How the EcoBoost turbo system works and what you can do to make it last

[Klunatic]

I may have just answered my own question:

http://ophelia.sdsu.edu:8080/ford/0...pr-redhot-torture2658-new-ecoboost-29657.html

Damn, they torture tested way beyond anything I ever thought they would do. I certainly won't every exceed the test parameters.

"To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.

The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured.

After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors.

Back in the dynamometer lab, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 went back up to full revs – and maximum turbo boost – for a real endurance test. This time the duration was a bit longer – 362 hours at full throttle. "

Sponsored

 

[Parker]

These are like very high-strung Italian engines - I am more a laze big cubes guy.

 

[tracythemighty]

You are really good at explaining things that I know nothing about. I went to YouTube and liked the video, and subscribed to your channel. Thank you for the video, and I look forward to learning more about the Bronco from you!

 

[Klunatic]

You are really good at explaining things that I know nothing about. I went to YouTube and liked the video, and subscribed to your channel. Thank you for the video, and I look forward to learning more about the Bronco from you!

I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about either. He describes a problem with turbos that doesn't exist on the 2.7 Nano ecoboost.

 

[Lil Red Broncette]

The “issues” with modern auto start/stop are almost entirely fabricated by people on forums who just want something to complain about. Engineers have done a very good job of making the systems efficient and reliable.

Efficiency has never crossed my mind as to this system. Nor is wear a concern. While I will note when I last drove a Bronco I noted a certain delay in this system where other vehicles it was more seamless, I don't even care of about that.

What is absolutely unforgiveable to me with such a system is when I am having vehicle issues and after getting it running and going I get caught off guard and it shuts the engine down and is unable to restart. All because I was focused on the immediate problem and forgot to disable the feature. There is so little efficiency gained by the feature on the sorts of drives I have, it can never repay such an event in my mind.

As an engineer I am all to well aware how things like this can become a problem.

For the same reason I don't like ABS and traction control systems. It isn't their normal functioning, it is the undesirable behaviors that pop out at the most inopportune times. Like traction control cutting throttle because of a little sand on the inside of a turn leaving you hanging in front of a car that just came around that blind corner. The time ABS brakes don't like your tires dig into that dirt of snow and make your stopping much longer. Those are unforgiveable events and I rather not have the features altogether than have that risk.

 

[pfd799]

Efficiency has never crossed my mind as to this system. Nor is wear a concern. While I will note when I last drove a Bronco I noted a certain delay in this system where other vehicles it was more seamless, I don't even care of about that.

What is absolutely unforgiveable to me with such a system is when I am having vehicle issues and after getting it running and going I get caught off guard and it shuts the engine down and is unable to restart. All because I was focused on the immediate problem and forgot to disable the feature. There is so little efficiency gained by the feature on the sorts of drives I have, it can never repay such an event in my mind.

As an engineer I am all to well aware how things like this can become a problem.

For the same reason I don't like ABS and traction control systems. It isn't their normal functioning, it is the undesirable behaviors that pop out at the most inopportune times. Like traction control cutting throttle because of a little sand on the inside of a turn leaving you hanging in front of a car that just came around that blind corner. The time ABS brakes don't like your tires dig into that dirt of snow and make your stopping much longer. Those are unforgiveable events and I rather not have the features altogether than have that risk.

This is the most on brand “I am an engineer” response ever. You list 3 extremely specific scenarios while ignoring all 3 of those are a net positive for the vast majority of drivers. Start/stop will save 4-8% of fuel consumption and work without issue for the majority of drivers, ABS and traction control prevent FAR more collisions than they cause, just because Mr. Engineer thinks he can outsmart them doesn’t mean they don’t work. I have driven ABS vehicles in New England winters my entire life and never had an issue stopping, that sounds like operator error to me

 

[Techun]

Efficiency has never crossed my mind as to this system. Nor is wear a concern. While I will note when I last drove a Bronco I noted a certain delay in this system where other vehicles it was more seamless, I don't even care of about that.

What is absolutely unforgiveable to me with such a system is when I am having vehicle issues and after getting it running and going I get caught off guard and it shuts the engine down and is unable to restart. All because I was focused on the immediate problem and forgot to disable the feature. There is so little efficiency gained by the feature on the sorts of drives I have, it can never repay such an event in my mind.

As an engineer I am all to well aware how things like this can become a problem.

For the same reason I don't like ABS and traction control systems. It isn't their normal functioning, it is the undesirable behaviors that pop out at the most inopportune times. Like traction control cutting throttle because of a little sand on the inside of a turn leaving you hanging in front of a car that just came around that blind corner. The time ABS brakes don't like your tires dig into that dirt of snow and make your stopping much longer. Those are unforgiveable events and I rather not have the features altogether than have that risk.

Sounds like someone is scared of the big bad technowogy.

 

[Lil Red Broncette]

This is the most on brand “I am an engineer” response ever. You list 3 extremely specific scenarios while ignoring all 3 of those are a net positive for the vast majority of drivers. Start/stop will save 4-8% of fuel consumption and work without issue for the majority of drivers, ABS and traction control prevent FAR more collisions than they cause, just because Mr. Engineer thinks he can outsmart them doesn’t mean they don’t work. I have driven ABS vehicles in New England winters my entire life and never had an issue stopping, that sounds like operator error to me

First you take my response out of context as I was only responding to your claim that these are " almost entirely fabricated " and that the design is "efficient". I highlighted that efficiency never a concern and cited specific case FOR ME that I have issues with these systems that are far from "made up" since those systems intended to make it safer resulted in events serious adverse events (to me) where if I had conventional brakes there would be ZERO question of any risk at all.

So made up issue, for me, no not made up.

I will dispute your fuel savings claim of 4% to 8%, those savings are ONLY during the period when one is in stop and go traffic. So unless one is ALWAYS in stop and go traffic, one will never realize an average savings even close to those numbers. Since I only end up in stop and go traffic about 0.1% of the time. Even time stopped on a typical drive is below that number. Net savings to me is 8% x 0.1% = 0.008% savings. Meaningless. to me. Now someone in a city, someone who faces start and stop rush hour every day and is in stop and go traffice 50% of the time, assuming heavy traffic they may net 4%. Seems to me, most are going to see net savings below 1%.

Unlike you I didn't drive with ABS "all my life" so I actually have comparison experience in non-ABS equipped vehicles to know, not just suspect, but absolutely know how much better control and faster stops I can make in those marginal conditions than with ABS.

I would argue that the biggest change I've seen caused by ABS systems that has improved safety is people simply drive slower in the snow in ABS equipped vehicles than before ABS came. That I expect in the vast majority of cases they don't even realize the reason they go slower is an instinctual level understanding they can't stop as fast.

 

[Lil Red Broncette]

Sounds like someone is scared of the big bad technowogy.

No, I can just do better without so it becomes a problem rather than benefit.

 

[pfd799]

First you take my response out of context as I was only responding to your claim that these are " almost entirely fabricated " and that the design is "efficient". I highlighted that efficiency never a concern and cited specific case FOR ME that I have issues with these systems that are far from "made up" since those systems intended to make it safer resulted in events serious adverse events (to me) where if I had conventional brakes there would be ZERO question of any risk at all.

So made up issue, for me, no not made up.

I will dispute your fuel savings claim of 4% to 8%, those savings are ONLY during the period when one is in stop and go traffic. So unless one is ALWAYS in stop and go traffic, one will never realize an average savings even close to those numbers. Since I only end up in stop and go traffic about 0.1% of the time. Even time stopped on a typical drive is below that number. Net savings to me is 8% x 0.1% = 0.008% savings. Meaningless. to me. Now someone in a city, someone who faces start and stop rush hour every day and is in stop and go traffice 50% of the time, assuming heavy traffic they may net 4%. Seems to me, most are going to see net savings below 1%.

Unlike you I didn't drive with ABS "all my life" so I actually have comparison experience in non-ABS equipped vehicles to know, not just suspect, but absolutely know how much better control and faster stops I can make in those marginal conditions than with ABS.

I would argue that the biggest change I've seen caused by ABS systems that has improved safety is people simply drive slower in the snow in ABS equipped vehicles than before ABS came. That I expect in the vast majority of cases they don't even realize the reason they go slower is an instinctual level understanding they can't stop as fast.

You’re wrong again. See I didn’t just ball park those numbers, they’ve been studied and analyzed by experts. You specifically may get 1% savings but the *majority* of users will see 4-8%, and that’s fact. Your posts are absurdly self centered and I find it ridiculous that as an engineer you cannot acknowledge that vehicles are designed for the average user, the fact that you think you’re better off without these systems is literally meaningless when they benefit the vast majority of drivers, the people who design these systems don’t give a shit that joe blow engineer thinks he’s Mario Andretti. Your post is so absurd it’s the equivalent of I as a firefighter complaining about the sprinklers in my apartment complex. I’m a firefighter and therefore far better at fire safety than the average person, why do I need sprinklers in my unit when they’re more likely to cause me water damage than prevent a fire? See how ridiculous that sounds? By the way start/stop is fully defeatable and traction control is mostly detestable, if you’re not doing that it’s your fault.

