mpg hwy nontowing, his old f150 never broke 17mpg hwy. I'll be curious to how well the EB holds up.
  • I own one. I have 6300 miles on mine and I got 27 mpg on the highway last night. I reset the computer at highway speeds and drove 50 miles to my house and ended up with 27 mpg at my door. I did have some stop and go to contend with but not much. I live way out in the country. BTW, I was driving back from a Ford dealer where I bought my wife a Ford Fusion SE. She got 38.7 mpg on the way home!

    I have a 31 ft travel trailer that weighs 7900 lbs dry and this truck pulls it like no other I have owned.( 1998 silverado, 2003 yukon xl) I am very, very pleased with the truck. I got 8-10 mpg towing this trailer with the yukon when it was new and I get 9 with the f150 eb.

    I never thought I'd own a Ford, but I love it now.
  • ticmjpmticmjpm Posts: 1
    MSRP $42,200 paid (after 3k rebate) paid $35,000 plus tax.

    If you buy an F150 with out the 3.5 you will regret it. The truck is nice but the engine is amazing. It is hard to believe you can have this much power and save gas. My first tank with around town and a 32 mile commute to work (Atlanta) was 19.8 MPG. I am sold.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2011
    I just drove 286 miles (all highway) on less than half a tank. With about 20 miles until empty, as per my mileage calculator on my dash.

    That's above 20mpg highway. My dash mileage monitor said 22.1, and I'm inclined to believe that isn't far off, because of the distance I traveled without having to fill up. I was astonished that I didn't have to stop to fill up dozens of miles before I did.

    Averaged 60-70mph the whole way. Relatively flat (Rt. 95 from Maryland to Connecticut), but it is riddled with toll booths, so room to improve on mileage even.

    And mine is the 4x4, Supercab, and the gear ratio is 3.73.

    Not making this up. 20++ mpg highway out of a stock 4WD version of the EcoBoost F150.

    I'm a bit of a light-foot (I like vehicles with ample power, so I don't always have to rev them). So I'll bet I could get ~24mpg out of a 2WD Ecoboost equipped Fun-50 from Florida to Maine, traffic and weather permitting. ;)

    GM says they are not worried about the Ecoboost, but they are underestimating its capabilities!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I'm with GM, EcoBoost is simply a marketing SHAM. 98% of the time you will be running off-boost, a derated/detuned V6.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    EcoBoost is simply a marketing SHAM. 98%

    Are you simply against Ford or turbo charging? Just about every manufacturer is using DI and turbo charging. Even GM uses it.

    And don't bring up simply using DI and high compression. It's not enough on a small displacement engine for truck use. Sure it will make big HP, but torque at a usable rpm is far more essential in a truck.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2011
    Wwest, your post makes no sense whatsoever. Thats like saying a Vortec is just a 50hp engine because that's how much power it needs to drive in steady-state with the cruise-control activated. Or saying a Hemi is just a retuned 4-cylinder just because 'most' of the time 4 cylinders are deactivated.

    Not very well thought out, IMO.

    Actually, during acceleration, going up even a slight incline, or towing, you will ALWAYS be on boost in the EcoBoost. Torque peaks at 2500 rpm, lower than the V8s options. And even under very light acceleration you can hear the turbos spool, and you feel the vehicle accelerating, regardless of your theories on pedal position and wastegate operation.

    You've somehow theorized that because wastegates could be overactive, that they necessarily have to be in this application. That is some pretty wild guestimating on your part, backed up neither by reports nor data. You cannot will the Ecoboost to be an inferior engine, I'm sorry to say ;)

    Your post about pedals and feel is irrelevant. When you demand torque, the engine responds by closing the wastegates linearly, because the vehicle
    increases velocity at a linear rate. It is not beyond all of us who are used to driving v8 trucks to take notice of the sensation of acceleration, contrary to your flimsy theories. In fact, it makes my prior 5.4 seem athsmatic and weak by comparison. Not only does the EB accelerate more readily, it burns 30% less fuel on average as per my real-world driving.

    I.E. There is no acceleration lag, whether by lack of spool or boost going to waste, you are incorrect either way. Whatever you seem to think could happen, has been programmed out of this vehicle. And just because torque peaks at 2500 doesn't mean there isn't ample torque under partial throttle. The EB is more responsive at lower rpms and partial throttle than the Vortec 6.0

    And it most certainly does not go straight to WOT with partial application of the accelerator. I don't know where you came up with that nonsense. I am far more likely to need close to WOT to get a naturally aspirated slug to move. The difference in actual acceleration between partial throttle and full throttle in the EcoBoost is very wide. Under partial throttle it accelerates with traffic, under full throttle it accelerates more aggressively than any stock naturally aspirated truck I've driven. So it cannot be all or nothing. The middle (linear) progression you claim doesnt exist, happily does. You are mistaken on all counts, it drives just like a more responsive, more efficient, more powerful truck.

    There literally is no real-world situation in which the powerband of the EB is not superior to the 5.4, the 5.0, as well as the equivalent Vortec offerings. :sick:
  • Well, I've been oogling an EB Supercrew for a few weeks now and am really interested in how this engine holds up so keep the reports coming! I test drove one last weekend and i think it's faster than my 328 ix! :)
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited September 2011
    I can hear turbo spool as low as 1500rpms. This happens when in high-gear (4th, 5th, 6th) and accelerating under load (up a hill, etc)

    Torques like a modern diesel when you do it that way. Granted the range of the powerband is like 1500-4500 rpm compared to a diesel where its 800-2400, but unless you had a tach, you couldn't tell.

    In 1st - 3rd, I can hear spool at 1900-2000 rpm.

    Averaged 23.6 mpg highway (on the dash) yesterday over a 30 mile trip (i.e. not instantaneous fuel economy, but averaged over a distance). Mountainous highway driving with moderate inclines and declines. 70 degrees F. 60mph cruise control setting.

    Hoping to find the speed in which I can get over 24 mpg over a distance before they switch to wintergas. :mad:
  • Yes,I guess cylinder deactivation is the answer! Ecoboost is not shutting of the fuel totally to four cylinders to try to achieve some sort of fuel economy , only metering it down.If you cut the fuel to four out of eight cylinders you still have the parasitic load of a v-8 only with four dead holes.420 lbs. torque.375 hp. Remember the old eight six four caddy?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...don't bring up.."

    The how about DI, high/low compression, and......

    Supercharging!!

    No energy "WASTED" out the exhaust during cruising, 98% of the time.

    15:1 native/base CR, 12:1 effective (E/VVT-i) for cruising. 10:1 "effective" before boost with heavy engine loading.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited October 2011
    Supercharging wastes 100% of the exhaust energy.

    And it causes parasitic loss due to having to turn a pulley proportional to the RPMs.

    A supercharged V8, all else being equal, will be less efficient than a naturally aspirated one. So if your goal is 500hp and 11.5 mpg, supercharging is probably the way to go.

    You are mistaken, 98% of the time, turbocharging wastes almost no energy whatsoever. At low RPMs and low throttle setting, turbochargers have irrelevant amounts of back pressure through the exhaust stream.

    Are you hung up on the idea that there is intake air going to wastegate? Why does that bother you? It's energetically 'free' air. And it keeps a steady supply of boost available to ensure maximum energy efficiency under light load.

    I don't know what your deal is with turbocharging, but it is pretty odd. Just about every diesel uses it these days. Small displacement engines of 3.0 L, 6 cylinders, run a huge % of the world's commercial and transportation industry.

    And the EcoBoost gets boost low in it's rpm band, similar to a diesel. And it does so while getting diesel-like economy, so clearly it 'wastes' less energy (in terms of fuel burnt) than Naturally Aspirated V8s.

    More power for less fuel. Seems like a no-brained that the EcoBoost works, despite all wwest's strange theories on what is going on internal to the engine.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    The SuperCharging technique I'm referring to is a virtual copy of the one used in the Studebaker engines of the mid-fifties. Positive displacement but speed variable independent of the engine RPM using a CVT.

    The same technique could be used today but with a "PSD" type CVT. A synchronous AC motor powered by an inverter for one input and the engine for the other input.

