2013 Ford Focus: Ecoboost or No?

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

Personally I'd pass on the turbo. And I live in a place where one would be REAL nice. It IS more complex and will require more maintenance plus who knows about how long it will last.


I don't get the hate on turbos. They last forever in semis and have proven themselves in HD Diesel pickups. Modern turbos should be good for many many miles. I'm not worried about my Ecoboost turbos at all.

Also don't get the "more bells and whistles are more likely to break". I've had tons of cars and other stuff with all the bells and whistles (what can I say I'm a tech geek) and the extras rarely break.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: ediamiam
I was looking a the Ford Edge a while back. My recollection of the turbo on the ecoboost is they are good for 150k and would require replacement. If you're looking for funability vs maintenability go with the ecoboost...


I heard the design lifetime was 150k. But that's the standard design lifecycle for all cars anyway so nothing new there.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
..


ARCO has a point. Then again, this is the guy that's managed to kill more cars than anyone I know. I still don't understand how he managed to kill a brand new Ford Ranger with the 4.0L Cologne. That engine is about as durable as any engine I've seen =|
Naw, not the Cologne it was a 2.3L DOHC Mazda engine made poorly in Spain. (Parts content on window sticker ENGINE: SPAIN; TRANSMISSION: JAPAN). Ford ran to big a plug gap using a waste spark ignition with the wrong type of spark plug (IR) for waste spark. Engine misfired and crossfired itself to death during a month of high humidity and rain and bad gasoline.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

If I kept my Focus, I'd like to see how many miles I can get out of it.

With the exception of rust, that is.

 

[hattaresguy]

If a turbo charged engine is built correctly it will hold up just as well as anything else. The Europeans have long proven that.


So the question really is, do you trust that Ford didn't cut corners?

I don't know; if it were me I'd probably roll the dice, Ford has a lot ridding on the Ecoboost line of engines so I think they should do about as well as a 20 year old turbo Saab.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Nick R
..


ARCO has a point. Then again, this is the guy that's managed to kill more cars than anyone I know. I still don't understand how he managed to kill a brand new Ford Ranger with the 4.0L Cologne. That engine is about as durable as any engine I've seen =|
Naw, not the Cologne it was a 2.3L DOHC Mazda engine made poorly in Spain. (Parts content on window sticker ENGINE: SPAIN; TRANSMISSION: JAPAN). Ford ran to big a plug gap using a waste spark ignition with the wrong type of spark plug (IR) for waste spark. Engine misfired and crossfired itself to death during a month of high humidity and rain and bad gasoline.


Got any vids of this misfiring, self-destructing Ranger 2.3?

 

[sciphi]

I'd get the little turbo engine. More power when needed, better fuel economy every other time.

Driving a similarly pint-sized turbo engined Cruze, it's a lot of fun to listen to the whopping 1.4 liters of hamsters get all wound up and high on boost. They really start scurrying around on their little treadmills, and make that car scoot when necessary. They're for certain better athletes than the 1.5 liters of hamsters in the Fit that don't get force-fed, since those hamsters are slower and hungrier for gasoline, even with 300 lbs less weight to haul around.

I'm not worried about the "hamster huffer" in the Cruze wearing out prematurely since used oil analysis have been coming back okay. And it's $600 for a new super-hamster-motivator. Much cheaper than replacing the smooth-talking wise guys in the Honda's transmission!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If a turbo charged engine is built correctly it will hold up just as well as anything else. The Europeans have long proven that.


So the question really is, do you trust that Ford didn't cut corners?

I don't know; if it were me I'd probably roll the dice, Ford has a lot ridding on the Ecoboost line of engines so I think they should do about as well as a 20 year old turbo Saab.


How many are GAS fed vs Diesel?

BIG difference.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

Personally I'd pass on the turbo. And I live in a place where one would be REAL nice. It IS more complex and will require more maintenance plus who knows about how long it will last.


I don't get the hate on turbos. They last forever in semis and have proven themselves in HD Diesel pickups. Modern turbos should be good for many many miles. I'm not worried about my Ecoboost turbos at all.

Also don't get the "more bells and whistles are more likely to break". I've had tons of cars and other stuff with all the bells and whistles (what can I say I'm a tech geek) and the extras rarely break.


