Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Boats and Motors -> ecoboost towing |   |
| Message Subject: ecoboost towing | |||
M Winther |
| ||
| I don't see anyone here saying they have experience with an ecodiesel...I'm waiting for the 1/2 ton Tesla myself. | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | you have experience with an ecoboost? | ||
| M Winther |
| ||
| Nope...and that's actually an advantage. I just pointed out that neutral testing showed it's nothing like what the anecdote-machine claims. Google "confirmation bias," consider its impact on "I love my truck" stories, and report back on your findings. | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | M Winther - 4/6/2014 5:08 PM just pointing out that most people form strong self-serving opinions in favor of whatever it is they own ahhh … i drove an eco-boost 80k miles i see you like your Godzilla and HEMI … you reflect your opinion and i suppose that makes sense | ||
| M Winther |
| ||
| If I was buying a Ford the V8 is cheaper and more reliable for the same performance. It even accelerates better at passing speeds. Aside from extreme towing capacities that are well beyond our fishing applications, where's the upside to the turbo? | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | i was just pointing out that people form strong self-serving opinions in-favor of whatever it is they own ... | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | M Winther - 4/6/2014 9:23 AM lol...there's opinion and then there's evidence. - the ecoBoost was quicker to 30mph, the V8 quicker to 60mph and also quicker from 45mph to 60mph. indeed … you either misquoted your source, never driven an eco-boost or likely both. | ||
| John23 |
| ||
Posts: 46 | I have there years in an ecoboost and love it. It pulls like crazy. I figure the extra money you pay outweighs any cost advantage, but we're talking about a relatively small amount of money when you compare the gas consumption between a 5.0 and the EB. Between the two, I'd bet the way you drive will have a larger cost impact than which engine is in the truck. In any case, the EB is a joy to drive. Seriously, it has a ton of torque and it puts a smile on my face regularly. Even if it uses 10% more gas than the 5.0 (I don't think it does, but for the sake of argument) on top of the $1,500 or whatever it cost to upgrade in the first place, it's totally worth it. Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh | ||
| M Winther |
| ||
you either misquoted your source, never driven an eco-boost or likely both. You're right, I misread. The turbo is actually 0.1 seconds faster to 60mph and 0.1 seconds faster in the quarter mile. My brother has one, my neighbor has one, a couple friends do too. They've seemed like other trucks to me: press pedal, move out. They're nice, I just haven't seen anything compelling about the performance and fuel to say it's worth the extra upfront and maintenance costs. Everyone believes they're both stronger and more fuel efficient, but they're neither. More expensive for the same outcome...where's the upside? | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | in the auto version the proof is out there and many are used as police cars now … it's a rocket. proof is yet to be determined in the trucks i suppose, but the world's #1 selling truck with ecoboost orders at 60% of total suggests it's popular. providing both a V-8 option allows ford to support the concerns you express. when the all aluminum body comes out, it might be even more interesting for weight to HP … Ford has it going on … best selling car and best selling truck isn't bad, my concern is with all truck brands … are they really worth high 30's to mid 40's $$. the Ford eco-boost i priced out is $44k. in my experience with the eco-boost it was press pedal, grin … move out. | ||
| Imobley |
| ||
Posts: 84 | jonnysled - 4/6/2014 6:14 PM nicest trucks i've seen are the mid-sized diesels (ford, toyota) but you can't buy them in the U.S.. we have a company truck in Honduras that is a mid-sized super crew diesel. wish i could have one here ... not yet but apparently the diesel will be offered in the new Chevy Colorados and Cummins is putting one in the Nissan frontier in the near future | ||
| lennyg3 |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: NE PA | Imobley - 4/7/2014 10:24 AM jonnysled - 4/6/2014 6:14 PM nicest trucks i've seen are the mid-sized diesels (ford, toyota) but you can't buy them in the U.S.. we have a company truck in Honduras that is a mid-sized super crew diesel. wish i could have one here ... not yet but apparently the diesel will be offered in the new Chevy Colorados and Cummins is putting one in the Nissan frontier in the near future I read about the new diesel colorado coming out and it sounds promising. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Best part about those trucks is that they aren't really "new" per se. I spend a lot of time out of the country and they are the workhorses for the rest of the world. Ford, Toyota, Nissan and VW (yes, VW through a joint-venture i believe) are all over the roads (if you can call them that) but just not sold in the U.S.. They are built beefy and not what we would consider "mid-size" from what we get here. i drool over them every time i ride in em and see em down in Central America. | ||
| SLE |
| ||
Posts: 29 | You guys want objective, some will like this and some won't. Between my company and our sister company we run a fleet of varying trucks ranging in age with the oldest being 15-years old with brand new trucks purchased every year. These trucks get used by varying people and are on construction sites nearly daily. In fewer words than none, they are used hard! We have a multitude of suburban's, Yukon's, F150's, F250's, Silverado's, Expeditions, and a few odd balls including a Jeep, an Escape, and a grand prix. Engine's in the mix are 5.3L GMs of nearly every age, 6.0 and 6.2 GMs, 5.4 fords of varying age including a 2014 in and Expedition, 2 5.0's and 5 Ecoboost's (basically one each year since they debuted in the trucks). Since this discussion is about Ecoboost's and towing, outside of our F250 Diesels, the little Twin turbo Ecoboost bar non tows the best with the GM 6.2 not terribly far behind. Anybody that thinks a 5.3 GM is in the same class as the Ecoboost is clueless. The big difference between the little 3.5 and the 6.2 is the 6.2 simply needs more RPM. That low RPM torque on the 3.5 is undeniable when towing and makes for a fantastic driving experience. 2nd thing is mileage, the Ecoboost varies greatly. All of our Ecoboost trucks are 3.73:1 geared and mileage ranges from a low of 9-10 towing heavy to 25 mpg at 55 mph with no adverse weather. On average the guys see 17-20mpg on the highway, 13-17mpg around town, 10-13mpg towing. Some expected better and complain a little about the mileage but none of the other trucks in the fleet are any better, everyone just expects better due to the advertising. The 6.0 GM and a the 5.4s seem to be the worst for Fuel milage without at doubt. Only 1 of the 5 ecoboost trucks have been in for service, neither of the 5.0 trucks have had any issues, we have Both a 6.2 and few 5.3s that have been in for various items. At this point I can't say one is any more reliable than the other. What I do know is put a truck in the fleet and you'd be amaze at what they manage to break! and that's on all of them. Our guys have open options to buy what they want and what works best for them so long as it's a full size SUV or Crew Cab truck. From 2000-2009 I would say we purchased 1 ford for every 3 GMs. In 09' we picked up a new F150 which became a turning table for our fleet. Since that 09' F150 (which we still have), the tables have turned easily to a 4:1 ratio of Fords to GMs. At the end of the day they guys like the fords better for a multitude of reasons, one being the Eco-boost. Take it for what it's worth, but to watch some of they die hard GM guys make the switch to Ford has been somewhat comical. 10-years ago I would have heard rhetoric like "I'd rather push a Chevy than drive a ford". All I can say is it's been awfully quite the last few years. | ||
| Jeff78 |
| ||
Posts: 1660 Location: central Wisconsin | I am a GM guy who just bought a new F150 with the 5.0. I drove both that and the ecoboost. A couple of factors went into my engine choice, first being the upcharge I believe of $1400 above the 5.0 to the eco. Second I know there has been a ton of testing but I am a believer in cubic inches. I own five vehicles, four are V8's and my wives Impala has the lone V6. I don't think you will go wrong with either of the Ford motors. 360 HP vs 365HP Torque is 380 ft lb vs 420 ft lb. Eco is stronger in both categories. Edited by Jeff78 4/10/2014 8:35 PM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Crickets ... | ||
| M Winther |
| ||
Crickets ... forgive me for checking this less often than you do, Sled... yes, those are interesting observations. - far upper end towing capacity is greater for the turbo V6 than the V8 - fuel economy is the same (in spite of what is advertised and widely believed) - up-front costs are higher for the turbo V6 (and other data says reliablity is worse) i'm pretty sure if you look at what i've said earlier, i mentioned every one of those same points. his experience is consistent with what CR found. from where i view it, for towing a 4000lb boat/trailer that's less than half of either versions towing capacity you're paying more than you need for same fuel economy and same acceleration (within 0.1 seconds). for industrial towing applications that require the extra capacity you can make a good case for the turbos. | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | you got on that one pretty quick … pulling uphill in duluth or on the 501 is a good application for having low rpm, torque and acceleration capability and put it to use. people have "paid more" for that application (diesel) for years. so, now you get a gas engine that gives diesel performance at a cost less than diesel. a paradigm that is common. folks who don't like the huge additional cost of diesel and the cost of fuel difference are looking at the eco-boost with interest. not everyone is viewing this thread through the eyes of a HEMI. i get that you are against the eco-boost and an expert on the subject. some good information from informed sources here to answer the OP's questions. | ||
| lennyg3 |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: NE PA | M Winther - 4/11/2014 10:00 AM Crickets ... forgive me for checking this less often than you do, Sled... yes, those are interesting observations. - far upper end towing capacity is greater for the turbo V6 than the V8 - fuel economy is the same (in spite of what is advertised and widely believed) - up-front costs are higher for the turbo V6 (and other data says reliablity is worse) i'm pretty sure if you look at what i've said earlier, i mentioned every one of those same points. his experience is consistent with what CR found. from where i view it, for towing a 4000lb boat/trailer that's less than half of either versions towing capacity you're paying more than you need for same fuel economy and same acceleration (within 0.1 seconds). for industrial towing applications that require the extra capacity you can make a good case for the turbos. if a vehicle tows heavy loads better, one can assume it will pull a lighter load better as well esp because of the huge low end trq of the ecoboost. if you are concerned with towing performance per dollar you shouldn't be looking at new vehicles. they are a terrible investment. purchase an old 12v cummins or a 7.3 powerstroke with 200k on it. as far as the reliability data goes, I would like to see it myself. could you provide a link to any of this. | ||
| SteveHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 202 Location: Angola, IN | John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts: 1.) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer. 2.) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine. 3.) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future. Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point. Edited by SteveHulbert 4/11/2014 1:17 PM | ||
| SteveHulbert |
| ||
Posts: 202 Location: Angola, IN | I'm not trying to start or a fight or a Ford vs. Chevy war...just giving my opinion if I were to go out and buy a new truck today. Spending $35k-50k on a truck, I want something with a proven platform. I definitely don't want to buy a turbo-charged gasoline truck and hope it's the first successful one ever built. Edited by SteveHulbert 4/11/2014 1:19 PM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Steve … that's interesting information on turbos interaction with gas engines. what is the science behind turbos and diesels as a comparison? | ||
| M Winther |
| ||
as far as the reliability data goes, I would like to see it myself. could you provide a link to any of this. it's from the 2014 Consumer Reports review of the Ford V8 and Ford V6 ecoboost. the V8 was rated with "Average" reliability and the V6 ecoboost was downgraded this year to "Below Average" reliability. you need a subscription (i have one) to view the full details of the review, but it's mentioned in the overview on the public page. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/ford/f-150.htm pulling uphill in duluth or on the 501 is a good application for having low rpm, torque and acceleration capability and put it to use. people have "paid more" for that application (diesel) for years. very true, and the Ford V8 offers more than enough for the boat/sled/atv towing applications most relevant here. the people who have paid more for a diesel have primarily done so because they're pulling much heavier loads such as an RV, horse trailer or for industrial applications. not everyone is viewing this thread through the eyes of a HEMI. i get that you are against the eco-boost and an expert on the subject. actually, i'm actually quite interested in the Ford V8 vs Ford V6 ecoboost decision. i've been happy with my Ram HEMIs, but no more or less than i was with my previous Fords. if anything, the Rams' upkeep costs have been high. so aside from snarky online jabs, serious question: what are the objectively tested advantages that would point to choosing the V6 ecoboost over the V8 in the F-150? | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | I watched the video and recalled my 80k mile smile from pushing the pedal on my ecoboost-powered SHO, then considered how an all aluminum body truck would make that smile even bigger. you really should stay snarky … it's entertaining. Edited by jonnysled 4/12/2014 7:21 AM | ||
| lennyg3 |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: NE PA | SteveHulbert - 4/11/2014 12:55 PM John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts: 1.) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer. 2.) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine. 3.) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future. Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point. here's a very well used ecoboost... 6 part torture test. in part 1 alone they do 150k miles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4 | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | another great video … my brother paul has had the ford account for about 20 years and handles all of the specialty hauling from clay models, to show cars, elite collector delivery and they haul to all of the test sites including the ice roads of yellowknife NWT, Canada. when i lived in TX and TN he would use my garage as "a hiding spot" so on occasion they would drop a vehicle into my garage with body panels that hid it from what it was so that a guy could drop and another could load to help him with logistics depending on where they were moving things. he's tipped off to what's happening in the future at Ford and has been a great help to