White99GT Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) The reason the Ford engine didn't have carbon build up there is because: 1) there is no fuel being injected into the ports This is the entire reason there are usually intake valve deposits with GDI engines, b/c there is no fuel washing down the intake port to keep everything clean from PCV and EGR deposits. It looks like Ford could be the first manufacturer to successfully address the problem. :shades: This problem has certainly kicked VW/Audi and GM's rears recently. Here's VW's GDI engine at 100K: Edited January 20, 2011 by White99GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 What motor was that picture taken of? A real world driving motor that hardly ever gets hot or driven hard? What Nr9 was trying to say, and I believe he has a point here despite his trolling elsewhere on the site, is that when motors are driven hard and gotten as hot as the ecoboost motor was that was tested carbon doesn't build up very much at all. That's why you'll hear guys talking to people with motors that have tons of carbon buildup say to run some additives through it and drive the crap out of the car for a while to try to bust the deposits lose. Not to mention these 165000 miles were simulated, I'd be very interested to see an ecoboost motor given to grandma for 100,000 miles and tear it down after to see how the intake valves look. Hell, I wonder if any of the SHO, EB MKS, Flex, MKwhale, etc motors have been torn down and inspected for any reason yet, I'd be very interested to see it. Now, again I'm not against this motor and I love to see the tech and innovation being put into a mainstream truck like this, I just hope it lives up to all of our expectations. I keep going back to the 6.0 durability testing they went through and the 6.4. I'm not sure which one they were saying they testing for a million miles towing all around the country with a good amount of weight behind it and we all know those motors didn't come out so durable (the 6.0 moreso than the 6.4, but I've still heard horror stories on the 6.4). Anyway, given the track record in the other vehicles this motor has been in I think we're going to have a winner on our hands. Something I've also been wondering, does anyone think Ford will downsize the ecoboost even further to come closer in power to the smaller v8s (because this motor is more comparable to the larger offerings as far as power/torque) and gain even more economy? Say something like a 2.7-3.0 v6 ecoboost with ~300-315hp and ~350-360 tq and maybe 1-2 more mpg to really smash the "small block" motors from the competition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Something I've also been wondering, does anyone think Ford will downsize the ecoboost even further to come closer in power to the smaller v8s (because this motor is more comparable to the larger offerings as far as power/torque) and gain even more economy? Say something like a 2.7-3.0 v6 ecoboost with ~300-315hp and ~350-360 tq and maybe 1-2 more mpg to really smash the "small block" motors from the competition? I think they will have to in order to meet CAFE regs. But, they have to prove the technology with the 3.5 EB first, then let it trickle down. I wouldn't be surprised to see a largish I4 EB in a base F150 in the coming years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) I keep going back to the 6.0 durability testing they went through The biggest initial problem with the 6.0L was the fuel delivery system (including the filter & injectors). That problem did not show up during testing because the system was probably tested with the superior Bosch injectors that Ford *wanted* (but didn't want to pay for) for part of that durability test and because Ford engineers have fleet fuel cards and didn't buy bad fuel. You could basically run congealed restaurant grease through the 7.3L, while the 6.0 was extremely sensitive to fuel impurities. Not sure why they didn't catch the turbo issues----although it's possible that those were defects in manufacturing where the fuel system problems were due to a defective test regimen producing unrealistic results. Edited January 20, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I think they will have to in order to meet CAFE regs. But, they have to prove the technology with the 3.5 EB first, then let it trickle down. I wouldn't be surprised to see a largish I4 EB in a base F150 in the coming years... I was thinking that as well as a replacement or alternative to the 3.7 base motor, a larger 4 banger ecoboost should be able to put up some impressive fuel economy numbers - though I think they're starting to hit a wall with the weight and aero properties of a truck for fuel economy. If the rumors are true it seems like they will be addressing these issues in the next gen truck though and if that is true then the smaller ecoboost motors will really start to become viable alternatives. I wonder if they have tested the 2.0 ecoboost in the F150 - the power numbers aren't all that far off from the older 4.2 v6 and I'm sure the torque curve is much more impressive. But, like I said, with the weight of the current F150 we might start meeting a point of diminishing returns. Maybe a 2.5 4 cylinder ecoboost could work in the next gen. My concern is that the fuel economy numbers don't look THAT impressive at first glance when you compare to the v8 offerings from GM. When you dig a little deeper and realize the power is comparable to the 6+ liter offerings the fuel economy numbers start to look really impressive. So hopefully Ford will be able to market it effectively as an alternative to the largest v8 motors, including the 6.2 from Ford and then it starts looking a little better. The biggest initial problem with the 6.0L was the fuel delivery system (including the filter & injectors). That problem did not show up during testing because the system was probably tested with the superior Bosch injectors that Ford *wanted* (but didn't want to pay for) for part of that durability test and because Ford engineers have fleet fuel cards and didn't buy bad fuel. You could basically run congealed