ecoboost longevity

[dareo]

Does the initial premium to buy Ecoboost over the 5.0L engine plus a replacement pair of turbos exceed the cost of gas for a 5.0L?

Doubt it. 150,000 miles w/EPA combined mileage ratings is only $1932 savings at 3.50 a gallon.

I'd get a 5.0 and not worry about shutting it down hot. Sometimes when important work is taking place you don't have time to turbo time your truck.

What about the rings and bearings of a boosted 3.5L vs an N/A 5.0? I don't think anyone will argue the 3.5 will last longer.

The selling point of the 3.5 is the fun factor, not longevity or savings.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: dareo


The selling point of the 3.5 is the fun factor, not longevity or savings.


I suspect that is true. It's not that it can't last longer, or be cheaper. But at this moment I think I am in agreement. For the sedate driving I do, I'd rather have the V8 and avoid any condensation issues. Then I could drive it hard as infrequently as I want, like any other NA motor.

I think Ford wants to push this motor for packaging reasons. V6 ought to be smaller and lighter, no?

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: supton
Does a turbo cost more or less than an auto trans? Seems most want to forgive a trans rebuild after 150k, as a wear item, yet don't think a bad turbo is tolerable.


I found this info on the web previously that said to replace both of the turbo's on the ecoboost would cost ~$2k (or half of that for just one).

Sounds less than a trans rebuild considering today's advanced transmissions.


Year - they're about $800 a pop. And that's assuming you have to replace them both. You all can check MSRP - head over to www.fordparts.com and put in 2011 F150 and pick the Ecoboost. You can then see the price for a turbo.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: dareo

I'd get a 5.0 and not worry about shutting it down hot. Sometimes when important work is taking place you don't have time to turbo time your truck.


Not needed. Today's turbos are also water cooled with a siphoning effect. Never have timed mine - just shut them off. Even when on our 1-day PA to FL trip. Pull into the gas station, off goes the ignition. Fill up tank, empty bladder, back on road.

Quote:
What about the rings and bearings of a boosted 3.5L vs an N/A 5.0? I don't think anyone will argue the 3.5 will last longer.


One should look how the 3.5 EB is built. It borrows a lot of tech from turbo diesels. And nobody says those don't last. Even the "lowly" I6's in big rigs.

The only negative about the Ecoboost is no V8 growl. But I don't need that to have a smile on my face. Getting shoved in the seat does that for me.

Both power plants are fine and will last a long while. No doubt about that. Both get about the same duel economy. One drives like a Diesel with a flat torque curve. The other drives like a rev-happy V8. Pick which one you like best and drive it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: supton
Does a turbo cost more or less than an auto trans? Seems most want to forgive a trans rebuild after 150k, as a wear item, yet don't think a bad turbo is tolerable.


Depends on what else the grenading turbo takes out!

 

[hattaresguy]

I never let turbo diesels idle down and most equipment operators don't either, turbo's never go.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: dareo
Does the initial premium to buy Ecoboost over the 5.0L engine plus a replacement pair of turbos exceed the cost of gas for a 5.0L?

Doubt it. 150,000 miles w/EPA combined mileage ratings is only $1932 savings at 3.50 a gallon.

I'd get a 5.0 and not worry about shutting it down hot. Sometimes when important work is taking place you don't have time to turbo time your truck.

What about the rings and bearings of a boosted 3.5L vs an N/A 5.0? I don't think anyone will argue the 3.5 will last longer.

The selling point of the 3.5 is the fun factor, not longevity or savings.


If Ford did more than bolt on a pair of turbo's, than they engineered and built the engine for the additional heat that the turbo's generate. The bottom end is probably stronger, the pistons are probably oil cooled etc.

Again their are a lot of turbo charged 300k mile Saab and Volvo's running around not counting diesels...

 

[millerbl00]

Again their are a lot of turbo charged 300k mile Saab and Volvo's running around not counting diesels...[/quote]




Ford and Chevy not on same level as Saab and Volvo....

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00

Ford and Chevy not on same level as Saab and Volvo....


No, they both have been making cars for over 100 years.... Saab is no more, Volvo has been sold a few times...

If you seriously think Ford took their 3.5, bolted on a turbo and called it a day you need to do some reading.

Here's a good overview of the EB 3.5:
http://www.full-race.com/articles/inside-the-ecoboost-f-150.html

Even the new 2.7 is going to have the same features:
http://www.trucktrend.com/features/consumer/1410_ford_2_7l_ecoboost_v_6_inside_look/?__federated=1

They did their homework!

 

[millerbl00]

They have taken short cuts before. Why trust them now?

When Ford came out with the new frame design around 2005 they said they tested. But they still missed a big flaw with the new frames.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00


Ford and Chevy not on same level as Saab and Volvo....


You do realize the irony of that statement, right? For a very long time GM owned Saab and Ford owned Volvo.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00

When Ford came out with the new frame design around 2005 they said they tested. But they still missed a big flaw with the new frames.


