Serious questions for those who are convinced that an Ecoboost replacement is coming

[jaz13]

Turbo engines are inherently heavier and more complicated. They have more parts and more systems to fail. They are also inherently less fuel efficient. For any given level of power, they require more fuel to achieve it in the real world (they need to run richer to keep the pistons cool). They come with inherent driveability issues, especially when they are intentionally undersized to game fuel mileage ratings (specifically, they have no power whatsoever off idle, they have boost lag, etc.).

All around they are just a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Wow, just wow, so much misinformation I don't know where to start.

First, Ford saved 100lbs going from the 6.2L to the 3.5LTT. They were hyping this fact up during the press launch and you can look it up if you doubt me. Countless articles and videos mentioned this.

Second, running rich to keep cylinders cool hasn't been done since the carburetor days. There are two ways to cool cylinders, add more fuel, or to run it leaner and add more air. (I assume you are familiar a concept called air cooling) For obvious reasons it is preferable to run lean and add more air in modern engines. With modern ECUs constantly adjusting the mixture, there is no reason to run rich of peak and that is a practice that died a long time ago.

Third, yes there is turbo lag, but with smaller and lighter turbos it only amounts to a fraction of a second in modern engines and almost all smaller turbo engines beat the previous generation N/A engines in 0-60 times.

Fourth, a turbo only adds two moving parts, the spinning turbo and a wastegate. Compare that to two extra pistons, rods, rings, valves, and springs, there are far more moving parts in a V8 than a V6TT. The other thing to keep in mind is reciprocating is far more stressful than spinning. That is why turbine engines are exponentially more reliable than piston engines.

But other than that, you are absolutely correct.

 

[Pacific Wheel]

Really? I agree with the complexity, but the torque curve on a modern turbo is a thing of beauty. My TT BMW V8 delivers max torque at something 1700 RPM. The Ford EB do about the same maybe a little higher, you really feel the torque at the low end, because it's where you spend most of your time.

Mike

A customer let me drive his GEN2 for a few miles. It feels a little laggy cruising around town compared to a GEN1. Probably more to do with the trans tuning. Definitely a quick truck when you want it to be though.

Some of the German turbo cars are insane with how they've eliminated lag.

 

[WarSurfer]

The eco also has piston squirters to assist heat management.

 

[MikeEby]

A customer let me drive his GEN2 for a few miles. It feels a little laggy cruising around town compared to a GEN1. Probably more to do with the trans tuning. Definitely a quick truck when you want it to be though.

Some of the German turbo cars are insane with how they've eliminated lag.

Curious....What mode were you in? The driving mode selected can makes a HUGE difference, at least it does with my BMW. In normal or comfort, lot of lag. Those modes are for economy and usually the default setting. Sport mode or Sport+ it comes alive, I would expect the Ford have similar type modes. My biggest issue with the V6 EB would be the sound and Ford silly "Augmentation" is ridicules.

Mike

 

[jaz13]

A customer let me drive his GEN2 for a few miles. It feels a little laggy cruising around town compared to a GEN1. Probably more to do with the trans tuning. Definitely a quick truck when you want it to be though.

Some of the German turbo cars are insane with how they've eliminated lag.

The Raptor is pretty quick off the line, but it leaves a lot to be desired when I'm trying to squeeze into a small gap in faster traffic. Between the turbo spooling and the truck dropping 4 gears, I have to floor it a second before I pull into faster traffic or else I bog down in front of the guy I just cut off.

 

[Pacific Wheel]

Curious....What mode were you in? The driving mode selected can makes a HUGE difference, at least it does with my BMW. In normal or comfort, lot of lag. Those modes are for economy and usually the default setting. Sport mode or Sport+ it comes alive, I would expect the Ford to be the same.

Mike

Regular and sport. Sport mode made a big difference.

The Raptor is pretty quick off the line, but it leaves a lot to be desired when I'm trying to squeeze into a small gap in faster traffic. Between the turbo spooling and the truck dropping 4 gears, I have to floor it a second before I pull into faster traffic or else I bog down in front of the guy I just cut off.

I agree. I was thinking about my average commute. It's a lot of 40-50mph driving so I'm typically 1500-2200 rpms. The V8 has more torque in that range, after that the EB starts to shine. I'm sure the new truck will just take a little getting used to.

 

[BurnOut]

Agree - Dodge and GM have taken the right approach to engine choices.
On a side note, I bet the Colorado ZR2 gives the Raptor a run for its money off-road. It actually has a vastly better exhaust note than the raptor too!

Rock crawling, definitely; mud-slinging, maybe. Desert running? Not a snowball's chance.

 

[Pacific Wheel]

Rock crawling, definitely; mud-slinging, maybe. Desert running? Not a snowball's chance.

Exactly. 31's and 8-9" of travel won't compare to the Raptor in the desert.

 

[Truckzor]

Really? I agree with the complexity, but the torque curve on a modern turbo is a thing of beauty. My TT BMW V8 delivers max torque at something 1700 RPM. The Ford EB do about the same maybe a little higher, you really feel the torque at the low end, because it's where you spend most of your time.

Mike

I've only ever seen one full dyno chart for an EB 3.5 HO and it showed like 150 ft/lbs of torque at 1000 RPM. This is compared to ~ 300 from a 6.2.

You're a friggin' genius!

This is actually one of the only true statements you have ever made on this forum. Congratulations.

Wow, just wow, so much misinformation I don't know where to start.

The misinformation is all on your side, my friend.

First, Ford saved 100lbs going from the 6.2L to the 3.5LTT. They were hyping this fact up during the press launch and you can look it up if you doubt me. Countless articles and videos mentioned this.

So basically the same weight savings if they had just put an aluminum block on the 6.2. Pretty disappointing if you ask me.

Second, running rich to keep cylinders cool hasn't been done since the carburetor days. There are two ways to cool cylinders, add more fuel, or to run it leaner and add more air. (I assume you are familiar a concept called air cooling) For obvious reasons it is preferable to run lean and add more air in modern engines. With modern ECUs constantly adjusting the mixture, there is no reason to run rich of peak and that is a practice that died a long time ago.

I am alarmed at your lack of knowledge here. You've conflated air cooling an engine with running an engine lean. Those are two completely different things my friend. A simple google search will yield dozens of credible sources that contradict your wildly inaccurate claims.

https://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/airfuel_ratio_tuning_rich_vs_lean

Third, yes there is turbo lag, but with smaller and lighter turbos it only amounts to a fraction of a second in modern engines and almost all smaller turbo engines beat the previous generation N/A engines in 0-60 times.

Much of the improvement you are citing in 0-60 times (an utterly useless number) comes from weight reduction, better gearing, etc. Boost lag doesn't speed anything up. It has quite the opposite effect. Waiting around for the power to show up is annoying. And when you're wheeling you often need to modulate the throttle. Boost lag makes this inherently more difficult.

Fourth, a turbo only adds two moving parts, the spinning turbo and a wastegate. Compare that to two extra pistons, rods, rings, valves, and springs, there are far more moving parts in a V8 than a V6TT.

Adding two (or in the case of the main bearing just one) more of something that already exists is a lot different then adding whole systems that didn't exist. Two turbos, additional oil lines, additional air lines, the intercooler, the wastegates, etc. It's a lot of additional parts to fail. A lot of additional lines to leak. And those things are hot as hell, too, which puts everything under a lot more stress. And they put that stress on fewer cylinders, which is why turbo engines have inherently shorter lives and higher failure rates.

The other thing to keep in mind is reciprocating is far more stressful than spinning.

I'm scratching my head here. Turbo engines don't have reciprocating parts then?

But other than that, you are absolutely correct.

That makes one of us.

 

[jaz13]

I've only ever seen one full dyno chart for an EB 3.5 HO and it showed like 150 ft/lbs of torque at 1000 RPM. This is compared to ~ 300 from a 6.2.

This is actually one of the only true statements you have ever made on this forum. Congratulations.

The misinformation is all on your side, my friend.

So basically the same weight savings if they had just put an aluminum block on the 6.2. Pretty disappointing if you ask me.

I am alarmed at your lack of knowledge here. You've conflated air cooling an engine with running an engine lean. Those are two completely different things my friend. A simple google search will yield dozens of credible sources that contradict your wildly inaccurate claims.

https://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/airfuel_ratio_tuning_rich_vs_lean

Much of the improvement you are citing in 0-60 times (an utterly useless number) comes from weight reduction, better gearing, etc. Boost lag doesn't speed anything up. It has quite the opposite effect. Waiting around for the power to show up is annoying. And when you're wheeling you often need to modulate the throttle. Boost lag makes this inherently more difficult.

Adding two (or in the case of the main bearing just one) more of something that already exists is a lot different then adding whole systems that didn't exist. Two turbos, additional oil lines, additional air lines, the intercooler, the wastegates, etc. It's a lot of additional parts to fail. A lot of additional lines to leak. And those things are hot as hell, too, which puts everything under a lot more stress. And they put that stress on fewer cylinders, which is why turbo engines have inherently shorter lives and higher failure rates.

I'm scratching my head here. Turbo engines don't have reciprocating parts then?

That makes one of us.

Wow dude, you are so friggin smart that every auto company and government agency should be begging you to come work for them. Clearly you know more about engines than everyone else. How come you are wasting time on an internet forum instead of saving the world from ignorance?

Since you are so smart, figure me this one. Why is my 2017 Raptor significantly faster than my neighbor's 2014 6.2L, all while getting 4mpg better than he does? For some reason the facts don't seem to be lining up on your side.