 

[mpeugeot]

First you take my response out of context as I was only responding to your claim that these are " almost entirely fabricated " and that the design is "efficient". I highlighted that efficiency never a concern and cited specific case FOR ME that I have issues with these systems that are far from "made up" since those systems intended to make it safer resulted in events serious adverse events (to me) where if I had conventional brakes there would be ZERO question of any risk at all.

So made up issue, for me, no not made up.

I will dispute your fuel savings claim of 4% to 8%, those savings are ONLY during the period when one is in stop and go traffic. So unless one is ALWAYS in stop and go traffic, one will never realize an average savings even close to those numbers. Since I only end up in stop and go traffic about 0.1% of the time. Even time stopped on a typical drive is below that number. Net savings to me is 8% x 0.1% = 0.008% savings. Meaningless. to me. Now someone in a city, someone who faces start and stop rush hour every day and is in stop and go traffice 50% of the time, assuming heavy traffic they may net 4%. Seems to me, most are going to see net savings below 1%.

Unlike you I didn't drive with ABS "all my life" so I actually have comparison experience in non-ABS equipped vehicles to know, not just suspect, but absolutely know how much better control and faster stops I can make in those marginal conditions than with ABS.

I would argue that the biggest change I've seen caused by ABS systems that has improved safety is people simply drive slower in the snow in ABS equipped vehicles than before ABS came. That I expect in the vast majority of cases they don't even realize the reason they go slower is an instinctual level understanding they can't stop as fast.

I agree, on the limit, I can outperform ABS in most situations. That's not most people, but us who had sufficient experience in the muck prior to ABS are faster without it. Mind you, the margins can be small but significant.

 

[mpeugeot]

You’re wrong again. See I didn’t just ball park those numbers, they’ve been studied and analyzed by experts. You specifically may get 1% savings but the *majority* of users will see 4-8%, and that’s fact. Your posts are absurdly self centered and I find it ridiculous that as an engineer you cannot acknowledge that vehicles are designed for the average user, the fact that you think you’re better off without these systems is literally meaningless when they benefit the vast majority of drivers, the people who design these systems don’t give a shit that joe blow engineer thinks he’s Mario Andretti. Your post is so absurd it’s the equivalent of I as a firefighter complaining about the sprinklers in my apartment complex. I’m a firefighter and therefore far better at fire safety than the average person, why do I need sprinklers in my unit when they’re more likely to cause me water damage than prevent a fire? See how ridiculous that sounds? By the way start/stop is fully defeatable and traction control is mostly detestable, if you’re not doing that it’s your fault.

Some of us are, in fact, much more skilled that the majority of drivers (that's a really low, low bar), as the majority of drivers truly suck ass on a level that I never realized possible.

 

[pfd799]

Some of us are, in fact, much more skilled that the majority of drivers (that's a really low, low bar), as the majority of drivers truly suck ass on a level that I never realized possible.

I have to navigate a very large vehicle at very high speeds through some of the most dense streets in the country for a living, I’m all too aware just how awful the motoring public is. But to say ABS and traction control aren’t a net positive on roadway safety and are some sort of detriment is such an absurd take

 

[mpeugeot]

I have to navigate a very large vehicle at very high speeds through some of the most dense streets in the country for a living, I’m all too aware just how awful the motoring public is. But to say ABS and traction control aren’t a net positive on roadway safety and are some sort of detriment is such an absurd take

Actually, I agree, saving for the few skilled and trained drivers; this technology is a net positive. I will even admit that when I am not 100% switched on, the technology is better than I am. It never gets bored, complacent, and rarely makes mistakes. So yes, I see the technology as a net positive despite it being behind the "art" of car control and near pinnacle of car control science. I don't want to overstate my position, because there is much benefit to be enjoyed and is directly derived from the technology.

 

[tracythemighty]

I don't think that guy knows what he is talking about either. He describes a problem with turbos that doesn't exist on the 2.7 Nano ecoboost.

Hmm, good to know. I know nothing about it, so I'm always looking for info.

Sponsored