Your New Silverado is Ready. It's a 4 Banger.

[hoosierdoc]

CAFE standards to blame?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I wonder how the turbo is being lubricated. I just see people buying these and pulling into a parking spot and just turning the engine off. I can smell the burnt oil on those turbo bearings from here. I was taught to give the turbo a minute to spool down before shutting the engine off and with the instant gratification crowd I don't see that happening.

That used to be required to keep oil from coking in the turbos, but isn't applicable here. The ecoboost's turbos are water-cooled. Modern oils are also much more resistant to coking, although I'd run a full synthetic for the extra insurance, personally.

Edit:

The durability testing for the twin turbo, EcoBoost engine included 20 different dynamometer tests run at maximum engine speed and maximum turbo boost under a wide variety of coolant and oil temperatures. For example, cold start and immediately run at Wide Open Throttle. For example, run at Wide Open Throttle and suddenly shut down. In all, the EcoBoost engine has had 12,000 hours (500,000 miles) of dyno testing and the equivalent of 500,000 miles of on-track testing at Ford’s Romeo Proving Grounds, which totals 1 million miles of durability tests.

With the turbos from the 1980s, oil “coking” could occur in the turbo bearings. The oil was essentially baked in the hot bearings, especially the center bearing, when the engine was shut off...The EcoBoost engine does not have to be idled at all before shutting the engine off.
...Water cooling the bearings solved the problem. During normal operation, engine coolant is cycled through the center bearing. When the engine shuts off and the water pump stops, the coolant flow reverses and the EcoBoost uses thermal siphoning for water cooling....To test this thermal siphoning process, Ford ran the EcoBoost engine at Wide Open Throttle and maximum boost for 10 minutes. Then the engine and all the cooling was abruptly shut down. The turbos were allowed to “bake” after this high-speed operation...They repeated the test 1,500 times without an oil change. A teardown of the turbo and inspection of the bearings validated the method of water cooling the turbo bearings.

Ford's Next Police Engine EcoBoost | Hendon Publishing

 

[rkwhyte2]

It’s not 1986 anymore.

I'm old school.

 

[rkwhyte2]

That used to be required to keep oil from coking in the turbos, but isn't applicable here. The ecoboost's turbos are water-cooled. Modern oils are also much more resistant to coking, although I'd run a full synthetic for the extra insurance, personally.

Edit:



Ford's Next Police Engine EcoBoost | Hendon Publishing

It looks like Ford has done their homework.

 

[Bigtanker]

Ahhhh nope. And for me its not the 4 cyl. The new body style is awful.

Still looks better than the new Ford's. Those headlights are horrible. And I'm a Ford guy.

As to the engine, I wonder how long it will last. Using a lot of it's available power more often seems like it would wear the engine out sooner.

 

[Route 45]

CAFE standards to blame?

Definitely. For this and for a host of other nonsense, like stop/start, cylinder deactivation and sluggish transmissions programmed to always find the highest gear.

 

[Bigtanker]

350K so far, people tell me it's just broken in.

Here is my 2009 CTD. It was apart at 700k. Still does about 600 miles a day pulling 120,000+ pounds.

 

[phylodog]

Here is my 2009 CTD. It was apart at 700k. Still does about 600 miles a day pulling 120,000+ pounds.

Wow!! I’ve wanted one for years but seeing as I don’t own a trailer or have anything else to pull I just can’t justify it. That’s impressive as hell.

 

[BugI02]

Are you aware that the ford ecoboost is twin turbo ? I think they may have produced a few thousand of them by now and thee must still be a few of them left on the road

Comprendes sequential? A low mass moderately efficient turbo that spins up efficiently at low rpm blows into a higher mass high efficiency turbo in order to minimize boost lag at low rpm. That is one possible configuration for a 'twin turbo', the other being one turbo for each bank of cylinders, which has its own tuning problems

Toyota once had a twin sequential race motor (in IMSA) that produced 1300hp in qualifying trim from 1.5 liters of displacement

 

[rkwhyte2]

Comprendes sequential? A low mass moderately efficient turbo that spins up efficiently at low rpm blows into a higher mass high efficiency turbo in order to minimize boost lag at low rpm. That is one possible configuration for a 'twin turbo', the other being one turbo for each bank of cylinders, which has its own tuning problems

Toyota once had a twin sequential race motor (in IMSA) that produced 1300hp in qualifying trim from 1.5 liters of displacement

The Toyota engine is impressive of course it's life span would have been fairly short.

 

[Bigtanker]

Wow!! I’ve wanted one for years but seeing as I don’t own a trailer or have anything else to pull I just can’t justify it. That’s impressive as hell.

Some day I'll have an old rig for a hot rod. They can be had for a few thousand dollars. I'd make is a single axle and fab a bed for it. It would look something like this.

 

[BugI02]

That is totally bad ass. Did they route the exhaust out the back? Or is it just hidden behind the left side B-pillar

 

[Bigtanker]

That is totally bad ass. Did they route the exhaust out the back? Or is it just hidden behind the left side B-pillar

I don't know. It's just a picture I found online.

