Anyone Towing with an F150 EcoBoost?

Anyone towing with the EcoBoost?

I'm trading in my F150 with the 5.0 V8 and considering switching to the EcoBoost. I'm in construction so I do tons of daily driving (30k plus per year). I tow my boat and an occasional heavy payload in the bed for work so I just want to make sure the EcoBoost has the power when needed.

The 3.5l ecoboost will easily outtow the 5.0.

I own one. Hands down the best 1/2 ton towing platform. It's a beast.

If your 5.0 currently does what your asking of it then the ecoboost should do it in style. The eco will have more grunt(read bottom end) If what your doing is really stressing your 5.0 something bigger may be in line.

There should be little if any difference in how well either of them carry a load as far as weight in the bed goes.

If you're currently towing with a 150 5.0, you will really like the ecoboost. I see tons of Bass Boats being towed by 150s with the ecoboost. I tow my Ranger Z520 with an Explorer Sport with the ecoboost and it tows great.

I have a 2011 F150 with Ecoboost. I love it. Pulls awesome. But don't expect the gas mileage to be quite what they advertise. It never is. I average about 16-17 MPG without a trailer, and about 13 MPG pulling the boat.

The Ecoboost runs smooth as silk and pulls great. Mine has 85k on it and still going strong.

Same here. 2014 F-150 Lariat 4x4 with 3.5L Ecoboost. Pulls my heavy 20' Procraft like a dream. Even on some pretty nasty grades last summer in Oklahoma. In many ways, this truck is equal to my previous '04 3/4-ton Dodge with a 5.9L Cummins.

As newpontoonguy said, the gas mileage isnt what they advertise. 16-17MPG and around 13MPG towing. I have a very lead foot though and can get carried away pulling the boat down a highway. Forget its there sometimes!

All the fuel economy estimates I have ever seen also state may vary based on driving habits. My fil has a 2014 ecoboost and averages 13-15 mpg empty... he has a very large and heavy foot.

I told him it should do a lot better but he needed to drive it differently. He tried what I told him and wouldn't you know broke 18 on a tank and then 20 on the next. A week later he said nobody drives like that and I cant drive like that.

I've averaged 17.4mpg commuting over the last thousand miles. Show me a big gas v-8 that does better and competes powerwise.

Power in real life or power on paper?

I would argue that the ford 5.0, hemi, and chevy's motor will all get around that mileage and will all cut the mustard for what 99% of people do with a 1/2 ton pickup. I like the ecoboost, quite a bit actually, but its not a gift from God.

Sure never got that out of my 5.3l. And like I've said before, night and day difference in towing.

Likewise

Not saying a 5.3 is better by any means. After break in I never got less than 18 out of mine comuting to work and back. That's with city street driving and traffic. I got over 16 pulling our boat almost pure highway. It wasn't a speed deamon or powerhouse, but I think I could have held the pedal to the floor non stop and still beat 15 empty. Again I just said I feel like any of those trucks would do what 99% of people do with a 1/2 ton and return the same fuel economy. If given the choice I would buy an ecoboost any day over the 5.3

They will. The ecoboost just does it a littld better. I never averaged better than 15's mixed with the Chevy.

I've got the GMC Sierra with the 6.2 and towing package, averaging 18.5 and pulls great, not saying the ecoboost isn't a great motor but originally it was being pushed as a vehicle with this great mileage but now we all know this isn't true. I just wonder what my truck would do with a 4.10 rear end, you could probably use it to pull trees out of the ground.

America has what I like to call the "Ricky Bobby" disorder, they like to go fast. Sure every once in a while I mash on the skinny pedal and grin, but my normal driving habits return far greater fuel economy. People complain about fuel economy and what they could do as far as programmers/aftermarket parts to get better fuel economy when the simplest cheapest solution is your ego. Drive 65 mph and don't floor it to get there. Anyone driving a stock 1/2 ton should be able to get the upper teens.

.

Screen shot your computer. Include average economy, miles and average speed, then I might believe it.

My electrician has a gmc with the 6.2. His average was in the 16's and he says it gets 18 on the highway. And it will pull the chassis out from under a 6 banger Eco.

I don't think so Tim...they have the same towing capacity...around 12,000lbs. You also have to pay a premium (LTZ with heavy duty towing package) in order to get that engine in the truck.

Let me correct myself...the 15 f150 ecoboost is rated @ 12,200 lbs...beats the 6.2 by 200lbs...6 banger eco...still eats the GMs lunch.

Neither one of them eats either ones lunch.

They are pretty close, BUT alot of people think the 6.2 will kill the ecoboost on towing performance. When I pull the facts...it suprises them.

When it comes to cars most people are idiots and have absolutely zero zilch none no idea how their vehicle works. Past a guy in the bank parking lot, a middle aged man with a 2500 hd chevy that didn't know how to change a flat tire...

So the 420hp, 460 ftlb torque of the 6.2 GMC is stronger correct?

its a compromise... im not sure what the ecoboost is rated at or the 6.2. On the old ratings at 5500+ rpm the 6.2 wins at anything probably less than 4000-4500 the ecoboost wins. Since most read 99.99% of our driving is done at less than 4000 rpm which one makes more usable sense?

On the other hand they both do a similar job and return similar fuel economy... so we are back to the ford chevy debate where we started!

Go look it up for yourself. The ecoboost outperforms it when it comes to towing. Not by much but too many people think that 6.2 will kill an eco until they do a little bit of research on actual performance....sorry not my opinion.

I seriously doubt the 6.2l gets better or as good economy as the 5.3l. And don't forget, that 6.2l has to rev a little more to get to 460 lbs torque. Not a bad engine though. Definitely the closest competitor.



All stop and go. Average 33 mph. No BS.

And yes, I do need to clean my truck.

Oh yeah... well I seen a gm 6.2 mount and hump and ecoboost... there I said it.

Lol!

Thought we needed a little humor in here!

And what I forgot to say is the eco liked it.

