They make stronger pistons and blocks and much more efficient cooling systems than they did 10 yrs ago. Also, direct injection, better air and fuel flow and better computer systems monitoring. Thats why they are as reliable as they were 10 yrs ago with more hp.

I was simply pointing out if you want to hear a horror story, all you have to do is Google any engine.

So an engine can be built stronger to handle the additional power? Gee, why didn't Ford didn't think about that when they were designing the ecoboost? Of yeah....they did. Stronger block, strong cylinders/piston, improved cooling system, straight off the engine's introduction. And what about the mechanical aspect of it? Because of the additional low end torque, the ecoboost will turn fewer revolutions given the same work as a NA v8?

Yes, the Ecoboost dynochart will show a peak TQ at 2900ish rpms and you have to wait all the way until 3600Rpms to get to peak TQ in the Tundra... Not that much difference.... You have to remember, those turbos have to be spooled in order for the motor to benefit. So If you are at 3000 rpms, you don't have 420 ft-lbs unless you have it floored.
Guess how much TQ the Ecoboost drops off at close to redline... OVER 125 ft/lbs!!!(because the turbo's are inefficient at high rpms) The Tundra Loses about 30 ft/lbs... Who has the flatter TQ curve?

they both turn about 2000RPMs at 70mph also.

Just google F150 limp mode. The problem with Turbo vehicles these days is we have such inconsistent quality of fuel the manufactures have a hard time tuning them for power safely. Especially in the south where we have extreme heat(the heat actually exaggerates the problems). Turbos compress high amounts of air into the engine and in order to get the air to fuel ratio correct they have to inject much more fuel to get the AFR. The reason ecoboost vehicles get poor mileage under load is because they have to inject WAY more fuel in the Cylinder just to keep it cool and not detonating. When you get a bad tank of gas, it makes the fuel detonate much easier. Detonation in a turbo vehicle is devastating if not controlled. So they have sensors that monitor "ping" (Detonation). When pinging is heard, the computer automatically retards timing and sometimes cuts turbo boost. If this continues to happen over a long period of time, the vehicle goes into "limp mode" Basically a protection mode to keep you from burning a piston. It Cuts all power and turns it into a Dog.

V8's still have to deal with bad fuel, but it isn't as extreme consequences as turbo vehicles.

Look at something else: longevity of the engine. Engine parts wear because of use and wear more from being worked harder.

Lets say you compare a 3.5 liter turbo v6 to a 5.7 liter NA v8

take the engine power and divide by the number of cylinders
V6: 365/6= 60.83hp per cylinder
v8: 381/8= 47.63hp per cylinder

v6: 420/6= 70 ft lbs/ cylinder
v8: 401/8= 50.1 ft lbs/ cylinder

as you can see the v6 is always working harder than the v8 which will shorten its life compared to the v8.

I used to be a ecu programmer for an aftermarket turbo subaru's and Mitsubishi's and I've seen some very impressive numbers come from small turbo vehicles, but I promise you that a vehicle that has more cylinders making the same power will live much longer.

Where in the world did you dream that up? The ecoboost's peak torque is at 2500 rpm and is over 90% of it's peak torque from 1700 to over 5,000 rpms. That's one heck of a flat curve. Who cares what a truck does at redline. The Tundra or any other NA gasser can't touch the low-end of a turbo. The ecoboost can produce significantly more torque at 2000rpm's at 70mph, which is why it is a better tow engine.

http://www.f150hub.com/specs/ecoboost.html

Does the ecoboost intake a fuel air mix like most gasoline motors? or does it draw in air only on the intake stroke which is compressed and then the fuel is injected like in modern diesel trucks?

If its injected wouldn't you have no detonation?

Funny I have never heard of a complaint about predetonation in any diesel topic or the ecoboost. How many engines does it effect? Im thinking someone may be making mountains out of mole hills to dog on the EB.

Well...here's a Tundra dyno. It says the 5.7l produces no power under 2000 rpms. I found it on the internet, so it must be true.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/w...tundra-dyno.jpg

Been on a lot of f150 boards. Turbo failure is an extremely rare complaint on the 3.5l.

Don't forget, Ford is so sure of the 3.5l that they dropped the 6.2l from their half ton line up.

Been on a lot of f150 boards. Turbo failure is an extremely rare complaint on the 3.5l.

Don't forget, Ford is so sure of the 3.5l that they dropped the 6.2l from their half ton line up.

Seems to me that your original point assumes they are constructed out of the same materials though.

Yes maybe they both have a block and crank made out of the same material, but those aren't typically engine life determining components... either they are strong enough or they aren't. I don't see a lot of motors with bricken cranks. All the motors I have retired have been due to suffering performance, oil consumption, loss of fuel mileage, not a broken crank or cracked block.