How does a thread about the durability of the Eco Boost engine turn into a thread that has a so many comments that resemble women talking about fashion? I *use* my trucks and vehicles; I don't "wear" them Looks barely matter. Function does. A pretty truck broken down in the middle of nowhere ain't gonna do you any good, whereas a butt ugly truck that works its heart out for you without problems is worth its weight in gold.

George

 

I don't know how the Ecoboost engines are, but I don't think a GM salesman has any room to talk. In my experience the latest GM gas engines haven't been all that reliable.

First they had the piston slap issue (which caused my buddy to trade in his Tahoe for an Expedition), and now I just had a rear main seal done on my '07 5.3L Envoy at only 65,000 miles. Apparently their aluminum V8's from '03-'10 can have some kind of block porosity issue that can cause them to leak oil (and subsequently cause my vehicle to smell like burnt oil whenever I drove it).

Thankfully, I still had a warranty, but if I didn't it would have been a nearly $3,000 repair.

 

I don't own an Eco but I just bought a 6.2L. I looked real hard at the Eco but there just wasn't enough time on the engine for me. I know it's been tested the equivalent of a lot of hard miles but that is not the same as a real 10 years.

Had I bought one, I would be most afraid of direct injection and washing down the cylinder walls putting fuel in the oil. In fact, I would probably over change my oil until I was more confident. Trucks are heavy and turbo's don't spool up instantaneously. When I read that Ford recommends 5w-30 for Eco's it made me a bit paranoid.

I truly hope that it turns out to be a great engine for Ford. In a few years I'm sure I'll have one in my garage.

 

Why does the Eco need 10 years to prove itself and the 6.2 doesn't? They've both been around about the same amount of time.

 

Totally different platforms. The 6.2L is a throw back anyway but it could turn out to have problems. Between the two I think the risks are lower with it.

 

Yea, if anything the Ecoboost has been around longer since it's essentially a turbocharged and direct injected Duratec 35. The 6.2L Boss is a much more clean slate design.

 

6.2's have been in the supper dutys for years now so to say is same age or newer is a false

 

...and Ford has used the Ecoboost in other vehicles like the SHO and Flex for years now.

The Ecoboost was introduced in 2009 for 2010 model vehicles.

The first 6.2L Boss was introduced in early 2010 as a late availability option for the 2010 Raptor.

 

time will tell


Ecoboost is all new technology on a relatively new motor

6.2 is old school power in a big block....nothing new there. Simply a change of cubic inches from Fords normal small cube game.




I'm really pulling for the EB to be a great reliable motor for many years. Wife/I love our Flex so much we are looking to replace it with the AWD Ecoboost version next year. I currently get 17 mpg city, 26/27 mpg highway with the 3.5 Duratec V-6 @ 260ish HP. Would be nice to get almost same MPG's with +100 HP

 

Hi All:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
I am a semi retired automotive engineer.<o></o>
I purchased a 2011 F150 ECO Boost Super Crew 4X4 June 2011<o></o>
Have 22,000+ miles on it now.<o></o>
I think this is a great engine design that makes a lot of sense<o></o>
I get nearly 20mpg with on straight premium with mixed driving<o></o>
I get about 18mpg with a 50% E85 to 50% premium mix<o></o>
It has a lot more power with the E85 Mix & I estimate this is about a 100 octane fuel<o></o>
Here is a link to the torture tests FORD did to a production engine<o></o>
http://www.ford.com/new/f-150-torture-test/<o></o>
It flat outdid the Chrysler HEMI & GM V-8 engines.<o></o>
It will get better mileage than a V8 when driving under light loads since you will have lower friction & lower pumping losses with the smaller engine.<o></o>
It will out do the 6.2 liter GM & Ford V8's when pulling loads, especially under heavy loads.<o></o>
I bought my first Ford truck because of this engine technology & I have not been disappointed at all.<o></o>
People who “BAD MOUTH” this engine are either uninformed or just jealous period<o></o>

 

You should be careful about saying it will outdo the Ford 6.2L while pulling a heavy load. The 6.2 is a awesome motor and can handle upwards around 20,000 lbs, the Eco boost can't do that. The V8's will not get as good gas mileage as your little 6 cylinder, but will handle anything thrown at it. I'm sure it will do what it is supposed to do.

It is also had to see you would have more power with the E85 mix, since you will have less power with more ethanol gas. That is why you get worse gas mileage while using it.

 

Ethanol has a lower energy content (btu), but is more resistant to detonation (higher octane). This means, you can tune an engine for more hp/tq on ethanol, however the trade-off is about 33% less fuel economy (for E85 vs. MTBE Gas).

 

Are there tuners out for the Eco Boost engines?

Also I asked a question a while ago if the Eco Boost runs on E85 and was torn apart for it. So will this be a good idea to do?

 

The Ecoboost has advanced knock sensors, so it does some limited self tuning for more power. To get the most out of it though, you would need to find someone who is able to dyno and street tune the engine. Somewhere in between that are "canned tunes," where you buy a programmer with a pre-made generic tune.

Either way, the Ecoboost wasn't designed for E85 and Ford says specifically not to use it. Not sure why exactly, as it would be a perfect combination with that engine. Only reason I can think of is the direct injection fuel pump wasn't designed for it, however they say not to use E85 in the F150's 6.2L either, and that uses traditional port injection, so I'm at a loss. (Also strange, is that the 6.2L in the F250 and larger is certified for E85 use).

With the Ecoboost I wouldn't use any fuel with a greater Ethanol content than E15, which is supposedly safe for all cars built from 2007 on. At least not until Ford says otherwise or we figure out exactly why they say not to use it.

 

Running E85 or half E85 sounds like a great way to void your warranty if your dealer ever finds signs that you were running a higher percentage of ethanol than 15%...

A friend of my son has an engineering job at Toyota (Ann Arbor, Michigan). One of his responsibilities was to start a competitor's car with direct injection in the parking lot, drive it across the lot, and park it. After a couple months, the oil in the crankcase was about 25% gasoline.

Anyone who points to Ford's impressive but limited durability test of the EcoBoost (I was at the Detroit auto show and watched them tear down the engine) as some kind of "proof" that these engines will routinely be able to go 200-300k miles without problems, like the 4.6 2 valve engines have done in the real world, is not being realistic. Yes, that engine looked good on a teardown. This was a short term test with regard to time, running the engine hard and constantly. That doesn't have a lot to do with the way a lot of people in the real world use vehicles.

I love Ford, I like the EcoBoost and want it to do well, but do you guys imagine that Ford tested the 5.4/6.8 2 valve mod motors before they put them on the market? I would say they did test them a LOT, and yet they ended up shooting out spark plugs.

Do you think Ford tested the 5.4 3 valve motors before they put them on the market? I would say they tested them as well, and yet they did not find the issue with plugs sticking in the heads until a large number of them hit the first plug change interval. How about the cam phaser issues?

There is the millionmilevan.com guy who ran a 2 valve 5.4 for almost 1.3 million miles before it gave up the ghost, with no work needed inside the engine or to major engine components. (He did blow out a plug or two.) I'm impressed by that. Do that with an EcoBoost and I will be even more impressed. Mike--note that I am not "bad mouthing" the EcoBoost, but rather am skeptical. Let's talk in 5 years, OK?

Time will tell. I trust but only the real world and time will verify. It's hard to make things idiot-proof because idiots are so ingenious

George