Bought a new Vehicle!
- Thread starter Snotty
- Start date
300rag
It's Not Going to Shift Itself
Just tested that out today on my Ram. MDS worked up to 75 MPH. Any higher, no go, except on deceleration.
Ecoboost is all well and good until you add payload or trailer towing then it becomes a big POS ....at least that's what the last 17 owners who traded theirs in for a hemi said ...who am I to argue with this empirical test...
Pete Kaczmarski
Senior Member
I like alot about the new Police Interceptor (SUV) Explorer. But with me purchasing vehicles 10 years old or more, I have concerns with the twin turbos. Both needing replacement plus head gaskets. Same for the F-150.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
And not to beat a dead horse but turbochargers that live on a gasoline engine have heat related failures sooner/more often because of inconsistent airflow (having a throttle valve that cuts airflow tends to trap heat in turbine housing)
Don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the police interceptors use 3.7 naturally aspirated V6 engines, not turbo.
I have a couple friends with well over 150K miles on their ecoboost V6s and no issues. Sure the boosted engines will not get great efficiency when towing a big load, but the non-tubo V8s don't do so well either. They might buy the Dodges if they want the diesel - that makes sense. But then they have the famous Dodge reliability where at least Consumer Reports has them at the bottom of the pack in the most recent survey published in the last two days or so and for many years before too. Sure, every Mopar owner says CU is BS, but other surveys back them up generally, but not always. FCA seems to be on a dead end course to die a certain death unless they can link up with another auto manufacturer that has some cash. They tried GM but were rebuffed.
I have a couple friends with well over 150K miles on their ecoboost V6s and no issues. Sure the boosted engines will not get great efficiency when towing a big load, but the non-tubo V8s don't do so well either. They might buy the Dodges if they want the diesel - that makes sense. But then they have the famous Dodge reliability where at least Consumer Reports has them at the bottom of the pack in the most recent survey published in the last two days or so and for many years before too. Sure, every Mopar owner says CU is BS, but other surveys back them up generally, but not always. FCA seems to be on a dead end course to die a certain death unless they can link up with another auto manufacturer that has some cash. They tried GM but were rebuffed.
And 35 years,
And it would have never happened without them.........................................
Pete Kaczmarski
Senior Member
The twin turbo motors are an option in both versions of the Ford Interceptor (car and SUV).
True, but most of the law enforcement agencies use the standard engine which is naturally aspirated. They are cheaper to buy and get the job done, and still have a lot more power than the 4.6s in the Crown Vics.
And I seriously doubt that Ford is going to offer police agencies engines that won't go the distance given the remarkable reliability of the previous 4.6 L V8s in the Crown Vics. Ford has been adamant that 200K miles from an Ecoboost engine is very achieveable without problems. They have shown a lot of rugged durability test results including tear downs of engines at 200K miles with no sign of them failing even then. Where is the data showing otherwise?
Last edited:
Sorry I disagree CR IS TRASH and has had its impartiality questioned more than once. Funny how the Toyota Dealer we own always has plenty of warranty work in the shop same as the Nissan and Honda shops we own. Not saying FCA couldn't do more to increase quality but they do not deserve the CR ratings they recieve. I trust JD Power's method far more.
CR and FCA quality
CR and FCA quality
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Memo to self: Do not buy a 190,000 mile EcoBoost vehicle.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Pro stock racers were using a lot of technology that is under the hood of every production car today in the mid seventies so do not say never like it will not happen unless the all powerful car companies will it. If it was up to the govt and car companies we would be driving emission choked black model t's. Because that is what they would make the most profits from and they would cry foul on every govt regs and there is no way they can make a profit.And it would have never happened without them.........................................
I have to agree that Consumer Reports is a waste of paper, they should start having advertisements at least there would be something to read in there.
Last edited:
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
I would buy a twin turbo v6 Lincoln but it is not really practical for us. I would buy a Exploder but they are very expensive in the used car market and most are the NA v6 with no optional rear end ratios is not a option in western Pa. I put the 3.6L Jeep GC in this catagory also. I have more concern for the reliability of these 950 speed transmissions that is all the rage now than I do for weather or not a turbo v6 will go the distance.
I have reread your post several times, and I still don't understand it. I guess you would have us believe that pro stock racers were motivated to achieve better fuel economy and lower emissions while developing their race engines and that the technology they developed would have transferred into today's cars automatically to achieve excellent driveability under any climate condition, excellent fuel economy and exceptional durability and very clean emissions too - not to mention excellent performance? So I guess your conclusion is that government regulations just hindered what has occurred in today's cars and that they would have occurred much sooner if they had just left themselves out of the picture? I guess the legions of engineers in the auto companies were just dumb asses that had no idea how to do what the pro stock racers figured out long ago too? And because of genius pro stock racers our cars today could have been this good without auto companies' meddling and government interfering? And diesel smoke stacks would not be emitting foul black smoke either? OK.
