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

1468910

Comments

  • with all this arguing going on between you, biclamarge, and dieselone which one of you actually owns an f150 with ecoboost? furthermore how many miles have you logged, what's your true mpg, is it a 4x2 or 4x4, what rear end axle ratio, and would you purchase it again? I personally have test driven one with 4x2 3.15 rear end and it seemed to drive great. Seriously considering purchase, would love to know your feed back.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Don't own one, EcoBoost, and very likely never will.

    But I have little doubt that the engine is truly a breakthrough and driveability is fine. I am bothered by the large number of reports about the F150 Ecoboost engine "stalling" upon attempts to accelerate to pass.
  • 16,000 miles.

    3.73 Supercab FX4.

    Highway mileage ranges from 20-23 on non-winter gasoline.

    Hope that helps.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited October 2011
    What is wrong, locically thinking, with the DBW throttle plate being fully open at mid-point (or thereabouts) of the gas pedal, and then boost, "calibrated boost", used to raise the engine torque in conjunction with more depression, incremental depression, of the gas pedal..?

    In the alternative, how would you provide for a reasonably linear rise in engine torque as gas pedal depression increases given the parameters involved....???


    There's nothing wrong with the notion that under full load requirements, the throttle plate opens to allow boost ALREADY BEING GENERATED to meet the torque desired requirements.

    Just that the point of a modern turbo is to spool quickly, and reduce ANY volumetric inefficiency. NOT JUST WHEN THE NA PORTION HAS 'TORQUED OUT'. IT DOES NOT WAIT THAT LONG BY A LONG SHOT.

    But the throttle plate is what is blocking boost up to that point, not the wastegate.

    I've already explained (using Ford's language mind you) that the linear response is a result of feathering the wastegate open and using vents (and the throttle plate) to prevent overboost as boost hits so that 'boost surge' doesn't make it uncomfortable or break the rear tires loose, or run 'overlean'.

    Wastegates start closed. As do throttle plates. And (again, using Ford's language) they have vent valves pre-throttle.

    Pre-intercooler pressure will never be 'off-boost.' But you can't allow boost into the combustion chamber when you don't want to increase torque. And you don't always want to increase torque. Then you'd have unintended accel.

    ALL acceleration uses boost. Not just half-'pedal' and above.

    NOTICE: Every youtube video shows ANY acceleration showing vacuum going DOWN. Not up. That means the throttle is opening to allow the mild boost in.

    I already said that boost could be 'effectively' zero at the intake, but pre-throttle plate it is above atmo psi, and the intake 'vacuum' is because the throttle plate is closed and sucking air (while boosted on the other side) through the partial opening.

    IF IT WERE RUNNING LIKE AN NA ENGINE, ANY PEDAL TRAVEL WOULD FORCE THE VACUUM UP UNDER MILD ACCEL.

    That is technically increasing pressure above NA for any and all accel (into a stiff headwind, etc)

    If I install a boost gauge, it will measure at the intercooler. It will be positive long before 'half pedal travel.'

    Not intake pressure, when the idle-cruise-boost is being vented to blow-off.

    BOOST IS AVAILABLE, NOT ALWAYS USED. I've made this clear multiple times.
  • Hi Guys and gals. I believe that all this debating is wonderful ! But like my dear old dad used to say, SHOW ME! Anyone who is posting on this forum and has not driven ALL OF THESE VEHICLES is talking out of their shorts.HAVE A NICE DAY :blush:
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited October 2011
    I do not own a EB f150 but I did take one for a test drive about a week ago. After a 30 minute drive. I test drove with the idea of trying to find a reason not to like it.

    Other than not having a v8 burble, I was impressed with the EB. I deliberately tried to find a way to detect turbo lag or find a weak spot in power delivery and in ever situation I put it in, it felt far more powerful and more responsive than the 5.4 v8 in my 07 Expedition.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    While not from Missouri, my dad was of the same opinion.

    But then he never "drove" anything beyond a team of mules.

    These days with the information at the ready on the INTERNET many of us are interested just for the education or curiosity benefits.
  • Yes and information online can be quite useful! We as Americans need to sift thru what information is truthful and real and what is not,what is biased and what is not!Just as this forum will have believers and non believers I still say ( SHOW ME!)
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited October 2011
    "..Hwy mileage is only 28 mpg..."

    There is NO hybrid that has reasonable Hwy mileage as compared to an equivalent (weight/size etc) standard engined vehicles. No braking/coastdowns, NO improvement in FE.

    Which is why you chose to quote the RXes Hwy mileage ONLY.

    On the other hand there is NO equivalent standard engined vehicle, Ecoboost included, that can beat a hybrid in city stop and go traffic.

    Not even close.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    For less than $12 you can have 3-day access to an absolute WEALTH of EcoBoost knowledge, direct for the source. You could create a UNIQUE password for that 3 days and learn just why I don't accept your bet.

    I try not to bet against those I know, or even suspect, have poor knowledge of the subject matter.

    Read the material and then post your bet, if you still then feel knowledgeable enogh.
  • Hi Guy,s can I bet on the team of mules? They remain a constant! ;)
  • Im sure there is a lot of good information posted in here. For those of us not as up to date technology wise on the ecoboost engine I have a pretty simple request. I've driven a couple of them (new on the lot) and found them very very responsive. As strong as any V8 on the market I think. I'm just looking to pull say a 7700lb trailer behind it and I want it to pull it up and over mountain passes without over working it. I also want it to work well down the road so I don't have to spend time at the dealer arguing with them about this or that acting up like I've had to do with my current truck a Toyota Tacoma. The whole idea of this ecoboost intrigues me and I really would like to get one. but if it is going to cause me to have high blood pressure and get to know all the mechanics at the shop and all of there kids names and family history then I'm not interested. If you know what I mean. Great info in this forum. Keep it up guys.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited December 2011
    I rather doubt that the engine/turbo combination is designed to be robust enough for the kind of constant duty that towing a 7700lb trailer would/might require.

    The design would be robust enough for STELLAR passing acceleration and/or to impress the "boy-racer" mentality types, those that first consider 0-60 times, but constant "on-boost", even partial on-boost, reliability is probably lacking.

    An EcoBoost engine designed for towing a heavy load is NOT a major market segment.

    You might get by via a turbo change out to a water-cooled one.

    Note: Even the Toyota Tundra with than hunking Lexus V8 isn't certified for towing that level of load considering our mountain passes.

    Hint: My 24' MH with the Ford V10 has an extra engine oil cooling radiator and a separate ATF cooler.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited December 2011
    I rather doubt that the engine/turbo combination is designed to be robust enough for the kind of constant duty that towing a 7700lb trailer would/might require.

    Someone towing a 7k+lb trailer constantly shouldn't be using a 1/2 ton truck to do it. That's where the diesel 3/4 ton shine.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited December 2011
    Once you start getting in the 7k+ weight range you need to consider the tongue weight of the trailer vs the cargo capacity/rear axle rating of the tow vehicle.

    Most supercrew/crew cab 1/2 tons come up a bit short on cargo capacity. Say your 7,700 lb trailer has 15% tongue weight which is over 1k lbs, you may only have 500-700lbs reserve for passengers and gear depending on how the truck is equipped.

