New egoboost

[Spurshot]

turbos and superchargers operate off different principals. A turbo in general is better for a motor. Granted whenever you add an induction system to the mix you add more variables and more potential for failure. But with proper engineering you can mitigate those risk. Europe i.e. benz and mercedes have building vehicles with this technology for years and some of the best reliability in the world. The problem is in America we have for decades insisted on throwing more cubic in to the equation to solve performance problems, and thats fine and all but is it the best approach?

A "turbo" is a supercharger. It's just exhaust driven. They are centrifugal compressor, turbine exhaust driven, superchargers. There are superchargers that are belt driven, chain driven, gear driven, and probably other methods. Some belt driven superchargers are centrifugal compressor types, some are Roots type.

 

They all have differences and they all have similarities.

 

The P-51 had a gear driven centrifugal compressor supercharger. The P-38 had turbo-supercharged engines. The early 60s Corvair Spyder had a turbo-supercharger as did the 1962 Olds Cutlass Jetfire. In the 80's there was the Buick Grand National Regal that had a turbo supercharger.

 

Nothing new under the sun.

[bdbake01]

Let's not forget the GM supercharged 3800's that ended up in all sorts of vehicles. Absolutely bulletproof reliability.

[Spurshot]

This is the last centrifugal supercharged engine I had a chance to operate a few years ago.

 

 

[Jon A]

Entire test is BS! #1 killer for naturally aspirated engines is high altitude = thin air = substantially less HP. Take them all down to sea level and run the same test.

 

You missed the more important point--even at the high altitude of the TFLT test, the 6.2 still had more power. It was only the transmission refusing to use the correct gear that caused it to be slower. If they had simply shifted manually the results would have been different.

[Jon A]

The problem is in America we have for decades insisted on throwing more cubic in to the equation to solve performance problems, and thats fine and all but is it the best approach?

 

I guess you're oblivious to the advancements that have been made in recent years. The new 6.2 has more torque (even at fairly low RPM) than the 8.1 L bigblock did just a few years ago and a ton more power. All while getting around 50% better mileage. That's huge. Think about those numbers for a minute. They really are amazing.

 

I don't know why we're arguing about superchargers other than as a diversion, since the 6.2 does not need FI to smoke a tuned ("towing safe") ecoboost so it's a moot point. Over the next year as the aftermarket and owners get caught up, you'll see plenty of 6.2's here (if you're still coming here by then) in the 425-450 RWHP range with only simple mods, dramatically cheaper than a supercharger all while maintaining even better than stock reliability.

[nards444]

Didn't the quoted passage from the manual say to use premium for best performance?

during towing and times of high stress environments. Regular operation only 87 reccommened which I beleive that phrase is common with lots of vehicles.

[Jake56]

 

To the contrary i have never owned a ford in my life, except for when i was a kid and my parents bought a ford econoline to travel in (that thing was awesome!). I am not here to try and change your mind about fords being pieces of garage, but what I cant stand is when closed minded people like you post ignorant post, i.e. your post that i just quoted has almost no merit to it.

Except that the merit comes from an investigation by the National Highway Administration and Safety that the just closed in 2014 .........I quote............ " NHTSA has closed an investigation into a reported performance deficit without ever getting to the recall stage.

 

The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 – specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine – of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May – almost a year ago – into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.

 

Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage........end of quote

 

so at least 4500 reported cases of turbo problems let alone the grocery getter purchasers that would not of noticed they were having problems so went unreported !..... and premium reccommended.......So Nardo and you seem to be the ones ignoring the problems and fawning over Fords on a GM site. But trade in your GM if you dare take on Ford's problems!

 

[nards444]

 

I guess you're oblivious to the advancements that have been made in recent years. The new 6.2 has more torque (even at fairly low RPM) than the 8.1 L bigblock did just a few years ago and a ton more power. All while getting around 50% better mileage. That's huge. Think about those numbers for a minute. They really are amazing.

 

I don't know why we're arguing about superchargers other than as a diversion, since the 6.2 does not need FI to smoke a tuned ("towing safe") ecoboost so it's a moot point. Over the next year as the aftermarket and owners get caught up, you'll see plenty of 6.2's here (if you're still coming here by then) in the 425-450 RWHP range with only simple mods, dramatically cheaper than a supercharger all while maintaining even better than stock reliability.I

I havent compared a stock 6.2 to a tuned ecoboost, to be frank I dont care. What a power package can do and not do beyond stock in my mind is really a moot point, as when you start modifying items are you really talking apples to apples. And really to talk about what 6.2 owners might do to their 6.2 is moot point, it hasnt happened yet, and again I have only talked about out of the box stock items. My contention is really right out the box and stock, which I stated after owning both(which very few in here have) that the ecoboost was more impressive and had more power than a 5.3 of old and new. As for the 6.2 according to the numbers it should win in a lot test or head on competition, im not taking away from the merits of that package. IMVHO in most categories if you put the eco against a 6.2 in a head on challenge it would be very close in most categories with possibly taking a few.

[nards444]

Except that the merit comes from an investigation by the National Highway Administration and Safety that the just closed in 2014 .........I quote............ " NHTSA has closed an investigation into a reported performance deficit without ever getting to the recall stage.

 

The issue revolves around the Ford F-150 – specifically those equipped with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine – of which some 360,000 were built in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. After receiving an initial 95 complaints, NHTSA opened an investigation last May – almost a year ago – into the reported issue of reduced engine power under hard acceleration. The agency has since received a total of 525 such complaints, and Ford itself reported receiving over 4,000.

