GM's answer to the ECO Boost

[11XLITE28BH]

Just curious, if anyone knows if GM will have an answer to Ford's 3.5 Eco Boost, that has been a huge hit with truck owners?

Any possibilities of doing a twin turbo to a V-8 gasser?

[saskrick]

I haven't heard anything yet, but the competition is fierce so it is most likely. I recently ordered an ecoboost, but am a gm guy at heart. I was comparing the eco max tow to the gm max tow which has the 6.2. In all fairness, I test drove a couple of each truck and I think the 6.2 gm is actually quite a bit better on fuel than the eco (look out here it comes). I Think from these tests and from talking to a few people that have them(6.2 gm), that thay are even better than the 5.3. And they go. Being from SK, we don't have huge hills but we got wind. I think the bigger displacement does it. You have to admit, Ford was never known for good gas mileage, even when they say such and such a vehicle is.

With that said, I ordered an ECo, hoping that I get decent mileage, have the power I need. But I ordered it because I have teenagers and the cab was a little bigger and that was important. I didn't want a dodge mega.

I think gm will do something though, even though they have a good powertrain, because they have to build what is selling. Eco's are selling.

That doesn't answer your question, but I enjoyed replying. Cheers

[wayne anthony]

I'm pretty much a Ford man except my last two trucks have been Chevs. Presently have a 6.0, and have never averaged 15 mpg on a trip yet even without a load. Had a 454 before that, and the 6.0 may be about 1-2 mpg better both city and hiway. Wayne

[RubenZ]

Ecoboost is just marketing. It's just a small engine with a turbo. And When its all said and done, if you put a turbo in a small engine expecting it to be a big engine and drive it like a big engine your just wasting money and gas.

[SaskCampers]

Originally Posted by RubenZ

Ecoboost is just marketing. It's just a small engine with a turbo. And When its all said and done, if you put a turbo in a small engine expecting it to be a big engine and drive it like a big engine your just wasting money and gas.

Seems you totally missed the point of the Ecoboost. V8 power when needed, V6 mileage when power isn't needed. Seems pretty simple. Not only that most of it's torque is available far lower in RPM's than any of the new gen V8's from any mfg. All that at a premium far less than the cost of entry into the world of oil burners.
Now when the big 3 decide to make oil burner 1/2 tons then the game will change again.

[acadianbob]

It will take GM awhile to tear down an Ecoboost, examine it, and try to duplicate it. By then, Ford will have moved on.

[flyrotor]

Originally Posted by RubenZ

Ecoboost is just marketing. It's just a small engine with a turbo. And When its all said and done, if you put a turbo in a small engine expecting it to be a big engine and drive it like a big engine your just wasting money and gas.

X2
My question is the longevity of running such a small engine pushing all that horsepower, I think the life of the engine is going to be poor if someone pulls very much at all.

Ford has put out a lot of engines that ended with poor reputations

[RubenZ]

Originally Posted by acadianbob

It will take GM awhile to tear down an Ecoboost, examine it, and try to duplicate it. By then, Ford will have moved on.

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.

[RubenZ]

here is video:

GM's New Technology 4.5 Turbo Diesel Truck & SUV Video - YouTube

[SaskCampers]

Originally Posted by flyrotor

X2
Ford has put out a lot of engines that ended with poor reputations

And they are?

[SaskCampers]

Originally Posted by RubenZ

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.

[RubenZ]

Originally Posted by TheSasks

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

[flyrotor]

Originally Posted by TheSasks

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.

[Malco]

Originally Posted by RubenZ

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.

[donn]

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.

[DDC]

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.

[onetonford]

Originally Posted by RubenZ

here is video:

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.

[DDC]

[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.

[Len & Cheri]

Originally Posted by donn

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.

[09grizzly1]

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