The toughest engine....In The World?

miatame wrote: I dunno, consider me unimpressed. 300 hours, inside a lab with optimal fuel, oil, and coolant is not a "torture test". -20 to +235 F is a good heat cycle test but My Jeep 4.0 has 150,000 REAL miles and 5 months out of the year I turn it on twice a day at ~+20 F and run it up to +200 F all the while using who knows what fuel gets pumped out of the ground at various gas stations, off the shelf oil, road salt and sand pounding the engine, fine silt and sand getting sucked past the air filter and into the engine, and coolant that was likely not changed at exact factory intervals. I don't buy it that 300 hours is the same thing. Run it now at 300 hours with whatever oil and coolant is in there and let's see how it does.

Read the article and get your facts straight. It's a hell of a lot more than 300 hours in a lab. Then comment.

alfadriver wrote: ...Just the idea of a Turbo V6 makes people nervous, even if it's built to be better than a v8...

Why is this V6, built with more expensive parts, better than their own V8? Wonder why they couldn't have improved the V8 instead of replacing it. I wonder what's better about the V6 that makes it worth all the expense, less friction? Doesn't seem like it would be lighter once the manifolding and two turbos are added in.

In reply to kb58:

Packaging is probably why they went 6 over 8, way easier to fit a 6 transversely than an 8. And they did improve their 8, the 5.0 is a heck of a motor.

kb58 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: ...Just the idea of a Turbo V6 makes people nervous, even if it's built to be better than a v8...

Why is this V6, built with more expensive parts, better than their own V8? Wonder why they couldn't have improved the V8 instead of replacing it. I wonder what's better about the V6 that makes it worth all the expense, less friction? Doesn't seem like it would be lighter once the manifolding and two turbos are added in.

Perfect example of the kinds of preceptions that have to be dealt with.

You assume that slightly stronger rods, pistons, cranks, and structure will make the v8 more efficient somehow. That's the main structure of the engine that is upgraded, not nearly as much as people think, to make turbo engines fully durable.

What you don't think about is how a system is fuel efficient and how the comrpomise of driveability is factored into that. Or how DI allows the compression to be higher so that you can run the engine more efficient when you are not under boost. Or that the lower displacement is not just lower friction due to the smaller and fewer parts, but it's also factored in for pumping losses- 3.5l < 5.0l (or 5.7l).

The exact same analysis can be written for Hyundai when they chose to not make a v6 and just market the turbo, di I4.

There are no simples when it comes to making an engine capable of meeting all of the requirements.

miatame wrote: I dunno, consider me unimpressed. 300 hours, inside a lab with optimal fuel, oil, and coolant is not a "torture test". -20 to +235 F is a good heat cycle test but My Jeep 4.0 has 150,000 REAL miles and 5 months out of the year I turn it on twice a day at ~+20 F and run it up to +200 F all the while using who knows what fuel gets pumped out of the ground at various gas stations, off the shelf oil, road salt and sand pounding the engine, fine silt and sand getting sucked past the air filter and into the engine, and coolant that was likely not changed at exact factory intervals. I don't buy it that 300 hours is the same thing. Run it now at 300 hours with whatever oil and coolant is in there and let's see how it does.

That's why the 300hr should not have been mentioned.

And why it's so tough to deal with perceptions.

You think your jeep cycle is tough. If you are just driving to work, even -20 starts- it's pretty darned easy.

You assume that the durability cycle hasn't been correlated with actual engine life, therefore it's not hard.

Preceptions.

This looks like more of an appeal to the business owner than the consumer. Repairs and other downtime eat up valuable money-making time. The mileage is significant as well. Over 150,000 miles, 15 mpg uses 10,000 gallons of gas, compared to 7,500 gallons for 20 mpg. At $3 per gallon, that's $7,500 in gas savings.

Something to consider about the dyno tests. A gas marine engine is considered worn out at around 2000 hours. The reasoning behind this is they run at 100% load all the time. They never get to coast down a hill or to a stop sign. Cruising speed is way up in the RPM range. My 350 boat engine I cruise at 3500 RPMs. It red lines at 4200. A dyno test is the same. The engine is loaded hard.

I did some electrical work at the Cummins dyno facility here in town 20 years ago. One of the guys that worked there said they don't control RPMs with the throttle. They set the engine at wot and vary the RPM with the dyno itself. Most of them they ran at 80% of red line. That's a lot of abuse for an engine designed for a car or truck.

Face it, guys: American cars have had a sucky reliability reputation. Anything that can help turn that perception around is A Good Thing. And this comes from a guy who has, many times on this very forum, said he will buy an import over US brand vehicles just because of reliability.

The dyno test part is not what impressed me. Sure it's tough but it's controlled conditions. What got MY attention was the Baja 1000 run. THAT is torture on anything; WOT/high load under high ambient temperature conditions, massive shock loads, fine silt that can easily get through the best air filtration systems, etc etc etc. Purpose built race motors have been known to puke quickly under those conditions.

Add the 300 hours dyno time, beat the snot out of it for a thousand miles in Baja, then do the what, 10k lbs tow test and then tear it down in front of a live audience... there's either 1) confidence or 2) a LOT of crossed fingers.

The cooling systems and temperature management is critical in any heavily loaded engine. I have told many people of my opinion of horsepower ratings vs. actual towing ability, based on the following story. A friend of mine is a Nautique ski boat dealer. He bought new, in 89, an Astro with a 165 hp TBI 4.3. He put well over 300,000km on it, often towing ski boats back to Saskatchewan from Florida. When the mileage started to make him a bit nervous about setting off on one of these adventures, he bought a 95 Astro with the 195 hp Vortec 4.3. On his first trip back from Florida, it arrived at my shop with 2 dead cylinders and a couple more weak. Pulled the heads to find the exhaust valves had been melted into a lovely tulip shape. His next trip, in the height of summer heat, found him in Winnipeg with no rod bearings.

Poor heat management will kill you. I'd bet Ford has done their homework on this engine, but I'm gonna let somebody else find out for sure.

Curmudgeon wrote: The dyno test part is not what impressed me. Sure it's tough but it's controlled conditions. What got MY attention was the Baja 1000 run. THAT is torture on anything; WOT/high load under high ambient temperature conditions, massive shock loads, fine silt that can easily get through the best air filtration systems, etc etc etc. Purpose built race motors have been known to puke quickly under those conditions.

While the baja 1000 is a torture test to be sure, the thermal cycle testing done on the dyno will stress the components more. I've seen 16 liter diesels turn into piles of worthless metal in the matter of minutes. It's hard to truly understand these tests until you see one... But the engine will be run at nearly 100% load until it is stonking hot, then the engine will be shut down and -20 deg F fluid will be pumped through the engine. This will all be done in the span of 3 minutes and then repeated for about 4-20 hours. Or my favorite where the transient tests.. 100% throttle to 0% throttle over and over again for hours at 80% load. Over and Over and Over again. For days.

The baja is tough, but.. The test cell is a whole 'nother dimension.

Ignorant wrote: Or my favorite where the transient tests.. 100% throttle to 0% throttle over and over again for hours at 80% load. Over and Over and Over again. For days.

They had one of these running when I was at Cummins. I was ready to shoot myself after listening to it for an hour.

Toyman01 wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Or my favorite where the transient tests.. 100% throttle to 0% throttle over and over again for hours at 80% load. Over and Over and Over again. For days.

They had one of these running when I was at Cummins. I was ready to shoot myself after listening to it for an hour.

Yeah it sounds like a cool job to run tests, until you've done your 300th. Run something until your ears bleed, go inside the cell with a black light to check for leaks.. Run more tests.. (hint: all the fluids used in test cells have UV dye in them to help check for leaks.

Ignorant wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Or my favorite where the transient tests.. 100% throttle to 0% throttle over and over again for hours at 80% load. Over and Over and Over again. For days.

They had one of these running when I was at Cummins. I was ready to shoot myself after listening to it for an hour.

Yeah it sounds like a cool job to run tests, until you've done your 300th. Run something until your ears bleed, go inside the cell with a black light to check for leaks.. Run more tests.. (hint: all the fluids used in test cells have UV dye in them to help check for leaks.

It's interesting to hear those tests across the campus. Even with a lot of muffling.

And some of the development engines- good thing they are development engines, since they can shake the floor a dyno wing away. Holy cow are those run hard.

But I'm quite lucky that I test mainly cars.

BTW, for the record, I personally don't think the EcoBoost is the toughest engine in the world. There are a number of tougher ones.

I agree with the idea that a large understressed engine will pull better and last longer than a small overstressed one. I drive a truck every day (usually pulling a trailer with mowers on it). I would feel more comfortable using my V8 that isn't being stressed out and know that I stand less of a chance of ruining my work day with mechanical problems (i've got enough problems with the rest of my equipment). That being said, it is exciting to see companies trying make more power with less displacement reliably. Next question is this: Not IF but WHEN it does break can the average motorhead like you and I work on it?

I think the toughest engine in the world is the old Land Rover 2.25 petrol. Same block as the diesel version. When they start to smoke a bit, you know you've got about 100,000 miles until you need to open it up No power, no efficiency - but the #1 choice if you want to open up Africa.

I'm impressed with the EcoBoost test. Personally, I just bought a turbo-diesel truck and I'm planning to keep it for a long, long time. I went with diesel not because of anticipated engine life (although I do expect a long lifespan) but because I'm tired of towing with gas engines. And I'm thinking of chipping it and adding an intake not for more power, but to pick up a few miles per gallon. Hey, it adds up.

As for the average motorhead - I'd rather deal with an electronic ignition system than a set of points. So I welcome our new high-technology overlords!

alfadriver wrote: Perfect example of the kinds of preceptions that have to be dealt with... blah, blah, blah...

I never finished reading it, was there anything other than more putdowns?

alfadriver wrote: It's interesting to hear those tests across the campus. Even with a lot of muffling.

Indeed, especially when one goes BANG. We had to send guys on the roof routinely to pick up parts or into the farmers field behind the building.

Could be a great engine, but the real problem facing Ford is convincing the folks that buy them to give up the duel exhausts that they throw on and replace them with blow off valves. Most of the Jimmy Joes that I see will prefer the rumble of a V8 vs the Pfssst of a fast-n-furious civic.

kb58 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Perfect example of the kinds of preceptions that have to be dealt with... blah, blah, blah...

I never finished reading it, was there anything other than more putdowns?

Plenty. Intertwinded with information.

And a perfect example of how HARD it will be to change preceptions, thank you very much.

TuffWork wrote: I agree with the idea that a large understressed engine will pull better and last longer than a small overstressed one. I drive a truck every day (usually pulling a trailer with mowers on it). I would feel more comfortable using my V8 that isn't being stressed out and know that I stand less of a chance of ruining my work day with mechanical problems (i've got enough problems with the rest of my equipment). That being said, it is exciting to see companies trying make more power with less displacement reliably. Next question is this: Not IF but WHEN it does break can the average motorhead like you and I work on it?

The engine makes peak torque at like 1700 rpm. How is that stressing?

kreb wrote: Read the article and get your facts straight. It's a hell of a lot more than 300 hours in a lab. Then comment.

Goodness don't get your panties in a bunch. I read the article. I saw how they stuck it in a baja truck and then in a log puller. I'm not impressed...yet.

Tell me it is the "worlds toughest engine" when it has endured 150,000 REAL WORLD MILES in a truck, and you tear it down to find it is like-new. When you have that story I will change my tune.

Labs are great, but like theories they need to be proven. This engine was a pet project by a highly funded team backed by a corporation with a LOT to lose if this went wrong. Call me a skeptic...

We talked about this subject at lunch yesterday. It's amazing how far some folks will go to not be impressed by stuff like this. I blame the internet, and your collective mothers.

If Ford put this engine in a product I wanted at a price that was real for a family like mine, I'd be thrilled. As it is, I'm glad that a domestic manufacturer is doing something new and different. Good on 'em.

miatame wrote:

kreb wrote: Read the article and get your facts straight. It's a hell of a lot more than 300 hours in a lab. Then comment.

Goodness don't get your panties in a bunch. I read the article. I saw how they stuck it in a baja truck and then in a log puller. I'm not impressed...yet. Tell me it is the "worlds toughest engine" when it has endured 150,000 REAL WORLD MILES in a truck, and you tear it down to find it is like-new. When you have that story I will change my tune. Labs are great, but like theories they need to be proven. This engine was a pet project by a highly funded team backed by a corporation with a LOT to lose if this went wrong. Call me a skeptic...

but when real people have real problems with Toyotas, such as oil sludging, there are more people who doubt the real world problems since companies like Toyota can do no wrong.

Preceptions are a bitch. Especially when you * know* you are right. It just makes sense.

miatame wrote:

kreb wrote: Read the article and get your facts straight. It's a hell of a lot more than 300 hours in a lab. Then comment.

Goodness don't get your panties in a bunch. I read the article. I saw how they stuck it in a baja truck and then in a log puller. I'm not impressed...yet. Tell me it is the "worlds toughest engine" when it has endured 150,000 REAL WORLD MILES in a truck, and you tear it down to find it is like-new. When you have that story I will change my tune. Labs are great, but like theories they need to be proven. This engine was a pet project by a highly funded team backed by a corporation with a LOT to lose if this went wrong. Call me a skeptic...

The problem is these new American panties just ride up on me. Now the Japanese ones I used to wear rode so much better..... Especially with VTEC!

Seriously, you originally referenced just part of the test, so I responded accordingly. One reason that this article is creating so much commotion is that it's not presented in a linear, tech-rich fashion. How often was the oil changed? What are the details of the testing? I'd love to read a follow-up.

Ford is going about this the right way, however. They've got several perceptions to overcome - the one that says that Ford is still at heart a crappy company making crappy products, that big trucks require cubic inches, and that turbos are for little, high-strung vehicles (Diesels notwithstanding). So this event is having the desired impact - it's got us talking and thinking.

I keep wondering - was the test public knowledge from start to finish? Or was it mainly kept under wraps till the end, so that if the motor crapped out early, they wouldn't have a backfire on their hands?