K&N test results shows the stock 6.2L makes ~340 ft.lbs. to the rear wheel at 4500RPM. Superchips dyno results for EB shows ~372 at rear wheels at 3100 rpm. Both in stock form. Either the published GM torque number is VERY optimistic or there is some major driveline loss going on. Regardless, I suggest your electrician never actually attempt to hook a load onto his Chevy and out tow an Ecoboost because he's gonna be in for a "rude awakening" as the old folks used to say. He DEFINITELY doesn't want to do this test at high elevations. You can research the effects of elevation on naturally aspirated engines versus forced induction one's if you want to know why.

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/77-3082-6.2_dyno.pdf

http://www.f150forum.com/f7/54-more-hp-superchips-releases-tuning-2011-12-ecoboost-136986/

Again, this is all on paper. They have done several heads up tests and if im not mistaken the ecoboost either baredly or didn't outperform the hemi 5.7 tundra and 6.2 gm by much. Yes the eco makes a great 1/2 ton and probably better 3/4 ton tow vehicle than the gas options, but it obviously hasn't beat the competition so badly that they are antiquated.

Good comparison, here. Curious what the Ford will do with the new 10 speed tranny. Supposed to be in all F150's by 2017???



http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...te-specs-page-6

That is a pretty thorough comparison. Is the 3.23 gear the only one available with the GM? Seems it used to come with a 3.42 before the 8 seed. Also its odd that the 6.2 looses most of the lower speed speed test ratings yet has the best 1/4 mile time and has all the best roling acceleration numbers as well.

interesting they show the ecoboost rated for 91 octane

First of all, you can't compare different vehicles power numbers from different dynos. Heck you can't even compare the same vehicle on different dynos. A few years ago I took my hopped up Subaru STi to a dyno and it made 355hp and 420tq on one companies dyno, then I immediately drove to another dyno and it made 390hp and 455tq. Same vehicle different dynos.
Second. These two dynos aren't typical for either of these vehicles. ecoboosts average 325-350tq and the 6.2's average 350-375. Look it up.
third, look at the superchips dyno chart. Its all screwed up on the chart itself, the numbers don't correlate to the graph...

The 8 speed tranny is a definite advantage to performance. The rear end is only part of the factor and can be offset with transmission gearing.

Also, I think the 91 octane is a misprint.

True. But all of those comparisons are acceleration tests. Are we talking about racing or towing? How many of us hook up a boat or camper and then lay the accelerator to the floor? I personally appreciate the ability to tow a considerable load and hold gears on inclines or in strong head winds. This is where the EB really shines. A naturally aspirated engine is just not able to produce torque as low as a forced induction engine. I'm sure the 6.2L is a great engine. It has awesome power numbers for a V8- and great mileage to produce those types of numbers. But it just won't out tow the Ecoboost- I don't understand why an adult would refuse to acknowledge this fact. It's so illogical I can't even understand it.

You can compare the final ratio's of each gear by multiplying the transmition ratio by the rear end ratio, that would enable you to compare them all on an even playing field, minus two being 8 speeds and the other two being 6 speeds.

The first gear ranking starting with lowest geared (read highest ratio, better for getting stuff moving)

Ram 15.11:1
Ford 14.80:1
Chevy 14.72:1
Toyota 14.31:1

The top/highest gear ratios rank as follows

Toyota 2.53:1
Ford 2.44:1
Ram 2.15:1
Chevy 2.09:1

As you can see not a whole lot of difference. The Ford and Toyota sixth gear ratios fall right between what the GM and Ram 7th and 8th gear ratios come out to.

Per your numbers, the GM actually puts down ~25 more ft.lbs. than the EB. But it has to rev to 4500RPM before it reaches that. Since we are discussing dyno issues, I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the EB is notoriously difficult to dyno accurately because of the fact that it is turbocharged. My driving experience indicates that the EB produces the majority of it's torque MUCH lower than most dyno tests would indicate- meaning the true towing ability of one is NOT accurately reflected in those charts.

Excellent point. Many "old school" thinkers in terms of rear axle ratio believe they are really getting a low geared towing monster when the get a Toyota with 4:30 gears. They don't realize that the tranny gearing actually puts that on par with most manufactures 3.5-3.7 ish gear ratios. We aren't driving 3 speed trannies with a 1:1 3rd gear ratio anymore- at least not most of us.

Honestly, I'm surprised the ecoboost does as well as it does on the performance numbers, because despite what Ford wants you to believe, it does have turbo lag. You don't really notice unless you punch it but there is a pause, then it takes off like a scalded dog. It feels funny when I go back to a naturally aspirated engine because they are much more responsive. The ecoboost feels similar to driving a turbo diesel, imo.

My FIL complains about this, however I only notice it a little under heavy acceleration. To me yes it is there and you can feel it, but its a pickup truck not a dragster so its a non issue to me.

While I see your point, if you compare the Toyota to the current ford 6 speed and the 2014 gm 6 speed and the last 6 speed ram offered then Toyota is still geared the lowest.

I think the 8-speed is interesting... but I'd HATE to have to rebuild one!

I've run the numbers but it's been a while. I was thinking that the F150 with 3.73's was very close.

Yep. There is turbo lag. That's part of the reason you see such disparity in the videos of EB's racing other trucks. Someone that knows how to spool the turbos and launch does MUCH better than those that punch it from idle.

Probably so, I ran it using 3.55's in the ford.

I notice GM's torque management or whatever they call it way more than the EB's turbo lag.

Tundra with 4.30's on left, Ford with 3.73's on right.
Column A is Tundra trans ratio, B is final drive ratio. Column D is Ford trans ratio, E is Ford final drive.

They are very similar when comparing a 3.73

What different does rpm make when you are towing? If the eb is movinga load at 3000rpms and the 6.2 is moving the same load it at 4100 rpms. What difference does it make? You simply select the gear that puts the truck in its most appropriate rpm range.
There's no advantage to it being a lower rpm. The eb will still have the same internal cylinder pressures and probably more.
can the eb to the same work at lower rpms? Yes, so what. Ford makes this a huge selling point BUT WHY?
Note they both achieved 16mpg average in c/d's 300 mile test. What a huge eco advantage!

