We won't know till someone does it. I think 5-10 years when the new Tauruses and F-150s start to show up in the JYs we will get are answer

 

Good point, I just see it as a sign of the times:

- it is extremely expensive to "make a difference" on any of these new cars because of the way they are designed.

This one is just on the far end of this extreme. Too many parts are soft. On the other hand an example is Subaru, where you can go with a closed ej20, and hard internals and make it an instant winner.

It's a shame too because a lot of knowledgeable people could make impressive machines from the F150.

 

I don't disagree with your reasoning there. The point is, most of us don't want an engine that does have a lot of turbo lag, and has to scream at higher RPM all the time to make power. Yes, you could likely get much better economy with something that has to be really begged to create boost, but most people just don't want that. Most people want smooth, instant power delivery in something that is a daily driver.

Personally I would hate to be driving around in a car where I have to downshift several gears and wind the **** out of the engine to pass everyone. This would be especially retarded in a truck. Now if you started with a bigger V8 that made decent low end torque on it's own, then threw a big turbo on it it might work out okay for it's purpose, but economy would probably be horrible. Sure some of us don't care and only want power, but it's not what they are trying to achieve. You can get some pretty impressive results by supercharging (or turbocharging) one of Ford's V8 engines if what you really want is power without concern for cost or economy. Hennessey sells a twin turbo kit for the Ford 6.2L that makes 810 bhp and 745 lb-ft torque, or a supercharger setup that makes 605 bhp and 567 lb-ft torque.

Would I like to see them build something on a stronger foundation that was more mod friendly? Sure, I would like to see that with everything. But tightening emissions and government intervention is making that more difficult for everyone I think. Ford builds products for the masses, and in most cases I would say that they could care less about the aftermarket. Where a company like Subaru doesn't sell a lot of product, and they often cater to the aftermarket tuning crowd. It is a whole different game, different business model, different purpose.

 

I've owned several turbo and supercharged vehicles and I will never own another one again. That includes diesels. It's just one more thing to go wrong. You're adding an oil-fed turbine under the hood that spins at incredible RPM and generates tremendous heat.

The recent trend toward super and turbocharging reminds me of the 1980's, when Chrysler started making the K-car (Dodge Aries, Plymouth Reliant, Chrysler T&C Sedan)...they jammed those turbos in those pieces of s**t, advertised them as "just as fast as a V8" and they were all in junkyards within 5 years. It's like any attempt to make a turbo vehicle mainstream...it never works. It never works because the average driver doesn't maintain their vehicle nor do they pay any attention to the special needs of a turbocharged engine. Drivers are hesitant to even change a timing belt or fix a main seal, two things that can give your car years of extra life. When the turbo goes bad and it needs replacement or it blows an oil hose while you're driving down the highway, no one is going to put up with that...it's a ticking timebomb and no one at any car company can convince me otherwise. It's a turbine...it's driven by exhaust gases...it's sucking oil out of your motor...it's generating heat...it's got a complicated induction system will all manner of vacuum hoses, wires, sensors, solenoids, relays...all things that are above and beyond the NORMAL stuff on the car anyway.

SIMPLY PUT: MORE THINGS TO GO WRONG.

The only true market for turbochargers is in high end vehicles where the owners can spend thousands of dollars to keep them maintained. It's easy to spend $2500 to rebuild the motor of a Porsche but it's a tough sell on your Ford Taurus or your F-150. The customer of today is buying a disposable vehicle...they aren't interested in keeping it for longer than the term it's financed...then they trade it in for pennies on the dollar...screw whoever gets it after them. For today's buyer, if Ford can make it so they stay solid for 5 years or 100k miles, they'll make people happy. Beyond that, it's the junkyard.

Only time will tell if the Ecoboost motors will last. I'd stick with the normally aspirated model...it's plenty fast and efficient and won't have nearly the late-in-life issues of any turbocharged vehicle.

 

lol, uhhhh-huh?

If you're basing your knowledge of turbo charged vehicles on the turbo K-cars from the 80's . . .

Considering the amount of people on here who either A) Own a turbo diesel truck or tractor or use one for work, or B) are even mildly knowledgeable on turbo vehicles, I don't think I need to point out the "WTF" statements in that intel.
--------------------

However yes, only time will tell how any of Ford's new engine's perform reliably, including the new 6.7 Powerstroke.

 

I was drawing parallels to Chrysler pushing turbos on mainstream car buyers just like Ford is doing now with Ecoboost. I wasn't comparing the technology, although I see reading my post that this is how you could read it. I laughed at that.

What do I know? I'm an ASE certified mechanic with 25 years of experience and with 15 personally owned vehicles under my belt, including:

2001 VW Jetta 1.8T (Turbocharged)
1996 Mazda Millenia S (Supercharged)
2001 F-450 Super Duty (7.3 Power Stroke)
1982 Volvo Turbo (I maintained this until 2008)

In case you were wondering, I work on Volvos almost exclusively...nearly all turbocharged. I wouldn't own one.

Now those are not Ecoboosts, but they're forced induction alright. By far, they were the most expensive to own vehicles I've ever had and it all surrounded the forced induction on each of them. Massive oil leaks were the biggest issues.

As a mechanic, I absolutely love them...I make more money off of them...but I get to see the customer's frustration with the vehicles as they go bad...and friend, it's widespread...they don't take care of them and they turn into albatrosses later in life.

 

My titanium rods, by themselves, were that much.

 

This still doesn't mean (nor explain why you said) turbocharged vehicles are unreliable as you seem to want to imply they are. Considering the amount of industrial engines that are turbo charged (talking tractors, tow trucks, rigs, boat engines, generators, liquid pumps), turbo's are are a quite basic and when maintained, reliable as any N/A engine around. Most people, including us, have tractors with thousands of hours on them with no turbo issues, last job I had my 379 (C-15) had 750,000kms; not a single problem turbo related same with my current 1.2mill KM Cummins N14, multiple friend's with turbo diesel trucks for the farm, three friend's with a WRX (STi), etc. The list goes on. To say turbo's are problematic is ignorant, and in most cases, incorrect. Yes they're pretty precise pieces of equipment, but they're simple and built to last. Over boosting, over spinning, over heating, bad filtering, poor lubrication, no doubt you'll have trouble, but in stock form in most cases the turbo is one of the least problematic parts on the vehicle (although I do realize, and know, some vehicles did have turbo issues but from design or other cause, not from being this high-tech devils work it seems you're out to make them appear).

I simply do not see how you can make the statement turbo's are bad or unreliable parts, I'm literally confused by why you say this.

 

hmm once they become available, I'm looking for a wrecked 150, wonder how hard it would be to install in my ranger..

it's a thought..

 

Too much electronic sh*t nowadays in cars. I can't wait to see what 09-11 vehicles will be like as far as 100k+ maintenance in the next 10 years. When I popped the hood of my dad 2009 GMC Sierra 1500 5.3L I was like "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"

 

what engine? a 5.4 very hard. an old 5.0 not hard. a 4.6L it will be tough but doable.

 

was thinking the 4.6, wonder about the rest of the drivetrain..

 

I am not implying anything about turbos being unreliable or being some sort of flawed design

One thing you learn in years of experience as a mechanic is that there's a huge disconnect between the average everyday driver and the person (like you) who is interested in vehicles, maintains them properly, and makes an effort to learn every nuance of the vehicle in order to ensure a hassle-free ownership experience. The disconnect is even further with managed fleets, like as in trucking companies or agriculture. Those are folks who do maintain their vehicles and own enough of the same model to know each of the model's problem areas, etc.

Let me be clear: Turbocharged and supercharged vehicles, maintained properly by a competent mechanic and serviced precisely according to specification can and are durable and reliable.

With that being said, the average car owner, in particular the average AMERICAN car owner does not follow their maintenance plan, does nothing but oil and tire changes (and only when absolutely necessary), and basically drives the car until 100k miles and gets rid of it. That's your average motorist. A turbocharged gasoline vehicle just cannot stand up to that abuse. The main problem is the owner of the vehicles.

I hear what you're saying and I like your statements. Remember, though, we get on this site...we all know cars...we all live and breathe this stuff. It's easy to forget what a complete moron the average car owner is...they don't even know what a transmission is or does most of the time. As a mechanic and owner of my own shop, I can't tell you the frustration I see when an owner of a car comes in needing $3000 in repairs because they didn't keep up their car...and turbocharged gasoline vehicles consistently don't hold up as well as normally aspirated vehicles when abused and neglected.

It's about the average owner...and quite frankly I have no confidence a Ford Taurus driver will do anything but change oil and tires. Convince me otherwise.

 

I see what you're saying now, not sure if I missed it or it was unclear, but now that we're on the same page, I do agree. The average driver vs. someone who buys a vehicle to enjoy or modify will have very different maintenance regiment or knowledge of maintaining such an engine (turbocharged/high"er" tech)/vehicle is what will determine the engine being problematic or reliable.

I understand what you were getting at now, makes sense.

 

I was thinking "holy jeez, I see eye to eye with this guy but I can't seem to convey that."

I do Volvo almost exclusively. I got my start at a dealership and have rolled with it my whole career. I like the cars and they hold up very well long-term, even the turbo models. My customer base is very well educated on how to keep their cars running well. The typical Volvo driver is college-educated, not mechanically inclined, but smart and receptive to being told how to do something. I think I like Volvo owners more than I like Volvo cars. I try to do a very good job educating these folks because they'll keep coming back year after year for maintenance (which is easy) and rarely have huge issues...so their cars last longer, I make more money keeping up an older car than them going to the dealer and buying a new one and since it's just maintenance, it's easy work.