Thank you for admitting Turbo Diesels are a different thing than turbo gas. Totally different and does make a difference in how long they last and how much maintenance you have to provide.

BTW: I used to say HERE for Years that I'd love to have a Turbo Diesel until the new EPA stuff came out. Now I have NO desire to own one.

If something is NOT on a vehicle then its not going to break. Either "rarely" (your word) or never. Don't have power window motors then I'll never have to replace one. That is a fact.

If my engine does not have a turbo then I'll never have to replace it. If I'm getting 44 mpg without one, not having to worry about prem gas then I'll take the simpler route without a turbo. It is possible.

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: ediamiam
I was looking a the Ford Edge a while back. My recollection of the turbo on the ecoboost is they are good for 150k and would require replacement. If you're looking for funability vs maintenability go with the ecoboost...


I heard the design lifetime was 150k. But that's the standard design lifecycle for all cars anyway so nothing new there.


As someone who today rolled over 256,000 miles on my 2005 I'm glad that it designed to last only 150,000 miles.

All the other vehicles that I've taken WELL PAST 150,000 miles (or friends who bought the vehicles from me and have done so) the 150,000 mile life seems to be questionable.

Take care, Bill

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If a turbo charged engine is built correctly it will hold up just as well as anything else. The Europeans have long proven that.


So the question really is, do you trust that Ford didn't cut corners?

I don't know; if it were me I'd probably roll the dice, Ford has a lot ridding on the Ecoboost line of engines so I think they should do about as well as a 20 year old turbo Saab.


How many are GAS fed vs Diesel?

BIG difference.


All gas and not really.

Plenty of 200k-400k mile Volvo and Saab turbo engines running around here.

Again its not really new, the Europeans have been doing it since the 80's without much trouble. You just have to beef up the motor, IE oil cooled pistons, sodium filled valves etc, and use a good turbo like a KKK and your GTG.

There is a lot more to it than bolting a turbo to an engine, which I hope Ford is not doing.

 

[sciphi]

The modern turbo engines are pretty robustly built. They're designed from the oil pan on up to handle boost. Forged internals and water-cooled turbos are all par for the course.

None of the majors slapped a turbo onto an engine and called it a day. They either took a proven turbo engine and built off of it, or made a clean-sheet design.

Ford put the 3.5l TT engine through some very rigorous testing. I have no doubt they did the same for all their other turbo engines.

 

[Virtuoso]

Turbo all the way!!

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Nick R
..


ARCO has a point. Then again, this is the guy that's managed to kill more cars than anyone I know. I still don't understand how he managed to kill a brand new Ford Ranger with the 4.0L Cologne. That engine is about as durable as any engine I've seen =|
Naw, not the Cologne it was a 2.3L DOHC Mazda engine made poorly in Spain. (Parts content on window sticker ENGINE: SPAIN; TRANSMISSION: JAPAN). Ford ran to big a plug gap using a waste spark ignition with the wrong type of spark plug (IR) for waste spark. Engine misfired and crossfired itself to death during a month of high humidity and rain and bad gasoline.


Got any vids of this misfiring, self-destructing Ranger 2.3?
No. But I can dig up the VIN and you can do a carfax and see what was repaired after it went to auction in the NorthEast last year.

Here you go:
-2011
-FORD
-RANGER
-4CYL
- V.I.N ___ 1FTKR1ADXBPA30350

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
If a turbo charged engine is built correctly it will hold up just as well as anything else. The Europeans have long proven that.


So the question really is, do you trust that Ford didn't cut corners?

I don't know; if it were me I'd probably roll the dice, Ford has a lot ridding on the Ecoboost line of engines so I think they should do about as well as a 20 year old turbo Saab.


How many are GAS fed vs Diesel?

BIG difference.


All gas and not really.

Plenty of 200k-400k mile Volvo and Saab turbo engines running around here.

Again its not really new, the Europeans have been doing it since the 80's without much trouble. You just have to beef up the motor, IE oil cooled pistons, sodium filled valves etc, and use a good turbo like a KKK and your GTG.

There is a lot more to it than bolting a turbo to an engine, which I hope Ford is not doing.

Also, I think about how good the Nissan Twin Turbo 300ZX as well as some of the Nissan cars that we didn't get in the USA.

The Toyota Supra Twin Turbo was also good.