The difference is you don't tow a trailer down the highway at 4500 rpm... at least I don't and don't know anyone who would.

Is that because you don't like seeing the tach between the 4 and the 5 instead of between the 3 and the 4? the eb is working as hard or harder at a lower rpm...

So your saying you tow distance at hwy speed in a gear that keeps the motor turning 4500 rpm? or no?

No I wouldn't do it and don't suggest it, but feel free to treat your vehicle however you want.

I do not because I don't tow anything that my tow vehicle can't maintain 75mph in 6th. ie: my 21 ft bass boat, but I have towed my 11,000lb dozer (including the trailer weight) for some distance. It was at about 3500 rpms and doing fine at 60mph......if I had only had an ecoboost I could have towed it 1500rpms lower andbeen much more comfortable

We are starting to go off the deep end here. High rpm's are for towing large weights up grades. Not for towing bass boats down the highway.

Even if you go to some hilly areas like in Arkansas or Missouri you are towing fairly short distances and not hurting your engine towing at 4500. The eco will be turning much more than 3 grand under the same conditions. See some of the towing comparisons.

The Ecoboost is a great machine. It is not quite the amazing engine I was hoping it would be but just comparing it to a 6.2 tells us something. And just to say it BBB, if the EB is pulling the same load as the 6.2 at a lower rpm, with boost and putting out the same power it will surely be putting out much higher cylinder pressures. 3.5 versus 6.2 doing the same work dictates that.

Two things, an engine tends to run hotter at higher rpms and it tends to make a lot more noise at high rpms. Heck, why not put a rotary engine in a truck and tow at 12,000 rpms if it doesn't matter?

A turbo diesel works at very high cylinder pressures too, but that doesn't seem to scare anybody? Will the Eco go 500k miles, probably not. But people with ecoboosts over 200k are becoming pretty common.

You would be surprised how much hotter a turbo engine gets than a NA engine. With the turbos at full pressure the exhaust manifolds will be glowing red hot. Again, the turbo 6 has that heat spread over 6 cylinders where the v 8 has less heat spread over 8.

Deisels are a whole different animal because diesel fuel doesn't have the BTU's that gasoline has therefore it doesn't have the explosive punch when ignited. diesels usually have 4 rings on each piston and a much more robust bottom end to handle the much higher cylinder compression. the reason why they have such high compression is because they don't use spark plugs and my compression is what ignites diesel fuel. it's very difficult to compare diesel and gasoline engines.

Exhaust temps don't overheat your engine or transmission. Don't take my word for it. Try running at 4500 rpms under a heavy load in the mountains for a couple hours and see what happens. Don't care what engine you choose to test, the results probably won't be good.

Umm exhaust temps tell you exactly what kind of heat is being created inside your motor. you really need to go read up on how turbo and na vehicles differ and the pro's and cons of each.

Its normal for a turbo to have higher exhaust temps. The ecoboost was engineered to counter them. Nobody is burning them up...unless they run at 4500 rpms as you suggest is OK. But yeah, I need to read up.

Better stated, a turbo requires high exhaust temps for high performance.
The amount of boost a turbo can make is determined by the quantities of air that goes the the exhaust side. Hotter means the air going through the motor has expanded more which provides more volume. That is one of the sides of a turbo that many people don't understand. If the air was not heated going through the engine the turbocharger would not work good if at all.

The only way a turbocharger makes high power in an engine is with high exhaust temps.
Think of it this way. Intake air volume versus exhaust volume. The given amount of exhaust volume coming out grows as the air temperature rises. Hot exhaust gases have greater volume thus more drive for the turbocharger. Take intake volume at 150 degrees and exhaust volume at 1000 degrees. The air expands as it heats up and the amount of volume coming out is way higher than the volume going in. That allows the turbocharger to perform its desired duty. Take away the high temps and you take away its capability.

I am assuming the Ecoboost is equipped with an intercooler. The only turbo cars I have owed had huge intercoolers to cool the air as it flowed from the turbo to the engine. The cooler the air, the better the performance and efficiency. I notices a lot of large replacement intercoolers available for the Ecoboost that would probably outperform any factory installed unit. One car I had had a water injection unit also that helped cool the air. BMW is experimenting with water injection for their twin turbo v6's.

Is it the temperature of the air? or the Flow? that makes a turbo build power. I vote flow.

The more you push the gas the more fuel/air mix burned the more exhaust created spinning the turbo more making more boost. I believe temperature is the enemy of the turbo but a side effect of attaining more boost, but not what makes the boost.

I love to see the ignorance of this.

In making the ecoboost did ford just take one of their regular old run of the mill v-6's and throw twin turbos on it? I highly doubt it.

Diesel engines don't have more compression rings, a beefier crank rods and pistons and etc. because they run on diesel, they have all of that because they are designed to run hi compression and endure the stresses a turbo places on a motor. I would think a similar design was used to build the ecoboost. However, I have never pulled one apart.

My EB has never had to rev higher than 2800 to maintain 65mph with loaded camper at 9500lbs. Typically pulls in 5th at ~2000RPM. You take a NA V8 that would most likely never get below 4th and likely need 3.73 instead of 3.55 gears- and you are now running at probably low 3K RPM on flat land. Therefore, the entire valve train is accumulating wear at a 50% faster rate than the EB. Also, you are probably going to have to catch a gear at every small incline- anything very steep at all and you are probably going to have to rev into that mid 4K range. I'd be willing to bet that my EB has to change gears maybe 1/10 as often as any NA V8 out there would in my area when towing my camper. Hunting gears and constant shifting is hard on transmissions. On top of that, the EB just feels in control of the load. The V8's I've had seemed to just be struggling the entire time I was towing. As far as the "Eco" part of the name- considering that the ONLY NA engine that would even come close to performing as well as the EB in towing- the Ford V10 that's no longer used except in the F450+- would really struggle to get low teens EMPTY- yeah, I see it as very economical.