me to "wait" until a cool product might be coming out. i've known about the aluminum body testing program for quite awhile now and really interested in what it's going to be. he's the one who told me to wait for the ecoboost in the SHO … that car is incredible and makes an A6 feel like a below-average car. best part is that i qualify for the A-Plan and get his pin number to use. with it, i'm only allowed to use it every 2 years. i got my diesel for a song, same with the SHO and now considering waiting for the Aluminum Eco-Boost F150. really revolutionary for a half ton truck and well beyond anything anyone else is even dreaming of. Ford is the leader in trucks and the rest really do follow. this latest video is great and it describes what paul has always told me … they handle all accounts, but Ford is at the pinnacle of testing and is not even in the same ballpark as what is done by their other clients (which include all the others). great video and worth a watch! thanks for posting Lenny ... | ||
| crix |
| ||
Posts: 165 Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | SteveHulbert - 4/11/2014 11:55 AM John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts: 1.) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer. 2.) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine. 3.) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future. Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point. Yes I do know a guy that has a 11 eco boost with just shy of 200k on it he uses it for pulling his boat, fairly big camper and a beast of a steel frame 24ft ice house I would never think about pulling with my old 5.4 his does have quite a lot of hi way miles on it from work but, he has had very good luck with it just the minor maintenance stuff and general maintenance oil and fluid changes etc... no turbos no motor issues and no tranny problems on his!!! he did tell me he does full synthetic and 5k oil changes religiously Will I have mine for 200k like him??? no but I will have it for 10+ years | ||
| FishFinder87 |
| ||
| johnnysled, GM is coming out with a Colorado/Canyon that are supposed to be available this fall.... With the ridiculous price of half-ton trucks these days, and the specs they've listed so far on these trucks- I expect them be a good buy for a lot of people, including myself! They are even coming out with a 2.8 Liter "duramax" diesel engine for it next year apparently... looks promising to me as long as they price it right. EDIT: Sorry, did not see page two, apparently these have already been mentioned. I've owned a 5.4 ford and a 5.7 Hemi. My brother has the new ecoboost. Between the fords, I really don't see much difference to be honest, other then a slightly different power band, a little different sounding tone, and a 1200 dollar price difference. The Hemi was a BLAST to drive, but mine sure drank a lot of fuel. (could be because it was so fun to drive?). At the end of the day, they are all good until they break down. Edited by FishFinder87 4/12/2014 9:53 PM | |||
| SLE |
| ||
Posts: 29 | Until some of you take an Ecoboost for a drive you will not understand the drivability and enjoyable experience it provides, it's very hard to describe. Ill give it a try, Driving around all day keeping up with traffic and never breaking 3k rpm is a start, dragging a skid steer and trailer weighing at at 10k in 6th gear down the highway with never more than a drop to 5th no matter the hill or wind is another, same goes for towing my 20 ft boat down to the lake, driving 80 mph down the interstate into a stiff 30-40 mph head wind and again nary a shift from OD, standing on the go pedal from a dead stop and lighting em up 30 ft later as the turbos hit full spool, power brake it a bit to spool the turbos and you'll wonder if you lost 5k or 10k miles off the rear skins, and yet at the end of the day it'll provide mileage on par or better than its nearest competition. Never mind what a $350 tuner will do for it. FYI, this engine debuted as the twin force in 2008, ramped into mainstream production in 2011 and yet outside of the World Wide Web I've yet to hear of one blowing an engine or losing a turbo. With 5 running around our shop, and 20 or so clients and friends that have them, the only complaint I've heard has been those that expected better fuel efficiency. Im not afraid to throw stones when there deserved, if you want to get me going we can talk about the infamous 6.0l diesel, the GM instrument clusters, or the steering issues in the GM lambda chassis vehicles. You all go ahead and wait until you think they are proven, in the mean time mine will be headed to fleet duty next year when it hits a 100k on the clock and I'll be driving another Ecoboost next year, except this time it'll be made out of my recycled beer cans. I'll be enjoying the innovation while you stand by those engines from GM and Ram that are more than a decade old. Happy trails. | ||
| SLE |
| ||
Posts: 29 | FYI, I have nothing against the 5.0 however its just like the 5.3 GMs that shift all over the place. Drive into a headwind and listen to the motor scream, hook a trailer up and listen to it scream. Yes, there made to do that and no your not going to hurt them. It does however take some of the enjoyable driving experience away. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |