We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Comments
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.
3.73 Supercab FX4.
Highway mileage ranges from 20-23 on non-winter gasoline.
Hope that helps.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just how many EcoBoost/(TwinForce) F-150s that are sold are EVER asked to do that...???
Back to that 1-2%...??
Sounds, to me, more like a job for a diesel.
2012 RDX 2.3L I4/DFI/turbo 240HP.....22MPG hwy
And that's not even without DFI for the new RDX V6 engine.
Ford LIES..!!
2012 RDX 2.3L I4/DFI/turbo 240HP.....22MPG hwy
And that's not even without DFI for the new RDX V6 engine.
Ford LIES..!!
As usual, you don't have the facts straight. The 2013 RDX also gets a 6 speed transmission vs a 5 speed for the 2012 model. Plus Acura's 2.3 turbo IS NOT direct injected. So as usual, you're talking out of your sphincter!
What does this have to do with Ford and what is Ford lying about? Does it not produce the power or return the mileage Ford claims? The guys I know that actually own Ecoboost f150's have been happy with both the power and the FE. My main question remains with durability and that's yet to be determined.
But it will have no where near the power of the turbo 4. The new 2.0 SkyActiv engine with it's 13:1 compression ratio will only have 155hp and 150 ft-lbs of torque which is basically 100hp and 100ft-lbs of torque short of the 2.3 DI Turbo. I'll gladly give up a few MPG to drive a vehicle that can get out of its own way.
You're still falsely assuming that the turbos are not engaging during all acceleratory runs, and all hills.
You read Wikipedia and now you are married to the idea that CR is the only way to make efficiency gains, which is false. When it comes to high-torque applications, nothing can touch the EB's efficiency (minus a diesel). That is at ANY rpm or throttle application.
Accelerating under boost is more efficient than NA acceleration, including NA, DI, with similar torque ratings. Combustion efficiency caused by high CR works best in low-torque applications. At anything other than an idle, NA engines cannot get enough air through vacuum alone to produce as high a torque at as low an rpm as a boosted engine. They have to rev to achieve higher vacuum, and hence the creates wasted heat through friction of the cylinders with the extra revs.
And even on the highway, idle is not 100% of the time. Even Nebraska has slight inclines, merges, passing...
CR is only a theoretical indication of efficiency at any given rpm. When you add the variable of what an NA engine has to rev to to achieve meaningful torque, the efficiency skews highly towards Ecoboost.
http://www.f150forum.com/f70/how-similar-ecoboost-other-turbocharged-engines-156- 880
I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines. They confirm I've been correct, and you have been belligerently ignorant.
Every single thing you've said about turbocharged engine operation has been wrong. You wasted significant time, numerous pages of text, $12, and your last remaining functioning brain cells adamantly defending points that were wrong.
Stop trolling Ecoboost forums, or at least troll one like F150 forums where half the posters are mechanics. Because 1-on-1 you just get more belligerent, even when I was talking total sense to you.
It would be entertaining to see you defend your 'guesses' in that crowd. Its even a way better value than your subscription to Ford parts, where you gained only a false perspective
Not a real problem with the low velocity airflow required for simple cruise mode. But romp on the gas pedal, BOOOST comes on, intercooler air velocity goes UP, "washing" much of that puddle of water directly into the intake manifold.
That, of course, results in not just a few misfires and the ECU decides something has gone TERRIBLY wrong and puts the engine in "limp home" mode.
The most obvious DIY cure is to drill a small hole in the very bottom, lowest point, in the intercooler outlet end cap, solder in a modified(***) brass nipple, and couple the nipple to the intake manifold vacuum via a rubber tube.
*** Fill the nipple end with solder and then drill an opening orifice through the solder using the smallest drill bit you can come by.
In cruise mode the high manifold vacuum will suck any condensate, as it forms, into the manifold with a low enough volume no detriment will result.
Assuming the new orifice is small enough the DBW will eventually adapt to the new source of "idle" intake airflow. Or you can force a quicker adaptation via disconnecting the battery briefly.
City mileage seems to vary between 14 /15 mpg , while hwy is disturbing getting 17 maybe.... Sure it will pull without an issue but I expected more as well.
:confuse:I anticipated once broken in 16.5/17.0 city, 20.5 hwy @ 72 miles per hour, and about 13.5 pulling a 8900# load (trailer). So far no joy but believe there are some issues that need to be addressed.
A diesel would struggle to get 13.5 mpg while pulling a 8,900lb travel trailer. I tow a 25' 6,000lb boat and I also have an 8,000lb+ 32' travel trailer. I can get about 12mpg towing the boat with my '07 Expedition (6 speed/3.73 gears) but it's more like 7-9mpg with the travel trailer. I wouldn't expect an Ecoboost to do much better, and possibly worse considering the fact it has more hp/torque which requires fuel to produce.
I agree on the Yukon/Suburban, I had one and the 5.3 is gutless and the 4 speed trans anyway is junk (had mine rebuilt at 47k miles). Not that Ford's 5.4 is a powerhouse, but it has a lot more torque at lower rpm.