Diesel has a higher BTU content than gasoline. It's also very hard to compare a 3.5L engine that is DESIGNED to handle the pressures of using forced induction to a standard run of the mill V8, but you are attempting to assess the EB as if it is a basic gas engine with 2 turbos strapped onto it.

The Silverado just has a 3.42 rear end, what does the ecoboost have, just wondering.

The highest rated 2015's have the 3.55 gears, IIRC.

I stand corrected on the btu's of deisel.
I did some extensive research on the eb details on parts and design before I bought my last truck, and unfortunately other than using direct injection, there really isnt anything there that most current manufacturers don't use in their na v8's. Maybe you can school us on this, or maybe we all should just assume that they have extensive history in turbo gasoline designs so it's all good and we should not question it because their marketing department says every thing is cool...
The EB V6 is based on the Duratec 35 engine and uses the same 3.64x3.41-inch / 92.5mm x 88.7mm bore and stroke dimensions. They don't use forged pistons (which are the strongest) they use cast hypereutectic pistons, which everyone uses. They use a forged crank, which everyone does. 6 bolt main caps, just like the rest...

What about rings and bearings?

How many times do you see engine failure due to a broken crank piston or rod cap? That's why the extended warranties cover all that junk, its almost never the problem.

I went as far as to find the exact pistons they use and they are of same design as na pistons, however the do have a different dome on top to accommodate the direct injection. The rigs are the same size and count as traditional.
I can say from personal experience that if you have a bad knock event caused by bad gas or too much heat you will most likely break your ringlands (the space between the rings on the piston)if you are under heavy boost when the event occurs. most of the new technology has protections for this and will reduce engine power and boost pressure if it detects there is an issue. There is actually a tsb out for misfire under boost and intercooler issues on the 13-14 ecoboosts right now. The fix is a ecu tune (wonder how much power they are tuning out) the difference between this and na motors is that na motors still get bad gas, but they aren't under such high cylinder pressures so it usually isnt catistrophic.
do a search on Ringland and subaru sti (a potent turbo motor). They have been making turbo motors for years. I think you will be surprised As to what damage can occur.

Now I will say that direct injection helps tremendously with these catistrophic events. However it has its own issues with carbon buildup over time. Look up Lexus is 350 ditect injection carbon build up.

Double post.

I have not been able to find the information on the EB internals or any of the other modern production motors, but I have a pretty hard time believing that the ecoboost internals are all the same as their other v-6's except it has twin turbos and direct injection.

http://www.full-race.com/articles/inside-the-ecoboost-f-150.html

Ford is obviously working to detune the ecoboost due to ALL the issues they've been having.




http://www.motorauthority.com/news/10964...urbo-v-6-report

http://www.torquenews.com/106/2016-ford-f150-should-get-stronger-lincoln-ecoboost-v6

Sometimes I just don't feel like the sarcasm shows up in type.

On some of the links samsownworld posted it indicated the pistons/rings/groves etc. were styled with diesel characteristics in mind. I bet the similarities don't end there.

Honestly, these vehicles aren't all that impressive to someone that has spent a lot of time in the forced induction world. I had a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder that made just shy of 450hp to all 4 wheels. It lasted about 2 years before it needed a rebuild.
I've got $100 that says no more 87 octane and lower towing capacity with these though. ...

So Bassbucknbeer, in your infinite motor building history, are you suggesting it is a good idea to tow max capacity 75 mph sustaining 4500 rpm for a say 100 mile road trip?

When you say max capacity do you mean towing capacity or engine load capacity? I wouldn't have a problem with a max towing capacity as long as it wasn't full load on the motor.

On the flip side, I would rather do that than run full(or even close to full) boost on a smaller displacement motor @ 2500rpms under the same conditions...

How about 600HP? I doubt your's was a production vehicle.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1501_ford_gt_in_detroit_is_very_real_with_600_plus_hp/

I've got a $100 that says Ford increases towing capacity, particularly if the f150 gets the 460lbs torque engine from the Navigator. But you may be right about the octane because the Navigator requires premium.

Requires premium? or requires premium to get the advertised numbers?

I believe even the GM 6.2 says you have to run plus grade fuel to get the advertised 420 hp and 460 lb ft torque.

IDK

Unlike the EcoBoost in, say, the Ford F-150, the high-output version in the Navigator requires premium fuel. Those power numbers are based on 91-octane gasoline. Interestingly, the mileage estimates they quoted were based on the same engine running 87-octane.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1409_2015_lincoln_navigator_first_drive/#ixzz3ZCctipwx

Doesn't look like the raptor and gt use the same engine as the current EB 3.5
Raptor and Gt's motor via motor trend:
It starts with a new block, heads, pistons, and intake, plus bigger turbos. Ford adds a dual-injection system, a combination of port and direct fuel injection, like Subaru uses on the BRZ/FR-S motor. That makes the H.O. 3.5 the first and only EcoBoost engine to use port injection. Ford calls this a second-generation EcoBoost, so maybe that dual-injection scheme will spread to other engines.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/de...nceits-all-new/

Maybe not but I saw where a guy squeezed 600hp out of a flex. A simple tune can get you 90hp and 120 lbs torque.

You can't compare flow and temps that way. They are both required, each in their own way.

Think of a turbo where no heat was created. The same amount of volume came out of the engine as went it. A turbo would be useless if that occurred. It needs much more volume on the turbine side to create the air pressure on the compressor side. Make sense?
Now if we accept that some heat makes the air expand and there is more volume coming out, multiply that for high levels fuel and higher temps. The resulting higher flow is created by the increase in temps. As you heat gas the volume doubles when you double the heat. Thats how a turbo works. It uses the high output created by heated gas to turn the turbine. It takes much more volume to create the air pressure used in the compressor so a turbo has to have the hot expanded gas to work. So yes it has greater flow but only because of the heat.

I view heat as a byproduct of combustion. Their are struggles to keep turbos from overheating if heat was what made them work they wouldn't. Yes you cant have an internal combustion engine that doesn't produce heat, but a turbo works on flow not heat.

