Similar to some threads from last year, where we had the lead engineer for the new 6.7 PSD engine, Adam Gryglak on to chat: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...oining-us.html
We also had a gentleman named Mike Harrison, who is the lead engineer for the 6.2 engine on here to answer some questions about the 6.2 engine https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...as-engine.html

This time we've got Phil Fabien, V6 Engine Development Specialist joining us next Wednesday to offer commentary, and answer YOUR questions

Some background about Phil:
Please, make Phil feel welcome, and ask away

 

I semi-understand the physics of DI turbocharging... if you have a smaller amount of mass to turn (3.5l vs 5.0l) it takes less energy to do it, and it is more efficient.. but I am skeptical of the Eco part of the name. I owned a Mazda CX7 for a few years which had the 2.3l 4 cylinder direct injected turbocharged engine.

While that engine wasn't marketed as Eco anything, it got pretty poor gas mileage. The main "problem" the CX7 had... and in my opinion all the newer turbocharged engines have, is that boost comes too soon. From my experience, if you are in boost, you are getting poor gas mileage.

The ecoboost engine makes boost at such a low RPM, how are you going to stay out of boost, and thus get good gas mileage? The CX7 was in boost all the time, whether you were putting along or driving down the freeway, you were in boost - and its mpg suffered greatly.

For comparison sake, I traded in our Mazda CX7 AWD, it weighed 3800lbs and had a 2.3l 4 cylinder DI turbo engine for a 2009 F150 Crew Cab 4x4 with the 5.4l engine. The two vehicles get almost the exact same mpg.

What is Ford's experience with actual mpg figures for the ecoboost engine and how did Ford solve the problem that I seem to have experienced above?

 

I believe that Phil will be reviewing the thread even in advance of the live chat, so by all means, ask away!

 

Hello Phil

First of all, my ecoboost F-150 is on order. Now just waiting.

On to my questions:

1. What is hp and torque on premium for the ecoboost?

2. How does the ecoboost's efficiency compare to the 5.0 and 6.2 on towing? In other words, is it more efficient to gain hp/torque with a smaller engine with boost or a larger displacement V8? Does the efficiency change when towing a max load as compared to a light one?

3. Why didn't the truck come with a boost gauge? It would help with mpg if I knew whether is was using boost or not.

4. What is the hp and torque of the ecoboost with 0 psi of boost? If the 3.7 has 300 hp I would assume the 3.5 would be fairly close without boost. What I am getting at is, if the 3.7 can propel the truck adequately, then if you stay off of the gas pedal, you should be able to stay out of boost and have higher mpg.

5. Has the tranny and rear end been upgraded the handle the added torque of the ecoboost?

Thanks for your time.

 

Subscribing.....thanks for setting this up Robb.

 

Why are you offering a 4.10 rear end with the EcoBoost: Only with FX4 trim and 20's and max tow?

Why not other trims, and why not with 18's?

How will that impact real world MPG vs. the 3.73s?

 

Why does the EB require 5W30 while all other Ford truck engines typically require 5W20. Is it a heat issue?

 

My question does not pertain directly to the Ecoboost, however I do have a question about what the Ecoboost means for future engines for the F-150.

I understand that with stricter C.A.F.E regulations coming in 2016 Ford has to make the F-150's more fuel efficent by any means required, be it by weight reduction and/or engine type. I know the Ecoboost is a great running engine as I have personally had the chance to drive one and I walked away very impressed with it. However despite this, I still perfer the 5.0L V8 (which I have also driven) to the Ecoboost as it just feels more like the right engine for me. I will be ordering a 5.0L FX4 this comming summer.

I know you can probably only speculate at this point,

But my question is, In the future, say 2016 and beyond will the F-150's V8 engine's live on? Or will they be phased out over time by smaller turbocharged V6's and I4's? To my understanding the F-150 is due for a re-design around 2014 or 2015 which could possibly intel substantal weight reductions in favor of fuel econmy, and I would love to see both 5.0L and 6.2L live on even after the strict emmison laws take effect. From what I can see, both 5.0L and 6.2L could benefit from direct upgrades such as Direct Injection and/or Turbocharging. From what I can see The 5.0L is already close to what the Ecoboost gets in terms of fuel econmy in both EPA rated and Real World (Judging based off the Fuel Econ display in both trucks). So it seems completely do-able from my perspective, however I would like to get your thoughts on it too.

Thanks for helping devolpe the greatest truck on the road!

Thanks for your time
Nathan.

 

Subscribing..thanks for putting this together!

 

My question pertains to engine testing. I know you put the equivalent of 160,000 miles on the new EcoBoost but it was done in a hurry and while it proved that it could hang with the V8s and it was under stressful conditions but I think time/age is an engine's bigger enemy. Kind of like highway vs city miles. Did you have any accelerated aging type tests that simulate things like the multiple cold starts a day and trips of a couple miles where engine and oil don't warm up before shutting down again? (I am thinking in terms of a truck going between farms feeding and taking seed to fields etc.) The main reason I ask is I am planning on buying a new truck in a couple years and would buy the EcoBoost but I would be keeping it a long time and wonder how the turbos would stand up to age. Thanks for coming on here and answering questions. Thanks. Jared

 

Hello Phil,

My question is has Ford identified the problem with the cold start knocking noise's that's being reported in the Mustangs/Edges with the 3.7? (Piston slap??)

And has the problem been solved for these engines being installed in the F150 including the EB & 3.7?

 

Jared, although the tests we run are proprietary, I can tell you that we run tests that simulate a customer that rarely gets the oil hot as well as the customer who shuts the engine off with very hot oil. One of the great benefits of laboratory testing of an engine is that we can hold temperatures very hot, very cold, and quickly cool an engine down or heat an engine up. As you know turbochargers are not new technology, so we knew what combination of tests were best to prove out the F150 Ecoboost turbochargers.
Thanks for your interest in the F150 Ecoboost.

 

FIrst thank you Phil for taking the time to talk to us. I am really excited that Ford seems to be getting into turbos in a big way. I just cant wait to see the Ecoboost V6 in an Expedition soon. Anything you want to announce about that? Just kidding. Can you talk about intercooling for the Ecoboost? Is there an intercooler?

 

Phil,

Any chance the new 5.0L might be adapted to an EcoBoost application in an upcoming Super Duty, perhaps as a high torque and horsepower alternative to increasingly expensive and complicated diesel engines and exhaust treatment systems? Just curious if it would even be a worthwhile project or if costs of both the theoretical engine would be too high. Would such an engine still achieve decent fuel economy, or is a diesel a better option even at a significantly higher unit cost for the engine?

 

The CX7 was just a small turbo engine. Old technology turbos have lag, no low end torque, require premium and tend to work harder to get the job done. The T5 and T6 Volvo XC90 had the same problem! EB is regular compression, truck loads of low end torque. The EPA rating shows that it is about 2mpg better than the 5.0, with better performance. People that have driven it have claimed 22-25 while cruising. Looks like the durability issue has been taken care of too. It really sounds promising.