In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
Ford uses a lot of cooling valves in the 1.6 Ecoboost and they are pretty reliable. IIRC there are three to regulate coolant flow in the engine as well as a traditional thermostat.
As much as I don't like them, modern timing chain setups are pretty robust except for, say, K24s and GM High Features 
Given that it is exclusively a pickup truck engine they probably went for engineering robustness over NVH and low hoodlines, which is why the High Feature had such a weird and trouble prone chain setup. Small sprockets, small chain pitch, gotta keep the front of the engine low for a low hoodline in the CTS.
If I were to worry about anything it would be the transmission. High torque low cylinder count engines beat the hell out of the trans.
In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
A lot of those features are on iron V8's too. Especially GM's with the variable displacement tech in it.
Also, I4's have half as many cylinders as V8's.
But "simplicity" isn't why the 7.3 came back- that was all about certification rules. If it were about simplicity and reliability, the 5.0l would have been dead many years ago.
Yeah not a fan of DOD,AFM, VVT, etc.
In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
All that is in everything now.
Reading some articles about it, absolutely nothing in that engine looks new except for possibly the concentric exhaust housing for the turbo. GM has been running variable oil pumps for a long time, technically many decades in other applications. The way the multiple cam lobe system is described sounds a lot like VWAG's TFSI engines that actually shift the lobes under the rockers like a transmission shifter slider, and that part is robust and painfully simple. (I have never seen or heard of a failure) And so on.
I agree that alot of this tech has been around awhile. Just don't see the benefit vs cost. I cringe at the potential repair and maintaince bills.
In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
I'm gonna assume you prefer electric cars?
alfadriver said:
dps214 said:
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In the news: New 2.7l four makes more power and torque than the old 7.4l V8 from the one ton trucks, and WAY more power and torque than the old Diesel from the one ton trucks.
In the thread: "Seems weak"
So the 2.7T is a suitable replacement for a L29 454 in a 1 ton pickup because it makes a little more power? The V8 made 290hp and 410lbs.
Here's an article form GM authority: https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l3b/
Yes its an interesting bunch of tech, but it still feels "fragile".
I mean yeah, if you're constantly working at vehicle capacity and using all the torque available the whole time, it'll be more fragile than a giant n/a engine chugging along at 40% of the output it's capable of. But that's not remotely how 99.99999% of the vehicles with this engine in them are going to be used so it's not really relevant. I wouldn't want this engine in our 20k lb RV despite basically the same power and torque output, but there's no way I'd want the rv's giant V10 in a daily use light truck.
To meet that math, the larger engine has to be considerably more powerful than the smaller one. So if one is running at 200hp which is max, and the other that's only 40%, then the larger engine would be 500hp. One is hardly a replacement for the other.
The reality is that the "larger v8" is working just as relatively hard as the "small I4". Worse, since the I4 probably has more torque, the V8 will be spinning faster so that the power output is the same.
So all of these "working harder", "loafing along" is so incredibly relative that the comparison makes no sense.
Sorry my description wasn't super clear. That 6.8L V10 could easily be making an extra 20% torque and 50% more power if it was set up and tuned that way (yes my 40% nmuber was an exaggeration, I was estimating). It's effectively detuned to only make the 3xx/4xx that it's rated. So even running it "flat out" it's not anywhere near pushing the limits of the engine like a 2.7L turbo making the same power is.
In reply to dps214 :
Having done some work with that powertrain, I don't think it's detuned at all. Granted, it's not really been developed over the last few years thanks to the 7.3 family, but when it's working in an MD or HD truck, it's REALLY working hard. Harder than when I watched the 2.7 run the same cycle on it's truck. It was actually rather terrifying to hear that v10 on a cycle in a big vehicle- even without it being loaded as if it was a trailer, it works so, so, so much harder than the turbos.
The 6.8l works in a +10,000lb panel van whereas the 2.7l is in a 5500lb pick up. Funny enough, the 3.5l turbo in a 9500lb panel van doesn't seem to work as hard. Or even a 10,500lb panel van.
I think people don't realize what massive vehicles the really large engines go into. The big engines work way harder than people here generally experience.
BTW, if the 6.8 was easy to upgrade, it would have. It would have been a lot cheaper to keep that engine than develop a brand new one.
I used to worry about turbos and engine longevity based on concerns long ago (never owned one to this day.. just from reading about things like turbo timers and stuff) but the tech has evolved so much. Based on the Ferd EcoBoost track record.. durability doesn't really seem to be a problem as long as you're doing basic maintenance.
In reply to OHSCrifle :
I love the 3.5 Ecoboost. It doesn't seem to have the same space around it in the Expedition like the F150. So, it's a little harder to work on but it moves with no issues.
One more thing to add about the big engines- the V10 was not able to meet some very new upcoming rules for CO. And that's mostly an indicator of how load sensitive it is as well as the older materials in it. The 3.5l in a similar vehicle was able, although the envelope was pushed a little. The 7.3 does is reasonably easily- as it was designed to run wide open without the need of enrichment. (which will probably freak some people out that it's not possible).
Heck, for a brief time- like one 0-60 run, the 3.5l turbo is capable of running wide open without any enrichment. Very stout motor. Think about that, it's running durably at 14:6:1 wide open throttle. And it is designed to do that for 100k miles (the MD and HD rules are slightly different for a few more years than cars or LDTs.)
