Ecoboost Test Drive Impressions

[rocket 5979]

If Ford wanted to throw an Ecoboost engine into the new Explorers it should have been a 3.5 TT Ecoboost. Those things have some serious balls even in stock form.

 

[rocket 5979]

Look for the turbos in all of Ford's line-up, including the gasoline engine trucks, to disappear in a few years as they are not going to be lasting the life of the vehicle and this will cause a backlash to Ford at some point, IMO.

I really really doubt that. Forced induction is the way of the future when it comes to internal combustion engines. Also turbochargers aren't that hard or expensive to rebuild. The typical time it will take to rebuild one will be around 1 hour and that is if a pro is taking their time with it. A typical journal bearing turbo rebuild kit costs in the range of $50-150. While it won't be cheap it sure as heck will not cost as much as a new engine or anything that expensive.

 

[94Eddie]

I have seen the turbo craze come and go a couple of times in the past 30 years. This is just another one that will run its course and be gone. The Explorer is a good example of why the craze goes away in that the fuel savings relative to the added complexity and reduced long term reliability a turbo brings to the engine isn't worth the marginal fuel gains. Turbos need intercoolers and beefier engine parts and all this is expensive, increases the cost of purchase/maintenance and reduces reliability. The EcoBoost engines are more of a marketing gimmick, IMO, than any meaningful leap forward in engine efficiency and increased gas mileage. I'll take a properly sized N/A engine over a turbocharged small engine in a vehicle as a daily driver. Now, if Ford would put a Root's or twin screw blower on the engine I would seriously consider it. They are as durable as the engine they sit on. They also deliver a performance improvement that is meaningful (i.e. a V-8 like torque curve on a V-6 engine and a V-6 like torque curve on a four banger).

 

[joecrna]

Rocket, I know you love your forced induction. I do to, on my race engines. Perhaps parts can be purchased as cheaply as you say to rebuild a turbo. I have no idea what the Ford dealer will charge to rebuild an Ecobost turbo as I only own a couple American vehicles but BMW charges around $8000 to rebuild the twin turbos and associated controls on their sixes. Most people that buy these cars will not rebuild their own. They will have a dealer or turbo "specialist" do it. No doubt cheaper than in a European make but still well in the thousands of dollars.

I disagree that forced induction is the way of the future. IMO just a stop gap measure. The small increase in volumetric efficiency vs cost and complexity just don't work out on the balance sheet.

 

[rocket 5979]

Rocket, I know you love your forced induction. I do to, on my race engines. Perhaps parts can be purchased as cheaply as you say to rebuild a turbo. I have no idea what the Ford dealer will charge to rebuild an Ecobost turbo as I only own a couple American vehicles but BMW charges around $8000 to rebuild the twin turbos and associated controls on their sixes. Most people that buy these cars will not rebuild their own. They will have a dealer or turbo "specialist" do it. No doubt cheaper than in a European make but still well in the thousands of dollars.

I disagree that forced induction is the way of the future. IMO just a stop gap measure. The small increase in volumetric efficiency vs cost and complexity just don't work out on the balance sheet.

Parts can be purchased as cheaply as I mentioned. I have rebuilt turbochargers before and when you finally see all their guts on a table they aren't nearly as complex as most would think. Labor will not be nearly as expensive as you claim it will be. I know how long it takes me to rebuild a turbo and I know that I am no speed-demon at it either. It still takes me around an hour per turbo. Manufacturers almost always undercut the dealer techs with the stated labor rates when compared to how long it really takes; which means if a job really takes 10 hours then Ford quotes it for 8. So chances are likely that they will probably charge 1 hour to maybe 2 hours labor MAX per turbo which doesn't add up to allot of labor charge. Depending on where in the engine bay the turbos are located will determine how long it will take to remove them from the engine. Again that usually only takes about an hour per turbo on average too; and sometimes much quicker. So total estimated labor for removal of twins, rebuild of twins, and reinstall of twins should be around 6 hours. Let's just call it 10 hours for good measure. The average domestic dealership labor rate is anywhere from $60-$100 so we will go ahead and split the difference at $80/hr. So labor is looking at about $800. Then parts will consist of that previously mentioned rebuild kit that ranges from $50-$150 each. Splitting the difference again we are looking at $100 per and we need 2 kits so $200. According to my math that is right at $1,000 for the rebuild before tax and that is probably on the higher side. So unless we are now getting charged a 200% sales tax that I am not yet aware about then I doubt the final outcome will be in the "thousands of dollars" range. Mind you that these are dealer estimated rates. Take it to your local mechanic and you can drop about 25% off of the above price.