Heat. They are designed to use the heated exhaust to drive the turbine. A supercharger does not require the heat. A turbo won't work without it.

ONE LAST TRY.
Have you ever seen a boost pressure gauge that monitors exhaust temps? If its not the exhaust temps that cause the turbo to perform, answer me this. When you push on the throttle and the boost climbs to say 30 lbs even at low engine rpms, how does it do that? Answer: hotter exhaust expanded and driving the turbo.
Here's where it gets almost impossible to ignore. At big boost you let off the throttle. Boost falls off almost to zero within seconds. How so? The engine exhaust temps fell off when you quit supplying it with fuel. The engines still spinning fast but the boost pressure fell off just because you let off the go pedal. If its not the temperature of the exhaust temps and the higher volume do to the higher exhaust temps, how does it seem to work that way?

Just saying flow doesn't work. How do you increase flow? What mechanical property increases flow? Not engine speed. Remember if you are turning 3000 rpms in a Dodge (very high rpms in a 5.9) with no throttle your boost goes to or near zero. Put the pedal to the metal at 1500 rpms and within seconds you can get 30 pounds in my truck. Its flow alright. Flow created by the increase in temps from 200 to 1100 degrees which increases the exhaust volume by almost 3 times the intake volume. If you only increased the temps from 200 to 400 you only get twice the volume and much less boost.

Allison, With all due respect, I believe you are wrong on this one.



There is a wastegate that opens like a valve that allows exhaust gas to enter the turbine. When you press the gas it opens and allows more exhaust to increase the speed of the turbine, even in the same gear.
turbo flow diagram


There is a device called a blow off valve or re-circulation valve. It`s job is to relieve the built up pressure when you lett off the throttle



Again, the waste gate. It opens to increase flow and it even limits boost pressure at high vehicle rpms.


Again, what you are describing is the waste gate.

Thank you triple B.

The wastegate opens to divert the exhaust gas away from the turbine not to feed it.

yes, this is correct, but if it is open and then it closes, you are increasing flow to the turbine.

The wastegate acts as a safety device. Its set to open at a certain level of boost. It has nothing to do with how the turbo works, just how to set a maximum pressure. Believe me I've put an adjustable wastegate on my truck before I just took it off. The 2000 Dodge Cummins has a wastegate thats set to open at 20 pounds. I put a gate on it to go off at 30 then took it off completely when I found out my turbo was good for more boost than I was fueling it. It made 38 pounds of boost at one time, now its around 35 pounds. So much for my 15 year old diesel.

The point is, heat and the expanded gas is the only thing that allows a turbo to work. PERIOD.

I've read and messed with them enough to know.

I've said it several ways. Think about it and try to make it make sense without the properties of heat.
There is direct connection between the turbine and compressor side. An oversimplification of a turbine (exhaust side) is a fan turned by the exhaust from the engine. The only way its going to provide reasonable and sometimes very high boost is if there is a ton more boost going through the turbine. Exhaust blowing against a wheel has great losses. So without the multiple gas flow compared to the air through the compressor you just would not get any usable boost. Its common sense. The losses a turbo has due to its design requires much more air flow turning the turbine to provide a good air charge to the motor. The heat generated in motor at different levels gives an appropriate amount of gas to drive the turbo at that level. Simple.

Driving down the highway, not much boost needed and since the engine is loafing little is produced. Go out to pass and feed the engine and the new heat spins the turbocharger faster. More boost. Floor it and in my truck 35 pounds of boost. I have no wastegate. Its blocked off.

Allison,

You can lead a horse to water...............

how turbos work

Take a turbo and build a fire under it, see how much boost it builds. Its not heat.

Take a charger, no wastegate. No whatever other valves (I've never heard of) and look at your boost and temperature gauges.

When you accelerate, something makes the monitored temps and boost go up incrementally with different levels of fuel you put in. When you take your foot off the accelerator both the boost and temps drop off almost immediately. The temps take a little longer to drop all the way down to 200 but the boost drops back to near zero with no go pedal. There are no valves, no other devices that makes it happen. It must be magic.

Its not by motor speed. Magic. The only other answer.




I can't explain it any better than that. The properties of heating gas makes it easy to understand, if you have the desire to understand it.

When you say its not by motor speed...

The higher rpm a motor turns the more air/fuel/exhaust it flows the more it can spin a turbo no?

At low speeds to get a certain boost it needs less air. The engine takes in less at lower speeds so you can get say 30 pounds of boost at low speeds by supplying the turbine with less exhaust. Yes.
At higher engine speeds to get 30 pounds of boost you need more exhaust flow to create the same boost.

So yes, it can supply more air at higher engine speeds but the engine needs more air at those speeds too. A turbo can just as easily supply boost at low speeds as at high.


You're working your way all around the simple answers.


Still if you just accept (look at you tube for a video with both boost and temps) that boost and temps both rise at the same rate and then drop almost the same you can see what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with engine speed. I can get 30 pounds of boost at 1500 rpms as well as at 2500 rpms. The reason is I heat up the exhaust by adding fuel. Heating gas increases volume. Simple property.
You said at the beginning it was flow. It is. You are flowing more into the turbo than you get out. At high boost over twice the volume. Doesn't it make sense that the new higher volume comes from somewhere? Gas expands as it heats?

Gas volume doubles as the temps double. If thats right.....

Intake air = 200 degrees.
Exhaust gas = 800 degrees

The exhaust volume is 3 times the intake volume.

So the flow you stated is correct. The heat is essential to provide the amount volume to drive the turbine. If the turbine had the same amount of drive.....unheated gas, it would need to be 100 percent efficient to provide usable boost.

Heat is created by combustion. Combustion is what makes the motor go. Turbos do not run on heat.

So much for what you know about turbochargers.

Explain how a turbo gives you high boost at low rpms again. Also add how letting off of it drops the temps and boost almost immediately down to near zero boost and back to idle exhaust temps?

This is fun.

So much for your turbo knowledge. A wastegate to a turbo charger is like a spark plug to a gas motor. With zero knowledge and no desire to learn you go to the back of the class.

