Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
Fords last offering
GMs last offering
Chrysler last offering
Mitsubishi's last offering designed in Australia
Last edited:
New Everyday Driver
- Thread starter Bruceynz
- Start date
Fords last offering
GMs last offering
Chrysler last offering
Mitsubishi's last offering designed in Australia
AJ/FormS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 306
I like the idea of ecoboost, but since I cannot afford new, and so no warranty, I'm not willing to be the used-car testee. Too many cars today seem to puke right after the warranty expires. So I don't see a turbo-car in my future. At all.
I'm 64 now, and not interested in swapping out turbos. And for the amount of driving I do, It ain't worth it for gas savings. Our gas fluctuates between 97cents per liter typical to 1.24 per liter with the occasional weekend foray to 1.32 That would be 3.53 typical to 4.51 and a hi of 4.80, all in in Canadian bucks, but converted to USG.
For me the ecoboost car might save me $500 per year in gas. But if anything goes wrong with that car, you can see I'm sunk. If it needs a timing belt every third or fourth year at $1000, that's crap. Or struts every third or fourth, or rotors or bearings. or..... well you get it. I could be driving a 1974 Caprice for real cheap by comparison, even tho it guzzles gas.
I'm 64 now, and not interested in swapping out turbos. And for the amount of driving I do, It ain't worth it for gas savings. Our gas fluctuates between 97cents per liter typical to 1.24 per liter with the occasional weekend foray to 1.32 That would be 3.53 typical to 4.51 and a hi of 4.80, all in in Canadian bucks, but converted to USG.
For me the ecoboost car might save me $500 per year in gas. But if anything goes wrong with that car, you can see I'm sunk. If it needs a timing belt every third or fourth year at $1000, that's crap. Or struts every third or fourth, or rotors or bearings. or..... well you get it. I could be driving a 1974 Caprice for real cheap by comparison, even tho it guzzles gas.
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
Well I guess it goes like this, you either embrace the new modern technology or you don't, turbo engineering has come a long way now. Variable cam timing is accepted now and direct injection is more common place, if you ask me (and don't get me wrong I love my mopar V8s) Ford is onto a winner!
Lets put it into perspective, my 2.0 in my falcon is faster than a 4.0L double over cam, variable valve timing straight 6! Its lighter, uses less gas (not heaps but less) has to use less at the stop lights. I admit the burble of a four is not as smooth as a 6 and not got the rumble of a V8 but jump inside and you can't hear the engine, but you think you are driving a 195Kw 4.0 6 cylinder!
Just to let you know the ecoboost falcon was a flop, it didn't sell well at all. not because it was bad or had issues but people just couldn't get to grips with a 4 cylinder under the hood! Falcons has been a 6 for the last 50 years!
I talked to our local Ford dealer and he said they were awesome, not many around, not good sellers, he said the Mangers at the local ford dealer ship drove them and liked them but it didn't flow down to the buying public. His last comment to me was, they were faster than a 4.0!
Well I remember the off shoot of the 4 was it handled a lot better with the engine sitting back a bit and less weight on the nose! The reviews all noted how well it pointed and how well it cornered with the wait off the nose.
I can tell you this, there is a very slight hesitation for the turbo to come in, town driving its not noticeable, just when you take off quick, but its a everyday economy driver and it does exactly that!
Lets put it into perspective, my 2.0 in my falcon is faster than a 4.0L double over cam, variable valve timing straight 6! Its lighter, uses less gas (not heaps but less) has to use less at the stop lights. I admit the burble of a four is not as smooth as a 6 and not got the rumble of a V8 but jump inside and you can't hear the engine, but you think you are driving a 195Kw 4.0 6 cylinder!
Just to let you know the ecoboost falcon was a flop, it didn't sell well at all. not because it was bad or had issues but people just couldn't get to grips with a 4 cylinder under the hood! Falcons has been a 6 for the last 50 years!
I talked to our local Ford dealer and he said they were awesome, not many around, not good sellers, he said the Mangers at the local ford dealer ship drove them and liked them but it didn't flow down to the buying public. His last comment to me was, they were faster than a 4.0!
Well I remember the off shoot of the 4 was it handled a lot better with the engine sitting back a bit and less weight on the nose! The reviews all noted how well it pointed and how well it cornered with the wait off the nose.
I can tell you this, there is a very slight hesitation for the turbo to come in, town driving its not noticeable, just when you take off quick, but its a everyday economy driver and it does exactly that!
Last edited:
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
Bruce:
I don't know if you get the Mustang where you are at. In North America, last year the base model Mustang could be had with a 3.8-4.0L V6, or the Ecoboost 2.3L Turbo 4. The 2.4L Turbo was faster, and also seemed to handle better, as the Turbo 4 weight is further back, and I think is slightly lighter in weight. The 2.3L Tubo 4 was, and is rated at 310 HP, and last year had 320 ft. lbs. of torque. This year (2018), Ford dropped the V6 completely, and bumped the torque on the Turbo 4 to 350 ft. lbs. of torque. This is all factory rated; with aftermarket "chip tuning" people are getting a reliable 350 HP, sometimes more.
The Ford Mustang GT is only available with a 5.0L V8. Last year, 435 HP, this year 460 HP. Still lower than the Challanger and Chargers with the 6.1L Hemis, but Ford is getting closer.
I don't know if you get the Mustang where you are at. In North America, last year the base model Mustang could be had with a 3.8-4.0L V6, or the Ecoboost 2.3L Turbo 4. The 2.4L Turbo was faster, and also seemed to handle better, as the Turbo 4 weight is further back, and I think is slightly lighter in weight. The 2.3L Tubo 4 was, and is rated at 310 HP, and last year had 320 ft. lbs. of torque. This year (2018), Ford dropped the V6 completely, and bumped the torque on the Turbo 4 to 350 ft. lbs. of torque. This is all factory rated; with aftermarket "chip tuning" people are getting a reliable 350 HP, sometimes more.
The Ford Mustang GT is only available with a 5.0L V8. Last year, 435 HP, this year 460 HP. Still lower than the Challanger and Chargers with the 6.1L Hemis, but Ford is getting closer.
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
Yes we just recently started getting rhd mustang here. ecoboost I don't think supposed to be the most powerful, far as I know they are suppose to produce similar power to a v8 at a lot less capacity, 4 cylinder, one head, one head gasket, one exhaust manifold, less friction, I like the v8 rumble but our gas expensive and ecoboost a winner for me! In other countries they have engine size tax so eco boost a winner! You guys probably unaware but small turbo charged engines is where it's heading in Europe, Ford are one step a head of Chrysler and gm. How hard it maybe to swallow for die hard moparians that's the future!
I am not about to try and convert anyone to Ford, but if you want to be amazed how a smaller ecoboost engine performs and if you think you will not get poisoned sitting in the competitions car you will not be disappointed in the performance.
I am not about to try and convert anyone to Ford, but if you want to be amazed how a smaller ecoboost engine performs and if you think you will not get poisoned sitting in the competitions car you will not be disappointed in the performance.
Last edited:
Aspen500
Well-Known Member
No matter what the power output, there's still just nothing like the SOUND of a V-8! Whether it's a big block Mopar or the hi-po Audi 4.2L (ever hear one of those at 8,500 rpm?). Of course any Mopar V-8 sounds the best of all 
Only V-8's that sound like crap are those with a flat plane crankshaft, like a Ferrari or (I think) some sub-model of a new Mustang. They sound more like a pair of 4 cyl's running side by side.
Main thing with the new engines, turbo or not, is oil changes and use synthetic oil. Even without a turbo, the variable valve timing system has small oil ports that don't take much to get plugged. With direct injection, there's the problem of carbon build up on the intake valves caused by oil vapor through the pcv system (no fuel to keep them clean). Synthetic doesn't vaporize as much or cause carbon/varnish and oil vaporizes more the more it breaks down from use and heat. At work, the cars that we tear engines apart for repair, or replace a turbo, etc are almost always the ones that have had 8,000 mile oil changes and use conventional oil. Just did timing chains on a Nissan Murano with 78,000 miles, a $3,800 job. Cause? Not changing the oil (according to the sticker, it had been almost 9,000 miles since it was last changed, besides being over 2 quarts low). On the flip side, we have customers with the same vehicle that change oil every 3,000-5,000 miles and use synthetic oil with 250,000 and the engine has never been opened.
Only V-8's that sound like crap are those with a flat plane crankshaft, like a Ferrari or (I think) some sub-model of a new Mustang. They sound more like a pair of 4 cyl's running side by side. Main thing with the new engines, turbo or not, is oil changes and use synthetic oil. Even without a turbo, the variable valve timing system has small oil ports that don't take much to get plugged. With direct injection, there's the problem of carbon build up on the intake valves caused by oil vapor through the pcv system (no fuel to keep them clean). Synthetic doesn't vaporize as much or cause carbon/varnish and oil vaporizes more the more it breaks down from use and heat. At work, the cars that we tear engines apart for repair, or replace a turbo, etc are almost always the ones that have had 8,000 mile oil changes and use conventional oil. Just did timing chains on a Nissan Murano with 78,000 miles, a $3,800 job. Cause? Not changing the oil (according to the sticker, it had been almost 9,000 miles since it was last changed, besides being over 2 quarts low). On the flip side, we have customers with the same vehicle that change oil every 3,000-5,000 miles and use synthetic oil with 250,000 and the engine has never been opened.
AJ/FormS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 306
I know what you mean about the sound of V8s and high-rpm,.........and screaming thru dual 3" pipes.
I used to shift my 367 at 6400, cuz, you know, it only had a small cam in it that peaked around 5600. Then one day I missed a shift at WOT, and saw the needle coming down from higher than 8000. Man was that a glorious sound. So Then I clutched it and coasted to a stop, and heard the engine idling like nothing ever happened, whoohoo!
So then I installed a rev-limiter at 7200,and the next bigger cam, and fixed the shifter,and ever-after it's been shifted at 7000,whoohoo! That winter, as I did every winter, I tore it down for inspection, and promptly put it back together, as everything spec'd out as at the previous tear-down.
After the 5th time,or maybe the fourth, I haven't inspected it anymore. The last time was 2004, and she currently has over about 100,000 miles on her.
It's still a small cam,(230@.050) and has hardly any lope to her.But man, at 7000/7200, what a sound!
'Course the base note is there at lower Rs and is there all the time, it just gets louder the harder the engine works or the higher the Rs go. That's funny,cuz 4s can have a base note too, but it's just not the same. And a BIG four, can have similar displacement per cylinder to a small V8.Like a 2.2 Four has similar CID per cylinder of a 273 cuber,and a 2.6 to a 318, and a 2.8 to a 340.So I would expect a similar sound, just at half speed:but they just don't.
As crazy as it seems, the V8 sound runs deep in me, and I could care less about a four,any four, I don't care if you pump the power to 400 or more, I'm just not interested.
This is not a slur on Fours or the cars they come in. When I first got my drivers in 69, 4s were just coming to market here. And Mum bought one. And I learned to drive in it. And I kept breaking it. And Mum kept making me pay for it,lol. Good on her. Dad had a V8. A 401 LeSabre, that was hard to keep down to the speed limit. One day we were all sitting at the super-table, and the conversation turned to when was I gonna get my own car. Well I averred there was no way that I would ever own a 4. So I went out and got me a 57 BelAir with a 283-V8. That's a 4.6 and change. I remained a V8 guy for most of my life, having owned just one 4 since 69, and 5 in-line 6s, and 3 V6s.All the many,many rest over 48 years were V8s. Two of those inline 6s immediately got swapped out for V8s,And truth be told,of the non-V8s,all the rest of those were purchased for my wife, who could care less what's under the hood. lol The only non V8 for me, was a minty69 Barracuda I purchased in late 76, just before Our wedding, in spring of 77. And I crashed it going back to the wedding supper. Fixed it, drove for another year, got rid of it for a V8 car.
