Eco-boost durability

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

#31

05-17-2012, 05:34 AM

tseekins

Super Moderator

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: Maine, Virginia

Posts: 38,148

Likes: 1,487

Received 1,219 Likes on 802 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmonty2

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.

15500 lbs pulling a fifth wheeler using a reg cab F-350 / 4.30 axle as the tow mule to be exact. This is the end of the envelope for the 6.2L according to Ford's towing guides. Very impressive for any gas burner IMHO.

11300 lbs in an F-150 with 3.73 axle, very impressive as well.

Reply Like

#32

05-17-2012, 06:36 AM

kmonty2

Posting Guru

Join Date: Dec 2010

Location: Sterling Heights, MI

Posts: 1,318

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by tseekins

Yes you are correct, both do have impressive numbers for the size of each. It's just hard for me to see the Eco Boost as a every day heavy hauler, now as a DD it does sound like a good idea and more economical then the big V8, bit I still love the sound my truck makes and the Exo Boost will never have that.

Reply Like

#33

05-17-2012, 07:39 AM

MikeWolfe

Freshman User

Join Date: Feb 2012

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Good morning All:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>
Did not mean to start a war here<o

></o

>
Some folks embrace new technology & others resist it.<o

></o

>
Some folks lprefer the rumble of the V8 engine.<o

></o

>
That is part of what makes the world go round.<o

></o

>
Prior to purchasing the F150 ECO Boost I owned a Nissan Titan & a Nissan Pathfinder<o

></o

>
Both had the Nissan 5.6L engine with DOHC, Variable cam timing & 4 valves per cylinder.<o

></o

>
I purchased them because at the time they had the best & latest technology & produced the most power per displacement of any gasoline powered V8 engine available in trucks.<o

></o

>
Drove them both over 100,000 miles<o

></o

>
Used the 50% E85 & 50% premium in them as well<o

></o

>
No problems encountered.<o

></o

>
I worked for over 35 years as a fuel & emissions control product development engineer<o

></o

>
Here are some interesting facts<o

></o

>
Fuel system parts designed for good durability with E10-E15 are just as durable with E85 (makes no difference)<o

></o

>
Early FLEX fueled vehicles had a "FUEL SENSOR" & different injectors for the FLEX fueled vehicles (form the 90's through the early 2000's).<o

></o

>
Newer vehicles for the most part do not.<o

></o

>
On Ford vehicles built since 2006 the same injector & fuel pump is used for both FLEX fuel & gasoline fueled vehicles.<o

></o

>
Example for the 2008 F150 the 5.4L engines have injector part number 7C3Z-9F593-A for both the gasoline only & the flex fueled vehicles<o

></o

>
For MY 2011 the 6.2L engine uses the AL3Z-9F593-B injector for both the Flex & gasoline only engines.<o

></o

>
The O2 sensor will trim the fuel system to Stoichiometry regardless of the fuel mix.<o

></o

>
I am pretty sure the only Fuel system difference in these vehicles is the ECU calibration to allow a broader range of fuel trim numbers.<o

></o

>
I chose the purchase the ECO Boost engine because I am aware of the technology that is used in it.<o

></o

>
It is equipped with Bosch DI injectors, Bosch LSU 4.9 wide band (Linear) oxygen sensors, etc, etc.<o

></o

>
The DI injectors are similar in Technology to Common Rail Diesel injectors.<o

></o

>
It uses Turbo’s built by the same company that makes them for Diesels.<o

></o

>
The last 100’s of thousands of miles on Diesels.<o

></o

>
The 3.5L ECO Boost engine is built to be as durable as a diesel.<o

></o

>
I am not at all worried about using 50% E85 blend.<o

></o

>
When checked with a scan tool, the max boost pressure is about 16-16.5psi with the 50-50 blend <o

></o

>
The max boost pressure with 91 octane premium gasoline only is 14.5 to 15 PSI<o

></o

>
The ignition timing is about 2-3 DEG BTDC higher under max boost with the 50-50 blend than with the 91 octane fuel.<o

></o

>
My vehicle is stock, it has not had the ECU programming changed from the latest software available from Ford.<o

></o

>
I am not proposing that all of you go out & start blending your own E85 to gasoline mix.<o

></o

>
I am just sharing my experience with you period.<o

></o

Reply Like

#34

05-17-2012, 09:49 AM

YoGeorge

Logistics Pro

Join Date: Jul 2006

Location: Detroit

Posts: 4,509

Likes: 14

Received 13 Likes on 13 Posts

Hi Mike:
No war, and I am interested to hear of your experience. But over 100k in your Nissans, or any vehicle, is not impressive in this day and age like it was in the 70's when I started driving. Now there are a lot of vehicles that are easily getting to 200 or 300k miles and beyond. You are clearly getting a performance boost from your E85 mix, but it is your own carefully thought out science project that is outside of your factory warranty. If I felt strongly about E85 (or could get it for free) I would simply buy a vehicle that was built and advertised to run E85.

Thanks for your posts and viewpoint; I do not like to argue but enjoy respectful technical discussions a lot. But until the EcoBoost has a long track record, it will not have a long track record. That does not make me a hater.

