It's been used in niche market vehicles that had varying degrees of success. How many gas turbos could you name before 2010? Lots of them, like the Mustang SVO, were known as turds which constantly experienced problems.

Problem free for at least ten years. But what about after that? It only takes one oil or coolant leak to destroy an engine, and the EcoBoost has a lot more places for that to happen. Don't get me wrong, I really liked me EcoBoost truck, and that happens to be the only engine I'd seriously consider if I buy an F150 next year. But all that tech has it's downsides, and I think it's naive to think otherwise.

 

2.7L in a crew cab for me.

 

There were a lot of good, turbocharged cars for decades before 2010. Many of them were European. Look at Volvo, for example: 240 Turbo, 740 Turbo, 760 Turbo, 940 Turbo, 850 Turbo, S/V 70 Turbo, S80 twin turbo, XC90 twin turbo or single turbo, on and on. Saab has also made turbo'd cars for years: the 900, 9000, 9-3, 9-5, etc were all available with turbos. Rolls-Royce and Bentley have made turbos since the 1980's. Lotus has turbos. VW Group has been making quality turbos since 2000, starting, oddly, the 2.7L V6 twin-turbo. They have been making very good 4-cyclinder turbos since around then as well. I know there were a few Jap turbo cars as well, e.g. Dodge Stealth / Mitsu 3000 GT...probably many more. But turbo technology has been used on diesel engines forever...and it basically does the exact same thing as on a gas engine. For whatever failures the American companies had in the past w/ turbocharging, consider it lessons learned. Not all the SVO's were junk. So in my short list which spans decades of common production vehicles, I'm sure others could add many more cars I forgot. Which reinforces the point that turbocharging is most definitely a mature technology.

I think maybe you're over dramatizing the ability of the Eco-Boost to self-destruct because of its additional places to leak. Most of the extra plumbing is simply air ducts. You have one extra place for coolant to leak (intercooler), and two extra places for oil to leak (turbos). I'd say if you were concerned about engine life expectancy beyond ten years, just do what you should do on any engine: replace all the coolant hoses, maybe replace oil lines to the turbos. Besides, even if the engine does start leaking fluids, its rarely catastrophic...more like a slow leak which gives plenty of opportunity to be noticed by the owner or regular mechanic long before the engine is in any danger.

 

You bring up a good point about foreign cars, didn't think about those. My point wasn't that the EcoBoost is going to become a basket case in a few years. Quite the contrary, I think they've proven to be a very robust design. Remember I'm the guy who had an EcoBoost that I really enjoyed, and plan on having another.

Do the 2015s have an air to water CAC? The current-gen engines have use an air-to-air design, the only air-to-water design I'm aware of on a Ford product is the 6.7L PSD.

The turbochargers, at least on the current-gen models, are oil lubricated and water cooled. Meaning you have oil and coolant lines going to each turbocharger.

 

You are correct - a bit of research shows the F-150 CAC is air to air. The new Fusion 1.5, for example, has a liquid cooled CAC. I made an incorrect assumption.

As for the turbos, once again I figured they might be water cooled but wasn't sure. Many of the newer turbo engines, at least on german cars, have a small, supplemental electric water pump. When the engine is shut off hot, that electric pump circulates the coolant going through the turbo(s) to help cool the bearings since the oil will no longer be circulating.

 

The F150 EcoBoost circulates water after shutdown to help cool the turbos as well.

 

If Ford were to completely phase out the V8. GM and Chrysler will then gain many would be Ford customers.

 

I agree. The CAFE requirements of 54mpg by 2025 is the driving reason for smaller engines in trucks...but in this case, the V8 basically equals or outperforms the turbo in real-life mpg. Of course, the EPA sees it a little differently. Ford can't really offer the 6.2L in the F-150 anymore because its mpg is poor and would bring down the average.

 

Those EPA regulations will be relaxed once this madman and his globalist agenda is gone form the presidency. It's a V8 for me all the way. I don't see a Superduty with a V6 lol.......

 

While I agree with your thoughts about the current president, global warming is actually happening...regardless of why it is happening. Trying to curb emissions is a positive thing...smog, whether it contributes to warming or not, is unhealthy to breathe.

Lastly, the EPA's mandate for better MPG is not necessarily to reduce emissions and warming by extension...it will inevitably help make the operating costs of a new vehicle cheaper for the consumer. Fuel prices will rise again, and if we can get 54mpg out of our new vehicles, then those high costs are offset. Then the only problem is to keep the manufacturers in check with rising new vehicle prices.

 

I doubt Ford will completely phase out the V8, there is just way to much demand for it. I can see them bringing down the cost of the EcoBoost as time goes on.

 

Agree....and you have to also remember, it's not DC that is shoving this down the car mfg's/consumers throats....the car mfg's each have reps that sit on the advisory committee and must approve everything befor it is signed into the regs........

 

Don't be fooled. It's DC shoving the regulations down the car makers throats. In the past the car makers had the power to push back, now that the government is involved in the industry they can push these regulations with authority. The interesting thing is the car makers have been improving mileage figures w/o having strict regulations.

 

Lets reign it in guys and stay on topic please.

Oddly, of the five new F-150's that my local dealer has, none of them are 2.7L equipped.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing what people get for mileage with the 2.7. I hope it's as good as the EPA numbers.