My first drive of an EcoBoost vehicle

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by XBROO

I haven't seen a VN with over 500,000km unless it's had a motor transplant and that's not a million.

Not looking hard enough

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Not looking hard enough

Might try looking in a wrecking yard. :

[Professor Farnsworth]

kezzer do you have any examples? i guess they might exist, but yeah i'd be surprised if they were original.

[philfree]

I know of a vn v6 thats done 300 000 never had internal work done goes as good as ever to

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by philfree

I know of a vn v6 thats done 300 000 never had internal work done goes as good as ever to

300 000km is just ran in for an inline 6. I don't doubt that as I know a few people with over 300 000km in there commies but when they hit around 400 000 plus kays they are more or less stuffed or well on their way.

[Road_Warrior]

As I recall, the Buick V6's were rated for 400,000 by Holden. This is in the VR days.

[mrbaxr6t]

why the hell do topics get dragged offline by the same people all the time - can we get back on topic this isn't "how long to holden v6es last" its about the ford ecoboost engine, how it drives and compares to the outgoing I6 questioning longevity of holden engines is not the topic for this tread, and furthermore how the heck is what holden did with the VNs relevant?

[Professor Farnsworth]

i believe it's remotely warranted.. the thread is about a v6.. so naturally comparisons are going to be drawn between it and the GM V6, thus prompting reliability concerns. it's all part of the topic in my view. think you should settle down a little, have a glass of wine or something.

[cosmo20btt]

How many klms do they get out of an alloytec would be more relevant how ever still off topic.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

How many klms do they get out of an alloytec would be more relevant how ever still off topic.

and it would still be a rubbish donk for every one of those kms.......how many that is!!! This is the real point of this thread....discussing EB (including the ops experience) and how it will or won't work for ford in terms of its market position (including relevance tocomptitors) etc.

The long term reliability of most engines (including) v6s is more than enough for the average user. FFS, my EF has 330k+ onthe clock but that is an exception really. For a private user car (i'm th ethird owner) that is very high...most private use EFs have 250k tops on them.....and people don't keep cars as long as they used to. You might see EFs out there still but you won't see FGs still going in the same period of time into the future (ie. over 10 years....).

Most people do between 10-20k a year, so at an average of 15k they won't even cover 200k in 10 years!!! Fleets do more but they turn over their cars so what's the problem anyway???

[Road_Warrior]

It all depends on the usage. That V6 (or I6 for that matter) may only make 200,000klm because of nothing but stop start city driving and not being allowed to reach operating temperature. Then again an engine that has been used almost exclusively for highway driving may get up to 500,000 before needing some major work. You can't just say "DURR V6S ARE CRAP DURR" without considering the usage of it, how well (or how badly) they are maintained and what application it is used in. Don't forget, advancements in design and manufacturing techniques have improved the longevity of engines across the board compared to the VN-EA days - you can't really benchmark modern engines against people's experiences with those old 'legacy' motors that were actually 1970's era engines that were dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990's with injection and emissions systems they were never designed to use.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

and it would still be a rubbish donk for every one of those kms.......how many that is!!! This is the real point of this thread....discussing EB (including the ops experience) and how it will or won't work for ford in terms of its market position (including relevance tocomptitors) etc.

The long term reliability of most engines (including) v6s is more than enough for the average user. FFS, my EF has 330k+ onthe clock but that is an exception really. For a private user car (i'm th ethird owner) that is very high...most private use EFs have 250k tops on them.....and people don't keep cars as long as they used to. You might see EFs out there still but you won't see FGs still going in the same period of time into the future (ie. over 10 years....).

Most people do between 10-20k a year, so at an average of 15k they won't even cover 200k in 10 years!!! Fleets do more but they turn over their cars so what's the problem anyway???

I agree in what you are saying but I know they are a minority, but pensioners that have just retired from work would want to know a car is going to last more then a couple thousand kays as they aren't going to buy another one. And they do alot of kays as they usaully like to travel to see place they couldn't when they were working. I have a mate with an EL with 750 000 on the clock and it's still going well. But I think it has had a head gasket replaced and it's not an ex taxi either.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It all depends on the usage. That V6 (or I6 for that matter) may only make 200,000klm because of nothing but stop start city driving and not being allowed to reach operating temperature. Then again an engine that has been used almost exclusively for highway driving may get up to 500,000 before needing some major work. You can't just say "DURR V6S ARE CRAP DURR" without considering the usage of it, how well (or how badly) they are maintained and what application it is used in. Don't forget, advancements in design and manufacturing techniques have improved the longevity of engines across the board compared to the VN-EA days - you can't really benchmark modern engines against people's experiences with those old 'legacy' motors that were actually 1970's era engines that were dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990's with injection and emissions systems they were never designed to use.

Fully agree. Part of the reason why manufacturers put in so much effort in testing etc. doing things that an owner would never do. Ford atcually put their new coyote v8 through tests on the dyno so severe it isn't even possible to subject the engine to those conditions in the car...only a special dyno rig could do it. Leaving an engine on WOT for over two weeks is one example....yeah try doing that in your own car.....

As i said, modern day engines have very good reliabiltiy. part of the reason why there is such a drama made about engine failures etc in modern cars is that they dont'happen as often, and when they do are normally electrical in nature... 30 years ago, people were stopped on the side of the road all the tme for breakdowns....or even in their own garage when the car just plain wouldn't start. Thankfully cars were less advanced then and the average punter could have a go at fixing it...not so much now days....

[XBROO]

arrrhh the good old days where you could fix most problems with a set of spanners and a couple screw drivers.LOL

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

and it would still be a rubbish donk for every one of those kms.......how many that is!!! This is the real point of this thread....discussing EB (including the ops experience) and how it will or won't work for ford in terms of its market position (including relevance tocomptitors) etc.

The long term reliability of most engines (including) v6s is more than enough for the average user. FFS, my EF has 330k+ onthe clock but that is an exception really. For a private user car (i'm th ethird owner) that is very high...most private use EFs have 250k tops on them.....and people don't keep cars as long as they used to. You might see EFs out there still but you won't see FGs still going in the same period of time into the future (ie. over 10 years....).

Most people do between 10-20k a year, so at an average of 15k they won't even cover 200k in 10 years!!! Fleets do more but they turn over their cars so what's the problem anyway???

Excellent post.

Lets face it, car are not built to last as long as they used to in the times gone by. Even our ever trusted and much loved BA series XT is not what I would call a awesome for life span. Sure the motor will last a million k's, but only if it is a cab and never turns off, if it is cold running for short trips to work it will falter after 3-400. The big problem is seats will have totally collapsed, suspension a mess and transmission will have died a couple of times well before you get to the million k's with general private use.

Lets face it, car companies do not want to build a car that you can buy and keep for the rest of your life, there is no money in that for them. They want you to buy their new car and keep it for 2-3 years, then they want you to buy their new model when it comes out. That way they make money. Lets be honest, the majority of new car buyers do exactly that and only keep a car while it is in the warranty period.

Personally I think this thread has been too wrapped up in yet another V6 slamming session. Lets look more at the technology that is coming up instead, remembering this tech can be used on any engine configuration, including the much loved I6 and V8. So many manufacturers now are turning to FI, smaller capacity engines to replace applications that previously have been the realm of large capacity in order to achieve todays expectations in performance, economy and emissions. Why is that, because that is the best way with todays technology that they can build engines with the required level of efficiency. As an example take a look at BMW. In the 3 series you have the 335 which is a 3L I6TT, 225kw, 400mn, 0-100 of 5.8 and fuel consumption of 9.8. This car is a complete weapon in initial acceleration and point and squirt driving. Compare that to the M3 with its 4L V8, 309 kw, 400nm, 0-100 in 4.9 and fuel consumption of 13.2. Many reviews have said in initial acceleration, although the M3 is ahead, the 335 keeps it very honest and the 335 is actually quicker off the line. Many have also found on rolling acceleration the 335 is more responsive. Some of the prestige tuning houses have even been as far to say that the 335 is the better option and with tuning they can easily make a M3 killer for much less than the M3 purchase price. The reason for the eagerness that the 335 accelerates from the line as well as its rolling acceleration such as the 80-120 is that fact that it uses two small turbos (I have heard the same turbo that is in my Mini 1.6 turbo) that spool up very quick and deliver max torque very low in the rev range. All this on vastly less fuel, a win/win.

Lets not forget that once this tech has proven itself on the smaller capacity motors, there is no reason it can not be applied to larger capacity motors such as coyote V8. Imagine a 5L v8T with 400 kw and 700 nm of torque coming in at less than 2000 rpm, all with a fuel consumption in the high 10's or low 11's. Personally, where do I pay my deposit?

Another example of a manufacturer changing from cubes to boost is VW. With the release of the MkVI golf, the R32 is dead. They will still be making a super hatch with more power than the GTI and most likely AWD but it will not have the 3.2L V6, it will instead have 4T running more boost and other tech so that it brings the power in sooner with less consumption and emissions than they can achieve with the V6.

Personally I do not think the EB4 falcon will be the holy grail for the falcon range. It will sell well, no doubt, but only alongside the I6 model of the falcon. In the market that will consider EB4, the size of the car may in fact work against it, as many in this market consider Mondeo and Focus as adequate size cars. I just can't wait to see what they do with this tech on other larger capacity motors.

For all those that say turbo's are always on boost and chew through fuel, why is it only every long club run I did (including Brisbane to Melbourne), did the F6's get much better fuel consumption than the Boss motors? This was evidenced by the fact that we had to fuel more regularly.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

For all those that say turbo's are always on boost and chew through fuel, why is it only every long club run I did (including Brisbane to Melbourne), did the F6's get much better fuel consumption than the Boss motors? This was evidenced by the fact that we had to fuel more regularly.

I didnt say they were on boost, I said that with ecoboost that the smaller engine will spend more of its life on boost (unlike the I6T) and as a direct consequence the ecoboost engines that bring boost in at 1500-2000 rpm will be on boost when coasting down the hwy and being on boost means more fuel consumption. Gecko I am clarifying and stating that the ecoboost engines need to be evaluated against the I6T and how it behaves. the I6T is economical on highway stints because the revs at highway in top cog are below the boost arrival rpm, I fear that ecoboost will not do the same and as a consequence will consume more fuel due to being on boost.

the I6T is geared in such a way that it trundles down the highway below boost threshold rpm, and this yields greater economy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

I didnt say they were on boost, I said that with ecoboost that the smaller engine will spend more of its life on boost (unlike the I6T) and as a direct consequence the ecoboost engines that bring boost in at 1500-2000 rpm will be on boost when coasting down the hwy and being on boost means more fuel consumption. Gecko I am clarifying and stating that the ecoboost engines need to be evaluated against the I6T and how it behaves. the I6T is economical on highway stints because the revs at highway in top cog are below the boost arrival rpm, I fear that ecoboost will not do the same and as a consequence will consume more fuel due to being on boost.

the I6T is geared in such a way that it trundles down the highway below boost threshold rpm, and this yields greater economy.

I think you have got that a bit wrong mate. I'm not a engine expert but you have made an assumption there that the rpm at which boost is quoted is when boost ALWAYS comes on. Not true. The effectiveness of EB tech ford is using is becuase it combines alot of small examples of tech that together work very very well (this is what good holistic engine design is all about). EB uses three features predominately, direct injection (control knock, user lower grade fuel, enable higher Compresion ratio and hence more efficient when off boost). Secondly, turbocharging. This allows smaller engines to make the required grunt DOWN LOW when under heavy load. And finaly Ti-Vct (or di vct). This is twin independent Variable cam timing. This allows ford to optimise the engine (and in fact the engine optimises itself using algorithyms) to overlaps intake and exhaust valves independently depending on driving conditions.

This is why i put that line in bold. The torque and power figures we all talk about are under WOT. This is how dyno tests are done. However, modern cars can 'feel' very different due to fly by wire throttles and engine tuning. The I6 has had this since BF....including the I6T. This means that when you are doing 100km/h by yourself in a BF XT, the engine behaves differently then when you have 4 passengers, luggage and a box trailer. The engine adjusts its tuning (via overlap) to get maximum efficiency while maintaining the requried performance as dictated by throttle position, speed and load.

This software also interacts with the auto transmission RE gear selection etc. With turbo engines (e.g I4T EB or I6T) the turbo is n additional factor. You are corrrect RE if you loaded up a EB falcon with lots of gear it may have to go on boost to maintain performance or for other high load situations (e.g. hills). In this area it may burn more than the I6, and engine life MAY be affected. But under most situations it will not go on boost when cruising where possible. It will simply adjust the timing to provide more grunt without activing the boost..this will stillcost less fuel then going on boost. If it runs the same gearing as the I6 (not guranteed) it would be doing 1600rpm at 100km/h....the boost may not come in till 2000rpm anyway.

Put it another way. The engine as is DI, TiVCT is going to make nigh on 100kw and 190nm NA. This is shown by the DI non turbo version going into the new focus. Now, a focus wheighs 1450kg, so with 4 people and luggage a focus would not weight any less than a FG EB with just the driver. Given on a flat road the focus has no problem hauling itself along at the speed limit (admittedly with higher gearing...though not much with the new 6sp DSG) what makes you think a EB falcon can't off boost???

[Wally]

Without a Transmisson/Tractive Effort performance chart, the real engine performance curves, the real transmission losses you are all just guessing.