 

[rhino]

Weekend warrior commuter truck.

The smaller you make an engine the harder it has work, or the more you have to force [forced induction] it to compensate for it's size and it wears out faster.

There is no replacement for displacement.

This.

The 5.3L V8 in my 2002 Silverado has just under 280,000 and it still runs very well (the rest of the truck, not so much). That's not going to happen with a 2.7L 4 cyl turbo, unless maybe you change the oil and filter about every 250 miles, never tow, never haul anything heavy, and augment the cooling system. Maybe.

 

[jamil]

I will pass.

If it sings soprano it’s just not my idea of a truck.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This.

The 5.3L V8 in my 2002 Silverado has just under 280,000 and it still runs very well (the rest of the truck, not so much). That's not going to happen with a 2.7L 4 cyl turbo, unless maybe you change the oil and filter about every 250 miles, never tow, never haul anything heavy, and augment the cooling system. Maybe.

300,000 miles on my 2011 Eco Boost!!!

Problems reported: 2 throttle bodies where the plastic gear wore out and a trans select sensor. That's about it. Change the plugs often and of course the oil....Change oil every 6 to 7k. No special oil.

Trailering: I pull a trailer 85% of the time!....I tow a aluminum trailer and carry around 1,000 to 2,400 lbs of equipment


Another user:

I have a 3.5 ecoboost I bought in April of 2013. It has 296,000 miles on it and it’s going strong. I have only changed the spark plugs twice and done regular oilchanges. I use it everyday for my construction business and tow a trailer a lot. I have also towed and 8,000# boat back and forth to Florida twice.

There's quite a few folks with over 200k on an ecoboost. I would hope GM has done their homework as well, but the notion that turbo gas engines are going to grenade at low miles isn't the case. Especially with the transmissions they are coupled with today to keep the rpm low and the twin turbo keeping you from having to rev the poo out of them, they should last.

 

[rhino]

There's quite a few folks with over 200k on an ecoboost. I would hope GM has done their homework as well, but the notion that turbo gas engines are going to grenade at low miles isn't the case. Especially with the transmissions they are coupled with today to keep the rpm low and the twin turbo keeping you from having to rev the poo out of them, they should last.

I know you enjoy being contrary, but there's a big difference between a turbocharged 3.5L V6 and a turbocharged 2.7L 4 cylinder.

 

[Route 45]

I know you enjoy being contrary, but there's a big difference between a turbocharged 3.5L V6 and a turbocharged 2.7L 4 cylinder.

Not that I like the idea of a 4 cylinder in a full size pickup, but if the technology is sound, the technology is sound. 2.7 liters is a pretty big 4 cylinder. Ford's 2.7 EcoBoost is a V6, for comparison.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I know you enjoy being contrary, but there's a big difference between a turbocharged 3.5L V6 and a turbocharged 2.7L 4 cylinder.

The Ecoboost was widely panned as being a grenade between the fender liners as well because it's not a V8 and 'merica and reasons. While I get a V6 and an I4 are different motors, what's the difference that's going to make the 2.7 have longevity issues? It's an unknown at this point, an entirely new engine, but a long stroke straight 4 sounds with high torque low in the RPM band sounds like it's not terribly different. While I haven't tinkered with motors for nearly 20 years, long stroke motors make more torque at the low end, right? And a "I" design is considered simpler and generally more reliable than a "V"? I'm thinking of the Jeep 4.0 and Ford 300 compared to their "V" brothers.

It makes more power than the 350 Vortec (which was the hot new sweetie when I was tinkering with motors), and is mated to a transmission with a lot more speeds that should keep the rpms lower. I don't see how it's going to be "strained". Granted, I've not been tinkering with motors for nearly 20 years now so if I'm wrong I'm welcome to hear an explanation. I just don't believe the small engine + turbo = grenade formula any longer.

 

[churchmouse]

The Ecoboost was widely panned as being a grenade between the fender liners as well because it's not a V8 and 'merica and reasons. While I get a V6 and an I4 are different motors, what's the difference that's going to make the 2.7 have longevity issues? It's an unknown at this point, an entirely new engine, but a long stroke straight 4 sounds with high torque low in the RPM band sounds like it's not terribly different. While I haven't tinkered with motors for nearly 20 years, long stroke motors make more torque at the low end, right? And a "I" design is considered simpler and generally more reliable than a "V"? I'm thinking of the Jeep 4.0 and Ford 300 compared to their "V" brothers.

It makes more power than the 350 Vortec (which was the hot new sweetie when I was tinkering with motors), and is mated to a transmission with a lot more speeds that should keep the rpms lower. I don't see how it's going to be "strained". Granted, I've not been tinkering with motors for nearly 20 years now so if I'm wrong I'm welcome to hear an explanation. I just don't believe the small engine + turbo = grenade formula any longer.

The current ECU's have a lot to do with this.