The Natural Order of the Automotive Universe Prevails Once Again

[Eye of the Tiger]

Water cooled turbos have been around forever, and it seems like they are not immune to premature failure when subjected to the typical consumer.

[SVT32V]

Honda had one in the first gen RDX but for the 2nd get they dumped it for their corporate 3.5L V6 (and it got faster, better MPG, and far less NVH). 

The RDX was a low compression engine (8.8:1), not really taking advantage of the efficiency gains to be found with modern high compression FI/DI motors.  This is in line with the poor power levels for such a large turbo 4 cyl.

[FoMoJo]

Water cooled turbos have been around forever, and it seems like they are not immune to premature failure when subjected to the typical consumer.

Time will tell with the EcoBoost.  Ford estimates 10 years or 150k miles of reliability.  Guess it will depend on usage and maintenance.

[GoCougs]

Time will tell with the EcoBoost.  Ford estimates 10 years or 150k miles of reliability.  Guess it will depend on usage and maintenance.

So who isn't going to be pissed to have to put $3,000+ worth of turbos on a 8-12 year-old F150?

[GoCougs]

The RDX was a low compression engine (8.8:1), not really taking advantage of the efficiency gains to be found with modern high compression FI/DI motors.  This is in line with the poor power levels for such a large turbo 4 cyl.

IMO Honda just accepted what Ford is seeing with the F150 EB - when driven normally turbos don't offer any MPG advantage over an equivalent and larger N/A motor.

[GoCougs]

Hmmm. I was surprised by this. Looks the new N/A motors (and pooprod no less) are gaming the EPA test just as good as the turbo motor (city/highway/combined for 2014 MY):

F-150 EB V6 4WD
15/21/17

Silverado 6.2L 4WD
14/20/17

Ram 5.7L 4WD
15/21/17

[FoMoJo]

Hmmm. I was surprised by this. Looks the new N/A motors (and pooprod no less) are gaming the EPA test just as good as the turbo motor (city/highway/combined for 2014 MY):

F-150 EB V6 4WD
15/21/17

Silverado 6.2L 4WD
14/20/17

Ram 5.7L 4WD
15/21/17

You must realize that it's 90% marketing and 10% reality.  Ram claims its 8 speed transmission will perform miracles and Chevy is claiming their cylinder deactivation can function as efficiently as a 4 cylinder engine.  Ford's advantage is that it got out front with its EcoBoost name.  It's become recognizable as the standard for fuel efficiency.  Chevy/GM usually wins in the marketing game, so this is an, almost, first for Ford.

[MX793]

You must realize that it's 90% marketing and 10% reality.  Ram claims its 8 speed transmission will perform miracles and Chevy is claiming their cylinder deactivation can function as efficiently as a 4 cylinder engine.  Ford's advantage is that it got out front with its EcoBoost name.  It's become recognizable as the standard for fuel efficiency.  Chevy/GM usually wins in the marketing game, so this is an, almost, first for Ford.

Those numbers aren't just made up.  They're generated from a standardized test.

I would point out that the F-150 is the heaviest of the half-ton segment, comparing like configuration to like configuration.  The extended cab EB 4x4 F150 is 100+ lbs heavier than the extended cab Silverado 6.2 4x4 (can't get the 6.2 in the regular cab).  The regular cab 5.3L 4x4 Silverado is 500 lbs lighter than the regular cab EB 4x4.  The regular cab EB 4x4 F150 is 300+ lbs heavier than a regular cab 5.7L Ram 1500 4x4.

[GoCougs]

You must realize that it's 90% marketing and 10% reality.  Ram claims its 8 speed transmission will perform miracles and Chevy is claiming their cylinder deactivation can function as efficiently as a 4 cylinder engine.  Ford's advantage is that it got out front with its EcoBoost name.  It's become recognizable as the standard for fuel efficiency.  Chevy/GM usually wins in the marketing game, so this is an, almost, first for Ford.

As stated, those numbers are from the US government fuel economy tests (fueleconomy.gov).

"EcoBoost" marketing has gone poorly for Ford. The 2.0T failed in the Taurus, Edge and Explorer (same real-world MPG as the V6 yet under performs) and civil class actions suits abound regarding F150 EcoBoost.

[FoMoJo]

As stated, those numbers are from the US government fuel economy tests (fueleconomy.gov).

"EcoBoost" marketing has gone poorly for Ford. The 2.0T failed in the Taurus, Edge and Explorer (same real-world MPG as the V6 yet under performs) and civil class actions suits abound regarding F150 EcoBoost.

Still, the sales are increasing.

[SVT32V]

IMO Honda just accepted what Ford is seeing with the F150 EB - when driven normally turbos don't offer any MPG advantage over an equivalent and larger N/A motor.

Just as likely they put out a poor performing low compression turbo 4 and let it languish for 7 or 8 model years without upgrades.

[GoCougs]

Just as likely they put out a poor performing low compression turbo 4 and let it languish for 7 or 8 model years without upgrades.

But it's happening with brand new engines too; EcoBoost as described and in the Camcord class the (10+ year old) V6s in the Japanese sedans get just as good real-world MPG as the new turbo-4s in the Fusion, Malibu, Sonata and Optima.

[SVT32V]

The ludicrous 2016 CAFE mileage is looming on the horizon, gaming the EPA mileage test system is the task at hand. The govt doesn't much care about the real world.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The ludicrous 2016 CAFE mileage is looming on the horizon, gaming the EPA mileage test system is the task at hand. The govt doesn't much care about the real world.

Since the 2016 CAFE regs are bases on the footprint of a vehicle (wheelbase*track), I can see some cars getting widened and stretched as a substitute for improving fuel economy.

[Soup DeVille]

Since the 2016 CAFE regs are bases on the footprint of a vehicle (wheelbase*track), I can see some cars getting widened and stretched as a substitute for improving fuel economy.

I hadn't realized that. Like most of these regulations, it makes little sense.

I'm guessing that's going to mean bad things for hot hatches.