restaurant grease through the 7.3L, while the 6.0 was extremely sensitive to fuel impurities. Not sure why they didn't catch the turbo issues----although it's possible that those were defects in manufacturing where the fuel system problems were due to a defective test regimen producing unrealistic results. Yes, that was one of the initial problems, but I think injectors were one of the smaller issues - there was also the problem of ULSD fuel not being available everywhere when the first 6.0's came out, IIRC. However, they didn't catch the issues with the turbo like you said, the EGR valve/egr cooler failing, head gasket issues (admittedly usually being caused by the egr cooler failing and letting coolant into the motor, and sometimes by people using tuners and running too much boost), and there are a few other problems that I can't recall at the moment. I do like that they picked these motors right off of the assembly line to do the testing with, hopefully that will prevent any issues that come up from assembly line mistakes. There was one motor that had an issue with the amount of torque being used to install something on the assembly line, possibly the spark plugs in a triton motor? I also seem to remember a similar problem during injector installation of one of the diesel motors with the torque being off on the assembly line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 I was thinking that as well as a replacement or alternative to the 3.7 base motor, a larger 4 banger ecoboost should be able to put up some impressive fuel economy numbers - though I think they're starting to hit a wall with the weight and aero properties of a truck for fuel economy. If the rumors are true it seems like they will be addressing these issues in the next gen truck though and if that is true then the smaller ecoboost motors will really start to become viable alternatives. I wonder if they have tested the 2.0 ecoboost in the F150 - the power numbers aren't all that far off from the older 4.2 v6 and I'm sure the torque curve is much more impressive. But, like I said, with the weight of the current F150 we might start meeting a point of diminishing returns. Maybe a 2.5 4 cylinder ecoboost could work in the next gen. My concern is that the fuel economy numbers don't look THAT impressive at first glance when you compare to the v8 offerings from GM. When you dig a little deeper and realize the power is comparable to the 6+ liter offerings the fuel economy numbers start to look really impressive. So hopefully Ford will be able to market it effectively as an alternative to the largest v8 motors, including the 6.2 from Ford and then it starts looking a little better. Yes, that was one of the initial problems, but I think injectors were one of the smaller issues - there was also the problem of ULSD fuel not being available everywhere when the first 6.0's came out, IIRC. However, they didn't catch the issues with the turbo like you said, the EGR valve/egr cooler failing, head gasket issues (admittedly usually being caused by the egr cooler failing and letting coolant into the motor, and sometimes by people using tuners and running too much boost), and there are a few other problems that I can't recall at the moment. I do like that they picked these motors right off of the assembly line to do the testing with, hopefully that will prevent any issues that come up from assembly line mistakes. There was one motor that had an issue with the amount of torque being used to install something on the assembly line, possibly the spark plugs in a triton motor? I also seem to remember a similar problem during injector installation of one of the diesel motors with the torque being off on the assembly line. ULSD was required for the 6.4 not the 6.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akent1936 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I wonder what would have happened to this ad/publicity campaign if the engine had gone kaboom say, 2/3 of the way through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I wonder what would have happened to this ad/publicity campaign if the engine had gone kaboom say, 2/3 of the way through? That's when you let the "magic" of Hollywood take over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I wonder what would have happened to this ad/publicity campaign if the engine had gone kaboom say, 2/3 of the way through? I'm pretty sure they did this test a few times before they did it, if you know what I mean.... The actual stress test would've been done dozens of times during development, and then the stuff they did with the truck could be simulated elsewhere. You could haul logs all over Dearborn proving, and you could haul 12,000lbs for 24 hours at Dearborn. The Baja could be simulated down in Arizona. I'm guessing that they knew the engine would pass with flying colors. And when you look at it, the only thing that's borderline out of tolerance is the seal leak on one of the cylinders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm pretty sure they did this test a few times before they did it, if you know what I mean.... The actual stress test would've been done dozens of times during development, and then the stuff they did with the truck could be simulated elsewhere. You could haul logs all over Dearborn proving, and you could haul 12,000lbs for 24 hours at Dearborn. The Baja could be simulated down in Arizona. I'm guessing that they knew the engine would pass with flying colors. And when you look at it, the only thing that's borderline out of tolerance is the seal leak on one of the cylinders. Always with the negative waves Moriarty. lol I was still impressed. That's a tough engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not trying to be negative. The most impressive thing is that torture test barely put the engine out of spec. Or, that torture test *wasn't*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Not trying to be negative. The most impressive thing is that torture test barely put the engine out of spec. Or, that torture test *wasn't*. I'm just giving you a little hell while Nr9 is on vacation. Agreed on the specs at the end of the test. Valve lash was still in the safe range, almost no play in the crank, still had plenty of compression and still has the cross thatching in the cylinders. And after all that it was put through. I don't care what anyone says. That is damned impressive for a factory line built engine. Hand built, high performance engines from the likes of Bugatti and Ferrari would be hard pressed to make an engine that durable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Ford’s EcoBoost Tear-Down Stunt Is Gimmicky What else would you expect from a Tundra site. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Love the bizarre reasoning found here: Think of it this way: If it were easy to simulate years of wear and tear, manufacturers would make even more reliable products, right? Manufacturers *are* making more reliable products, due to *better* simulations of years of wear and tear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Manufacturers *are* making more reliable products, due to *better* simulations of years of wear and tear. Well Duh! Just compare engine reliability and length of service today to 20 years ago. 20 years ago you were lucky to have an engine that lasted 100K. Nowadays they last that long with only fluid changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Even funnier than the article, did you read some of the comments that were made. These Tundra owners clearly do not know what makes for a good truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Ford’s EcoBoost Tear-Down Stunt Is Gimmicky What else would you expect from a Tundra site. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/ You mean like those commercials where a Tundra drives up a spiraling steel tower through a wall of flame? They're a bunch of hypocritical morons.... Edited January 21, 2011 by TomServo92 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Oddly enough when I try to look at that tundra article the web page is down. lol Look a lie can go around the world before the truth can get out of bed in the morning. If Ford were really trying to pull a fast one on the public with this EcoBoost torture test it would have been leaked to the media long ago. We all know that there are a lot of people out there who refuse to accept that an American car company can do anything good and God forbid they can do anything better than their beloved import company. But a lot of them are waking up too. Toyota's image has been well tarnished over the last year with the quality issues they have had and the end result is that a lot of people in the buying public have to come to the realization that Toyota is just a car company like any other car company. They have strengths and weaknesses, good things and bad, good products and bad. They are not omnipotent although they have worked hard to foster that notion amidst the public. The problem with doing that is that if you're going to try and convince everyone that your cars are beyond reproach and without flaw is that the actual products have to back up the talk. And they didn't. It happens, welcome back to reality Toyota fan boys. Oh and by the way the Tundra has never been that great a pickup truck. It's not a terrible truck, but it's not as good as they try to bill it either. I seem to recall those things had so much bed bounce that they would beat the paint off the cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Ford’s EcoBoost Tear-Down Stunt Is Gimmicky What else would you expect from a Tundra site. http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/01/12/ford-ecoboost-tear-down-gimmick/ made a comment, its awaiting moderation....lol, sad thing is its aimed at the "admin" idiot....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 made a comment, its awaiting moderation....lol, sad thing is its aimed at the "admin" idiot....... Seriously? They censor moderate every comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Seriously? They censor moderate every comment? it might be because its my first comment...however wouldnt surprize me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Seriously? They censor moderate every comment? still awaiting "moderation"...so heres a glimpse complete with my gratuitous typos....................unbelievable bunch of clap trap here…and one of the worst offenders happens to be “Admin”….this takes the cake….If you want to know about reliability, look at JD Power study results, Consumer Reports, Edmunds.com, etc…..why didnt you add “because they put the engines through the same types of abuse……” I agree on the surface this seems gimmicky…but its pretty ballsy…what if when opened up it looked like the inside of one of a certain manufacturers “sludge” mobile?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 One thing that I find extremely humorous, is that nothing about this teardown, has appeared anywhere on GMI. They are starting to be as bad as Camaro5. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 One thing that I find extremely humorous, is that nothing about this teardown, has appeared anywhere on GMI. They are starting to be as bad as Camaro5. LOL GM have no answer to the Ecoboost V6. The closest they can come is that V6 turbo abortion of an engine in the SRX and that's going away too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I know, I just "watch" people, even on the internet. It has become very funny over there, that any good Ford news, important news, or product news just doesn't seem to show up anymore, over there. News that is ho hum, or bad, does show up. There is currently a 26 page bitch sesson over the supposed canceling of the RWD Falcon. They even split pages off, and sent them to the Snake Pit. Some of the Aussies were starting to get a bit ridiculous, and had a hard time understanding how a business case cannot be made for a Billion dollar new platform, for a vehicle that sells 30K a year (and not a luxury vehicle). Anyway, it is just an observation, and curious and funny at the same time. GMI used to break more Ford stories than they did here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.