It sucks cause isn't the 3.5 EcoBoost a decent engine? I don't know why they decided to frick over their economy lineup for the past 2 decades. 1.X Ecoshart
Ecoboosts are all over the place. They're all totally different engines that just share a brand name and the 1.6, 2.3, and 3.5 are really solid, but some of the others are trash, and it depends on the application too - the 2.7 is fine as a base F-150 engine for example but has had a ton of trouble in the Bronco.
my 2015 2.7l f150 has had zero engine problems. 200k miles. even the 6r80 hasn't given me a hiccup with 60k service intervals. i've seen a bunch of the 2.7's with over 300k. i think they got that gen right, but i've seen a lot of problems with later gens as ford "improved" it.
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a generational thing or something to do with the application, maybe they fricked up the cooling solution for the Bronco or something. I'm hoping the Ranger version ends up solid because that'll probably be my next truck if so, really hoping they do a Tremor that keeps the regular Ranger drivetrains and payload/tow rating etc. like the last-gen did but gets the Raptor's front locker and better suspension.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
honestly i wouldn't touch an ecoboost engine unless i was planning on selling it at 100k. my f150 has worked so far, but in hindsight it was a bad purchase. i keep my vehicles till they die and the risk really wasn't worth it. factory turbo engines in general are a bad idea from a longevity perspective
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I guess we'll see as they age. I've had two, Fiesta ST that I sold around 50k miles and now a Ranger that's just over 60k and haven't had any issues with either, but that's not a lot of miles. There are guys on the Ranger forums in the high 100s on the 2.3 and still going pretty strong though. IMO there's no reason these engines SHOULDN'T be able to make at least 200k in normal use, they're not that different from the rest of the world's small diesels that go way over that all the time and are arguably under even more stress.
Personally I'd get a V8 in an F-150 just because V8, but I'm OK with a turbo 4 or a small turbo 6 in a midsize, not sure about longevity but I'd have a hard time going back to the old N/A V6s and losing all the low end of the turbos.
Ecoboosts are all over the place. They're all totally different engines that just share a brand name and the 1.6, 2.3, and 3.5 are really solid, but some of the others are trash, and it depends on the application too - the 2.7 is fine as a base F-150 engine for example but has had a ton of trouble in the Bronco.
The Ecoboost Mustang would be a beloved sportscar if not for the godawful name.
I think that the ecoboost mustang was fated to suffer just for being a non-V8 mustang. its a fun car, but itll always fall short of the muscle car image.
if they had made a smaller coupe with BRZ-esque styling and the ecoboost mustang's powertrain it would have been so cool.
it's a green engine in the same sense that canned pears are fresh. they're fresh, right out of the can. ecoboost engines are green. they generate green money for the company once they explode 1 mile outside of the warranty period.
From a marketing perspective, no, because it imprints the idea that this underpowered piece of crap is good for the environment, therefore, it's a quality product in the eyes of the easily manipulated sheeple. If you actually want a new Ford, get something with a proper V8 in it.
No, skyactiv is
>skyactiv
Agreed.
Completely cringe and annoying
Terrible name for a terrible engine.
The one pictured is fine.
Earth Dreams is way up there.
>Biopower
It sucks cause isn't the 3.5 EcoBoost a decent engine? I don't know why they decided to frick over their economy lineup for the past 2 decades. 1.X Ecoshart
Ecoboosts are all over the place. They're all totally different engines that just share a brand name and the 1.6, 2.3, and 3.5 are really solid, but some of the others are trash, and it depends on the application too - the 2.7 is fine as a base F-150 engine for example but has had a ton of trouble in the Bronco.
my 2015 2.7l f150 has had zero engine problems. 200k miles. even the 6r80 hasn't given me a hiccup with 60k service intervals. i've seen a bunch of the 2.7's with over 300k. i think they got that gen right, but i've seen a lot of problems with later gens as ford "improved" it.
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a generational thing or something to do with the application, maybe they fricked up the cooling solution for the Bronco or something. I'm hoping the Ranger version ends up solid because that'll probably be my next truck if so, really hoping they do a Tremor that keeps the regular Ranger drivetrains and payload/tow rating etc. like the last-gen did but gets the Raptor's front locker and better suspension.
honestly i wouldn't touch an ecoboost engine unless i was planning on selling it at 100k. my f150 has worked so far, but in hindsight it was a bad purchase. i keep my vehicles till they die and the risk really wasn't worth it. factory turbo engines in general are a bad idea from a longevity perspective
I guess we'll see as they age. I've had two, Fiesta ST that I sold around 50k miles and now a Ranger that's just over 60k and haven't had any issues with either, but that's not a lot of miles. There are guys on the Ranger forums in the high 100s on the 2.3 and still going pretty strong though. IMO there's no reason these engines SHOULDN'T be able to make at least 200k in normal use, they're not that different from the rest of the world's small diesels that go way over that all the time and are arguably under even more stress.
Personally I'd get a V8 in an F-150 just because V8, but I'm OK with a turbo 4 or a small turbo 6 in a midsize, not sure about longevity but I'd have a hard time going back to the old N/A V6s and losing all the low end of the turbos.
Finally, some people with brains here.
sends the right message to buyers, it's still decently fast in addition to saving fuel
what issues do you have with the name?
Anything with ECO in it is trash.
Also
>Earth Memes
>Iron Poop
Kys yourself, gm's 4.3 ecotec3 is the undisputed king of na v6's
>le ECOTEC
and for the other stuff with VORTEX TECHNOLOGY
>le VORTEC
lol fricking reddit
violence against women >:(
violence against women (karen) :O
The Ecoboost Mustang would be a beloved sportscar if not for the godawful name.
I think that the ecoboost mustang was fated to suffer just for being a non-V8 mustang. its a fun car, but itll always fall short of the muscle car image.
if they had made a smaller coupe with BRZ-esque styling and the ecoboost mustang's powertrain it would have been so cool.
Reminds me of the aftermath of the 2008 collapse when companies added the word "economy" to everything to indicate it was the lowest possible quality.
it's a green engine in the same sense that canned pears are fresh. they're fresh, right out of the can. ecoboost engines are green. they generate green money for the company once they explode 1 mile outside of the warranty period.
In Europe they all made 3 cylinders motors to dave fuel in the name of globo warming. It's a catastrophe. All cars suck
It was originally called 'twinforce'
Economical with boost
Durable and torquerich
Power in every stroke
Ford is all right
From a marketing perspective, no, because it imprints the idea that this underpowered piece of crap is good for the environment, therefore, it's a quality product in the eyes of the easily manipulated sheeple. If you actually want a new Ford, get something with a proper V8 in it.