Ford Tops US Rivals on Turbos

[ANTAUS]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120823/AUTO0102/208230334/1148/auto01/Ford-tops-U-S-rivals-turbocharged-engines

[BORG]

And most people buying them won't even know they are turbos because Ford masterfully hid "turbo" from the marketing. And this also underscores the significant difference between "just a turbo" and the entire EcoBoost system at play on the Ford engines. The entire EcoBoost program is just a marvel of innovation and foresight on Ford's part, and their ambition to apply it across the board makes them the most innovative automaker in the world as far as I'm concerned. They have set the bar so much farther ahead that nobody has any hope of catching up anytime soon.

Edited August 24, 2012 by BORG

[RangerM]

The idea (to me) is sound--more power when you need it...from a smaller engine that provides better MPG when you don't. My biggest concern is the long-term reliability. Most cars nowadays (with proper maintenance) could last well over 200K miles. How do you maintain the turbo itself?

[jpd80]

Ecoboost is all about Ford staying in front of CAFE whilst continuing to give their buyers a strong fun factor in new age vehicles.

Kudos to Ford for presenting their Ecoboost strategy so well and setting the pace for others to follow..

[twintornados]

So it is agreed....Twin Force was a stupid name and Farley was right in dumping it in favor of Eco Boost.

[akirby]

The idea (to me) is sound--more power when you need it...from a smaller engine that provides better MPG when you don't. My biggest concern is the long-term reliability. Most cars nowadays (with proper maintenance) could last well over 200K miles. How do you maintain the turbo itself?

 

It maintains itself. I assume better cooling and better bearings have made the turbo problems of the past disappear.

[NickF1011]

It maintains itself. I assume better cooling and better bearings have made the turbo problems of the past disappear.

 

Pretty much. I mean do you hear about turbos being a concern on all of the fullsize pickup diesels? People regularly put 200,000+ miles on those things. We're not alking about a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe or Dodge Daytona 2.2 Turbo here. :lol:

[StevenCaylor]

Pretty much. I mean do you hear about turbos being a concern on all of the fullsize pickup diesels? People regularly put 200,000+ miles on those things. We're not alking about a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe or Dodge Daytona 2.2 Turbo here. :lol:

 

My 87 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe had 250,000 miles on it when I sold it. The turbocharger was still going strong and the car still passed it's smog test with flying colors.

[RangerM]

It maintains itself. I assume better cooling and better bearings have made the turbo problems of the past disappear.

 

I hope so, but having grown up in the '80s, it gives me the same impression as "lifetime transmission fluid". I'm skeptical.

[silvrsvt]

I hope so, but having grown up in the '80s, it gives me the same impression as "lifetime transmission fluid". I'm skeptical.

 

Far better oils (semi-synthetic and synthetic), ceramic ball bearings, and additional cooling (coolant lines going to where the bearings are) all improved upon the old days turbo engines.

 

From what I understand (was only 12 or so in 1986) one of the biggest issues with turbo engines at the time was "oil coking", where oil stay in the bearings at extreme temps, cool off and started to solidify, damaging the bearings/turbo. One of the things to do was to allow the turbo to cool by letting the car idle for a couple minutes before shutting it off.

[aneekr]

And most people buying them won't even know they are turbos because Ford masterfully hid "turbo" from the marketing. And this also underscores the significant difference between "just a turbo" and the entire EcoBoost system at play on the Ford engines. The entire EcoBoost program is just a marvel of innovation and foresight on Ford's part, and their ambition to apply it across the board makes them the most innovative automaker in the world as far as I'm concerned. They have set the bar so much farther ahead that nobody has any hope of catching up anytime soon.

 

Very well stated, BORG! :yup:

Ford's marketing approach to the Ecoboost 'brand' globally is genius. Hopefully the long term durability of the powertrains themselves turns out to be as good or better than those from other automakers.

Edited August 24, 2012 by aneekr

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

I hope so, but having grown up in the '80s, it gives me the same impression as "lifetime transmission fluid". I'm skeptical.

No turbo is bulletproof, but advances in bearing technology alone has improved longevity by several fold since then.

[V8-X]

I mean do you hear about turbos being a concern on all of the fullsize pickup diesels? People regularly put 200,000+ miles on those things.

Well old news, but ask some former SuperDuty owners who had the 6.0L. A lot of turbo failures there. If I remember correctly, you had to remove the cab to work on them. But maybe that was the 6.4L turbo's that needed the cab removed.

 

Otherwise, I think turbo's have improved 10 fold from their 80s/90s days.

 

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to turbo's. But what would be the impact difference on a turbo in a diesel, which typically run much lower rpms, versus a gasser that may be turning 5-6K+ rpms.

 

But like others have stated, kudo's to Ford on this development!

Edited August 24, 2012 by V8-X

[Deanh]

Well old news, but ask some former SuperDuty owners who had the 6.0L. A lot of turbo failures there. If I remember correctly, you had to remove the cab to work on them. But maybe that was the 6.4L turbo's that needed the cab removed.

 

Otherwise, I think turbo's have improved 10 fold from their 80s/90s days.

 

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to turbo's. But what would be the impact difference on a turbo in a diesel, which typically run much lower rpms, versus a gasser that may be turning 5-6K+ rpms.

 

But like others have stated, kudo's to Ford on this development!

turbos werent the issue, they were victims of an insanely STUPIDLY plabced EGR valve....domino effect.....

[fordmantpw]

Well old news, but ask some former SuperDuty owners who had the 6.0L. A lot of turbo failures there. If I remember correctly, you had to remove the cab to work on them. But maybe that was the 6.4L turbo's that needed the cab removed.

The 6.4L requires removal of the cab, not the 6.0L. And, yes, there were some turbo problems with the 6.0, but most of the 6.0 issues were non-turbo related.

 

Otherwise, I think turbo's have improved 10 fold from their 80s/90s days.

 

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to turbo's. But what would be the impact difference on a turbo in a diesel, which typically run much lower rpms, versus a gasser that may be turning 5-6K+ rpms.

 

But like others have stated, kudo's to Ford on this development!

 

Turbo's turn 100k RPMs plus, so the higher RPM's of a gasser shouldn't make that much difference. A turbo's RPM isn't as tied to the engine RPM as a supercharger, which is driven off a belt from the engine. A turbo is driven by exhaust pressure on the vanes of the turbo. Plus, a diesel's turbo provides MUCH more pressure gain than a gassers. My 6.4L will run near 40PSI, and from what I've seen of the EB turbos on the F150, they are closer to 13 PSI.

Edited August 24, 2012 by fordmantpw

[fordmantpw]

turbos werent the issue, they were victims of an insanely STUPIDLY plabced EGR valve....domino effect.....

 

And how many of those failures were from owners that chipped their trucks. Reports are, non-chipped 6.0L trucks were actually pretty reliable, made good power, and got decent fuel economy.

[jpd80]

I hope so, but having grown up in the '80s, it gives me the same impression as "lifetime transmission fluid". I'm skeptical.

On Gasoline turbo cars,

Water cooled center bearings were the game changer, allowing the elimination of turbo timers on cars

previously needed to cool down the center bearing before shutdown.....

Edited August 24, 2012 by jpd80

[V8-X]

The 6.4L requires removal of the cab, not the 6.0L. And, yes, there were some turbo problems with the 6.0, but most of the 6.0 issues were non-turbo related.

Thanks, knew one of the two needed the cab removed. Do the new SD's with the 6.7L need the cab removed for work as well?

 

And yes I did see a lot of EGR issues with the 6.0L. But from what I've gathered over the years from various owners I've personally known (neighbor across the street had an '03 with turbo issues too) and through car clubs and forums, the 03 & 04 models were notorious for turbo issues, while the 05-07 models turbo issues were to a much much lesser degree.

 

Turbo's turn 100k RPMs plus, so the higher RPM's of a gasser shouldn't make that much difference. A turbo's RPM isn't as tied to the engine RPM as a supercharger, which is driven off a belt from the engine. A turbo is driven by exhaust pressure on the vanes of the turbo. Plus, a diesel's turbo provides MUCH more pressure gain than a gassers. My 6.4L will run near 40PSI, and from what I've seen of the EB turbos on the F150, they are closer to 13 PSI.

 

Again thanks.

[fordmantpw]

Thanks, knew one of the two needed the cab removed. Do the new SD's with the 6.7L need the cab removed for work as well?

 

For major issues, I think they do. There is just SO much crammed under the hood, it's damn-neat impossible to work on. Radiators, coolers, hoses, turbos, etc. There is no room at all!

[Edstock]

My 6.4L will run near 40PSI,

 

That's 80 inches of boost, FWIW. Stout.

 

Back in the 1950's, Trans Canada Airlines ran North Stars, with Merlins instead of the DC-4's Pratt & Whitneys. TCA had to run 'em at 80 inches for take-off. When I was 10, got to fly in one, unbelievably loud for hours on end.

[fordmantpw]

When I was 10, got to fly in one, unbelievably loud for hours on end.

 

What??? I can't hear you!

[SoonerLS]

For major issues, I think they do. There is just SO much crammed under the hood, it's damn-neat impossible to work on. Radiators, coolers, hoses, turbos, etc. There is no room at all!

I thought the Scorpion diesels had the exhaust and turbos in the valley--or would that be why the cab would need to be removed?

[RichardJensen]

And how many of those failures were from owners that chipped their trucks. Reports are, non-chipped 6.0L trucks were actually pretty reliable, made good power, and got decent fuel economy.

Provided they used high quality diesel. Low quality diesel ruined tons of injectors.

[RichardJensen]

What??? I can't hear you!

 

Sure! You can use it!!

[SoonerLS]

And how many of those failures were from owners that chipped their trucks. Reports are, non-chipped 6.0L trucks were actually pretty reliable, made good power, and got decent fuel economy.

My dad's F350 has the "6.OhNo" (bone stock). He had problems with it early in its life (IIRC, it had to do mostly with the cold idle, but I vaguely remember him saying something about it being down on power), but they finally got a PCM code revision that fixed it. When he was having the problems, he was so aggravated that he was talking about trading it for a Chebbie--and all of his trucks have been Fords (and he's not owned any GM products since I was a wee bairn).

 

After that final flash, though, he's been happy with it, and it makes almost excessive amounts of torque. F'rinstance, he has a Ford 4000 agricultural tractor with a '96-ish Ford industrial diesel mill that he used to tow on a 16' utility trailer behind (what's now) my '91 F150 4x4; the tractor's rear wheels alone weigh well over 500lbs each, and that industrial (steel) mill only adds to the weight--there was one intersection where he had to drop the xfer case into 4-Low to get across. Now he pulls it on a steel-decked 20' gooseneck, and it's like the PSD doesn't even notice that it's pulling any extra weight at all. It didn't even flinch when he used it to move his John Deere 4020, and that one literally lifted the rear wheels of the truck off the ground when its front wheels hit the trailer's deck...thank God for wheel chocks and a B&W Turnover Ball hitch...

Edited August 25, 2012 by SoonerLS