Aluminum bodied Silverado ?

Spurshot · February 10, 2015

The problem with the current system of dropping 4 cylinders is the pumping losses.

Crf450r420 · February 10, 2015

Yeah, but it still works great as the 5.3 is doing as well as the ecoboost on mileage. Plus, if they did that you could drop size some with no issue and a smaller bore would certainly reduce the drag.

CapitalTruck · February 12, 2015

I tell you, at the end of the day I'm still not sold on the long-term durability of turbocharged di engines. There seem to be a growing number of problems with the di systems in Ford vehicles. The temperatures are just so gd high.

SMiller · February 12, 2015

I tell you, at the end of the day I'm still not sold on the long-term durability of turbocharged di engines. There seem to be a growing number of problems with the di systems in Ford vehicles. The temperatures are just so gd high.

I won't have one, it doesn't take much research to see it doesn't add up.

nards444 · February 12, 2015

I tell you, at the end of the day I'm still not sold on the long-term durability of turbocharged di engines. There seem to be a growing number of problems with the di systems in Ford vehicles. The temperatures are just so gd high.

I hear this, but beyond some recall issues back in 12-13, which was not 100% of them or necessarily widespread, i have yet to see some empiral data on this so called fear. Not saying it cant be true, but the idea isnt necessarily new, the concept has been used in europe for a long time.

Crf450r420 · February 12, 2015

Turbo motors will outlast supercharged motors usually. Of course, if one is driven hard and the supercharged one isn't you won't see that. Also it depends on how hard the motor is setup to run also. If you have one set up to increase the power 40% over N/A and another setup to for 80% more one will likely have more wear. However since you can drive a turbo motor and almost never see boost since it isn't tied to the motor. They will generally last longer. In the old days turbos didn't last, but these days most of them will last at least 100,000 miles. The other issue is they are more complicated and spread out leaving more room for a bad configuration on part of the setup. This does allow for more issues, but they certainly can be setup to be reliable if you are not building it to the moon like a race motor.

People manage to throw after market turbos on cars and drive them for many years with no issues and many have nothing, but issues. The early Ecoboost was a thing to avoid, now I bet they are much better. Keep in mind with that motor makes for power and what it would if it was N/A. It will not likely be a 300,000 mile motor.

CapitalTruck · February 13, 2015

Yeah, I'm thinking based on a life expectancy of 200k miles (which for me is a minimum these days for a car). Hey, we'll see right?

Spurshot · February 13, 2015

The motor may last longer than the turbo system itself. Turbochargers have bearings and oiling systems. They often have waste gates as well. These are the components that most often give up well before the engine itself. I wouldn't have a truck that was turbocharged. And I had a turbocharged car and my brother had a turbocharged truck. I just don't want the high component count and related component replacement costs. Talk to someone that has paid to replace a couple turbos and waste gates.

nards444 · February 13, 2015

The motor may last longer than the turbo system itself. Turbochargers have bearings and oiling systems. They often have waste gates as well. These are the components that most often give up well before the engine itself. I wouldn't have a truck that was turbocharged. And I had a turbocharged car and my brother had a turbocharged truck. I just don't want the high component count and related component replacement costs. Talk to someone that has paid to replace a couple turbos and waste gates.

Logic would tell me ford designed these to at least get 100k on them without an issue. Now we going to get 200-300k on them who knows, but not many people driving stuff that long. And yes a turbo is a possible added exspense and something to think about but cost is not as bad as somethink. brand new OEM turbos are less than a grand a peice, used can be had for under 500 bucks. Thats assuming a total melt down of two at the same time. Chances are you will be able to rebuild, replace just one, aftermarket parts, etc, making the cost much more managable.

Time will tell if this motor holds up. So far as I said earlier theres very little empirical data to support a lot of peoples fear.

Spurshot · February 14, 2015

for the guy that can do his own work, your quotes may have some relevance. But I just watched a friend go thru this with a Super Duty diesel. The turbo was the cheap part. Removing the cab from the chassis and replacing it, along with other labor, drove the cost to a jaw dropping number.

On a Ford Flex with turbos, the entire front suspension, engine, transmission,etc, all have to be dropped out from under the car.

How long turbos last depends a lot on how hard they are worked. The actual surface speed of the bearings is a big swinger. Turbos don't typically "total meltdown ". They more often just wear out the bearings and then the oil seals go, resulting in oil burning.

My brother's girlfriend drives a slightly dated turbo ZX. She just had to change both turbos, waste gates, couplings, and all the hoses under the hood. She drives conservatively. She has well under 100k on it. She put over $6k into it.

Turbos also introduce more heat under the hood, which reduces the life of other components, foremost is any rubber product. Vacuum, water, oil, air conditioning, transmission, power steering, plug wires, etc are all shorter lived on a turbo engine.

When it came time to chose my wife's Flex engine, the salesman pushed the Ecoboost. It was a no-brainer. No way. She doesn't need nor want the extra power, nor cost associated down the road.

I don't see any real new ground Ford has covered with the Ecoboost. Just a new name for an old technology.

It's not "fear" for me, it's past experience.

Look around. You won't find many high mileage, high tech turbo ZX cars around. They've been put out of service for the most part due to the cost to maintain them.

Silverado-Hareek · February 20, 2015

I really hate the "nobody drives a vehicle much past 100k miles" argument. Some of us would actually like to do that if the damn things were reliable and didn't force us to trade up. And what about the used car market? If you buy a used GM truck you might as well just buy new because the money saved buying used will be eaten up repairing the thing. I don't care how ugly people say the Tundra is reliability alone is why I'll probably buy one next and dump GM or Ford. If I'm spending $40-$50k on a vehicle I should likely get 200k miles out of it without any major engine or transmission work. My buddy just traded in his Tacoma for the same amount i got for my 2007 Silverado but he got 100k miles more out of it than I did (98k vs 198k roughly). Those Toyotas just freaking work and retain their value. There's no excuse for GM and Ford not being able to do the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk