Engine Shrinkage?

  • mnfisherman18
    Posts: 384
    #2274133

    I thought the whole point of the turbo was to build power at lower RPM’s?

    I drive a 2013 F150 with the 5.0 V8, its been great so far and I plan to keep it past 200K. I have heard/read great things about the 2.7 eco, they have been making them since 2015 and they have a very solid reliability track record. That will likely be the leading contender for my next truck, but I would consider getting another 5.0 if they are still making them.

    I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a Toyota either, I am assuming they will have things figured out by the time I am in the market.

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 6448
    #2274136

    Thats the good part about the side of the industry im in. These guys care more about their car than their children or spouse

    Ah that would be refreshing. Regardless what we all think the smaller engines with spiny things are coming so, change your oil early and often boys and girls. Or reach out to me or Sheldon when you need one replaced.

    MX1825
    Posts: 3319
    #2274158

    Turbos are fun to drive. Unless it is a diesel, I don’t want a turbo on anything I tow with. The mileage sucks when there is a load on it. I lost the turbos in my Ford EcoBoost. Quoted $4,500-$5,500 to fix the turbos. I went back to a V8 and am very happy I did. I get better mileage towing. I am not scared of turbos and would be happy to own another one in a non-tow vehicle. With a V8, 90% of the time I don’t go above 3K RPM. With a 6 or 4 it seems like I am always over 3K RPM. = More wear.

    Sales guy tried to convince me that the 4-cylinder turbo was a just as good or better engine than the V8. I looked at him, shook my head, and asked for a different salesperson.

    waytogo

    MX1825
    Posts: 3319
    #2274159

    My motto always was “I’d rather change the oil once too often than once too late”

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 23303
    #2274160

    Sales guy tried to convince me that the 4-cylinder turbo was a just as good or better engine than the V8. I looked at him, shook my head, and asked for a different salesperson.

    This is hilarious! I think GM going with those turbo 4s is a huge mistake. They are not selling well. I have talked to a few that own them, most are work trucks and they say they are actually very good vehicles and fun to drive. They sound like garbage though.

    weedis
    Sauk Rapids, MN
    Posts: 1422
    #2274167

    I feel like all this new technology has made vehicles less reliable. Do they have more hps and torque out of smaller engines, sure but I hear too many horror stories. I know one thing, you will never find me in a ford. We have nothing older than 2019 at work and constantly back at the dealer for repairs. Ride nice, plenty of torque and hps but unreliable but our family has a 2010 sonar and 2011 suburban so I have no ownership experience with any of the new stuff, just work. Sonata rolled over 358k on the way to work this morning and burb is just over 200k. No major issues on either. Change oil every 3k on burb and every 5k on sonota. I also think that no matter what brand you own, your going to have issues, they all have had good and bad motors or know problems.

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 6448
    #2274171

    I feel like all this new technology has made vehicles less reliable

    This is more true than any of you probably realize. We have had a couple of real crazy things at the shop. One that comes to mind is a Jeep don’t recall the exact year or model but in the 2015-2019 range. So some water got into the lighting module for the headlights and shorted the module out and ruined the connector, okay no big deal right I just don’t have headlights. Nope the damn thing got towed in and had all sorts of stuff wigging out wipers, no start, codes everywhere. So in other words a module that should not matter to mission critical things like being able to start your car and drive it home with no lights, your stuck wherever it happens. To much stuff talking to other stuff.

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11804
    #2274181

    Deja vu all over again. Some of you will remember we had this conversation before back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. In the 70s, we had to deal with catalytic converters and emissions equipment for the first time. That didn’t go well at first and there was a LOT of wailing and gnashing of teeth and a lot of lamenting the loss of the good old days.

    Then in the 80s many cars and trucks were seeing the replacement of “old faithful” designs like the 302 with smaller 6 and 4 cylinder engines. At the same time, carbs were giving way to EFI, pushrod designs were going away and OHC/DOHC was becoming the norm. There was also increased computerization and a lot of frustration with guys having to replace computer components for the first time. See above, wailing, etc.

    What always followed was that eventually many of the issues get worked out because selling cars is a competitive business. Yes, many of these moves to smaller engines are driven by mileage regs, but believe it or not there ARE actually buyers out there who want mileage as well. I, for one, do not want to go back to 13-14 city mileage on my next SUV, I’m simply sick of this level of gas guzzling and IMO by now if Brand X can’t deliver it, I’m going to Brand Y who can.

    Riverrat
    Posts: 1572
    #2274194

    Huh 70s you say. That seems to be right around when CAFE regulations took place. 58 miles per gallon by 2030 for light trucks.

    big_g
    Isle, MN
    Posts: 22524
    #2274208

    Give me a 1969 any day, over todays gas sippers. Who is with me ?

    Attachments:
    1. charger.jpg

    bigstorm
    Southern WI
    Posts: 1464
    #2274233

    I dont have anything bad to say about the Ford 3.5 Eco. Im on my 2nd truck with this motor, the 1st was a 2014 that I got 180K miles on before trading it in on a new one 2 months ago.

    When I got the 1st one in 2014, the dealership let me test drive 2 trucks with my boat hooked up, I drove a truck with the V8 first, then the 3.5 Eco. As far as towing, the 3.5 blows the 5.0 away for power. When it comes to milage while towing or not towing, everything I have read is that both engines are within 1 to 2mpg overall – with that small of a difference, does it really matter?

    My new truck also has the 3.5 and the same rear end as the last truck. The main difference is the transmission, new truck has the 10 speed versus the 6 speed in the old and the new truck averages 15% better fuel milage overall

    MX1825
    Posts: 3319
    #2274234

    Beautiful big g! waytogo waytogo

    Stanley
    Posts: 1098
    #2274256

    How about a 1967?

    Attachments:
    1. IMG_0249-scaled.jpeg

    rmartin
    United States
    Posts: 1434
    #2274282

    Engine Shrinkage? Is that from running them in COLD water?

    Mr. Pike 81
    NW Iowa
    Posts: 212
    #2274284

    Give me a 1969 any day, over todays gas sippers. Who is with me ?

    I had a 1970 RT with a 440 Mag.It’s a good thing gas was .35-.50/gal.

    jwellsy
    Posts: 1585
    #2274315

    What kind of warranties are they putting on new turbos? Are they using weasel words to avoid covering problems with turbo components?

    Steven Krapfl
    Springville, Iowa
    Posts: 1760
    #2274402

    How bout a 94? Oh yeah!

    Attachments:
    1. C42138DA-A8AA-4300-B220-B5EFA6FBFE4E.jpeg

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 23303
    #2274405

    How about a 1967?

    Love it! Beautiful car? My dad had a 69 Camaro he painted that same or similar color. Called brandywine

    Deuces
    Posts: 5268
    #2274411

    Title is too familiar with working out in your 40s

    Eelpoutguy
    Farmington, Outing
    Posts: 10600
    #2274419

    Nope, cars don’t do it for me.
    I need a PU preferably a 49 power wagon.

    edit – wouldn’t let me load the pic

    Sharon
    Moderator
    SE Metro
    Posts: 5473
    #2274783

    How about a 1967?

    Oooooh my she’s a beauty! I love the look of cars from the 60s and 70s! bow

    fishthumper
    Sartell, MN.
    Posts: 12055
    #2274850

    I’m not a fan of turbos. I made that clear in several posts. However if a person keeps the oil change interval low and runs synthetic oil they stand a better chance of survival.

    So on a 2.7 eco boost on a ford F-150 what interval should I be changing the oil? and is it worth it to use full synthetic Vs a synthetic blend?

    bigstorm
    Southern WI
    Posts: 1464
    #2274876

    So on a 2.7 eco boost on a ford F-150 what interval should I be changing the oil? and is it worth it to use full synthetic Vs a synthetic blend?

    I would expect the interval to be every 5000mi, that what it is on the 3.5 I have the local Ford dealer do mine with “The Works” package that include tire rotation and full inspection and they use the Synthetic Blend oil

    Stanley
    Posts: 1098
    #2274890

    In my 3.5 eco boost I do every 5000 and use the motorcraft synthetic blend 5w30 and ford oil filter. Funny thing with my truck is the owners manual says 5w20 for oil but the oil cap says 5w30. After I change my oil I reset the oil life monitor and it always says above 50% remaining. That would be 10k between changes and I would never wait that long.

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 6448
    #2274936

    So on a 2.7 eco boost on a ford F-150 what interval should I be changing the oil? and is it worth it to use full synthetic Vs a synthetic blend?

    I would run full synthetic and change it every 5k. Most of them call for 5w20, you can run either that or 5w30 or 0w20. My Ram calls for 5w20 but we only stock 5w30 and 0w20 full synthetic at my shop so I run mine on 0w20 and change every 5k. I rarely go over mileage since I just toss my keys at someone and have them change it, also I rotate my tires every oil change so my Duratracs don’t cup on me.

    jwellsy
    Posts: 1585
    #2274938

    NAPA has house branded synthetic oils. It probably comes out of the same factory as Mobile 1, But, it’s cheaper. I switched to the NAPA synthetic maybe 10 years ago. If you haven’t bought a case of oil in the past couple of years, you’ll be in for a bit of sticker shock.

    John Rasmussen
    Blaine
    Posts: 6448
    #2274944

    NAPA has house branded synthetic oils. It probably comes out of the same factory as Mobile 1, But, it’s cheaper. I switched to the NAPA synthetic maybe 10 years ago. If you haven’t bought a case of oil in the past couple of years, you’ll be in for a bit of sticker shock.

    The house brand oil is in fact a known brand name oil and if I remember correctly it was mobil. If you look at the back label it is an exact copy of the brand name oil so its pretty easy to tell. As for the cost everything has gone up a lot oil, tires and parts. One on the largest increase has been in tires and drivetrain. Engines and transmissions have gone up noticeably in the last few years.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8371
    #2274947

    ^Schaeffer. I don’t care what truck it is or what weight you run. It’s the best there is.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 63 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.