    OTOH, if you're pulling a 7,700 boat, they are not nearly as demanding to tow. Tongue weight is usually much lighter being 5-10% and the frontal area of a boat is much smaller than a box trailer or camper, so they are much easier to pull through the air.
  • Well after owning the F150 with ecoboost and giving FORD the benefit of the doubt. I was sadly let down and my apologies to all! A month ago the engine started shutting down and I would shut key off and restart and may be ok a day or two.Took to the dealer three weeks ago and they said they couldn't find any thing wrong and that the factory was aware of the problem! Well on 02/06/2012 it just quit running! I had a flatbed tow it to the dealer I purchased it from.After five days of being there I am now told that they have NO FIX for this! Even if they think they have it fixed I am afraid to go anywhere when and if I get it back! I don't think the owner of ALBANY FORD IN ALBANY CA. would like to be stranded on the bay bridge with his family to get run over by a semi! They expect me to let them throw parts at it till the problem resolves itself. I should have kept my 1997 dodge ram that never let me down. I will proceed with the California Lemon Law if the dealer doesn't do the right thing, Money back or new identical truck. PLEASE POST ANY PROBLEMS THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD SO I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE!!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Big surprise...!!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited February 2012
    My suspicion would be a "stalled" turbine, doesn't turn/spin freely, from HEAT expansion and thereby blocking the exhaust flow. Have the (St,d)ealer disable the turboes, "wire" the wastegate(s) open, and see if the problem still repeats.
  • I have the EXACT same problem. Now 2 of us. Just picked up after 5 days at Ford with the same out come . This is so Dangerous. I'm so sick of it . On the 3rd day it wouldn't start I used the lock unlock and it started next day 5 or six times , next day turned off going 70 on highway and almost got in a wreck . 5 days at the Ford shop . I was asked to pick up . I also wish I just kept my trade in. I hope no one has to get killed for them to just give us another truck . F 150 ecco. Just 500 miles and I'm sick of dealing with. When I first complained to the dealer after just 200 miles , I was asked to just jump it. WOW Carrollton Texas
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    With the EcoBoost/TwinForce design Ford is faced with basically the same problem that Boeing was with the early 727's, turboes take a LONG time to spin up. Boeing solved their problem by advising the 727 pilots to always keep the engines "spooled up", partial throttle, on the final approach leg.

    The long time constant, spool up/down time, of turboes makes it extremely hard to solve that control equation. My guess is that they will eventually need to find a way to throttle the boost on the output side of the turbo rather than just using the wastegate as "throttle".

    F-150 forums throughout the internet are indicating serious EcoBoost problems.

    And now we have the new Explorer with an EcoBoost I4 proving.....interesting...
  • realbairrealbair Posts: 1
    i want to order a 2013 platium 5.0 does anyone know what real world mpg is and also towing mpg . has anyone heard what changes may come for 2013.
  • Has anyone set there 2012 f150 4x4 ecoboost up to be towed 4wheel down? if you have what did you have to do for wiring the brake and tail lights to run off the motorhome and not damage the f150 systems?
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited April 2012
    The stalling is most likely the ECU and TCU issue as indicated on forums, which are a vastly superior source on the likely problems than wwest, who is an inferior source to the back of a ketchup bottle on the topic of turbocharging.

    Turbos take milliseconds to spool up. You're comparing a 10cm turbine wheel to a 100cm multi-stage turbine? producing 20,000 lbs of thrust? moving a 200,000 lb aircraft? first tested almost 50 years ago?... This is logical to you? That's painful. :sick: and indicative of just how well you think things through on this matter. There's concept... and then there's SCALE. You're off by several orders of magnitude, but to you, it's the same thing...

    As if you were capable of sound logic , and as if every automaker hasn't already perfected turbocharged induction in various models.

    (and they ALL already have blowoff valves and DO regulate on the output side of the turbo)
    (and the turbos will be spooled 100% of the time while towing, and on light boost at all times except going downhill. Towing is more than enough load to burn the fuel which spins the turbines post-combustion)

    You're an N/A purist on a smear campaign that failed before it started. Autos are headed this direction.
    You admitted that all these theories about turbo operation are guesses, and you keep inventing ways to 'prove' turbines are unproven technology in autos. :confuse:

    The only reason I most likely won't dignify you with another response for some time is for the same reason all the other knowledgeable people dropped off; it's just too exhausting to try to convince the truly ignorant of a fact.

    Well, wwest clearly has more argumentative stamina than the knowledgeable people who have posted on this thread, but cannot be convinced of fact for the sake of his fantasy world where his 'guesses' are correct to save his life.