The V8 sound runs deep inside me.
I used to shift my 367 at 6400, cuz, you know, it only had a small cam in it that peaked around 5600. Then one day I missed a shift at WOT, and saw the needle coming down from higher than 8000. Man was that a glorious sound. So Then I clutched it and coasted to a stop, and heard the engine idling like nothing ever happened, whoohoo!
So then I installed a rev-limiter at 7200,and the next bigger cam, and fixed the shifter,and ever-after it's been shifted at 7000,whoohoo! That winter, as I did every winter, I tore it down for inspection, and promptly put it back together, as everything spec'd out as at the previous tear-down.
After the 5th time,or maybe the fourth, I haven't inspected it anymore. The last time was 2004, and she currently has over about 100,000 miles on her.
It's still a small cam,(230@.050) and has hardly any lope to her.But man, at 7000/7200, what a sound!
'Course the base note is there at lower Rs and is there all the time, it just gets louder the harder the engine works or the higher the Rs go. That's funny,cuz 4s can have a base note too, but it's just not the same. And a BIG four, can have similar displacement per cylinder to a small V8.Like a 2.2 Four has similar CID per cylinder of a 273 cuber,and a 2.6 to a 318, and a 2.8 to a 340.So I would expect a similar sound, just at half speed:but they just don't.
As crazy as it seems, the V8 sound runs deep in me, and I could care less about a four,any four, I don't care if you pump the power to 400 or more, I'm just not interested.
This is not a slur on Fours or the cars they come in. When I first got my drivers in 69, 4s were just coming to market here. And Mum bought one. And I learned to drive in it. And I kept breaking it. And Mum kept making me pay for it,lol. Good on her. Dad had a V8. A 401 LeSabre, that was hard to keep down to the speed limit. One day we were all sitting at the super-table, and the conversation turned to when was I gonna get my own car. Well I averred there was no way that I would ever own a 4. So I went out and got me a 57 BelAir with a 283-V8. That's a 4.6 and change. I remained a V8 guy for most of my life, having owned just one 4 since 69, and 5 in-line 6s, and 3 V6s.All the many,many rest over 48 years were V8s. Two of those inline 6s immediately got swapped out for V8s,And truth be told,of the non-V8s,all the rest of those were purchased for my wife, who could care less what's under the hood. lol The only non V8 for me, was a minty69 Barracuda I purchased in late 76, just before Our wedding, in spring of 77. And I crashed it going back to the wedding supper. Fixed it, drove for another year, got rid of it for a V8 car.
The V8 sound runs deep inside me.
Last edited:
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
First night I had car I disconnected pcv, extended pipe so it now exits onto the road, probably upset the greenies but as we all drive v8s with relatively no emissions on this forum I dont think i will upset anyone.
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
No matter what the power output, there's still just nothing like the SOUND of a V-8! Whether it's a big block Mopar or the hi-po Audi 4.2L (ever hear one of those at 8,500 rpm?). Of course any Mopar V-8 sounds the best of all
Main thing with the new engines, turbo or not, is oil changes and use synthetic oil. Even without a turbo, the variable valve timing system has small oil ports that don't take much to get plugged. With direct injection, there's the problem of carbon build up on the intake valves caused by oil vapor through the pcv system (no fuel to keep them clean). Synthetic doesn't vaporize as much or cause carbon/varnish and oil vaporizes more the more it breaks down from use and heat. At work, the cars that we tear engines apart for repair, or replace a turbo, etc are almost always the ones that have had 8,000 mile oil changes and use conventional oil. Just did timing chains on a Nissan Murano with 78,000 miles, a $3,800 job. Cause? Not changing the oil (according to the sticker, it had been almost 9,000 miles since it was last changed, besides being over 2 quarts low). On the flip side, we have customers with the same vehicle that change oil every 3,000-5,000 miles and use synthetic oil with 250,000 and the engine has never been opened.
The V8s in NASCAR are all flat plane V8s, because a flat plane crank is stronger. Its a little bit of a concern at the 9000 RPM that they run at.
I personally like the sound of Ferrari V8s, V12s, and Lamborghini V12s. I think the V10s (BMW M5/M6, Lamborghini Gallardo and some Audi S6s) sound weird. They really sound "off".
AJ/FormS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 306
Now why would you do that?First night I had car I disconnected pcv, extended pipe so it now exits onto the road, probably upset the greenies but as we all drive v8s with relatively no emissions on this forum I dont think i will upset anyone.
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
Direct injection engines can have issues with carbon build on the back of the valves, it is related to the PCV, seems in NZ its not a problem, so it must be to do with the oils used or ??? Anyway its a 20 second job and never have to worry about it.
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
AJ/FormS - You either embrace technology or you don't, you seem to embrace it, anyone who had a PC was a computer geek or nerd, but now they are the norm and you use one, people who had mobile phones were yuppies and now you probably have one, micorwave ovens were dangerous and crazy and now you probably have one, comes to an engine and it uses not so new bunch of technology in one so I have decided to give it a go.
Last edited:
AJ/FormS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 306
Well Bruce, I have no issues with science,
Scientism, well, that's another story.
When the Commodore 64 showed up, I was on it.
When EFI came to the industry, I was excited. I jumped on that right away.
When turbos showed up, I was desperate to have one.
When oxygenated fuels showed up,I embraced it.
When I learned how to manipulate Dcr and VP, I built a really nice SBM. So yeah,science and technology are our friends. Or have been until very recently.
But sometimes, just because you can do something, doesn't preclude that doing it will be a good thing. Boosted and injected mini-4s may or maynot fall into that category;time will tell.
But that doesn't mean we can't have fun until the verdict is in.So while I'm not excited about buying one of those, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same, a few years down the road.
The world today is a much different place than when my great-grandfather came to Canada in the mid 1800s. My ancestors changed with it, and so will I. So have I, and so I will continue.
Scientism, well, that's another story.
When the Commodore 64 showed up, I was on it.
When EFI came to the industry, I was excited. I jumped on that right away.
When turbos showed up, I was desperate to have one.
When oxygenated fuels showed up,I embraced it.
When I learned how to manipulate Dcr and VP, I built a really nice SBM. So yeah,science and technology are our friends. Or have been until very recently.
But sometimes, just because you can do something, doesn't preclude that doing it will be a good thing. Boosted and injected mini-4s may or maynot fall into that category;time will tell.
But that doesn't mean we can't have fun until the verdict is in.So while I'm not excited about buying one of those, that doesn't mean I'll feel the same, a few years down the road.
The world today is a much different place than when my great-grandfather came to Canada in the mid 1800s. My ancestors changed with it, and so will I. So have I, and so I will continue.
Last edited:
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
I highly recommend running a PCV on any car.
That said: some of today’s cars, because of space, because the PCV valve is too close, or has not enough baffles from the oil, or other reasons - it allows more oil gets sucked into the PCV valve than should be.
I run across this problem on European vehicles, a lot. It is like they need a large hose coming off of the valve (like 2” hose, or something), or a gallon size coffee can to use as an oil separator, or something, before PCV air goes into the intake.
Mercedes Benz uses a centrifuge, on some models, to prevent oil entering into the PCV system
For the most part Chrysler vehicles do not have much of a problem with that.
If a person installs aftermarket valve covers – that do not have a baffle, then I have seen those cars use more oil - because there is no baffle. Oil bouncing off of the rocker arms gets sucked right into the PCV valve – in those cases.
BudW
That said: some of today’s cars, because of space, because the PCV valve is too close, or has not enough baffles from the oil, or other reasons - it allows more oil gets sucked into the PCV valve than should be.
