Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-07-2011, 05:34 PM   #57
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
Thanks DKB, that is what I was asking.

My knowledge of this stuff is pretty limited. Like: turbos start up when there is sufficient demand—punch the pedal—and there is some lag, sometimes quite a lag. Superchargers always run meaning no lag, but they are less efficient because they run when not needed. What has changed?

I can't imagine how something spinning at 200,000 rpm can last very long unless it is made of mithril.

Gene
__________________

__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 05:52 PM   #58
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Yes, Gene, Modern turbos are VERY different than the old ones. Most all are water cooled, variable vane, and oiled very differently. To answer another poster, turbos are always "engaged", but the variable vane technology will spool them up very differently, dependent upon demand. There is little to no turbo lag because of this variable geometry. I have seen very little turbo issues in the last ten years, unless maintenance is neglected.

In addition, oils are SOOOOOO much better today than 10 years ago. The vast majority of turbo issues in the past were heat/overheating and cooking of the oil in the center bearing areas. Not so anymore, with water cooling and after shutdown oiling. (or air filter neglect (severe) which allowed dirt to eat the vanes....other internal engine cylinder issues to follow!)

Direct injection was first introduced (IIRC) in mass production by Honda in the 90s. It didn't work very well, due to processor capability and speed, and was dropped for awhile. GM came out with their first DI in 2007 on the 2.0L turbo Cobalt SS (a little rocket BTW). Since then it has been expanded to regular everyday cars like Traverse (and the others in the family), LaCrosse, several Cadillac engines, Cruze....etc. It has been very trouble free. GM truck engines are about 18 month - 2 years behind, due to the "economic difficulties" in 2008 -09 calendar years. Expect to see the new powertrains in trucks probably in 2013 - 2014 model year time frame.

I would not be afraid of DI nor turbo technology from any of the major mfrs. They seem to be pretty robust.
__________________

__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 07:17 PM   #59
2 Rivet Member
 
2014 27' FB International
1955 26' Cruiser Overlander
Las Vegas and Big Sky , Nevada / Montana
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 53
Not even sure who asks what ??. But, Yes I have the HD package with max Tow, I think it's 11,200 with the 157WB. As for ride, I think it's better than the 2008 Tundra, and my wife thinks it is easier to handle. As for cost, way too much. Sticker was just over $48K with all the toys, but paid around $40K cash out the door, purchased in Salina, KS and licensed in Montana. Terry
__________________
tlcbuilder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 07:52 PM   #60
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Actually, I need to correct myself. Forgot about Saturn. The GM 2.0L DI Turbo was first in the Ion Redline and Sky in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The Cobalt SS came along in a delayed 08 model year introduction.

Anyway DI has been around for awhile and advanced turbos longer than that.
__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 11:49 PM   #61
Rivet Master
 
JFScheck's Avatar
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Rockville , Maryland
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,474
Images: 33
Jet engines are turbines, power plants use turbines, the modern turbo in today's trucks & cars used as designed (no chips, especially those that increase boost, mess with exhaust or aftermarket air filters, etc.) will outlast the repercipacating parts of any engine...
__________________
John "JFScheck" Scheck
2015 Roadtrek CS Adventurous XL
2015 Mercedes Sprinter 3500 XL Chassis with Mercedes BlueTec V6 Diesel
**I Love U.S.A.**
JFScheck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 12:06 PM   #62
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
Glad to hear about the advances in turbo technology. Thanks for explaining it in simple terms. Will this mean I'll finally be able to get a flying car?

My next question, asked before, but not answered: the Ford gets pretty good mileage not towing, but it drops down a lot with a trailer. My Tundra gets about the same towing, but not so good not towing—there is much less of a drop in mileage when towing. The big drop in efficiency (would that be the proper word) with the Ford makes me wonder if the engine is at its limit towing and will wear out faster?