I am an active member on the M6Board and am quite familiar with the price differences between what BMW owners get charged for dealership work and aftermarket parts compared to Ford or GM. For a given type of repair on very similar machinery the BMW owners are paying CONSIDERABLY more than what a Ford or GM owner would be paying. It is not that the BMW's are that much more complicated; even though their undereducated owners (<-NOT a shot at you, just my observation in general) would prefer to assume German engineering is that much more complex and refined because the dealer salesman told them so. In reality a turbocharger is a turbocharger and an engine is an engine. There are key differences but in many ways they come apart and go back together with similar principle. $8k to remove 2 turbos, rebuild, and replace is completely outrageous and there is no way in that a domestic dealer would charge anywhere near that same amount.

One thing that I am curious of is that you keep stating that a domestic turbo rebuild "is well into the thousands of dollars" so you must be speaking from experience, right. So do tell what Ford, GM, or Mopar vehicles you have had to have rebuilt by the dealer or local mechanic. But if you indeed don't have the aforementioned experience then perhaps you should defer to someone who has been in the business for a while, has rebuilt turbos, and knows forced induction real well. If this were a conversation about administering anesthetic and the associated costs then I would defer to you and your CRNA expertise.

I have said my piece and if you still disagree afterward then you are entitled to your opinions even if they seem to result from lack of experience. I will not continue to beat this dead horse. Have a good evening.

 

[EX-SV]

I anticipate plenty of reliable and efficient turbo power plants in the future.


And now back to OP's topic..

 

[94Eddie]

The shops repairing the turbos aren't going to rebuild them themselves. They are going to treat them like alternators and starters and buy rebuilt ones. I just looked up the price at Autozone for a replacement turbo on a 2002 VW Beetle and it was $1,564 plus tax and shipping. Throw in $1,000 for labor and the price is getting steep.

 

[EX-SV]

Should we expect Ecoboost turbos to fail before 100K miles or are today's turbos more reliable?

 

[94Eddie]

I am sure some will fail before 100k miles and some well after that point. The reason I don't think turbos are all that more reliable today than in the past is because they are basically the same design. It is the high heat that turbos have to live with limits their service life. Even the ones that are water cooled will eventually fail and water cooling has been around a long time. The failure rate will be even higher for people that don't follow a strict maintenance regime. The exhaust side impellers of a turbo see temperatures of 1,200-1,500 degrees on a regular basis and if the tune is wrong can see temperatures as high as 1,800 degrees. To be honest, I am amazed that turbos can last even beyond 100k miles considering the harshness of their operating environment.

 

[VinceL]

Okay, test drove the V6 today, and it was much more to our liking.

Mileage be damned, we will be getting the V6!

Once she floored it, it really got up and went. Didn't snap our heads back, but definitely sufficient for a large vehicle in Houston traffic.

 

[94Eddie]

IMO, you made the right choice. Even if you sell it at 100k miles, a V-6 will have much better resale value than a turbo engine that is closing in on an eventual turbo replacement. If you keep it well past 100k then you won't be the one paying for a turbo replacement. Plus, the annual difference in fuel cost between the V-6 and turbo four is only $315. For $315 per year I would take the performance benefits and added long term reliability of the V-6. Also, the Ecoboost engine is a $1,000 option on Ford's web site so that pays for three years of fuel for the V-6 version.

 

[VinceL]

She really liked it, so it is looking right now that some time in the first half of 2012 we will be ordering our 2013. She is still trying to decide between the Sterling Grey and what will be the Deep Impact Blue (curious as to what that color looks like, seen pics on the net, but who knows if they are accurate).

 

[beach]

I still think if Ford really wanted to make a statement, they should have adapted one of their nice diesels from overseas, like what's available in the new Ranger overseas, 3.2L inline 5 diesel with 197hp and 347ftlbs tq, there's a 2.2L version that has gotten over 900 miles a tank. They would have smacked their competitors on their ***** offering the 3.2L inline 5 with that torque and excellent mileage.

 

[1995E]

I still think if Ford really wanted to make a statement, they should have adapted one of their nice diesels from overseas, like what's available in the new Ranger overseas, 3.2L inline 5 diesel with 197hp and 347ftlbs tq, there's a 2.2L version that has gotten over 900 miles a tank. They would have smacked their competitors on their ***** offering the 3.2L inline 5 with that torque and excellent mileage.

Agreed, diesels are way more efficient and way more reliable. I think what's holding back diesels in America is the higher prices for diesel fuel and the EPA. An inline diesel would be awesome.

 

[MizzouMan_2000]

Hi Folks.

I've been considering getting an Explorer for the past 6 months, and up until recently I was seriously considering the EcoBoost version. However, the more I read, the more concerned I've become about whether it can actually achieve the fuel economy stated on the window sticker.

Reading through the comments here, I'm definitely leaning more towards the FWD V6 instead.

 

[VinceL]

Oh man! I just had a big ol' long reply typed, and accidentally closed the browser window!!! Arg!

Well, anyway...if you look on Fuelly.com you can check out what people are getting with their Explorers. We are averaging 19.7 over 1155 miles, with a best tank of 21.4 mpg, that is with 60% and 40% city driving respectively. We have seen 25.1 on the highway with the trip computer (which is pretty accurate), so I think we have a shot of getting some decent mileage on our coming road trip.

While I am curious as to how much better the mileage would be with the Ecoboost, we have no regrets getting the V6. Drive it nice, and you will be rewarded, but a lead-foot will punish you in these vehicles

 

[MizzouMan_2000]

Oh man! I just had a big ol' long reply typed, and accidentally closed the browser window!!! Arg!

I hate when that happens!

Well, anyway...if you look on Fuelly.com you can check out what people are getting with their Explorers. We are averaging 19.7 over 1155 miles, with a best tank of 21.4 mpg, that is with 60% and 40% city driving respectively. We have seen 25.1 on the highway with the trip computer (which is pretty accurate), so I think we have a shot of getting some decent mileage on our coming road trip.

While I am curious as to how much better the mileage would be with the Ecoboost, we have no regrets getting the V6. Drive it nice, and you will be rewarded, but a lead-foot will punish you in these vehicles

Since this would become our primary road trip vehicle, I'm definitely cutious/concerned about the highway mileage. My daily commute is 7 miles each way. About 2 miles is in town. I'll be going from a 4 banger '08 Malibu that averages about 26 mixed driving and 29 hwy.

 

[Shomare]

Funny I was all ready to jump on the just adequate comments and the less than stunning acceleration then as I read the post I saw that you were talking about the 4 cyl.

Try the Ecoboost Six. Those comments will go away!

 

[VinceL]

Funny I was all ready to jump on the just adequate comments and the less than stunning acceleration then as I read the post I saw that you were talking about the 4 cyl.

Try the Ecoboost Six. Those comments will go away!

So will the money in your wallet keeping it gassed up

 

[Shomare]

So will the money in your wallet keeping it gassed up

Not at all. If you don't drive it like you stole it. I just traded in an Ecoboost Flex and we managed 24 highway mpg with six adults on board A/c running and driving 75 mph. That 24 MPG was a regular occur acne on road trips and improved to 26 when we had less weight and weren't running the A/C constantly.

The V6 in the Explorer is plenty adequate but had I known the Ecoboost was on the way I would have waited to place my order.