Then the guys roll in who have a car with 100k miles, never done a thing to it but oil changes, and they're wanting me to perform a miracle. They get a quote for 50 hours of labor and they say something along the order of "I'll never buy a Volvo again." I have learned to shrug it off and be sympathetic. I always say "look, go get yourself a clean used one and bring it to me for maintenance...I'll keep you running well a long time." I maintain hundreds of Volvos over each year, most of which are turbo 5 cylinders, and the ones who come in for maintenance never have the issues.

Long term, you'll need a new turbo on one of these at about 175-250k miles depending on how hard you're driving and the conditions. That's not cheap, but it's a straightforward change and you get a good deal on rebuilt turbos. That's a replacement the normally aspirated cars won't require, so it's advantage "no turbo" on that one, but the extra power and efficiency really make it wash out.

In a perfect world, I'd have nothing but pristine, well-maintained rigs pulling in. I sold my 1982 Volvo Turbo in 2008 and my B4000 is my daily driver now. That 1982 Volvo (I was the original owner) was a great vehicle and was my daily driver for 15 years before I made it my weekend car. I don't apologize for not driving a Volvo anymore...I can't haul engines in the back of a Volvo wagon and "I just don't think they make 'em like they used to," as the saying goes. They're still solid machines, though, and my wife drives a 1997 850 that's running strong with the original turbo.

Back on topic, now!

 

This thread is titled New Ford 3.7, but has turned into a turbo thread. It's simple If you don't trust it just don't buy it. If I ever buy another truck, it will not be a full size Ford, they are just to big for what I need. I had a 08 F150 FX2 sold it, gas mileage sucks, plus if I needed to get any thing out the bed, I would have to actually get in it. The 80's regular cab 6 foot bed F150 with the staight 6 was the best Ford truck.

 

There was a reason they off'd the 4.0.
I believe Motor trend did an article about the 4.0 and its replacement (3.7) and in it, the author pointed out the biggest faults of the 4.0, Its old, hasn't been refined and wastes gas. why would they continue to put this in vehicles in today's day and age? where everybody is strapped for cash and gas is outrageous? i can see the market for it.
as for the ecoboost in a ranger, I saw a guy at a car show this summer who had an ecoboost in an F-100. i think i have pictures, will post if i can find them.

 

Depending on what you take it out of. If you got it from a 4x4 F-150 you could swap over twin sticks and everything. It would be involved though, with lots of custom brackets and linkages. plus driveshafts. it would be easier to do a 5.0 from an expo as everything bolts right up.

 

Do you jack off to your car?

 

agreed, after more reading I've changed my mind..

thanks for the heads up..

 

I read this thread from first to last and was going to post and quote several different parts. What was getting me pissed was everyone bagging on JP7.
Personally I don't know him but to bag on someone because he is knowledgeable is just stupid.
Even if you don't agree with him respect his knowledge, as a person who has been turning wrenches for most of 40 years owned and operated an auto repair shop built to many high performance cars and meddled my way through numerous turbo and supercharged engines builds I find JP7's knowledge on this subject to be spot on or at the least a lot of what he has said here is identical to many of the pitfalls I have run across in building reliable highboost turbo engines.
Any motor can be boosted many won't last but if you choose the right platform, use your head when putting it together it is not to difficult to build a high horsepower fuel efficient and reliable engine.
I must also agree with the posters who said the average person who drives will never understand how an automobile works and the importance of proper maintenance. This is why they make chevy's
Turbo'ed vehicles require diligence and upkeep but can be very reliable. They aren't for everyone but the market for these vehicles is there and growing.

 

Consider the source... "throttle body spacer"... enough said.

 

I don't have much to contribute to this thread at all. LOL. It was a good read, for the most part.

The new 3.7 sounds nice, and I hope its successful for Fords sake.

To be honest, The superdookie ranger, you sound like a moron. Everything you said reminded me of a 12 year old trying to prove a point. "Yeah, well...you drive a foreign car." Who cares. JP7 sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Knowledge is knowledge, and if you don't have enough to make a valid point, stfu.

 

I don't think they are bagging on him because of his knowledge, but they are put off because of his condescending attitude towards many things automotive related. Ask him about any LED light setup that is not of his own creation or reference his unsolicited opinion about the Ecoboost engine in this thread. The repeated arrogance he shows in tons of his posts just gets old. I don't even read most LED or lighting threads anymore because I don't want to read how "plug in bulbs are junk, so check out what I have" posts.

That is all.

 

I am not here to pick a fight, like I said don't know JP7 nor you I read this post and his explanation of what makes a good turbo motor is well founded.
Maybe he is a little arrogant so what, his info on the 3.5 and 3.7 and it's construction show it's short coming for high boost high rpm applications. I didn't find his post to be condescending. It seemed well explained to me, even had pictures.