George

Reply Like

#35

05-17-2012, 10:53 AM

Tylus

MMNC (SS)(Ret)

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: SE Georgia

Posts: 11,309

Likes: 5

Received 30 Likes on 22 Posts

@MikeWolfe

Ford did not use the same fuel pumps or fuel lines/components for FFV vs. non-FFV vehicles until late 2008.

FFV vehicles had bigger fuel pumps to handle the increased fuel demand E85 requires and higher duty cycle. They also had completely different fuel systems with ethanol resistant components that the non-FFV didn't have.

Sometime in 200& Ford just went and made all their vehicles with the same FFV components for the most part. Now FFV vehicles have a badge and dual PCM maps and sensors in gas tank. Non-FFV are missing these

Now, let's talk about E-85

1. It's corrosive
2. Less energy content
3. Significantly less MPG vs. 87 octane
4. Waste of good corn to make people feel good

Simply put, yes you can make more power off E85 than normal 87-93 octane. It's about 100 octane (ish). However, without the PCM tuning it can't be utilized, and therefore is useless in your truck. Just like running 89-93 octane. Some vehicles have adaptable PCM and then it makes sense

Also, once you do the math, running E-85 is cost prohibitive. It's cheaper by the gallon, with significant less MPG. Calculate it out and you'll see that 87 octane and mileage vs E85 and it's always been a losing proposition to me

It's your truck, but you are risking voiding that warranty

Reply Like

#36

05-17-2012, 12:36 PM

MikeWolfe

Freshman User

Join Date: Feb 2012

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Guess you are one of the folks who just do not like Ethanol fuels.
Of course everyone is entitled to their opioion.
I am not the least bit worried about my warranty since I am certain that there will not be any failures related to my 50-50mix
I do like ethanol based fuels since I can get high octane fuel at at affordable price.
My own experience shows that I lose less than 5% with my 50-50 blend.
In our area the price for it is currently $2.74 compared to premium at $3.65.
& it does indeed produce more power in my stock ECO Boost engine
And yes I compare it to premium not the low octane regular.
87 octane fuel is a very low octane fuel.
Give me E85 to design an engine & I can build you an engine with far more power density than you can with that very low octane gasoline.
An engine that would produce far more power than the equivalent displacement with the required low compression required with 87 octane gasoline.
E85 is a fuel that is a renewable fuel & when we burn it the carbon released is recycled back inot the plant material thta grows the following season.
There are no longer Federal subsidies on E85
Ethanol Plants are becoming more efficient & can produce fuel that costs less than the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline.
When we burn fossil fuels we release carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years & it does indeed add to the co2 contenet in the air.
Those are indesputable facts.

FYI:
Ford has been using the same injector for the 5.4L engine in both Flex, Bi Fuel and straight GAs since 2003.
Here are the numbers
<TABLE style="MARGIN: auto auto auto -0.75pt; WIDTH: 683pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=911><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap></TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>330<o

></o

>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 80pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=107 noWrap>FUEL INJECTOR<o

></o

>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=100 noWrap>7C3Z 9F593-A<o

></o

>
</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 1"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<o

></o

>
</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 2"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<o

></o

>
</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 3"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<o

></o

>
</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 4"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<o

></o

>
</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt; mso-yfti-irow: 5; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 48pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom width=64 noWrap>FORD<o

></o

>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Also checked the Taurus & they have had the same injector (for Flex & Gas Only) since the 2006 MY
You are correct that earlier models used a different injector just as I pointed out in my previous response

Reply Like

#37

05-17-2012, 01:19 PM

kmonty2

Posting Guru

Join Date: Dec 2010

Location: Sterling Heights, MI

Posts: 1,318

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I have a question. Does the ECO Boost require you to use 93 octane fuel? From what I seen on the Ford website they recommend Unleaded Regular gas. Seems to me a wast to run premium fuel when you don't have to. I don't think you will get your moneys worth for the extra that 93 cost. If you want to mix why not use 87 and E85? It is only 3 octane points different and 20 cents cheaper per gallon.

Reply Like

#38

05-17-2012, 01:46 PM

MikeWolfe

Freshman User

Join Date: Feb 2012

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Hi All:
I believe Ford recommends premium fuel for all the ECO Boost engines, but states that 87 is acceptable. The Knock sensors just retard the timing & the ECU reduces the amount of Boost to accomodate the lower octane fuel. They still run pretty good but they are not as powerful as when run on high octane fuel.
Don't know if the higher octane will improve fuel economy enough to offset the cost difference. I have never run 87 so I do not know.

Reply Like

#39

05-17-2012, 02:41 PM

parkland

Lead Driver

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 6,267

Likes: 0

Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Why would you want high octane fuel on a direct injected engine?

Reply Like

#40

05-17-2012, 04:21 PM

MikeWolfe

Freshman User

Join Date: Feb 2012

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Sounds like a plan.
Then you would be recycling the carbon since you used a renewable energy supply

Reply Like

#41

05-17-2012, 04:40 PM

tseekins

Super Moderator

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: Maine, Virginia

Posts: 38,148

Likes: 1,487

Received 1,219 Likes on 802 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWolfe

Sounds like a plan.
Then you would be recycling the carbon since you used a renewable energy supply

Mike thanks for your posts.