Do Tell. Cause the only frame issues I remember are the Raptors where they tend to bend if you jump them at high speed. And I'd hardly call that a flaw.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: millerbl00


Ford and Chevy not on same level as Saab and Volvo....


You do realize the irony of that statement, right? For a very long time GM owned Saab and Ford owned Volvo.


The other side of this is production numbers.

Ask yourself how many cars has Volvo made this year? Saab even in their best year? For saab total production in 07 was 125k units! Ford makes that many Egoboosters in an afternoon!

Since the junkyards are not littered with dead 3.5 eboosts then we must conclude that most of them run well and reliably for a decent length of time...

 

[millerbl00]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: millerbl00

When Ford came out with the new frame design around 2005 they said they tested. But they still missed a big flaw with the new frames.


Do Tell. Cause the only frame issues I remember are the Raptors where they tend to bend if you jump them at high speed. And I'd hardly call that a flaw.


Frame resonance above 54mph. I had a 2006 with the problem. $2000 later still could not be fixed. Frame to stiff at wrong spots caused a bad resonance.


It is estimated that 25% of all 2004, 2005, and 2006 Ford F150s have the vibration problem. The body/frame shutter vibration is a design flaw and cannot be fixed. Ford TSB says to install a vibration damper on the left rear underside of the truck, but it won't help. Ford has also written a TSB that says to tell the Customer that the cause of the vibrations is tire flat spotting, which is absolutely absurb.

Buy what you want dont complain when you have problems.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
For now all we have to go by is educated guesses and anecdotal evidence


Maybe not:

Here are some quotes from EB owners:

"Update: Just rolled 136,000 on my 2012 F150 purchased in April 2012. No problems yet"

"Just about 97,000 on my EB!! No problems yet! Fingers crossed! Purchased in April 2012"

"Just purchased 2012 Lariat Supercrew 4x4 with 167k. runs smooth. got the extended warranty just in case!"


When you have hundreds of thousands of examples floating around you're likely to see anything. Plenty of Ecos grenaded during that time too. IDK if vehicles driven that much are an indicator of what regular drivers' Eco will be doing in 12 years when it hits 150K.

For people that want to keep their trucks for a long time I'd avoid the Eco. Just more stuff to break with little benefit. The 5.0(and 3.7) has plenty of power to keep up with traffic or race to the next red light. MPGs are based mostly on your foot. If you tow a good amount of weight on a regular basis the Eco may make sense to avoid the diesels if possible. If you trade every couple years it obviously doesn't matter.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: hatt

When you have hundreds of thousands of examples floating around you're likely to see anything. Plenty of Ecos grenaded during that time too. IDK if vehicles driven that much are an indicator of what regular drivers' Eco will be doing in 12 years when it hits 150K.


Ford has replaced many 5.0's in F150s too. Don't think it's a 100% bulletproof engine either. It's had some issues too and has had a few grenade. Like you said, put enough of anything out there and problems are bound to show up.

Even the "bulletproof" 4.6/5.4/6.8 had plenty of failures!

Quote:
Just more stuff to break with little benefit.


Sure it's got more stuff but it also shares a lot of the same technology with the 3.7 and 5.0. All of them have "more stuff to break" and yet rarely does that more stuff break!

Everyone has to do what they are comfortable with as they are the ones making the payments or paying the bill. If you're going F150 you really can't go wrong with any of the engine choices as all are fine engines.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Now that Ford has upped the cambelt interval to 150K on the Fiesta ST, it's tempting haha.

Should I spend my down payment for a house on a car or ...a house. Going with house for now haha.

I really like the ecoboost engines. I want to put a separator on my parents 2.0L.

 

[Phishin]

Everyone seems to think that there will be no problems when these truck hit 175k--200k miles. I guess we'll see. I know where I'm placing my bet.

And to me, the most important factor, will be how well does a 2010 EB vs. a 2010 NA 5.0 run/sound/reliable after 175k miles.

I can promise you that NOT many people on here have driven a turbo charged car with 200k miles on it. And if you have, you know it ran like a dog turd.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
Everyone seems to think that there will be no problems when these truck hit 175k--200k miles. I guess we'll see. I know where I'm placing my bet.

And to me, the most important factor, will be how well does a 2010 EB vs. a 2010 NA 5.0 run/sound/reliable after 175k miles.

I can promise you that NOT many people on here have driven a turbo charged car with 200k miles on it. And if you have, you know it ran like a dog turd.


It's a 1/2 ton truck. There's going to be lots of other things wearing out at that age.

 

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: Phishin
I can promise you that NOT many people on here have driven a turbo charged car with 200k miles on it. And if you have, you know it ran like a dog turd.


Not true at all. I've driven a turbo Volvo with over 200k (original engine and turbo) that ran just as well as another one with only ~50k on the motor and turbo. I've seen other turbo Volvos, Saabs, etc. over 200k with no issues, some pushing close to 300k.