It really doesn't matter what CU concludes all that much, as I would bet the vast majority of car buyers don't read it and I too take issue with a lot of their conclusions - the reality is, I believe, that there really aren't any bad cars in the market today. I believe CU rates a lot things that have nothing to do with quality and durability such as glitchy infotainment systems. But word of mouth is powerful, and I wonder how many of us would choose a Cadillac or Lincoln or any German luxury car for that matter to achieve the best long term reliability and durability over the life of a vehicle? I think most of us would choose a Lexus due to word of mouth. Fortunately, those boring machines are not the only offerings in the market and I would not choose one since I also value a beautiful, high performance car that can handle well too. But FCA does have some problems compared to other models that are selling much better, and reliability is one of them unfortunately based on what some owners of such cars are telling me. But some say they have had no problems at all too with their FCA models. Personally, I believe that this article in Automotive News seems to reflect best what is going on at FCA:
FCA keeps switching quality chiefs, but problems linger
Last edited:
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
No, wow I thought you were more forward thinking than that. Pro stock along with other racing used low tension ring packs, thin piston rings, short little puck type pistons, tunnel ram with small plenums using sawed in half dominator carbs to give each cylinder it's own venturi/fuel injector, distributorless ignitions, lightweight, low friction internal parts that can withstand incredible loads with absolute minimum weight. Air fuel mixture that are spot on for best power, developing modifications under the rules of " stock" parts to create swirl combustion chambers for more complete burn and do it at 14-15 to one compression, you can't just squeeze it in a dead area and have it burn correctly no matter how good your gasoline is. Burning the gasoline completely makes power and reduces unburned fuel or put another way waste and emissions, detonating fuel skyrockets temps breaks parts and increases emissions. So to recap a lot of the style/design of the parts and theories that make engines run so well today were not born from government regulations, the solutions were developed for a different purpose and brought into mainstream or made practical by the car companies. I am not saying that all the materials, friction coatings, titanium, other exotics were created by racers but applying their use to automotive engines they lead the way.
I like discussing stuff with you Steve you are way more open minded and level headed than me for sure. I cannot follow your logic on this. The govt put regulations in effect to clean up pollutants for the environment and also increase fuel mileage to not put us in the predicament of the gas shortages of 1974/1979. They ended up hand in hand but I do not think they were developed like that, I do not know for sure.
Lastly I have to add that had it not been for hot rodders tweaking factory ECUs to get more power I do not think that latest horsepower war would not be on and devotion to a v8 would have been abandoned long ago by the car companies.
I like discussing stuff with you Steve you are way more open minded and level headed than me for sure. I cannot follow your logic on this. The govt put regulations in effect to clean up pollutants for the environment and also increase fuel mileage to not put us in the predicament of the gas shortages of 1974/1979. They ended up hand in hand but I do not think they were developed like that, I do not know for sure.
Lastly I have to add that had it not been for hot rodders tweaking factory ECUs to get more power I do not think that latest horsepower war would not be on and devotion to a v8 would have been abandoned long ago by the car companies.
Last edited:
You missed my point. Simply said, this technology would not have found its way into today's automobiles without motivations to force it - namely government regulations that force fuel economy improvements, cleaner air and as a by-product, brilliant performance and large durability improvements. For cost reasons alone or just laziness, car companies would just do as little as possible to change their products and would be very happy just raking in the profits from their "old" offerings and could care less about the environment or the effects of so many gasoline vehicles in the world, on the world. I would wager that plenty of engineers are involved in the progress in engine technology in pro-street at least as much as the back yard mechanics that are so brilliant.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Not what I read. The govt regs made the tech happen or as you put it.
Not the clean air would have happened no matter what because of govt regs the technology was already in the works.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
"No, wow I thought you were more forward thinking than that. Pro stock along with other racing used low tension ring packs, thin piston rings, short little puck type pistons, tunnel ram with small plenums using sawed in half dominator carbs to give each cylinder it's own venturi/fuel injector, distributorless ignitions, lightweight, low friction internal parts that can withstand incredible loads with absolute minimum weight. Air fuel mixture that are spot on for best power, developing modifications under the rules of " stock" parts to create swirl combustion chambers for more complete burn and do it at 14-15 to one compression, you can't just squeeze it in a dead area and have it burn correctly no matter how good your gasoline is. Burning the gasoline completely makes power and reduces unburned fuel or put another way waste and emissions, detonating fuel skyrockets temps breaks parts and increases emissions. So to recap a lot of the style/design of the parts and theories that make engines run so well today were not born from government regulations, the solutions were developed for a different purpose and brought into mainstream or made practical by the car companies. I am not saying that all the materials, friction coatings, titanium, other exotics were created by racers but applying their use to automotive engines they lead the way.
I like discussing stuff with you Steve you are way more open minded and level headed than me for sure. I cannot follow your logic on this. The govt put regulations in effect to clean up pollutants for the environment and also increase fuel mileage to not put us in the predicament of the gas shortages of 1974/1979. They ended up hand in hand but I do not think they were developed like that, I do not know for sure.
Lastly I have to add that had it not been for hot rodders tweaking factory ECUs to get more power I do not think that latest horsepower war would not be on and devotion to a v8 would have been abandoned long ago by the car companies."
Waiting to get unloaded again, huh?
I like discussing stuff with you Steve you are way more open minded and level headed than me for sure. I cannot follow your logic on this. The govt put regulations in effect to clean up pollutants for the environment and also increase fuel mileage to not put us in the predicament of the gas shortages of 1974/1979. They ended up hand in hand but I do not think they were developed like that, I do not know for sure.
Lastly I have to add that had it not been for hot rodders tweaking factory ECUs to get more power I do not think that latest horsepower war would not be on and devotion to a v8 would have been abandoned long ago by the car companies."
Waiting to get unloaded again, huh?
You still don't get it if I am reading your post correctly (you too need to proof read). The technology would have never made it into cars unless the government had required it. Period. If you think otherwise, we will just have to disagree, because my position will not change. This is just fact. I was in the emission control field all my working life of 42 years and know what went on firsthand.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
No sitting at home with no work, between inventories and this damn election, steel is just slow and I think they are bucking for a rate drop.
Similar threads