You didn't start anything that hasn't already been said here. There is a strong sibling rivalry between the big V-8 and the Ecoboost. Any little thing posted will set some folks off into a rant no matter which engine they prefer.

Both engines will very competently handle any task that the chassis of an F-150 can handle. That's all that really matters here.

Reply Like

#42

05-17-2012, 11:37 PM

Tylus

MMNC (SS)(Ret)

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: SE Georgia

Posts: 11,309

Likes: 5

Received 30 Likes on 22 Posts

edit:

Not going to spend alot of time debunking your incorrect theories on my last night in town for a while. I suggest you use your "Google-fu" and correct your info that your assumptions are based upon. I'll stop in when I get back home and see how that is working.

till then. And good night

Reply Like

#43

05-18-2012, 05:14 AM

mitch150

Elder User

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: eastern shore Md.

Posts: 722

Likes: 0

Received 2 Likes on 1 Post

Just read the entire thread and there is some interesting info and opinions throughout. I don't have or know much about the eco-boost engine, what I have is an '05 5.4l (considered the problem child engine being first production of it's class with all the bugs) and what I know is, is the fact that it has 201,754 hard miles on it now, it's a work truck and I treat it that way, though don't get me wrong when I say that, I do maintain it properly and without the proper maintenance, it would surely crap out. I am very pleased with the durability and longevity of it thus far

and I can remember back when it first came out, that there were some haters that really didn't give this engine much of a fighting chance. Well here we are 7 years later and it's still going strong, so as for the durability and longevity of the eco-boost, only mileage will tell, not time as some on here seem to believe

. I know we're talking about the eco-boost and not the 5.4, the only reason I chimed in, is the same could hold true for the eco, so please don't hate on me.

I see the discussion on 93 vs 87 octanes and the e85 and all that, wish I knew more on the subject, but I am admittedly ignorant. With my truck however, I do have a custom programmer and have been running 93 in it pretty much since I've had it, and have done some comparison numbers with it, when gas skyrocketed in price in '07 I decided to switch back to 87, only to find out that I would lose 3 miles per the gallon and was back at the gas station 108 miles (on average) sooner every fill up, so for me the 2 kinda equaled out, plus, and this may only be my opinion, my truck seems to like 93 better than the 87, it definitely runs better and more aggressively. And you can't say that 93 is .20 cents more than 87 as there is no set national price on fuel (unfortunately), I have found 93 only .13 cents more expensive at some stations (that's the best I've seen and when I'm lucky). That's my story and I'm sticking to it on that subject. I do wish I could find more stations without the 10% E85 mix, most vehicle weren't built or designed to burn it.

Reply Like

#44

05-18-2012, 09:41 AM

MikeWolfe

Freshman User

Join Date: Feb 2012

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Hi All:
Thought you might enjoy this link for the 2012 Motor Trend Truck of the year
2012 Truck of the Year: Ford F-150 - Motor Trend
They pretty much confirm that the ECO Boost performs the same as the 6.2L on power & the mileage is about the same as the 5.0L
Makes for a pretty good combination I would say

Has anyone noticed that the ECO Boost engine produced nearly 400hp on the Ford Dyno when they did the final engines test before tearing the engine down. Take a look at the peak HP figures during the U Tube video of the test.

Wish someone would do a DYNO test with a 50% E85-50%Premium mix like I have been using
I know throttle response is better & it makes more power but I do not have access to a DYNO to prove it.

Some other random thoughts here.
What if the ECO Boost were optimized for the 106 Octane rating of E85.
I am pretty sure they could raise the compression ratio to about 12-1 & Set up maximum boost at 18psi.
That should produce well over 425hp & nearly 500lb ft of torque
With the higher expansion ratio (due to the 12-1 compression ratio) the mileage (BSFC's) on E85 should be about the same as the current engine running on 87 octane gasoline.
Would be an interesting project but I am to old to embark on such a venture.
I am a 67 year old (officially an old fart).
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

Reply Like

#45

05-18-2012, 10:32 AM

khensley

Senior User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: Lafayette, OR USA

Posts: 320

Likes: 86

Received 27 Likes on 14 Posts

The EcoBoost seems to me to be the PERFECT truck for the masses. Let's face it.....drive down the freeway for an hour, and count all of the pickup trucks, 1-ton and smaller. Also, count all the ones that ARE NOT towing something.

Heck, do it on a weekday, or even ten week days. Do it on holiday weekend(s). Report back on the percentage of pickup trucks that are ACTUALLY TOWING SOMETHING. I don't care about your specific instances, but the overall population of pickup drivers.

Ford's smart. They built a truck that will get comparatively good mileage as a daily driver...and in that small percentage of time that the AVERAGE pickup truck driver needs to pull something, it can handle it just fine.

Anyone who's regularly (50+%?) towing should be running a diesel 3/4 ton or larger, IMHO.

Reply Like

Reply Share

First
Prev
3 / 5
Next
Last

Forum Jump