This tells us all we need to know about your knowledge....

Alison, tell me which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Obfuscate....
render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible:

What has this to do about the subject? Nada.

Normal operating procedure. If you don't have an answer, change the question.

David you are soooo wrong

I am familiar with the function and use of turbochargers on gasoline engines. I have never owned a turbo diesel engine. Just reading this thread and trying to learn, there seems to be some people talking about turbo gas and some people talking about turbo diesel. In my mind, these are two different things with properties all their own. Maybe I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. But I do know that heat is the enemy of a turbo in a gasoline engine and people go to extremes to cool them down to make them more effective. Like I said, I am a novice compared to most on here, but that is just my observation.

Allison, in your opinion what does a current production 1/2 ton v-8 engine run on? Does it run on fuel/air or heat?

I could ask you to answer at least one of my questions pertaining to turbo operation but if you will ask me an intellige.nt one I will try to answer.

What does a gasser run on? Are you for real?

Well its the expansion caused by heat in the cylinder that drives the piston turns the crank right?

lol, that's it!

Yes, and....

And what?

Little hairdryers in each cylinder that warms the air enough to expand...

Here is how it all started.












Now, I posted about temps, the quantity of air needed and a little bit about the science of heated air. There have been several people on this thread that have said a turbo's enemy is heat. A turbo actually is designed to use the hot exhaust to contribute to the output of the engine. It lives a very long time if its designed and is built to withstand heat.

Thats mount the turbocharger close to the engine. Almost all of them are attached directly to the exhaust manifold. The new Duramax V6 that was almost put out about 5 years ago did away with the manifold and placed the turbo in the top center of the engine so they could get less heat loss from any long run of exhaust. No exhaust manifold and a very short path from the cylinders to the turbocharger.

Here is a link to the Chevy and their short comments on the turbo.
http://www.duramaxhub.com/45-duramax.html

I've read, never really thought it much of a gain, about insulating the exhaust manifold and turbine to keep heat losses low. Some racing turbo's get this treatment but I still think it gives very little gain.




In short, again, heated exhaust is the fuel of a turbo. Its built to use the exhaust and its massive amounts of energy to produce usable boost to the engine. It cannot happen if it has no heat. The heat provides the energy through the amounts of expanded gasses to make it work, period.

So you are saying that if a turbo were supplied with cold air on the inlet side and keep the same flow characteristics it would not function?

I guess i need to find a way to heat my exhaust up more.

You said it.
Actually the colder the intake air, the more power the engine will make, normally. Cold air is more compressed so you can put more air and fuel into the cylinder. Thats both forced air and in a normally aspirated engine.

Cold air on the inlet side of the turbine means it gets less potential power. To compensate for the same heated air you would need to increase the volume by a factor of up to 4 times just to equal the amount of volume the heated air a turbine needs.

I thought those heat shields were to keep heat away from the motor, they are there to Keep the Heat In!!!

Heat shields keep the heat from a turbocharger away from other parts of the engine. Their most efficient use is when they keep heat away from the intake air so your intake stays cooler. A heat shield has nothing to do with how a turbo works and is different than insulating the turbine.

Heat shield is usually a metal piece placed near the the turbo to keep heat away from other parts inside your engine compartment. Heat insulation to try and make a turbo more efficient is applied directly to the surface of the the turbine or manifold and is to keep the heat in.

No I said keep the same flow characteristics meaning if you had 30psi of hot exhaust in the inlet side and you replace it with 30psi of cold air on the inlet side, would the turbo still function?

Well, I don't know how to answer that. If you only had 30 psi of say 200 degree air pushing a turbine (exhaust side of a turbo) you won't get anywhere near 30 psi of air going to the intake of the engine.

To do so you would need a turbo that is 100 percent efficient.


But you hit on one thing about turbos. Normally the ratio of boost pressure to drive pressure is the same. A turbo usually has the same amount of pressure driving the thing that it puts out. The hot gas has much more energy than the energy the turbo produces.

so if you had 30psi of 200 degree air
Or
30psi of 800 degree air

Which one would supply more pressure to the intake?

800 degrees.

The amount of air you would have at 800 degrees is three times the volume at 200 degrees.


What is a way to make this explainable. Try this.

The way the intake is pushed to 30 pounds per square inch is provided by the compressor wheel pushing air towards the intake. The intake has its valves opening and closing but is a restriction to the air flowing.
On the exhaust side the air is restricted by the turbine. So if the restriction to the air going out is less then the higher volumes coming out of the engine can make their way past the turbine and have the same pressure as the intake.

As the hot air passes through the turbine and goes to the exhaust the pressure lowers and the temps drop. Release of pressure cools while increasing pressure heats.

Retake. The same pressure equals the same pressure.

Observation. The two turbines would have substantially different restriction to flow for both temps to maintain 30psi.

Why would the turbine care how the turbine intake got 30psi? Hot or cold 30psi is 30psi. Turbo spools the same speed correct? That means the outlet spins the same speed at either temp.

Because.

A cubic foot of 200 degree gas is heated to 800 degrees. What happens? It either expands to 3 sq ft at the same pressure or the pressure rises.

Now consider how that goes in a turbine. To blow 30 pounds at both temps you have to blow 3 times more gas through in the same time at 800 degrees. The turbine either is larger, taking more air (and more power to spin).
You are right, the turbine does not care about 30 psi. That is determined by how much air is being pushed through it. Since 800 degree gas has more volume the turbine would have to be different than the 200 degree@30psi turbine or the psi's wouldn't be the same.

Another analogy. You have a container of 200f@30psi gas that is 1 cubic foot in size. What happens when you heat it? If the container is expandable it goes up to 3 cubic foot@30psi or if its not expandable the pressure rises.
An 800 degree 1 sq foot@30 psi and it cools to 200 degrees. The pressure has dropped or the size of the container shrunk.

I tow with a 2011 Ecoboost. Used to have 2004 F150 SCrew 5.4L. The Ecoboost runs circles around the 5.4L. As others have said, the mileage isn't as advertised, but it makes my boat feel light as a feather back there. Bought mine used with 81k from Texas Motor Cars (BUY FROM BRIAN). You won't be disappointed.

