Ford Eco-boost vs silverado 5.3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: meep
the industry has been building OTR truck turbos in diesel applications for years--- I'd think Ford likely hired folks with experience there to make sure the pump itself is suitable.

I'd be mostly concerned about all the small parts around it and the engine itself to a smaller degree--- ford has had some engine design hiccups that should never have happened in the past decade (spitting plugs, PSD heads) that make me a litte wary but more so.... it's going to be the little things that worry-- sensors, control systems, the wrong rubber used in a seal...

For a work truck I'd probably skip the EB until it is "known good." for a personal vehicle I'd probably still bite since I like the style and I like the tech, and am ok working on them as a hobby on my own time.


So now you are concerned about the engine and not the turbo. Interesting moving targets you are throwing out there.


?not sure what you mean? above folks are discussing turbo gassers as new territory for trucks. I'm saying we have that tech in industry. my concern is based more of ford's recent build history. am I missing something? what moving target?
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
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).


That pretty much echos what we have learned and experienced with AFM in our '11. The implementation of Dexos that year, on top of the earlier incremental revisions, seems to have fully resolved the consumption issue. I would expect those AFM revisions to be passed along to the new models.

Otherwise, we have had zero problems with our '11 other than a sloppy dealer, which is not the truck's fault. It's a solid machine so far. And ours seems to have dodged the recent recalls. Admittedly, the NNBS was a mature model by '11.

As to the new model Chevy full-size trucks, I can't otherwise speak to the new engine or the rest that has changed. I do think the first couple years of any new model is prone to have more teething issues. That's true of any automaker, and not just GM or Ford. it's the cost of being the first with the latest on the block.


I follow the GM truck forums, there is some reports of oil consumption in the 2011/2012/2013 model year trucks that come equipped with the 5.3.

http://www.silveradosierra.com/vortec-5-...l%20consumption

That's one example, I'm on my second nnbs, first one being a 2009 sierra with the 5.3 as well, it did not consume oil, and neither does my current truck. Dexos is only a minor part of the oil consumption fix, for model years 2007-2011 there is a tsb that calls for the installation of a deflector shield that should keep the oil from disappearing, that would be the first fix the next would probably be a piston ring job or maybe even a new engine.

5.3s built after late 2011 come with the deflector and other anti oil consumption updates already built in from the factory. In my opinion I think its safe to say that afm oil consumption may still be haunting the GM 5.3, yes even the newer ones. I believe that there are many that don't consume oil and that the small fraction of those that do consume oil appear on forums online.

The new 5.3s (2014 models) have a larger oil sump 8.5 qts vs the old 6 qt oil sump, maybe it won't be as noticeable? The major difference would be that the new 5.3 is direct injection.
 
When someone hears something that they know is the truth like you they usually get very defensive when they know they made a mistake especially when they have spent a large sum of $$.


Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
This is directed to user "whip" and others. Ok now we are getting other people saying that new tech may not be perfect. Are you going to criticize them too or just me?

It's just you. Other people are having logical conversations. They're not claiming all new technology is going to fail. I haven't seen other people make up claims about resonance between two different materials ruining a vehicle, or saying the Ecoboost is going to fail after 2 years, even thou they haven't.
 
Originally Posted By: jimmy87

The new 5.3s (2014 models) have a larger oil sump 8.5 qts vs the old 6 qt oil sump, maybe it won't be as noticeable? The major difference would be that the new 5.3 is direct injection.


Interesting that oil capacity is rising. I'm not sure what to make of that. Longer OCI's? By adding 33% more oil it should go... 33% longer on an oil change, all other factors equal, no? I realize it's a new engine design, and with the (possible) complication of dilution from DI; but I find it odd that the sump capacity would rise.
 
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: jimmy87

The new 5.3s (2014 models) have a larger oil sump 8.5 qts vs the old 6 qt oil sump, maybe it won't be as noticeable? The major difference would be that the new 5.3 is direct injection.