But I don't expect that will change any minds.
edit- I know that's all about Ford, but I fully expect that GM does essentially the same thing. The "big" engines that seem to loaf are put into big vans and trucks and get beaten pretty hard in those applications- much harder than the small turbos in pick ups.
OHSCrifle said:
I used to worry about turbos and engine longevity based on concerns long ago (never owned one to this day.. just from reading about things like turbo timers and stuff) but the tech has evolved so much. Based on the Ferd EcoBoost track record.. durability doesn't really seem to be a problem as long as you're doing basic maintenance.
Turbo timers are very old school. Water cooled center housings, which have been the standard since the mid-late 80s, have rendered them pointless. The center housing without water cooling will spike up to 500-600F or so after engine shutoff, with a water jacket it never exceeds water temperature.
That is why turbos are essentially immortal nowadays. The ones I have had to replace were not because the turbo itself failed, but for secondary reasons like VNT sticking or wastegate issues. Which, to be fair, IS still something to be concerned about, but it's nothing that a $300 gReddy piggyback device is going to fix
alfadriver said:
edit- I know that's all about Ford, but I fully expect that GM does essentially the same thing. The "big" engines that seem to loaf are put into big vans and trucks and get beaten pretty hard in those applications- much harder than the small turbos in pick ups.
It's been a minute since I've played in a GM tune but I'm pretty sure that WOT enrichment is time based as well. It stays stoich for six or seven seconds of WOT, then it adds fuel to cool the exhaust valves/catalysts.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
alfadriver said:
edit- I know that's all about Ford, but I fully expect that GM does essentially the same thing. The "big" engines that seem to loaf are put into big vans and trucks and get beaten pretty hard in those applications- much harder than the small turbos in pick ups.
It's been a minute since I've played in a GM tune but I'm pretty sure that WOT enrichment is time based as well. It stays stoich for six or seven seconds of WOT, then it adds fuel to cool the exhaust valves/catalysts.
Technically, it's not time based, as that would be a defeat device (and illegal). It's a multi component temperature model that tells things to enrich. Although it has time baked into it....
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
Turbo timers are very old school. Water cooled center housings, which have been the standard since the mid-late 80s, have rendered them pointless. The center housing without water cooling will spike up to 500-600F or so after engine shutoff, with a water jacket it never exceeds water temperature.
The other thing is that turbos are designed to have passive coolant flow as the engine cools down.
Not sure if anyone else noticed but last night I saw a commercial for the new Silverado in off road flavors and when they said the lease deal, it was mentioned as a truck with the 2.7 liter engine. No mention of it being a turbo..
They're pushing the 2.7 in commercials as dxman says above.
I talked to a guy who went to get a new Chevy and he had to tell the salesman..."If you say 2.7 one more time I'm leaving." ...he wanted a V8 and got it.
I know the world is changing and small displacement turbo motors are at least the immediate future, but the clientele for trucks is probably older and still values the V8 and is a bit leary of a turbo engine.
I just bought a F-150 and got the 5.0 probably for the same old-man reasons lol. I like the look of the GMCs better but definitely didn't want a 2.7 and don't like the dod or whatever it is on the 5.3.
4 cyl in a full size truck seems unnatural.
I'm not brand loyal but like the aluminum body and 5.0 of the Ford, plus the interior. I was coming out of a 2004 GMC so anything was an upgrade.
One thing I wonder, Ford sells a 2.7 liter turbo mill in their trucks that's a 6. From an NVH perspective, and stress on the transmission this seems like a better play. I get that a 4 is cheaper (fewer moving parts) but the tradeoffs seem non-trivial.
Ford will also still let you spec a n/a V6 in a 1/2 ton truck, which is nice.
jamscal said:
I know the world is changing and small displacement turbo motors are at least the immediate future, but the clientele for trucks is probably older and still values the V8 and is a bit leary of a turbo engine.
Not as many as you would think. And that change happened over a decade ago. (I was stunned by the change)
In reply to jamscal :
I hope you didn't buy a 2022, because the 5.0 just got it's first pass at cylinder deactivation too.
Out of curiosity, is there an easy way to disable cylinder deactivation on the trucks? I know on Hondas, VCM-Muzzlers have been a thing for a while due to the negative effects of it.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
In reply to Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) :
Given that it is exclusively a pickup truck engine they probably went for engineering robustness over NVH and low hoodlines, which is why the High Feature had such a weird and trouble prone chain setup. Small sprockets, small chain pitch, gotta keep the front of the engine low for a low hoodline in the CTS.
It's in the new CT4
Cadillac 2.7T
It was developed for use exclusively in trucks.
And that was 2018? So it's probably been around long enough to know if there are any serious problems.
Driven5 said:
In reply to jamscal :
I hope you didn't buy a 2022, because the 5.0 just got it's first pass at cylinder deactivation too.
Yes, got a 22.
Didn't know about the Ford Cylinder deactivation...quick google says 21+ got it.
One of the other reasons I bought it was they didn't have the chips for the auto shutoff which it was supposed to have but I also don't want.
I'm interested to know how Ford does the Cyl Deactivation as Chevy is different cam and valve train on one? side I think.