    The SC would just idle along, virtually no power consumption, supplying only atmospheric pressure until called upon for boost. At that point E/VVT-i could be used to delay the intake valve closing, changing the effective CR from 12:1 (DFI standard) to <10:1 to accomodate BOOST.

    The engine could even run in Atkinson cycle mode for light loads/loading.

    Ford runs the TwinForce/EcoBoost engines at a wasteful 10:1 100% of the time so as to accomodate the use of boost 2% of the time.

    That's my "rub".
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641
    Ford runs the TwinForce/EcoBoost engines at a wasteful 10:1 100% of the time so as to accomodate the use of boost 2% of the time. That's my "rub".

    Why do you single out Ford. Porsche, BMW, VW/Audi, GM, Mazda, and other's all use turbo charging and DI in pretty much the same fashion. If you think you're smarter than the engineers at the leading auto manufacturers, then you need to show them how to do it the "correct way".

    BMW's new 2.0 DI twin turbo 4 cylinder has 10.3:1 compression and 240 HP. It's enough to push a 5 series 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds and yield 34 mpg hwy. Pretty impressive IMO.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "..then you need to show them how to do it the "correct way"..."

    That's exactly what I'm doing in the only "way" available to me.

    "Pretty impressive IMO.."

    Yes, if you're solely focussed on the "boy racer" aspects.

    Just how often, in the "real world" do you have need of "stellar" 0-60 times.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I guess my problem with Ford is the switch from TwinForce to Ecoboost. Pretending that an engine that runs derated 98% of the time is environmentally conscious just rubs me the wrong way.

    Plus I was a Ford "person" forever, '60-'91.

    What I'd really like to see is for Ford to resurrect the Lincohn brand via an LS430 clone but with a modern day 300HP DFI V6.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited October 2011
    It's not pretending, it is succeeding. You just don't want to acknowledge the possibility that essentially ALL automakers are going the turbo-DI route for one model or another.

    And the point stands, there is nothing inherently superior to clutching in a supercharger, when turbos have essentially no backpressure under steady-state driving, thus giving boost at even very low RPMs when called for. This works far better than your idea because the boost is energetically 'free', and continuously available. Since highway driving is a lot of speeding up and mild inclines (mixed with the slowing down and declines) that boost IS used at even very light throttle, to compensate for all the little imperfections in steady-state driving.
    That's why it is more efficient in the real world. that boost gets used A LOT even with mild throttle. Going from 60-65 mph, boost is used. going up a 1-degree incline, boost is utilized. And it was already available due to the low-spooling turbos. There is no need for the to go to full-throttle to acquire it, as you theorized.

    This is not a Supra with a single big-turbo conversion. There is no waiting for pressurized air in these modern DI turbo engines. EcoBoost engine has the ability to use boost as low as 1200 RPMs, that I have witnessed, possibly lower. Average cruising is 1500-2000 RPMs at 60-70 mph with the 3.73 ratio.

    This engine can supply boost at cruising RPMs. Or linearly with the load, 100% of the time that the engine is under load. Again, this has PROVEN superior to high compression natural aspiration that rely on vacuum of the valving. And with all the engineers in the world (and there are tens of thousands), none have deemed this method less energetically efficient than having a clutched
    supercharger on an accessory belt, lest they probably would have done so for the tens of millions of gas/diesel turbo-injected engines which collectively run essentially all the world's commerce.

    Your obsession with compression is still rather ridiculous.

    Despite your obsession with that stat, the engine --->accomplishes<--- efficiency.

    Mild cruising is where the biggest gains are. This engine sees average highway economy of 20-24 mpg depending on the application and conditions.

    There obviously isn't enough of an 'energy' waste by lowering the compression
    to actually waste any of the vehicles fuel supply unduly. The very 98% of the time you are hung up on is the 98% that this engine outperforms it's naturally aspirated competitors.

    I.E. Mild driving the engine is most efficient, heavy driving it is most powerful in it's class of truck.

    Your personal issue with Ford is your own personal issue, not Ford's issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.