    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    -Albert Einstein
    (and no, you do not get to claim to be the genius) ;)
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited April 2012
    Only correction is most Ecoboosts use a 4cm turbine wheel, and I imagine the 3.5 is in the same category.

    And while searching for that, I found these:

    http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Technology/continental-to-supply-turboc- - hargers-for-ford-ecoboost-engines.html

    In order to prevent pressure from rising too steeply at high engine output, a waste-gate valve conducts the exhaust gases past the turbine. On the compressor side, a compressor bypass valve prevents air, which has already been compressed, from forcing its way back into the compressor housing when the throttle closes. This safeguard prevents compressor surge, which could damage the turbocharger.

    This confirms the points I have maintained:
    1)Waste-gates are to prevent over boost. They open as a pressure release when boost is above what is needed.

    This is in normal use, NOT in racing only, as you maintained, due to your ignorant 'guessing'.

    2) the throttle plate prevents charging the intake air when load is not required. The piping in-between compressor and throttle are frequently more pressurized than demanded.

    3) Ecoboost regulates this post-compression using blowoff valves, or 'compressor bypass valves.'

    Astonishing how the most incorrect person is the most convinced of his 'guesses.'
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Posts: 377
    edited April 2012
    And these:

    http://www.f150forum.com/f38/vacuum-hubs-ecoboost-wastegate-132684/

    Wastegates control the amount of exhaust going to the turbine side of the turbo. A spring will keep the wastegate closed during idle or part throttle and boost will open it up regulating the amount of exhaust.

    Another blow to the EGO boost you've been giving yourself with your fantasy-understanding of turbochargers.

    http://www.f150forum.com/f70/altitude-effects-ecoboost-131203/

    Like already stated, the wastegate might stay closed a little longer at high altitudes to build the boost to the correct setpoint. Once the boost setpoint is achieved, the wastegate will start diverting some of the exhaust gas and the motor will operate the same way, regardless of altitude.


    http://www.f150forum.com/f70/afe-intake-eco-boost-106985/

    Wastegate is on the hot side of the turbo (turbine) and it works as a bypass valve as well, but is used to regulate boost, bypassing exhaust from the turbine once the preset boost pressure is reached.

    The real purpose of a waste gate... how obvious to everyone but wwest.

    And the grand finale:
    Http://www.f150forum.com/f70/max-boost-129804/

    EVERYONE knowledgeable about turbochargers know they are spinning 100% of the time, and waste gates vent excess boost.

    This truck does do NOT 'torque out' in 'NA mode' before spooling the turbo. The turbo is always spooked to some degree , from .1% to 100% boost, depending on the fuel being burnt under idle to heavy load. Spinning the turbine is a natural effect of combustion.

    You like aircraft? Turbocharged aircraft are on boost at all times while cruising at altitude. And the only time they can go to vacuum induction is at idle.

    You. Know. Naught.
  • Also, wwest,

    Your idea has no mechanical advantages over Ford's Ecoboost. Everything you are suggesting is already covered by Ford's 'lean mode' and at all times when power above idle is needed, it is more mechanically efficient than engaging belt-driven compressors.

    There is 0 reason for Ford to shy away from turbocharging. BMW soon won't even have an NA engine in it's stable. I guess all the 'boy racers' are driving M6s now? :P

    The exhaust gases escaping are doing so anyway. And they are doing so with enough energy to spin a wheel that weighs nearly ounces like a pin-wheel in a tornado. They have no choice but to spin, and they do so very energetically 'freely' in the exhaust stream. The compressor adds essentially no parasitic loss. That energy was ALREADY spent when the fuel was burned. Belt-driven accessories do add parasitic loss. It takes more fuel to drive an accessory, versus just allowing your already combusted gasses to spin a pin-wheel.

    Any preference you have for superchargers is likely based on false premise. They both provide power quite well, but turbos are MORE efficient, especially in high-power applications.