Truth is, as anyone with a small turbo car can verify, there is a chance this car will be on boost, if not bordering on it, during a freeway cycle, even with front wheel drive. If the engine does end up with direct injection, the issue of running rich to keep the EGTs and det down may be invalid and therefore the economy fairly good.

[Jondalar]

Well I reckon my G6ET is getting some boost from 90km/h in 6th and definitely on boost at 100, it really livens up acceleration wise. So I don't really see why there's an argument regarding the EB 4 being on boost or not.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Wally

Without a Transmisson/Tractive Effort performance chart, the real engine performance curves, the real transmission losses you are all just guessing.

Truth is, as anyone with a small turbo car can verify, there is a chance this car will be on boost, if not bordering on it, during a freeway cycle, even with front wheel drive. If the engine does end up with direct injection, the issue of running rich to keep the EGTs and det down may be invalid and therefore the economy fairly good.

A good point Wally. I looked into the issue a bit more (since as i said in my post i dont' claim to be an engine expert) and your post raises a good issue. The problem with the 'on boost' or 'off boost' argument is that is assumes the setup is a very much on or off....fact is that modern turbo cars are not totally light switch (though you can feel it come in pretty easilly).

moreover, the claim that 'on boost' burns copious amounts more than 'off boost' is a bit misguided. Maybe 20 years ago but not now. Withouth performance curves we dont' know for sure, but i think it will do ok on the freeway. Of course, the whole argument is really null and void as anyone knows the I6 is better suited for high load/highway work...the I4T is going to be aimed at fleets with urban cycles....

[Wally]

Well we'll have to wait and see if the fueling is an issue, because the stock 2.0 is 101kW, 174Nm, multiport injection, not direct injection. On the face of it these are not exceptional figures for a normally aspirated donk and the boost will still obey the ideal gas laws and adiabatic efficiences of "20 years ago".

I'm not sure that a light switch analogy is appropriate, because that tended to happen when the boot was put in causing boost spike, otherwise the wastegates were under control of a boost controller like they are today. It was never a problem having the boost come on early in the rpm band like the 2.0T might, it was just that there was a preference to have it come on around peak VE or later and therefore the pressure ratios on the front end and the expansion ratios on the backend selected for midrange spool. Whereas the peak power on the 2.0T will probably be around 6,600 rpm, guys in the 80's were putting on hybrids to come on boost way past stock rpm so they could exceed 10,000 rpm; such was favoured method.

The earlier you bring boost on with any engine, the earlier and therefore higher the peak torque figure. Having 1kW@1500 rpm is going to show up as twice the torque of 1kW@3000rpm. There is no black magic in this and highlights the danger of putting too much emphasis on torque numbers.

[geckoGT]

I agree with the comment that just because a vehicle produces max torque at 1800 rpm under WOT, does not mean that it is running max boost at those revs under cruising, flat road conditions at those speeds. The amount of turbo boost is not purely a result of engine RPM. It is a result of RPM, load and throttle position, but I am sure we all realise that.

I have seen this on a F6 at cruise on the highway, I also know our mini does not run full boost at 110 on the highway and it revs at 3000 at that speed. When you put your foot down you can feel that short moment as the turbo spools up and then the surge of the torque (at 110 in 6th gear the mini runs at 4-5L/100km). Let me tell you, the mini is definitely geared low for acceleration and city traffic, not highway cruising (hence the 3000rpm at 110 km/h), I am sure Ford will gear a EB4 Falcon a lot higher like the current ZF 6 Spd is. I am willing to lay money on the table that this thing will be designed to run as frugal as absolutely possible and no I6 will get near it in consumption during normal conditions (eg, normal vehicle loads according to the standard for fuel consumption ratings, pulling a boat trailer will be different).

Guess we will have to wait and see but I am sure there will be many here that will be very surprised. I am sure Holden will be getting some pretty big black eyes over the next few years, good times ahead.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I agree with the comment that just because a vehicle produces max torque at 1800 rpm under WOT, does not mean that it is running max boost at those revs under cruising, flat road conditions at those speeds.

I have seen this on a F6 at cruise on the highway, I also know our mini does not run full boost at 110 on the highway and it revs at 3000 at that speed. When you put your foot down you can feel that short moment as the turbo spools up and then the surge of the torque (at 110 in 6th gear the mini runs at 4-5L/100km). Let me tell you, the mini is definitely geared low for acceleration and city traffic, not highway cruising (hence the 3000rpm at 110 km/h), I am sure Ford will gear a EB4 Falcon a lot higher like the current ZF 6 Spd is. I am willing to lay money on the table that this thing will be designed to run as frugal as absolutely possible and no I6 will get near it in consumption during normal conditions (eg, normal vehicle loads according to the standard for fuel consumption ratings, pulling a boat trailer will be different).

Guess we will have to wait and see but I am sure there will be many here that will be very surprised. I am sure Holden will be getting some pretty big black eyes over the next few years, good times ahead.

Good to hear some real world, albeit anecdotal evidence of what i was trying (probably not very well) to convey. I think the anti EB 4 pot is a bit of a natural reaction...the protection people feel for the I6 (will it steal sales?), the suspiciousn over small capacity (4pots in big cars), reliability of turbos etc. People have also forgotten that for performance appliations the I6 will still exist....itis not like the 2.0 I4T will be faster over the quarter or something. It will have more than sufficient grunt, but will be set up so that the I6 retains its (probably further upmarket) place as the performance drivetrain of the two....

It is worth remembering that it is up to ford to not only overcome the engineering hurdles (which it seems they have) but to get the message accross too. Either way, you are right about Holden. When it comes to the EB falcon versus 3.0 SIDI commodore, i think the correct term is 'murder'..... If they can't beat the I6 then lord help em...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

Well I reckon my G6ET is getting some boost from 90km/h in 6th and definitely on boost at 100, it really livens up acceleration wise. So I don't really see why there's an argument regarding the EB 4 being on boost or not.

I think you have inadvertently supported what we are saying.

While on cruise at part throttle it will not be on boost traveling at 100 km/h. The "it livens up" that you report is a result of boost building because engine load has increased. I do not know if a G6ET has a boost gauge but a BF F6 does and I have noted exactly this when we had the F6 loan car in these conditions (virtually the same engine).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Good to hear some real world, albeit anecdotal evidence of what i was trying (probably not very well) to convey. I think the anti EB 4 pot is a bit of a natural reaction...the protection people feel for the I6 (will it steal sales?), the suspiciousn over small capacity (4pots in big cars), reliability of turbos etc. People have also forgotten that for performance appliations the I6 will still exist....itis not like the 2.0 I4T will be faster over the quarter or something. It will have more than sufficient grunt, but will be set up so that the I6 retains its (probably further upmarket) place as the performance drivetrain of the two....

It is worth remembering that it is up to ford to not only overcome the engineering hurdles (which it seems they have) but to get the message accross too. Either way, you are right about Holden. When it comes to the EB falcon versus 3.0 SIDI commodore, i think the correct term is 'murder'..... If they can't beat the I6 then lord help em...

Outstanding point, the EB4 falcon will not really be competition in the Falcon I6 market, perhaps a little but at least it is, they are buyers that are still staying with the blue oval instead of buying aurions (perceived as better on fuel by many). I think the EB4 falcon will pull people away from cars such as the camry.

One thing I do hope is that they do not only offer EB4 on XT equipment levels, to me this would be under utilising its potential. I hope they extend it as an option up to G6 or maybe G6E equipment levels, not all that want good economy and don't tow will settle for base models, some want gadgets too.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

.... I am willing to lay money on the table that this thing will be designed to run as frugal as absolutely possible ........
..........

I understand the target is 8.0 l/100

[4.0i_SiX]

Surely they will employ an electronic boost controller to stop the turbo coming on full boost at highway speed?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by 4.0i_SiX

Surely they will employ an electronic boost controller to stop the turbo coming on full boost at highway speed?

What do you think gives it that flat torque curve? I'm not sure they would want to stop it anyway.

[Jondalar]

GeckoGT I am not sure which point you think I am supporting, I was mostly saying that just because the turbo is producing some boost doesn't mean that it's going to be sucking the fuel down like there's no tomorrow. I also agree with the above saying just because max torque is at 1800 doesn't mean that driving down the highway you'll be at max boost at 1800, as you said throttle position counts for a lot regarding boost level.

As long as they make the EB 4 an economy engine it will increase Falcon sales. I'm sure it could be made to outperform the I6, but then wouldn't gain much in the area of economy.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jondalar

GeckoGT I am not sure which point you think I am supporting, I was mostly saying that just because the turbo is producing some boost doesn't mean that it's going to be sucking the fuel down like there's no tomorrow. I also agree with the above saying just because max torque is at 1800 doesn't mean that driving down the highway you'll be at max boost at 1800, as you said throttle position counts for a lot regarding boost level.

As long as they make the EB 4 an economy engine it will increase Falcon sales. I'm sure it could be made to outperform the I6, but then wouldn't gain much in the area of economy.

That was not the way I read your post but sometimes interpretation can be an issue in written word. I thought that you were supporting the notion that EB4 will drink like a sailor at highway speeds. I believe you are correct with what you have said here.