| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:13 pm Post subject: Ecoboost awareness seminar |
 |
|
I held an Ecoboost awareness class tonight by whoopin' up on a 7.3L Ford with 5" exhaust and who knows what other mods. 
Seriously, there's pretty much nothing a person can say or think to make themselves feel good about losing to a full size crew cab 4WD truck with a V6.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Camaro owners are ugly and fart a lot.
Maybe that will get a reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSFreak
The other "John"
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2946
Location: Renton
1989 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No one is gonna argue with that.
_________________
'86 Trans Am - 5.0L TPI - LT1 cam - 700R4 - WS6
'85 Camaro Berlinetta - IROC clone
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya, I know. I realized my mistake within seconds of posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK
Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 8834
Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| QwkTrip wrote: | | there's pretty much nothing a person can say or think to make themselves feel good about losing to a full size crew cab 4WD truck with a V6 |
Oh I don't know. He could say that he can actually tow things, or that his truck is still running after 15 years without having to go into the dealer every five minutes for a new intercooler or torque converter.
See? Say mean things about Camaro owners...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BluFbdy
Member
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Port Orchard WA
1989 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was impressed with the ecoboost when I drove one, some guy from ford came by the shop and said hey I'm with ford this is our new truck anyone wanna drive it? Sure! Ill drive anything for free lol he told me to punch it getting on the freeway and I wad fairly impressed compared to the power puke super lag lol I wouldbt buy one but it was fun to drive
_________________
If you expect a kick to the balls and get a slap to the face its still a victory
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aaron_sK wrote: | | Oh I don't know. He could say that he can actually tow things |
Oh, I don't know. An F150 with 11,300 pounds of bumper tow rating seems like enough to me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flea
Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 1246
Location: Raymond WA
1991 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, chasis, suspension, brakes etc can handle 11,3000. But can the six?
_________________
Killing mailboxes since 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flea
Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 1246
Location: Raymond WA
1991 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
And what the hell is 11,3000 anyway?
_________________
Killing mailboxes since 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, you can get a Max Tow with the Ecoboost but not with the 5.0L V8. Apparently Ford thinks the V6 is tougher.
None of the engines in the F150 are bad. All are good engines. It just happens right now that the workhorse is a 3.5L V6. If you want a comparable V8 then the 6.2L is available with top-of-the-line truck models (think EXPENSIVE!) and is a gas sucking SOB. If you really want a 6.2L then I'd suggest you should just get the rest of a 3/4 ton truck to go with it.
Full-race.com has a write up about the Ecoboost if you're interested. They worked with Ford engineers to make a 600Hp Freakoboost while maintaining tow ratings. Edit: I just went to their website and the article is much abbreviated now. They used to have a large article delving into each aspect of the engine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK
Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 8834
Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flea wrote: | | Ok, chasis, suspension, brakes etc can handle 11,3000. But can the six? |
The six can make power... until it breaks. The frame is where they run into real problems.
This is the same issue that Ford engineers have always had, and I have seen it in every one of the many Fords I have owned: Good idea > piss poor execution > lousy product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flea
Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 1246
Location: Raymond WA
1991 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was the "until it breaks" part that was talking about. It's just bound to break sooner working it that hard.
_________________
Killing mailboxes since 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip
11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 3942
Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are technophobes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BluFbdy
Member
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Port Orchard WA
1989 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aaron_sK wrote: | | flea wrote: | | Ok, chasis, suspension, brakes etc can handle 11,3000. But can the six? |
The six can make power... until it breaks. The frame is where they run into real problems.
This is the same issue that Ford engineers have always had, and I have seen it in every one of the many Fords I have owned: Good idea > piss poor execution > lousy product. |
Haha that last part made my day
_________________
If you expect a kick to the balls and get a slap to the face its still a victory
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alphius
Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 2429
Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aaron_sK wrote: | The six can make power... until it breaks. The frame is where they run into real problems.
This is the same issue that Ford engineers have always had, and I have seen it in every one of the many Fords I have owned: Good idea > piss poor execution > lousy product. |
You are a technophobe.
What first model of anything doesn't have a couple minor problems? Intercooler issues and torque converter issues seem pretty minor to me, and only seem to affect a minor percentage of trucks. At least Ford is standing behind their product.
Every case of Raptor frame bend I've found (and I looked into this in the past) can be traced back to abuse. Sure, Ford should have made it a bit stronger and I do fault them for that, but you really won't bend your frame on a Raptor doing normal offroading or driving to the mall like most of them will do. It's not a half-million dollar trophy truck after all. Don't treat it like one.
Look at the 2010 EcoBoost Taurus SHO like my grandma has. Almost 4 years since those came out and they have zero major problems. There's no reason to expect the truck engine to be any different. Ford has almost half a decade of real-world experience with this engine, and they're banking big on it being a success. They invested lots of R&D into making it a success. They've done well so far I think.
Regardless of all of the above, have you heard one with an exhaust floor it? They sound ridiculous... in a good way.  
_________________
84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chevymad
Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 5472
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One of the head engineers on the ecoboost project posts on the performance years pontiac web site. That thing went through a ridiculous amount of endurance testing and was even used on one of nasa's continuous flight unmanned planes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BluFbdy
Member
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 915
Location: Port Orchard WA
1989 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alphius wrote: | | aaron_sK wrote: | The six can make power... until it breaks. The frame is where they run into real problems.
