Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2012, 03:48 PM   #11
Wanna Be Camper
 
SaskCampers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by RubenZ View Post
Why would they need to tear it down and examine it? I'm pretty sure GM engineers can and have already thought of something similar. GM has always had better motors. Before the Economy went to crap they were already working on a 4.5L Diesel for 1/2ton trucks. Supposedly there are rumors that the project will back on track. I think you can even youtube a video on it.

And Ford was working on a 4.x litre diesel based on one of their Land Rover designs and Dodge had a Cummins V8 around 5.0 litres. Why can`t people take this stuff for what it is. An advancement that when embraced by all benefit everyone. Geeze even GM truck forum guys are giving the Ecoboost props for what it is.
__________________

__________________

John & Deb
2011 F250 Lariat FX4 Crew Cab 6.2
2011 Flagstaff V-Lite 30WRLS
Days Camped 2016: 3 2017: 0
SaskCampers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 03:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
RubenZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Rio Grande Valley Texas
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSasks View Post
And they are?
Pretty much any motor they had in the 80's, Then in the 90's their 5.0L and 4.6L were crap and later their Triton 5.4L & their V-10's and their later diesels. When it comes to ford motors their are just too many LOL
__________________

__________________
__________________________________

Ruben Zamora
2007 Silverado 2500HD 4x4 Dmax/Allison, 4" Exhaust-no cat-no muffler
2012 Palomino Puma 23FB
RubenZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:36 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
flyrotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSasks View Post
And they are?
Lets see, the fire issues on their 460's in the 80's which Ford banned from using on an ambulance due to the risk, the 6.9 liter diesel in the 80's, the 6.0 power stroke, the 6.4 power stroke, triton v10, the 7.3 pre turbo.
__________________
flyrotor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:53 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Malco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Central Nova Scotia
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by RubenZ View Post
Pretty much any motor they had in the 80's, Then in the 90's their 5.0L and 4.6L were crap and later their Triton 5.4L & their V-10's and their later diesels. When it comes to ford motors their are just too many LOL
I had a few Ford trucks and a Mustang that had 302 (5 litre) I thought they were great engines and very reliable,although not great on gas mileage.I dp have to agree with you that if someone with an ecoboost demands alot from it alot of the time they will probably,IMO,end up with an engine that has a short life span.There truly is no substitute for cubic inches when it comes to horsepower.
__________________
2011 Salem 30kqbss
2013 Ram 2500
2005 Ram 2500
1968 Pontiac Le Mans
Malco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 06:06 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 855
From reading all the posts on this and other forums, the eco-joke when properly equipped for towing gets no better fuel economy than the 5.3L GM offering. As I see it the only thing it might have going for it is the fairly flat torque curve. But holy cow twin turbos? Is this another pull the cab better idea if you have to work on that thing? On top of all that price out one using the Ford builder and moderately equipped they are stickered at over 48K. You can buy a lot of more capable trucks for that kind of money. I wish ford well, but I just don't see any advantage except maybe 2 less spark plugs.
__________________
donn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 06:23 PM   #16
DDC
Senior Member
 
DDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Komoka Ontario
Posts: 2,364
When GM come out with the 4.5 diesel eco boost will look like it has the toque of a go cart, just my humble opinion.
__________________
DDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 07:32 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
onetonford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by RubenZ View Post

Sounds like they copied ford's Idea of the Exhaust comming out the top of the engine thats how the newer scorpion engines are built.

By the way GM did have many engines that were not so great I had a Pontiac GTO with a 400 cube engine which blew a timing chain at 40000 miles two buicks with oldsmobile engines Try to get parts for them was almost impossible with out the old part in hand. Vegas with the four cylinder that always had valve problems. I now own a buick century that cost around $1700 to install water pump. bad design on their part IMHO also try to change plugs onthe back of engine you have to release the motor mounts on front of engine and roll over to get to them. But I'm not bashing them still like GM products and Fords and Dodge have owned them all including a International PK and a older Stude at one time. They all have there bad and good ones all in all still looking for one That has the body of Ford the Cummings Engine and allison Tranny that would work for Me........

Oh and less we forget the imfamous chevy v8 Diesel made from the 350 block design That hurt chevy for many years.
__________________

2001 Ford F-350 DRW 7.3
2011 25 RL Wildcat
former fiver 1976 Fourwinds had for 35 years
onetonford is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 09:07 PM   #18
DDC
Senior Member
 
DDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Komoka Ontario
Posts: 2,364
[QUOTE=onetonford;158095]Sounds like they copied ford's Idea of the Exhaust comming out the top of the engine thats how the newer scorpion engines are built.

By the way GM did have many engines that were not so great I had a Pontiac GTO with a 400 cube engine which blew a timing chain at 40000 miles two buicks with oldsmobile engines Try to get parts for them was almost impossible with out the old part in hand. Vegas with the four cylinder that always had valve problems. I now own a buick century that cost around $1700 to install water pump. bad design on their part IMHO also try to change plugs onthe back of engine you have to release the motor mounts on front of engine and roll over to get to them. But I'm

That 4.5 was deigned quite a few years ago and put on the shelf because of north america's lack of acceptance of diesel engines.
__________________
DDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 09:47 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by donn View Post
From reading all the posts on this and other forums, the eco-joke when properly equipped for towing gets no better fuel economy than the 5.3L GM offering. As I see it the only thing it might have going for it is the fairly flat torque curve. But holy cow twin turbos? Is this another pull the cab better idea if you have to work on that thing? On top of all that price out one using the Ford builder and moderately equipped they are stickered at over 48K. You can buy a lot of more capable trucks for that kind of money. I wish ford well, but I just don't see any advantage except maybe 2 less spark plugs.

Eco-joke? Really??

Hmmm...same MPG as a V8, but totally owns the 5.3 in power. The advantage is pretty clear to me.
__________________
Len & Cheri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 12:45 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kamloops,B.C. Canada
Posts: 156
GM's 4.5l and Ford's 4.4l v6 diesels were put on hold because of the cost of emissions they would have to meet because these engines in a 1/2 ton have to meet light duty truck emissions which were/are stricter than the heavy duty emissions of the 3/4-1 ton.These engines may be built later,but at this time they can get the power needed and resonable fuel economy at a lower cost than the diesels.Also,remember that all the diesel engines in the ford p/u's up to the 6.4l engines were built by navistar and did not stand up to the quality needed.This is why Ford went away from Navistar and now build their own diesel-the 6.7l.

09grizzly1
__________________

__________________
09grizzly1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 PM.