You might be discounting the highway miles a bit too much. There is still wear taking place. A lot of fuel is burned at highway speed. An ecoboost turbo truck will likely be producing positive boost pressure at highway speed. That is a lot of rotations for a turbine to spin 400k miles.
Naturally Aspirated (NA) V8 Engines
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
Here "The Fast Lane" tests a 2021 Ford eco vs. a new Chevy V8 in a Eisenhower tunnel tow run.
They performed roughly the same on this test. However, note that the ecoboost Ford costs about $20,000 more, roughly 35% more expensive. And I suspect long term the V8 is going to last a lot longer if used for this type of work....
While these turbo smaller engines are surely impressive IN THE SHORT RUN, they are a lot more expensive and I don't think they hold up doing bigger engine jobs long term.
They performed roughly the same on this test. However, note that the ecoboost Ford costs about $20,000 more, roughly 35% more expensive. And I suspect long term the V8 is going to last a lot longer if used for this type of work....
While these turbo smaller engines are surely impressive IN THE SHORT RUN, they are a lot more expensive and I don't think they hold up doing bigger engine jobs long term.
Perhaps true, but while we can quibble on the exact ratio, there's no doubt that highway miles are pretty easy for modern cars in all respects. Generally cruising at 1500 RPMs, lots of cold air rushing thru the engine, and minimal wear on anything.
That's a lot different than the 500,000 miles often reported on Toyota Tundras which live a life of hauling lumber to jobsites, probably averaging 15 miles per suburban trip to Lowes and back to the jobsite, or towing horse trailers on dusty country roads. These Tundras, for instance, are regularly reported to live hard lives and go 500,000 to 750,000 miles...
Here's a 2007 Tundra with 1,000,000 verified miles. https://pressroom.toyota.com/million-mile-tundra-2016/
I'll be curious to see in a decade how many or how few ecoboosts and turbo V6 motors live that long.
Last edited:
Yes.
have you looked under the hood of an F150 ecoboost? Two intake tubes(1 for each turbo), two outlet tubes(one for each turbo), two downpipes. oh and then the two gigantic DOHC cylinder heads sticking up. Its tight even in the F150 chassis.
ive had to do my exhaust manifolds twice now cause ford’s original design was so poor. The passenger side turbo is practically touching the upper shock tower. Just Getting the intake tube off is like 3 extensions and a univeral joint.
so yeah, id take an inline motor in a heartbeat. Hell I did a turbo upgrade on my liberty CRD wnd that engine bay is tighter than the ranger. I did basically the entire swap from above except the oil drain tube.
Last edited:
It cost 35% more because it was a Limited trim vs Trailboss. What a silly comment. You do know they sell more than one trim and that the 3.5L ecoboost can be had in any of them, unlike GM who likes to only put the 6.2 in higher trim levels. And Have you seen how much GM’s 6.2L costs, lol? Its a joke.
They run similar times because both engines produce enough HP to climb the hill at 60mph, which is not a tremendously difficult feat. TFL claims its the worlds toughest towing test but its not even close.
Try doing the same thing when its 95+ degrees outside and a 30 mph headwind while pulling a 7% grade. Oh and the freeway you are on has a 75-80 mph speedlimit so going much slower than 65mph becomes dangerous. Then the engines will show their differences.
it sounds like you dont tow much, or in very mild conditions. There is far more to towing that just driving up a hill in a certain time. I dont want to listen to the 5.3L reving at 4000+ rpm all day long when I could be in an ecoboost chugging along and never needing to exceed 3000 rpm.
i dont really care if the V8 lasts 500,000 miles. I dont. Its an irrelevant metric. It would take me, and most Americans, like 40 years to get that far. In 40 years my needs will have changed and will have moved on to something else.
Last edited:
Also, you wanna talk about poor towing vehicles, the GM 1500 gas trucks are so far down my list of viable options its not even funny. They only have a 24 gallon gas tank hahahaha.
That alone means I would never even consider a GM V8. Ram, Toyota and Ford all have tanks in the 30’s with Toyota having the largest at 38 gallons.
So you tell TFLTruck to hook up a trailer and do a real trip 400 miles through Wyoming while they get 7 mpg in a headwind and have them report back on how great that Silverado was. 8 minutes driving up a hill and a 70 mile MPG loop is hilarious.
Seems to me that if you're primarily towing it makes more sense to get a diesel...
Turbo engines are name of the game in numerous markets for a long time and yet, they make xxxxx miles. Now, execution of one is where discussion should be.
I am not sure that is the point of the test. I do this route once a week in the winter. It is more strenuous than anything in WY. High altitude is ultimate test for cooling and lubrication system.
That’s exactly right, its not the point of the test. But using TFL’s ike tests to compare motors is dumb, which is my whole point. My 300 hp 4.6L Lexus GX could probably pull that trailer up the hill at 60mph and hit the same time. Or it would be very close.
does that mean I would want to do it in my GX all the time? Or for hours on end? No, absolutely not. Just because an engine can pull a trailer up the ike in the middle of the winter at a 60mph speed limit doesnt mean anything. Its about how the engine pulls the trailer and that is what differentiates the ecoboost. It pulls like a diesel but has the top end of a gasser.
And the ike might be bigger/taller than things in Wyoming, but the winds, temps and other items are more extreme in Wyoming. The hardest pulls i have ever done were heading westbound in Wyoming. The grades are just as steep, the speed limits are higher, the winds are insane, and the temps can get pretty high all while you might be at 7-8000’. The sustained power i have had to use to cut my trailer through winds there on flat ground was probably approching the power needed to pull the ike.
Last edited:
so what, you have to get an HD pickup with a $10000 or $11000 diesel option to tow a 5-6000 lb trailer a couple times a month?
you just got done complaining about how expensive the ecoboost is.
@skrypj
I bought a Gen 1 Tundra for ~$3000 that will tow IIRC 7500 pounds. That's 1/20th the cost of a new pickup truck, and if you're only towing 3 times per month then buying a $60000 truck is, well, pretty unwise economically. In the rare instance you have to tow extremely long range without expected fuel service (almost unheard of) they make these things call gas cans. Bring a few full ones...
Buy a used 20 year old rugged truck and be done with it. Save $50-70k ...
If your JOB is towing stuff regularly, get a diesel. That's common wisdom.
Just remember someone had to buy the truck new for you to be able to buy it for $3000 20 years later. A lot of people use their trucks for a lot more than just towing some utility trailer and home depot runs so buying some 300k miles 2001 tundra doesnt work.
$60000? I mean I don’t what you shop for, but its not difficult to find a well equipped trucks for low $40’s or even 30’s. Or it was before this chip shortage. Now just finding a truck is hard. My fully loaded F150 Lariat was $42k.
also the fist gen tundra has what, 225 hp in that 4.7L until it went VVTi? That sounds great. Enjoy towing 7500 lbs.
Yup, and generally that first owner is called a sucker. They ate the depreciation, and then I buy it at massive discount. I appreciate the world full of suckers who buy retail, and then sell it at massive discounts.
I was incorrect. My 4.7L V8 Tundra has a towing capacity of 7000 lbs. per the owner manual. Came with a nice tow package already installed as well.
Last I looked, 7000 > 5000 or even 6000. So for infrequent towing of 5 or 6k, it seems like overkill to spend $42k on a truck (that I think you yourself said you won't keep for long term anyway, so having one go 500k miles is a moot point), is wasting about $35000+. I could easily infrequently tow what you need to tow, for 1/10th of the cost of doing so.You'd be better off for infrequent towing to just rent a proper truck 3 times per month. A truck rental for a day is $100. That's only $300 per month. You could rent a truck 36 times per year for well under $4000. You could do that for 5 years and omit all of the overhead of owning a truck and come out spending less than 1/2 what you do on the loaded F150...
Oh, and FYI, this particular engine and 4 speed trans combo is considered one of the best in class and nearly bulletproof, putting up 245hp and 315 ft/lb torque (the latter number being the more important for towing - but you probably already know that).
A 2021 Ecoboost Lariat is rated at 325HP and 400 ft/lb torque, and tows about 8000-10,000 lbs (depending on 2wd or 4wd). So, you've spent 13x as much money to gain a trivial advantage. lol.
Last edited:
tow rating is next to worthless, a 2001 BMW X5 is rated to tow 6000lbs. driving with 10k gvwr in a early 2000s half ton is a miserable experience.I was incorrect. My 4.7L V8 Tundra has a towing capacity of 7000 lbs. per the owner manual. Came with a nice tow package already installed as well.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Some of these “suckers” have suitable income streams and savings to buy what they want - yet are being judged for not wanting to drive old vehicles …
Are you sure the person buying it new at $23K and selling it for $6000 20 years later is a sucker or the person buying a 20 year old truck for $6K a sucker?
I will be surprised if ANY turbo vehicles have positive PSI cruising at highway speeds up to 80mph; that'll just be outright inefficient. Both my Evo and focus don't see positive PSI cruising under 80mph at all. Towing would be a different story, although I would imagine towing at 80mph with any engine is inefficient regardless.
Not many people put 250,000 miles on their vehicles before they get another vehicle. I put under 10,000 miles per year on my vehicles. When the vegicle is at a stabilized operating temps the wear rate is minimal.
Even Michael Jackson spent himself into bankruptcy. But hey, I'm not here to lecture. I also, twice in my life, bought brand new vehicles. It was foolish, and I learned. I absolutely appreciate people who do. I've paid 1/10th to 1/2 the price for most of my vehicles otherwise, and still gotten 75% to 95% of their value in terms of lifespan, and 100% of their usefulness at bargain prices. So I applaud all of those buying new cars and selling them with low miles, eating most of the depreciation so I don't have to! I look at is a free money...
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I think 99% of members understand vehicles are not investments … Unless one considers modern safety improvements an “investment “ …
Similar threads