Interesting that oil capacity is rising. I'm not sure what to make of that. Longer OCI's? By adding 33% more oil it should go... 33% longer on an oil change, all other factors equal, no? I realize it's a new engine design, and with the (possible) complication of dilution from DI; but I find it odd that the sump capacity would rise.


You hit it right on the head. It is all about maintenance interval. I would LOVE to have eight quart sumps on my fleet, as the requirements for OCI would extend dramatically for us...
 
Originally Posted By: jimmy87
I believe that there are many that don't consume oil and that the small fraction of those that do consume oil appear on forums online.


Excellent point. Since GM manufactures more than one million V8's every year there is an awful lot of them out there running fine and not using oil, etc.
 
Originally Posted By: meep


?not sure what you mean? above folks are discussing turbo gassers as new territory for trucks. I'm saying we have that tech in industry. my concern is based more of ford's recent build history. am I missing something? what moving target?


I'll give you the spitting plugs, but issues with the two former PSD's were International's problem, not Ford's. That's why we have Scorpion right now (Ford's in-house diesel).
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc

Oy...Ford never "owned" Mazda. They owned a stake in mazda. Mazda did not help Ford engineer their ECOBoost. That was an in house project done by Ford engineers. The DISI turbo by Mazda is not a similar engine to the ecoboost other than maybe the turbo itself. All of Mazda's help went into the design of the original Fusion and some models of the focus. Ford designed the 4-cylinder Duratecs based off of Mazda's MZR engines.

Yes, Ford owned a "stake" in Mazda, and it amounted to a "controlling interest".
The way that Japanese corporations work, one does not have to be a 51% majority shareholder to have controlling interest in a corporation. In some cases, one can gain controlling interest in a Japanese corporation with as little as 16% ownership share (but it typically takes closer to 25%). Make no mistake about it, Ford was calling the shots over at Mazda, and bankrolling them. Mazda and Volvo contributed a LOT of engineering expertise that was incorporated into into Ford products during their marriages, more than you think.
Mazda has been in financial trouble since the divorce from Ford and they are no-longer building cars in North America. Mazda has been actively seeking another suitor. Toyota is the latest company whose name has been mentioned as a possible suitor. Look what happened to Subaru after GM sold their stake in Subaru to Toyota. Toyota has massive resources and deep pockets, GM was headed for bankruptcy. Since Toyota got involved, Subaru has had access to resources that enabled them to redesign and modernize their entire line, engines included. Because of this, the quality of their vehicles has improved and the sales of their vehicles have SKYROCKETED! So much so that Subaru wants back the unused part of their Indiana assembly plant that Toyota moved into after the marriage so they can build more vehicles to meet demand. This success story has not gone unnoticed by Mazda and they would LOVE to get under Toyota's corporate umbrella.
 
IMO, if you are going to keep the truck to the bitter end, the ecoboost has the potential for more big repairs than a NA truck. There's just more complexity needed to keeping a twin turbo engine running well, and more things that can go wrong to take out the engine.
If you are just going to keep the truck for 5 years, then get either, odds are they both will be trouble free.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
IMO, if you are going to keep the truck to the bitter end, the ecoboost has the potential for more big repairs than a NA truck. There's just more complexity needed to keeping a twin turbo engine running well, and more things that can go wrong to take out the engine.
If you are just going to keep the truck for 5 years, then get either, odds are they both will be trouble free.

+1
 
I don't know if you're looking at the 2015 F150, but Ford is still having issues with the paint bubbling on it's aluminum body panels. They've been using them for over 10 years and still haven't solved the issue. So far they've been denying a lot of the warranty claims that say it's a defect.

This article mentions it as early as 2000 on some models and I just noticed bubbling on the back of my 2013 Expedition.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/...=blogs&_r=0

This will get a lot more public if Ford still hasn't fixed it and they continue selling a million F150s across North America every year.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
IMO, if you are going to keep the truck to the bitter end, the ecoboost has the potential for more big repairs than a NA truck. There's just more complexity needed to keeping a twin turbo engine running well, and more things that can go wrong to take out the engine.
If you are just going to keep the truck for 5 years, then get either, odds are they both will be trouble free.





Well said. And as Steve put so eloquently my vehicles owe me nothing when I'm done with them.
I'm trolling the silverado and ford truck forums right now. There are a few guys with in excess of 200k miles on their Eco-boosts,hauling trailers and working the trucks and only basic maintenance has been carried out.
That makes me feel more comfortable with them,but I sure do like chev as far as trucks go.
My work fleet is mostly ford,and only because the price was right,not because I like ford over gm or anything,but my personal purchases over the years have been 5 chev 4x4s,2 fords,and 3 dodges and I will say with complete certainty that Chevy makes a great truck,and the warranty can't be beat.
My fear is needing that warranty.
I've had great experiences with hemi engines thus far,and the ford Windsor in countless mustangs and 2 trucks.
But other than my 4v which is a dinosaur now I don't have much experience with new ford tech.
 
Dodge trucks have excellent powertrains, and their coil spring suspension is the best. From a reliability and longevity standpoint, it is the rest of the truck that brings them down. I will say this, they have improved noticeably in the last couple of years under Fiat's control. Lets see how they do in the long run.
 
The AFM thing got "disabled" on my 2013 5.3L for the various problems associated with it. And I guess the old cavalry soldier in me couldn't abide the idea that some cylinders got to take a smoke break while the others did the work. I bought 8 cylinders and I expect them all to pack the gear. I realize GM has had a heavy dose of union and government influence over the last few years, but I am not going to have my engine act like a government work crew and have cylinders goof off while the others work.

That being said, my engine uses about 1/4 quart of oil in roughly 6000 miles. Is that due to the AFM being disabled? Not sure, but from what others have experienced, I would say it probably helped a lot.
 
So if paint is peeling off the aluminum body panels hows the aluminum suspension gonna hold up?



Originally Posted By: D189379
I don't know if you're looking at the 2015 F150, but Ford is still having issues with the paint bubbling on it's aluminum body panels. They've been using them for over 10 years and still haven't solved the issue. So far they've been denying a lot of the warranty claims that say it's a defect.

This article mentions it as early as 2000 on some models and I just noticed bubbling on the back of my 2013 Expedition.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/...=blogs&_r=0

This will get a lot more public if Ford still hasn't fixed it and they continue selling a million F150s across North America every year.
 
Last edited:
Just stick to your model T's and go away. It holds up fine and has been in use for decades, as have aluminum body panels.
 
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
So if paint is peeling off the aluminum body panels hows the aluminum suspension gonna hold up?

Walk me thru this one. How does paint not adhering to body panels correlate to suspension parts not holding up?
 
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
So if paint is peeling off the aluminum body panels hows the aluminum suspension gonna hold up?

Walk me thru this one. How does paint not adhering to body panels correlate to suspension parts not holding up?


It could be that pesky "resonance" that causes parts made of dissimilar materials to magically explode?
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
So if paint is peeling off the aluminum body panels hows the aluminum suspension gonna hold up?

Walk me thru this one. How does paint not adhering to body panels correlate to suspension parts not holding up?


It could be that pesky "resonance" that causes parts made of dissimilar materials to magically explode?




Hehehe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
First tow/with 2023 Silverado 5.3 - Total trip 539 miles
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
CKN
mrsilv04
2024 Silverado 1500 LT Crew 4x4 5.3 or 2025 Ram 1500 Bighorn Crew 4x4 3.0 Hurricane?
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
K2K2
T
  • Locked
Did the "Pill Flip" mod for a friend's 6L80 2018 Chevrolet 1500
Replies
7
Views
4K
Tennessee
shortyb
Took a 2025 Ford Maverick Lobo for a spin (almost)
Replies
16
Views
2K
Number_35
R
My 10,000 mile review of the 2024 Tahoe
2
Replies
26
Views
14K
redhat
Back
Top Bottom