    Turbos spin at idle, change rotational velocities in milliseconds, and can go from 1% to 100% boost in less than a second. They are not 20,000 lb- thrust turbojets. That is the most foolish comparison ever on the internet.

    Wastegates are closed until max allowed boost is reached. Stop proclaiming the opposite.

    And don't give people advice. You're not educated enough to do so in regards to their turbocharged engines.

    And what is this nonsense about all turbocharged engines are for 'boy racers?' Grow up. You're acting like the boy racer, using non-relevant experience to 'guess' on forums. You sound exactly like all the Grand Tourismo people who then proclaim on forums they know better. You claiming to be a turbo mechanic is just as misplaced logic.

    Sounds exactly like what 15-year old forum troll do. Enough out of you boy-racer.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    You fail, completely FAIL, to understand.

    Traditionally, HISTORICALLY, turbo-charged engines were derated/detuned for off-boost operations. An engine that could be build with a CR of 10:1 was build with 8:1 CR in order to accommodate more substantial BOOST pressures.

    Ford is simply FOOLING the public, and you in particular, by using DFI and NOT increasing the CR accordingly. Even worse, today, is the advent of the Atkinson cycle simulation that allows a much higher base/native CR. That higher base/native CR increases the power stroke burn cycle thereby eliminating even the possibility of the use of a turbo.

    So the net loss of an EcoBoost/(TwinForce) engine becomes a pretty serious matter, an engine that could have, with a little innovation, and maybe a small patent licensing fee, a CR of 15:1, or more, is stuck at 10:1.

    And....turboes have no parasistic losses. Technically correct, the "losses" are accounted for at the engine design stage, Choosing a sub-standard CR of 10:1 instead of the 12-14:1 otherwise permitted by a DFI engine.

    The "control" issue....Using the wastegate as a throttle to provide a "linear" rise in boost once the actual throttle plate is fully open. I think you might agree that this is an entirely new aspect to engine turbocharging.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited April 2012
    So the net loss of an EcoBoost/(TwinForce) engine becomes a pretty serious matter, an engine that could have, with a little innovation, and maybe a small patent licensing fee, a CR of 15:1, or more, is stuck at 10:1.

    I hope you're not singling out Ford. Are you on BMW, Porsche, GM, Subaru, VW/Audi etc websites complaining about their detuned DI turbo engines?

    Nobody is employing the setup you keep spewing about. I've yet to find any manufacturer that builds DI turbo engines with more than 10:1 compression. Porsche's awesome 3.8 DI turbo runs 9.8:1 compression. 500hp and 480ft-lbs of torque is hardly detuned.

    BMW's 2.0 4cyl DI turbo and 3.0 DI turbo both are 10:1 compression, so I'm certainly not going to call out the ecoboost on this issue.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...I've yet to find any manufacturer that builds DI turbo engine with more than 10:1 compression..."

    My point, EXACTLY.

    But you will find, easily find, DI non-turbo engines with 12-14:1 CR.

    The EcoBoost/(TwinForce) engines sacrifice FE 98-99% of the time in favor of HP 1-2% of the time.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    But you will find, easily find, DI non-turbo engines with 12-14:1 CR.

    The EcoBoost/(TwinForce) engines sacrifice FE 98-99% of the time in favor of HP 1-2% of the time.


    Actually in the f150 it's about torque, which in a nearly 6k lb truck that can tow nearly twice it's weight, is needed far more than 1 or 2 percent of the time.

    Find me a N/A v6 that can produce 400+ ft-lbs of torque under 3k rpm, hell try finding a n/a gas v8 that can do it.

    In the case of the F150. The Ecoboost v6 provides 6.2 L v8 levels of power with fuel mileage that is better than the 5.0 v8 (though marginally better), but it's significantly better than the mileage the 6.2 yields.

    My point is a 3.5L v6 with DI and 14:1 compression will still be a lousy engine for a heavy vehicle designed to tow heavy loads.
Sign In or Register to comment.