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 12:46 PM   #63
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
My next question, asked before, but not answered: the Ford gets pretty good mileage not towing, but it drops down a lot with a trailer. My Tundra gets about the same towing, but not so good not towing—there is much less of a drop in mileage when towing. The big drop in efficiency (would that be the proper word) with the Ford makes me wonder if the engine is at its limit towing and will wear out faster?

Gene
First off, I think you're looking at the efficiency difference in the wrong direction. A big-displacement normally-aspirated engine operating near its maximum output should be operating pretty efficiently if it's well-designed. There's an amount of work that's required to move the metal through the air and up the hill, and doing that work requires fuel.

So, when you look at the EcoBoost getting a little better mileage than similar-output normally-aspirated engines while performing the same work, that should be the efficiency baseline. The EcoBoost offers you a bonus of being much MORE efficient when operating at less than its maximum output, because it doesn't require as much fuel-air mixture to be pumped through just to loaf along at cruising speeds without hauling a load and can dial back the boost pressure, while there's only a certain amount of efficiency to be gained by shutting off cylinders in a V8 since you're still dealing with the same mass and internal friction, which is why that hasn't proven to be a very popular solution in the market.

It is reasonable to expect that the EcoBoost might have a little shorter service life than a good NA V8 around 5-6 liters, especially if a large fraction of the operation of both engines is at rated output. However, with modern engines, you're probably looking at something on the order of 250,000 miles for the EcoBoost vs. 300,000 miles for the V8. That's all just conjecture on my part, of course, but most modern engines are capable of running well for a VERY long time if properly maintained; unless there's some sort of design flaw I expect the 3.5L EcoBoost to have a pretty good service life.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 01:17 PM   #64
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
I'm unsure I really understand what you are saying about efficiency. But, my question wasn't about the superior gas mileage not towing (which is a good thing, of course), but if the Ford engine was being pushed while towing since the mileage drops dramatically compared to the Tundra. But maybe you answer it in your 3rd paragraph, but it seems to be conjecture, which is about all we have now anyway. I'm not keeping a truck for 250,000 miles anyway and I doubt this particular Ford engine is close to that yet.

Next question: Is the Ford built with oversized differential, brakes, driveline, transmission and the rest? I ask that because the Tundra appears to be more like a 3/4 ton except for the leaf springs. What I gather is that the Ford has much higher payload in a 1/2 ton but I may be reading it wrong because I am unfamiliar with the trim lines.

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 01:49 PM   #65
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
My point about the bigger fuel-mileage delta between towing and not towing for the EcoBoost as compared to the delta between the same conditions on the Tundra is this: The reason there's a big delta is because there's a certain baseline energy expenditure required for doing the work of moving a large heavy truck plus a large trailer, so even the more-efficient EcoBoost engine returns low teens when doing significant towing... the EcoBoost can tailor its output to a broader range of load conditions, so it can offer drastically increased mileage when loads are lower, while the normally-aspirated Tundra engine (or any other big V8) can't, so you don't see as much improvement in those engines when they're just moving the truck.

Ford uses a very different transmission in the F250 than the F150... the current F250 gets the same transmission for gas engines as is used for the diesel. The F150 also uses the one transmission through the entire line, the 6R80 6-speed that's used from the 6.2L Raptor engine down to the normally-aspirated V6. I can't personally say how it compares to the V8 Tundra's 6-speed auto, but I wish I had one on my '07. If I recall correctly, 2WD Tundra transmissions have proved pretty reliable, but some people have had issues with the 4WD transmission. That's something I remember reading about on AIRForums rather than a general Toyota forum, though, so it may be specific to trucks that see a lot of towing. The newish Tundra was out of my price range when I was looking for my used TV earlier this year, so I didn't research it as deeply as I did the previous-gen F150s. (And I've researched the EcoBoost F150 a lot because I'm a turbo-geek and like to dream about the "next truck" even though that's years away.)

With max tow, the EcoBoost comes with the same differential that you'd get behind a bigger V8, and they have big disc brakes at all 4 corners. Braking performance is pretty similar between them according to Car and Driver, but they're not testing the braking with a trailer. I don't know anything specific about either differential, but I haven't heard lots of reports of significant trouble with either brand's recent diffs.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 02:27 PM   #66
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
Thanks again for trying to answer my questions. Our Tundra is not quite 4 and it will be a few years before we are in the market again. I expect significant changes in trucks because of fuel costs in then next few years and it may be fun to watch this develop.

In the '80's turbos were used because the manufacturers had to do something, anything, to boost mileage. It didn't work very well. We may see things improve in other ways, or at least I hope so. Not only do I want a flying car, I want an electric truck.

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 03:08 PM   #67
LFM
3 Rivet Member
 
LFM's Avatar
 
2007 19' Safari SE
Laurel , Montana
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 141
Images: 1
Montana to Minnesota

Here's my 2 cents.

Just pulled into the Minnesota TAC and been towing for three days from Montana. Left Wednesday and towing a 19' Bambi, only got around 11 mpg, but that is traveling 70-75 into a twenty mph headwind. Just came down from North Minnesota to the TAC rally in clear lake, on two lane roads at 60 mph, no wind and averaged 13.5 mpg.

It was hard to keep the truck at 70, as it kept creeping upwards. Too much power, didn't always remember we had a trailer behind . So very happy with this purchase.

As to the price, it was a very well outfitted supercrew XLT with towmax and lots of ammenities. $33,000.00 out of Billings Montana.

Close to 19mpg not towing, 75-80, er 75-75 by laws.

Only about 2,000 miles on the rig. So I am expecting it to be around 13 -14 average towing, and 19-20 non-towing, and the smoothest ride believable, with power untouched.

Drinking a beer in Clearlake, Minn, with the TAC group.

Greg
__________________
LFM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 07:27 PM   #68
1 Rivet Short
 
1989 25' Excella
By The Bay , Rhode Island
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,547
Images: 3
Heads up if you are planning on towing heavy with the new F150; http://www.raptorforumz.com/showthread.php?t=14208

So far the majority of these failures are related to off-roading, but some speculation any heavy load on the rear end will contribute to this condition. The new Fords don't have a lot of history behind them yet...we'll see how this shakes out...let's hope it's isolated to the Raptor/off-road crowd.
IIRC; frame is the same across the 1/2 ton platform.

Anyone here have any problem with new F150 chassis?

Bill
__________________
*Life is Good-Camping all around the Continent*
*Good people drink good beer-Hunter S Thompson*
BillTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 08:20 PM   #69
Rivet Master
 
JFScheck's Avatar
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Rockville , Maryland
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,474
Images: 33
I have heard nothing, lots of folks towing Airstreams, Car Carriers & Boats...
__________________
John "JFScheck" Scheck
2015 Roadtrek CS Adventurous XL
2015 Mercedes Sprinter 3500 XL Chassis with Mercedes BlueTec V6 Diesel
**I Love U.S.A.**
JFScheck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2011, 09:50 PM   #70
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Folks, this is not news to me. Industry insiders know frames and their torsional and lateral rigidity. Do a web search and you will find one mfr worse than Ford and one much better. The fourth mfr., nobody even talks about. You'll have to look for yourself, as this will become heated fast!
__________________

__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ford F150 3.5L Eco Boost tlcbuilder Tow Vehicles 601 05-19-2014 09:05 PM
Can a Ford Flex tow an Airstream Nigel Tow Vehicles 204 12-01-2013 07:47 PM
Questions - Ordering 2011 F150 Ecoboost KerryFO Tow Vehicles 46 11-03-2011 06:32 PM
ordering our next TV - 2011 F150 EcoBoost jm2 Tow Vehicles 20 03-31-2011 06:29 PM
Ford hitch 2.5" to 2" adapter hhendrix Hitches, Couplers & Balls 15 03-28-2011 09:32 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.