Jump to content

My thoughts on 2011 F-150 Ecoboost

doverarjim

By doverarjim
in The Off-Topic Bar

Recommended Posts

HEMICAT Enthusiast

HEMICAT

Posted
Posted

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

 

 

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Have you ever towed with the 5.7? I was very specific in saying I was referring to towing. VVT cannot create torque in rpms that the ports just cannot flow properly for. If it could, we would be seeing torque peaks at a usable rpm, and not at near 5k. VVT has its use, generating torque at low rpm is not one of them(low rpm meaning the rpm range you actually drive in). Torque at low rpm is what is required when towing. I am not talking about peak hp numbers, not talking about fuel economy when empty, not talking about the bench racing numbers, I am talking about towing.

 

 

 

You're going to have to step out of the 90's man. If towing is your priority get a diesel if you can't push a little harder on the throttle and listen to an engine rev.

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

 

 

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Have you ever towed with the 5.7? I was very specific in saying I was referring to towing. VVT cannot create torque in rpms that the ports just cannot flow properly for. If it could, we would be seeing torque peaks at a usable rpm, and not at near 5k. VVT has its use, generating torque at low rpm is not one of them(low rpm meaning the rpm range you actually drive in). Torque at low rpm is what is required when towing. I am not talking about peak hp numbers, not talking about fuel economy when empty, not talking about the bench racing numbers, I am talking about towing.

 

 

 

VVTs exact purpose was to give a flat powerband. LS heads are better than anything ever bolted to an old school SBC, and if you argue that you obviously know nothing about engines. The LS is light years ahead of the 5.7. And I can't understand why people don't like revving out the engine. They're designed to run at 5000 rpm as well as 2000.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

Attached is a graph of the LC9 5.3 from GMPowertrain.com. It shows torque being at 310-330 depending on gas/E85 at 2800 RPM. The same RPM the 350 makes 350 lb-ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Vortec_engine#5700

 

 

We're talking a difference that is marginal, especially with a 6-speed that can keep this engine in the sweet spot more readily. Claiming the 350 tows better is retarded. Even with a marginal power advantage the chassis is so inferior to a 8/900 series truck that any advantage is negated by a truck that can't stop for shit, that will use more gas, that is less comfortable and won't be as safe if you crash. You lose.

Screen Shot 2012-10-07 at 6.09.51 PM.png

Screen Shot 2012-10-07 at 6.09.51 PM.png

Screen Shot 2012-10-07 at 6.09.51 PM.png

Screen Shot 2012-10-07 at 6.09.51 PM.png

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

Doug_Scott Senior Enthusiast

Doug_Scott

Posted
Posted

Attached is a graph of the LC9 5.3 from GMPowertrain.com. It shows torque being at 310-330 depending on gas/E85 at 2800 RPM. The same RPM the 350 makes 350 lb-ft. http://en.wikipedia....tec_engine#5700

 

 

We're talking a difference that is marginal, especially with a 6-speed that can keep this engine in the sweet spot more readily. Claiming the 350 tows better is retarded. Even with a marginal power advantage the chassis is so inferior to a 8/900 series truck that any advantage is negated by a truck that can't stop for shit, that will use more gas, that is less comfortable and won't be as safe if you crash. You lose.

 

 

Explain why in real life a 91 ECSB 5.7 3.08 gears can tow a 12x7 enclosed trailer containing two motorcycles and kit for a race weekend, and never downshift to climb a hill on the highway, and two weekends later, same trailer, same load, but truck is now a 05 ECSB 5.3 3.23 gears cannot make the same trip without having to downshift to maintain the speed limit on the same hwy. All I am saying is towing requires torque at speeds you are driving. You keep going on about how the new engines are far superior in every regard, and that if I don't agree then I must know nothing about engines. Hate to say it, but, I will gladly take my "no knowledge" of engines over your "knowledge" anyday. Sometimes you have to actually drive something to understand. Not a fan of this "bench racing".

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

A 91? So no Vortec heads, TBI still and shit gearing? I'm calling bullshit, I flat out do not believe you.

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

Doug scott you comparing oranges to apples bud. The newer vehicles are a far more Capable towing platform than the older trucks as far as powertrain goes....especially a 1991 5.7 litre. I had a 94...I know what they're like. No way an old 350 with 3:08's can out tow a 5.3, not a chance.

HEMICAT Enthusiast

HEMICAT

Posted
Posted

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

 

 

Not to upset you man but diesel is not superior or cleaner than gas- that's absurd, it's even debatable if it's more fuel efficient anymore with all the emissions- and it's only going to get worse. Gas engines have come a long way as well, and they are only going to get better. No need to explain what diesels are best at, we all know, but the gas is a much better "all around" platform that is much less complex and inexpensive.

Ianf Enthusiast

Ianf

Posted
Posted

Back to the original thread comments on mileage from the ecoboost engine, I have to ask how the ratings were done for the EPA CAFE standards. In other words how often did the turbo kickin during the fuel ratings test and are the tests actually weighed towards only NA engines. If no boost ever got used in the mileage tests, then the numbers would be extremely overstated to real world driving conditions. Slower speed increases, no load towing, etc. would surely skew the results towards displacement only and not include the boost factor at all.

 

I certainly hate it when manufacturers make things more complex and less mechanically efficient by adding parts that will require more maintenance over time and thus increase the lifetime operating costs far more than the lifetime fuel economy gains. I think that direct injection may be the way to go to increase both reliability and fuel economy as opposed to turbocharging or even diesel in daily driver work trucks.

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

 

 

Not to upset you man but diesel is not superior or cleaner than gas- that's absurd, it's even debatable if it's more fuel efficient anymore with all the emissions- and it's only going to get worse. Gas engines have come a long way as well, and they are only going to get better. No need to explain what diesels are best at, we all know, but the gas is a much better "all around" platform that is much less complex and inexpensive.

 

Your whole statement truly shows how blind the western world is to diesel technology. LOL. Common rail diesel engines are VERY simple, and diesel is very much so cleaner. Today's light duty diesel trucks emit the same pollution as a small car. Get with the times, read a book. Get educated. I'm done readibg all this nonsense. Ever been to Europe? If you have or ever will you will remember when I say western manufacturers are te last ones sucking the teet of the gas companies....

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted
Back to the original thread comments on mileage from the ecoboost engine, I have to ask how the ratings were done for the EPA CAFE standards. In other words how often did the turbo kickin during the fuel ratings test and are the tests actually weighed towards only NA engines. If no boost ever got used in the mileage tests, then the numbers would be extremely overstated to real world driving conditions. Slower speed increases, no load towing, etc. would surely skew the results towards displacement only and not include the boost factor at all.

 

I certainly hate it when manufacturers make things more complex and less mechanically efficient by adding parts that will require more maintenance over time and thus increase the lifetime operating costs far more than the lifetime fuel economy gains. I think that direct injection may be the way to go to increase both reliability and fuel economy as opposed to turbocharging or even diesel in daily driver work trucks.

 

"turbo kick in" LOL you do you realize how a turbo works don't you?

kstruckcountry Senior Enthusiast

kstruckcountry

Posted
Posted

I'm with chevyboy, if you want mileage and towing capability, you want a diesel. The 06 Cummins we pull with gets ~14 MPG pulling the gooseneck with 2 horses. It has 4.10 gears and screams on the interstate, and still pulls down better mileage and obviously more power than a gasser. I see no reason why this would be any different for a diesel in a 1500.

HEMICAT Enthusiast

HEMICAT

Posted
Posted

I'm not meaning to argue with you Chevyboy, I just don't agree. Europe was forced to bring those small vehicles to market by government, it wasn't a choice because they wanted them. We have way nicer vehicles here, and I hope and prey we don't loose them. Danny, that's not a good comparison- '06 was back in the good days for diesels, and gas was not near as good as now- different times.

The problem with a diesel 1500 is fairly simple- aside from a few people on here, nobody I know in the real world wants one.Nobody will buy a slower version of a modern half-ton, which make approx. 350-400 HP. In order for a diesel to match a gas for horsepower it has to make about double the torque- which puts us right back at the 6.6 duramax, and that will never happen in a half-ton. Today's 1500's can already tow 10-11K , how much more would really be "safe"? I read in a paper recently an arcticle that said the take-rates for diesels in all the HD markets are dropping because of the expense and reliability issues of the emissions and with the emergence of more powerful and efficent gas engines- not exactly an incentive for the manufacturers to build one. I see companies all around me switching to gas for their fleets as well as fire companies, police, government and ambulance companies.

I am not a "diesel hater" or a " gas fanboy", I wanted a diesel for a long time but didn't get one because of common sense- they just don't make sense anymore, unless you need one for heavy towing or work.

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

Have you ever towed 10-11k with a half ton??? Yes it can do it but in all reality anything after 8k gets pretty hairy. I think it's more than a few people that want it, diesel is the way of the future. Nobody cares about HP, what you want is torque. If you had a 350hp 700ft lb half ton diesel it would blow the doors off of a gasser towing. Diesel is the way of the future, auto manufacturers know it too. Look at the Jetta tdi, 500k mileage no problem. And still get

1000kms to a tank on the highway. What im saying is if they marketed it properly, they would sell. Because they make more sense. Who wouldt want a

Vehicle with extra torque, twice the engine longevity and cheaper fuel...I just don't understand why people are so afraid of them.

HEMICAT Enthusiast

HEMICAT

Posted
Posted

Come on man, you're like my internet family, can't we just agree to disagree! Diesel is not the way of the future and the manufacturers know it. Neithers electric, but that's another story. People who buy half-tons don't want the drawbacks of a diesel and do you really think towing 20K with a diesel 2500 or 3500 is "safe" ? And the longevity argument is moot because if anyone kept a diesel as long as it took to wear out gas engine they would most

likely face repairs more expensive than replacing an entire gas engine- I've seen it myself and that wasn't even an emissions diesel! We are still friends, right

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...