This is the same issue that Ford engineers have always had, and I have seen it in every one of the many Fords I have owned: Good idea > piss poor execution > lousy product. |
You are a technophobe.
What first model of anything doesn't have a couple minor problems? Intercooler issues and torque converter issues seem pretty minor to me, and only seem to affect a minor percentage of trucks. At least Ford is standing behind their product.
Every case of Raptor frame bend I've found (and I looked into this in the past) can be traced back to abuse. Sure, Ford should have made it a bit stronger and I do fault them for that, but you really won't bend your frame on a Raptor doing normal offroading or driving to the mall like most of them will do. It's not a half-million dollar trophy truck after all. Don't treat it like one.
Look at the 2010 EcoBoost Taurus SHO like my grandma has. Almost 4 years since those came out and they have zero major problems. There's no reason to expect the truck engine to be any different. Ford has almost half a decade of real-world experience with this engine, and they're banking big on it being a success. They invested lots of R&D into making it a success. They've done well so far I think.
Regardless of all of the above, have you heard one with an exhaust floor it? They sound ridiculous... in a good way. |
Ford's been known for some stupid mistakes, even recently. The f150s for the first couple years of the body style are prone to window failure...lets trace back how far ford has had shotty windows... The older explorers and expeditions had door internals that look like a 3 year old put them together with an erector set held together by brittle plastic clips, 50 rods connected together by plastic in obvious stress spots when they could have just simplified it leaving a majority of owners getting in through the other doors because the driver side is broken and yeah they could get it fixed but they won't. The newer f250's suck gas like it's cool, the roof is unsupported and shakes like a huge piece of sheet metal in a storm when you shut the door, the 80bit key incryption was a nightmare in itself because the dealers couldn't properly identify a 40 or an 80 bit key, lets not forget the exhaust issue that now requires people to put exhaust FLUID in their trucks, the camshaft position sensor failures, the "water sensor" for the gas tanks that kick off just as often as the impact switches do after a few years...... The list goes on, now all of those could have been fixed with a little more attention and better execution. I'm not saying ford is terrible but when they're putting out products like that in the 2002+ times....Wtf lol every manufacturer has their mistakes but I notice more with ford more often. As for the eco boost if I had the $$ for one I would buy one but I also don't off road or enjoy towing heavy loads so for me it would be nice
_________________
If you expect a kick to the balls and get a slap to the face its still a victory
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK
Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 8834
Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alphius wrote: | | You are a technophobe. |
Yup. Old stuff either works or it doesn't but either way you know for sure before you jump in. New stuff might work or it might not, it's a total crapshoot.
Andy, urea fluid is an EPA thing, no sense blaming engineers for that one.
The window thing is totally correct. I had repeated window track issues on my Thunderbird, as well as my F-150 and the Monterey. That's three different vehicles over a 32-year span with no improvement in engineering.
A few more things while i'm on a tear about poor Ford engineering:
Plastic clutch pushrods in trucks (drove my F-150 home with no clutch one day thanks to that one). The old trucks from the 80's have the same rod, but made out of steel. Way to save a nickel.
Thick film ignition. The government estimated eleven people died because of that system. When I sold my Thunderbird to my Dad he mounted two modules under the hood. When the car stalled he just moved the harness plug over to the other module. Then again he was an old-school Mopar man so having two ignition modules on the firewall was old hat for him.
Crap transmissions in every vehicle they have ever made ever (even the lauded C6, of which I broke two).
The Ford truck frame issues are nothing new, nor are they exclusive to the half ton. My F-250 has been tweaked between the cab and bed since I bought it. Ford trucks have been known for decades for their frame flex, going all the way back to the 60's.
Hey, remember TTB? The engineering eff up so bad it took down a tire company? Yeah, go figure.  I've had a few of those... driving one now in fact. Tires totally do wear out real fast, probably the tire company's fault though. Engineering is probably fine... I'm sure wheels are supposed to point in two different directions.
Don't get me wrong. I have had dozens of cars from many different manufacturers and I have found things I didn't like on all of them, but by far I have had the most issues directly related to poor engineering and cheap building on my Fords. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chevymad
Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 5472
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Find it funny that you complain about windows and frames when talking about ford. Those are 2 of the main reasons ford owners say they wont buy chevy. I change lots of 2000+ chevy truck window regulators. Cant say when I last changed a ford. Rust belt people say chevy frames are weak and always have been. Not something I've seen on any truck in this area. Even logging crummies with 500k on them.
The urea stuff was a Mercedes thing first I think. Remember reading about them trying to get the epa to allow it. Duramax also uses it now. Not sure about cummins. Nothing like a little cattle pee to make the air fresher.
Twin I beam suspension is crap. Maybe it was great way back in the 50s. I mean it was either that or a solid front axle. But scrubbing your tires with every bump is a great idea.
They all have their issues. But from what I read about the ecoboost testing, its probably the first ford truck I thought about owning. I'd have to go back to the 40s to find another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Twilightoptics
Hardcore (12sec Club)
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 9191
Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Def is 100% epa. Its the only method found to get diesel emissions low enough for the tree huggers. No mfg has any credits left to bypass it at this stage. International was the last to run without it for the 2010 epa mandate. They had to go to a twin turbo setip in most cases to get enough Egr action. Its pathetic. 2014 is the next mandate and all will have dpfs and def.
_________________
A redline a day keeps the carbon away! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Garage
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