 

Together, NHTSA and Ford determined that the problem resulted from cylinders misfiring, an issue itself stemming from water getting into the charge air cooler (CAC) mated to the turbochargers. In particularly humid or rainy conditions, water was found to get into the CAC, causing some of the cylinders to misfire, which in turn triggered the ECU to disable those cylinders in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage........end of quote

 

so at least 4500 reported cases of turbo problems let alone the grocery getter purchasers that would not of noticed they were having problems so went unreported !..... and premium reccommended.......So Nardo and you seem to be the ones ignoring the problems and fawning over Fords on a GM site. But trade in your GM if you dare take on Ford's problems!

 

Im not ignoring. It was a known problem and I have read of it in the ford forums. How bad is it ,I dont know. According to the numbers ford has produced 500k ecos, with 4500 issues that equates to less than 1% of the ecos having a problem. So is it really a wide spread problem where we can say every single one is bad?

 

Like I said I own a 2014 silverado. My contention along with stallion is not to be closed minded. I dont expect anything less as far as brand homers on this board as I do on the ford forum.

[Jake56]

My first truck was a 79 Chev then owned a few Ford's and in past decade owned 1999 Dodge, a 2004 Ram, a 2008 Ram , ...............so close minded I am not .....I just came home to GM because their engines are tried and tested power plants , that don't need 16 sparkplugs to change like my Ram's did and aren't over tweeked high strung turbos like the Fords have .

[Brian S.]

Not for everyone but I agree. I have no use for a truck but always wanted it. Ill never really pull but I will take trips in it. I kept my commuter car too. The dealer tried to sell me a v6 and I was f no thats not a truck. I wanted a v8 and im happy with the 5.3. I just wish I got an slt instead of sle.

If you got the 3.08 gears with that 5.3, my 4.3 is rated to tow 100lbs more and probably has pretty similar performance.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-silverado-v-6-instrumented-test-review

 

 

 

This helped our V-6–powered Silverado turn a quarter-mile time of 15.7 seconds at 89 mph. That’s a tenth of a second faster than the 6.0-liter V-8 “VortecMAX” Silverado we tested back in 2007.

 

V6s aren't what they used to be.

 

I've been driving 5.3l Silverados the last 10 years or so with 315hp/335lbs torque. Don't notice much difference with the 285hp/305lbs torque the new 4.3l makes at the same RPMs.

[MikeNH]

during towing and times of high stress environments. Regular operation only 87 reccommened which I beleive that phrase is common with lots of vehicles.

Not really that common. It's what manufacturers do to make high performance engines sell because despite it adding maybe $7 to a fill up, people lose their thing when they have to buy premium. When I had my turbo'd Subaru people always asked why I'd buy something that required premium like it was some big deal. It isn't.

 

That said, the manual reads "for best performance" to use 91+. If I'm paying extra for this fancy engine why wouldn't I want max power all the time? The 4.0 V6 in the Tacoma initially required premium but by the time I got my 2008 they had th same bogus statement about 87 being ok but 91 being better. If I got the 3.5 EB in a F150 I'd run both for a good long period to see if there was any notable difference. Even before I tuned this truck it ran notably better on 93 than 87 and of course with the tune now it's only 93 or E85 when I know I'm just putting around town for a few weeks.

[kstruckcountry]

I have never understood why people have such an issue with running premium.

[KARNUT]

The way I go home every night it seems the every one is in a hurry to get to sixty, its fun and safe. I wouldn't call it drag racing, just getting up to speed between lights. My 5.3 on E85 doesn't seem to have any problem with the eco boost, or the hemi and the Toyota. I even had some fun with a challenger till 40 then it was over. The guys that seem to get pretty wild are the ones in diesels, the gasser pretty much don't mess, but when two diesels line up people pretty much hang back.

[nards444]

Not really that common. It's what manufacturers do to make high performance engines sell because despite it adding maybe $7 to a fill up, people lose their thing when they have to buy premium. When I had my turbo'd Subaru people always asked why I'd buy something that required premium like it was some big deal. It isn't.

 

That said, the manual reads "for best performance" to use 91+. If I'm paying extra for this fancy engine why wouldn't I want max power all the time? The 4.0 V6 in the Tacoma initially required premium but by the time I got my 2008 they had th same bogus statement about 87 being ok but 91 being better. If I got the 3.5 EB in a F150 I'd run both for a good long period to see if there was any notable difference. Even before I tuned this truck it ran notably better on 93 than 87 and of course with the tune now it's only 93 or E85 when I know I'm just putting around town for a few weeks.

I agree I had a camaro and people were like that sucks you have to add premium. But like you said it cost me a few extra bucks at fill up, big deal. But I did use both fuels in the eco, and I saw no difference. It got to the point where I ran premium if I knew I was towing my 10k boat, if I didnt I didnt.

Not really that common. It's what manufacturers do to make high performance engines sell because despite it adding maybe $7 to a fill up, people lose their thing when they have to buy premium. When I had my turbo'd Subaru people always asked why I'd buy something that required premium like it was some big deal. It isn't.

 

That said, the manual reads "for best performance" to use 91+. If I'm paying extra for this fancy engine why wouldn't I want max power all the time? The 4.0 V6 in the Tacoma initially required premium but by the time I got my 2008 they had th same bogus statement about 87 being ok but 91 being better. If I got the 3.5 EB in a F150 I'd run both for a good long period to see if there was any notable difference. Even before I tuned this truck it ran notably better on 93 than 87 and of course with the tune now it's only 93 or E85 when I know I'm just putting around town for a few weeks.

I agree I had a camaro and people were like that sucks you have to add premium. But like you said it cost me a few extra bucks at fill up, big deal. But I did use both fuels in the eco, and I saw no difference. It got to the point where I ran premium if I knew I was towing my 10k boat, if I didnt I didnt.