Jut pulled my 21ft triton back from Amistad with my 15 model 150 ecoboost and like my other previous models, pulls like a champ. I sure don't miss my f250 deisel, ride in these new 1/2 tons is the best.

I bought a 2011 Ecoboost in September with 60k miles. First boat I towed with it was a 21i class. Pretty heavy boat. I was more than impressed with how it pulled. Way better than I expected.

I cant see a small 3.5 engine lasting very long in the towing world. You can get big hp and trq numbers from small engines using boost. But it seems a 5.3,5.4, 6.2 liter eng that makes the same power with less stress/strain should last longer.

Yet they keep going like an Energizer Bunny.

I don't see the huge difference in a 3.5 lieter motor putting out 365 hp and 420 lb ft torque and a 6.7 putting out 440 hp and 860 ft lb torque.

On the 3.5 that's 104 per liter and 120 ft lb torque per liter
on the 6.7 that's 66 hp per lieter and 128 ft lb torque per liter

Not that much different.

My tach seldom gets over 2500rpm accelerating towing. I bet the 3.5 seldom gets under 2500 accelerating. Over 100k miles, that's a lot more revolutions. It's just like a boat, can't have too much power, but you sure can have to little. All the downshifting/ up shifting can't be good either.

You bet wrong buddy...

PS: you must be towing a dinghy or a pop-up camper.

Have you driven one?

Towed 9k+ lbs 270 miles yesterday through hill country and spent most of my time at 2200 rpms, at about 68mph. Not happening with a 5.3l or 5.4l or 5.0l and sure as heck not with a 5.7l hemi.

Had Chevys forever,PU's & Tahoes with the 5.3 and went with Ford this time and the Ecoboost has out pulled them all,like others have said towing it gets 12-13 mpg.

some people need to realize that gasoline has the same amount of energy whether it's in a turbo application or NA. It takes the same amount of energy to move the same load in either engine. With that in mind, a turbo motor is burning the same amount of fuel at low rpms that a NA motor is burning at a higher rpm. You are just having much higher cylinder pressures at a lower RPM. The wear and tear on either engine should be about the same given the same work.
So thinking that your truck isn't working as hard at a lower RPM just isn't correct, IT IS. The only difference is where the needle is pointing on the tach.
To make the point in simpler terms:

Truck A (turbo): towing 10,000lbs @ 2200rpms uses X amount of energy and Y amount of wear and tear.

Truck B (NA): towing 10,000lbs @ 3200 rpms uses the SAME X amount of energy and the SAME Y amount of wear and tear.
Some people would argue that the NA motor would have less wear and tear because that work is spread over more cubic inches...

Construction and componets has a lot to do with that also. What would you expect to last longer, a Dodge 5.9 360 NA V8, or a dodge 5.9 turbo diesel? You can build the block rings pistons etc to withstand more strain of a turbo. I know this has already been hashed out on here and the simple answer is we just don't really know, or at least I don't think we do. But I doubt ford took their normal run of the mill 3.5 v-6 stuck twin turbos on it and said its good to go. If they would I wouldn't expect Samsonworld's to still be running after the trip with the 9k TT.

Gary D said he bet the 3.5l seldom gets under 2500 rpms. He would be wrong. But if you want to chase rabbits...

I think you're overlooking the mechanical aspect of wear and tear. I have been through the benefits of running at lower rpms. Better utilization of gearing for economy, reduced engine noise and less heat generated through friction.

My dad was a transmission builder most of his life, he always stressed the value of a after market cooler and a trans temp gauge. If I remember correctly he said that when a auto trans went into overdrive it cut down the flow of fluid to the cooler to help economy and overdrive coupled to to a strong engine developed something called torque multiplication because of the way a torque converter and spraques are designed and basically tries to force the pump through the case. He said manually pulling out of overdrive not only continues to use the clutch bands but engages the clutch pack to help the trans live longer.
He said that towing in overdrive in most situations will shorten the trans service life. He did say though that allison trans and a few others seemed to be better designed to prevent cooking themselves.Just trying to share so we can keep our money out of the greedy trans shops.

While ford PROBABLY DID engineer the EB to withstand the extra stress on the motor, you could say that the other manufacturers of NA motors definately engineered their motors to withstand the higher RPMs. This makes this argument, in my opinion, moot...

I don't think any vehicle is engineered to run 5k rpms all day under a load. Where do you draw the line?

No doubt, great advice.

Most comparible v8's have a peak tq at 3400-3600rpms. Using 5000rpms is a gross exaggeration.... towing a 7000lb trailer with my 5.7 tundra hardly ever goes above 2500rpms, unless I'm accelerating. But, yes, I would tow @3500 all day. I believe toyota engineered it for that...

The other thing to consider is, at say, 2800rpms, you still have 350ft lbs tq. Plenty of tq to tow most anything...

...or 420 lbs tq with the ecoboost.

I just asked where you draw the line? You're the one saying rpms don't matter. Personally, I don't want to scream down the road at 3500rpms. Been there, done that and it sucks.

Maybe a ford screams at 3500rpms, but you don't notice a change in anything, noise, vibration, nothing in a toyota at 3500... I guess that's why they say you get what you pay for...

I think most of the N/A gas v-8's make peak torque around 4500 rpm.

The selling point for me is the eco has peak torque from 16-1700 rpm on up the spectrum. The N/A motors don't have that, When they wind up to 3500+ rpm and you can just feel them coming into their own that's when im waiting for it to shift while the flat power curve of a forced induction motor has been their for a significant amount of time.

Is the eco necessary to tow? No. Will any of the properly equipped N/A motors get the job done? Sure. The eco is the the new kid on the block and I think it is a success, power when you need it economy when you don't. I think most people don't ever get a chance to see the "economy when you don't need the power" because they are too caught up with 75 mph speed limits and being forced back in their seats.