I run across this problem on European vehicles, a lot. It is like they need a large hose coming off of the valve (like 2” hose, or something), or a gallon size coffee can to use as an oil separator, or something, before PCV air goes into the intake.
Mercedes Benz uses a centrifuge, on some models, to prevent oil entering into the PCV system
For the most part Chrysler vehicles do not have much of a problem with that.
If a person installs aftermarket valve covers – that do not have a baffle, then I have seen those cars use more oil - because there is no baffle. Oil bouncing off of the rocker arms gets sucked right into the PCV valve – in those cases.
BudW
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
PCV is a anti pollution thing, old cars never used PCV valves, why would you strongly recommend it?
its ok for for carb and efi but direct injected engines suffer from carbon build up and its linked to the oil from the PCV.
its ok for for carb and efi but direct injected engines suffer from carbon build up and its linked to the oil from the PCV.
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
PCV is not really an anti-pollution thing. It may be considered as one as the previous system just vented to the atmosphere, which did increase emissions, but it isn't in the traditional sense. It is designed to vent gases from the crankcase to the intake , and burn them. This reduces pressure inside the crankcase which is a good thing. The gasses themselves are combustion gasses that leak around the piston rings, and sometimes, a very small bit of gasoline vapor ( which doesn't do the oil in the crankcase any good). It is positive in that it actually uses some of the vacuum in the intake to evacuate those gasses out, as opposed to the old system that relied on the pressure drop at the end of the hose as the car was moving.
Bruceynz
Well-Known Member
So I have blocked off the port into the intake and lengthened the pipe off the valve cover so it points at the ground, this is bad?
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
BudW can answer as to how bad or not it is. But the open tube is not as good as a working PCV valve in my mind.
AJ/FormS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 306
IMO it's a terrible idea. Sure,it works.......when the engine is running, at lower rpms and not under full-power. But after the engine is shut down,and as the engine cools it will pull unfiltered atmospheric air back into the crankcase. And the moisture in that air will condense to form water, which is not a very good bearing lubricant. Then the next time you start the engine during the warm-up period the moisture can combine with the blow-by gasses to form an acid which attacks soft metals like aluminum and babbit. As the engine warms up it drives the moisture off and out your ventilation tube. But your crankcase will always be under a mild pressure, and that is negative power.
The PCV system was designed to eliminate or reduce all these negatives.
When under full power, the PCV system may not be able to handle the blowby. In this case the system backs up thru the fresh-air supply line and it gets sucked into the intake manifold. This is where it can condense on the back of throttle valve and on the intake valves. There is no solution for this except not to create the blow-by in the first place, and that is sorta impossible. The best you can do is lessen it during the build process.
When the blowby gets excessive as in an older engine, it can get into the egr system and plug that up too.
Modern EFI engines run much cleaner than those 50s,60s,70s and 80s engines, and they have better ring technology, so... the PCV system has a much easier time of it and blow-by is not usually an issue until many,many thousands of miles have accumulated. That thing is there for a reason and smarter men than me invented it, so I tend to increase PCV flow, rather than reduce it, thinking that if a little is good, more might be better.Your results may vary,lol.
The PCV system was designed to eliminate or reduce all these negatives.
When under full power, the PCV system may not be able to handle the blowby. In this case the system backs up thru the fresh-air supply line and it gets sucked into the intake manifold. This is where it can condense on the back of throttle valve and on the intake valves. There is no solution for this except not to create the blow-by in the first place, and that is sorta impossible. The best you can do is lessen it during the build process.
When the blowby gets excessive as in an older engine, it can get into the egr system and plug that up too.
Modern EFI engines run much cleaner than those 50s,60s,70s and 80s engines, and they have better ring technology, so... the PCV system has a much easier time of it and blow-by is not usually an issue until many,many thousands of miles have accumulated. That thing is there for a reason and smarter men than me invented it, so I tend to increase PCV flow, rather than reduce it, thinking that if a little is good, more might be better.Your results may vary,lol.
Last edited:
