Ford Eco-boost vs silverado 5.3
- Thread starter Clevy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Clevy
AFM/MDS is a definite must have if going with a v8 . . .
AFM isn't some fuel-saving panecea, and doesn't really save all that much fuel in my experience. Maybe 1 mpg overall if I drive like a granny. You can feel a slight difference in engine rhythm when it's running on 4. Much prefer to feel all 8 firing. If I could have our truck without it, I would happily do so.
But at least on the GM 5.3 AFM, all the bugs now seem all worked out, and it does work fairly seamlessly. The 5.3 is otherwise a tried and true power plant with a very solid record.
For 2014 all the motors are new so the new 5.3 is a shot in the dark, the old 5.3 was a very good motor as was the ancient 4.3 which is also dead now.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
AFM/MDS is a definite must have if going with a v8 . . .
AFM isn't some fuel-saving panecea, and doesn't really save all that much fuel in my experience. Maybe 1 mpg overall if I drive like a granny. You can feel a slight difference in engine rhythm when it's running on 4. Much prefer to feel all 8 firing. If I could have our truck without it, I would happily do so.
But at least on the GM 5.3 AFM, all the bugs now seem all worked out, and it does work fairly seamlessly. The 5.3 is otherwise a tried and true power plant with a very solid record.
For 2014 all the motors are new so the new 5.3 is a shot in the dark, the old 5.3 was a very good motor as was the ancient 4.3 which is also dead now.
Last edited:
Yup thats all the point I was trying to make the old engines where long lasting and proven. The new stuff is a shot in the dark that I am not willing to be a beta tester on again.
[/quote]
For 2014 all the motors are new so the new 5.3 is a shot in the dark, the old 5.3 was a very good motor as was the ancient 4.3 which is also dead now. [/quote]
[/quote]
For 2014 all the motors are new so the new 5.3 is a shot in the dark, the old 5.3 was a very good motor as was the ancient 4.3 which is also dead now. [/quote]
Last edited:
Have we established if chev has cured the afm oil consumption issues. No mds dodge I own or maintain(4) consumes any noticeable oil between intervals and without mds I lose at least 5mpg in my charger.
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Have we established if chev has cured the afm oil consumption issues. No mds dodge I own or maintain(4) consumes any noticeable oil between intervals and without mds I lose at least 5mpg in my charger.
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
Have we established if chev has cured the afm oil consumption issues. No mds dodge I own or maintain(4) consumes any noticeable oil between intervals and without mds I lose at least 5mpg in my charger.
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
Wait a moment. Unless you are personally driving all these vehicles or have it programmed into your employees to drive conservatively fuel economy, it is going to be worse than you hoped.
Looking back on the thread, what do you see from actual owners of EcoBoost trucks...it CAN get good fuel economy..what outnumbers the rest of the comments is "boost" "intoxicating torque" "power" etc etc. Any time you put turbo on the side of a vehicle, it sub/consciously gets driven differently. The boost will be used...because of the advantages it has over an naturally aspirated engine...more boost less fuel savings.
Looking back on the thread, what do you see from actual owners of EcoBoost trucks...it CAN get good fuel economy..what outnumbers the rest of the comments is "boost" "intoxicating torque" "power" etc etc. Any time you put turbo on the side of a vehicle, it sub/consciously gets driven differently. The boost will be used...because of the advantages it has over an naturally aspirated engine...more boost less fuel savings.
Vehicles aren't for employees. They are for both my brothers,my sister and myself.
Basically a perk of company ownership.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Have we established if chev has cured the afm oil consumption issues. No mds dodge I own or maintain(4) consumes any noticeable oil between intervals and without mds I lose at least 5mpg in my charger.
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
Interesting.
Thanks you. I'm going to get comfortable and read that thread. I'm planning on delaying purchase til after I buy a new to me machine,and I want to get paid out for this apartment we are just finishing up,so if we do buy the Chevy hopefully they will have fixed the problems with the trucks on the lot anyways.
Thanks again for everyone's input. I do appreciate it.
Basically a perk of company ownership.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Have we established if chev has cured the afm oil consumption issues. No mds dodge I own or maintain(4) consumes any noticeable oil between intervals and without mds I lose at least 5mpg in my charger.
An mds hemi is now on the short list because we've decided not to finance and just buy them outright.
With that now chev doesn't look at good to me except the warranty of course. 0% is certainly nice but no financing is even better.
Does any one know how far they'll drop prices once the 2015s come out typically. I don't care about the year per say if I can save a buck or a lot of bucks,since I'm also forklift shopping too
After the fixes were impemented in about 2011 builds the reports of afm related oil consumption have stopped on the web. I think there would be reported issues by now since issues started to pop up within ~20k miles. I wouldn't worty about it.
The more serious issue seems to be vibration issues. Definately not solved and causing many people a lot of grief (there is a thread on a gm truck forum over 100 pages on this issue).
Interesting.
Thanks you. I'm going to get comfortable and read that thread. I'm planning on delaying purchase til after I buy a new to me machine,and I want to get paid out for this apartment we are just finishing up,so if we do buy the Chevy hopefully they will have fixed the problems with the trucks on the lot anyways.
Thanks again for everyone's input. I do appreciate it.
Clevy's trucks are just like ours... like a hammer, they are simply a tool to get work done and earn an income.
Note there is no AFM problem in our newest vans, they never use a drop. Many folks with older AFM vehicles had no issues at all, but none of them ever posted in a forum...
Note there is no AFM problem in our newest vans, they never use a drop. Many folks with older AFM vehicles had no issues at all, but none of them ever posted in a forum...
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
Looks like I am not the only one with this view. I believe it will be two years max that this happens.
Originally Posted By: wag123
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
Originally Posted By: wag123
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
A coworker bought an f150 echoboost and plans on towing an 8000lb camper with it!
That should be interesting.
That should be interesting.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: spasm3
A coworker bought an f150 echoboost and plans on towing an 8000lb camper with it!
That should be interesting.
Should work fine. One of the guys I work with tows one with his 5.0L.
A coworker bought an f150 echoboost and plans on towing an 8000lb camper with it!
That should be interesting.
Should work fine. One of the guys I work with tows one with his 5.0L.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: spasm3
A coworker bought an f150 echoboost and plans on towing an 8000lb camper with it!
That should be interesting.
Should work fine. One of the guys I work with tows one with his 5.0L.
It might be, but a turbo v-6 and a 1/2 ton frame for an 8000lb trailer would make me nervous. I'd go f 250 for over 6000lbs on a regular basis.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
A coworker bought an f150 echoboost and plans on towing an 8000lb camper with it!
That should be interesting.
Should work fine. One of the guys I work with tows one with his 5.0L.
It might be, but a turbo v-6 and a 1/2 ton frame for an 8000lb trailer would make me nervous. I'd go f 250 for over 6000lbs on a regular basis.
Time will tell over the next few years. I have a feeling these engines could get expensive to repair.
Originally Posted By: wag123
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
IMHO Ford is going to earn a BIG black eye from this ECOBoost thing.
ECOBoost is just a made-up marketing term (sales hype) for TurboCharging. Starting in about 5 or 6 years, when the the trucks are out of warranty and the turbochargers start failing left and right, the people who bought into the ECOBoost hype are going to HATE Ford and spread their Ford hatred all over the truck world!
IMO anybody looking at Ford trucks would be far better-off in the LONG RUN opting for the 5.0L V/8, for less money.
Also, everyone I know that has an ECOBoost is not very happy because they are not getting the gas mileage that they were expecting. On the other hand, everyone I know that has a Chevy 5.3L V/8 is very happy because they are getting BETTER gas mileage than they were expecting.
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2026
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
The short answer, Yes. Not much difference bewteen how the turbos operate.
I owned 7 turbo Dodge cars, and while they were fun they were a labor of love. You got lucky espcially since your car had the Mitsubishi turbo. They were all not that good, plus that truck is being used differently than your Shadow was.
Having said that the guys on the RV board have been towing with them a bunch and have some miles. The only complaints I have heard have been MPGs are not as good as advertised and the early ones had a condensation problem in the intercooler causing a miss. That has been addressed. I imagine they will be fine.
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
The short answer, Yes. Not much difference bewteen how the turbos operate.
I owned 7 turbo Dodge cars, and while they were fun they were a labor of love. You got lucky espcially since your car had the Mitsubishi turbo. They were all not that good, plus that truck is being used differently than your Shadow was.
Having said that the guys on the RV board have been towing with them a bunch and have some miles. The only complaints I have heard have been MPGs are not as good as advertised and the early ones had a condensation problem in the intercooler causing a miss. That has been addressed. I imagine they will be fine.
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
The short answer, Yes. Not much difference bewteen how the turbos operate.
I owned 7 turbo Dodge cars, and while they were fun they were a labor of love. You got lucky espcially since your car had the Mitsubishi turbo. They were all not that good, plus that truck is being used differently than your Shadow was.
Having said that the guys on the RV board have been towing with them a bunch and have some miles. The only complaints I have heard have been MPGs are not as good as advertised and the early ones had a condensation problem in the intercooler causing a miss. That has been addressed. I imagine they will be fine.
OK, so should it be worse? I don't see how 25+ years of refinement would lead to a worse design.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
I had a 1988 Dodge Shadow with a turbo that went to 200k miles w/out a hiccup before I got rid of it. Are you trying to tell me that a turbo designed in 2014 won't be better than one designed in 1988?
The short answer, Yes. Not much difference bewteen how the turbos operate.
I owned 7 turbo Dodge cars, and while they were fun they were a labor of love. You got lucky espcially since your car had the Mitsubishi turbo. They were all not that good, plus that truck is being used differently than your Shadow was.
Having said that the guys on the RV board have been towing with them a bunch and have some miles. The only complaints I have heard have been MPGs are not as good as advertised and the early ones had a condensation problem in the intercooler causing a miss. That has been addressed. I imagine they will be fine.
OK, so should it be worse? I don't see how 25+ years of refinement would lead to a worse design.
If anything, 25 years of tweaking could lead to worse reliability--remove too much cast iron / whatever, tweaking for the lowest cost to manufacture, that sort of thing. But otherwise, given how many passenger cars are now turbo'd, I tend to agree, probably not a problem today. At least not on the premise of it.
Turbo in my Jetta made it 251kmiles before it snapped. And it's not known for being a great turbo at that.
Turbo in my Jetta made it 251kmiles before it snapped. And it's not known for being a great turbo at that.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2026
No it should not be worse. I can't recall if the Ecoboost turbo has a water jacket like the the old turbo Dodges. They had an oiled bearing (of course
) and a water jacket.
Edit:
I looked again, they are. That does help with longevity.
Edit:
I looked again, they are. That does help with longevity.
Seeing the amount of recalls ALL manufacturers are having right now I would not count on anything. They seem to be moving too fast with new changes.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