Tundra 5.7 tq peak is 3600 rpms
gmc 6.2 is 4100rpms

But, yet again, you can tow pretty much anything at the tq you have available at a lower rpm. It's not like there is only 50 ft. Lbs at 3500. It's a gradual drop.

And what exactly have you towed behind yours?

I've towed a komatsu d21 dozer(8000lbs)on a 20ft big tex trailer that weighs about 3500lbs. Probably a total of 800 miles at this point.with my tundra.
That's 11,500 lbs. And you?

On a bumper pull trailer with no WDH? At 65mph, up hill down hill, all while turning 2500 rpms?

Bumper pull, no WDH. I probably stayed around 60ish with hills. Definately under 3000 rpms unless accelerating. No bull...

I towed a big ride on trencher on a 20' low boy trailer. The trencher had a placard on it that said it had a dry weight of 9,300 lbs. Pulled it about a 100 miles with a 1994 chevy 1500 350 and 3.42 gears... it drug is 60 down the hwy but that in no way shape or from means it was the ideal tow vehicle.

I used the same truck to tow a 6,400 lb tractor on a 16' flat bed from Normange to San Antonio and back about 400 miles, at that point in time the truck had over 250k on it and it did the trick, but it sure was nice to unhook it from the chevy and hook it up to a 3/4 ton diesel to take it to south texas.

A small dozer won't catch much wind but I still doubt it did it easily. I would never even think about towing that much without a WDH. I hope you slowed way down. Be safe.

I have a Puma 31fkbs, specs below, though my sticker says 8100 dry. I've easily added a 1000lbs in cargo, probably a lot more.

http://www.bigdaddyrvs.com/inventory/155938/New-2015-Palomino-Puma-31FKBS.aspx

I've never thought about adding a WDH to a utility trailer (basically a super heavy duty car hauler) I wonder if that would make it more stable?

Should help with steering breaking anyhow.

I don't see why it wouldn't work. It should simply bolt on. Too much weight on the hitch really lifts the front and can affect steering. I would think it would be much more stable with a WDH, especially if you get an anti sway system. It would be worth the $$$ imo, if you tow it frequently. I think you'd be happy with the results and ride.

Heck, I'd like a gooseneck for that dozer...but the WDH would be a lot cheaper.

I have a tundra that I pull a 5700-maybe 6500 pound travel trailer with and feel that it pulls it well.I would not even consider an additional 5k added to this weight.It will pull that amount I would say,but it would not be what I would consider a comfortable or safe weight to pull.I would not even pull the weight I do without a WDH.Are you saying you pulled this weight with a bumper pull hitch?If you have the tow pkg on your tundra you should have a frame mounted receiver hitch on it....either way I would probly say you were over your max towing weight...

yes, I went back and looked at my trailer weight and it is 2540lbs so with a 8000lb dozer that puts me at 10,540lbs and tow rating on my tundra is 10,500 so yes I'm over by 40lbs.

Edit: just looked up my komatsu d21 and operating weiggt is 7946lbs so I guess I'm under....Win!

It's usually the payload that gets you on a half ton.

max payload is 2040lbs, not sure how to compute that

I like the wag method personally.

Triple B, if you were that close to the max chances are you were over any way. Those numbers only leave you with 14 lbs under max... The max figures nothing in the truck but a 150 lb driver and a tank of fuel. If you have a tool box you were over, if you weigh 164+ lbs you were over, im sure you used more than 14 lbs of chain and boomers to strap the dozer to the trailer etc.

Did it pull it? You say so and I don't doubt it one bit, but I bet it was much closer to busting a nut than a walk in the park for it.

2040lbs is a pretty good payload for a half ton. Must be a 2wd regular cab. I've seen them as low as 1100. You are supposed to have a WDH for trailers more than 5,000lbs. So yeah, you are a little over Toyota's recommended weight. With a proper WDH, you could estimate 10-15% of the weight on the truck. So worst case scenario, you'd have 465lbs of payload to play with. Like RC said, they allow 150lbs for the driver and a full tank of gas.

May be worth a read:
http://www.hardworkingtrucks.com/2014-toyota-tundra-towing-capacity/

The 2014 Toyota 4x4 crew cabs have a max payload of 1525 and max tow capacity of 9800, and weigh 700lbs more than the 2wd reg cab. Not sure we're comparing apples to apples. Mine is a 4x4 Screw.

The tundra that I tow with is a 2014 regular cab, bare bones. Has the tow package and I added air bags to the rear. It's 10,40lbs tow capacity and 2040lbs payload.I also have a 2014 crew max that is my daily driver but I think the towing capacity is less for it.

I have wasted nearly thirty minutes of my life reading this entire thread. One thing I will say, whether you are right or wrong in making your point, many of you impress me with the general your knowledge of how an engine gets its power and how it is distributed throughout the drive train. It got me to thinking about this.................can you imagine the conversations and the dialogue between the "engineers, gearheads, and math geeks" in Detroit (Ford, GM, etc.) when a new engine is in its design stages..... I would love to be a fly on the wall.

Interesting read about the Ecoboost engineers and their backgrounds.

http://blog.cochran.com/wordpress/index.php/ford-ecoboost/

Cant stand a great thread die off!!!

Here are some cool towing comparison videos.
The towing time isn't really comparable because they admit that on some of the trucks they allowed them to speed past 60, changing the time...
2013 Dodge 5.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us6d5R1q23U

2015 chevy 6.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgMzyKqsps0

2014 Ford Ecoboost( I thought you guys said they tow at 2000RPMs? Looked more like 4000-5500RPMs to me)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-gMWRzvOg
enjoy

My next Ford will be a V-8. The Ecoboost is ok on the highway and drops way down when towing. All hype in my opinion.

My Ecoboost towed my 20'6" G to Missouri a couple weekends ago at a constant 2,000 RPM. Gas mileage sucked, but we were going up and down hills for a lot of the trip. GPM was around 11. But I didn't buy it for the mileage. It tows like a dream.

Better mileage dropping than losing speed or downshifting on every little ant hill. The 3.5L ecoboost is a better tow engine than the 6.2l, much less the 5.0l.