Ryninger

This has been in the back of mind for several months, and it just popped up again in another thread...

To start with I wanna clarify that I'm a very happy 5.0 owner with nothing against the EB. I don't engage in the urinating contests associated with them as I don't care. I chose the engine I wanted between the two for my preferences and tastes at this stage in my life.

I've heard and read people use the argument that the EB is going to be the less reliable engine because of more moving parts leading to more chance of failure down the road.

I'm not intimately familiar with the workings of a turbo charged engine as I've always had NA or supercharged engines, but familiar with their workings on a general level. Without dissecting schematics it would seem that there are indeed more "moving parts" and contact points when adding two additional cylinders to an engine design than adding a twin turbo setup. Leading to a greater incidence of catastrophic engine failure out of the V8 as the additional parts are internal requiring a complete tear down versus a blown turbo or associated external hardware needing replaced that may not involve internal components.

I'm not a mechanic or an engineer, just a guy who turns the occasional wrench with a theory and would love to hear from those that are more knowledgeable on the engine types. This isn't a 5.0 vs EB thread, but an informative fun discussion...

z06

Not knocking or defending either engine. But you are correct that two more cylinders involve more moving parts than two turbos. As to which one is going to last longer, check back in a few 100,000 miles.

montanaman

I don't worry about numbers of moving parts at all.

I remember when Suzuki's GS1100e came out in 1980, 4 valves per cylinder, etc., and everybody was worried about the complexity of them - and now in 2011 my 5.0 has 4V cylinders -

The ecoboost really is the best of both worlds - good power, good mileage, depending on what it's mission is for that day.

I wouldn't worry about longevity anymore - look at all the turbos anymore - they're on everything.

I won't buy an ecoboost myself though, until I can alter the program. Not an add-on, but to be able to change tires, gears, speedo setting, top speed limiter, etc.

The day is coming - I have faith in the hot-rodders

DieselDawg

That is why I loved racing mazda wankels (12A and 12B rotarys) with basically 3 moving parts...no valve train, no lifters, no connecting rods and so on! As long as this EcoBoost is built to handle the "pressure" (pun intended)...I will be happy.

DieselDawg

If I was in Montana, I would be hard pressed NOT to buy an EcoBoost. I used to live in Butte (actually Walkerville which is gone now by the Badger Mine)...got relatives in Helena, Bozeman, Billings and so on. I think Montana would be the perfect place for an EcoBoost.

kulak

A Houston based car repair radio show warned listeners today about buying an ecoboost if they are not maitainence freaks. Without proper maintainence (3-4k mi synthetic oil changes) don't expect more than a 100k mi without expensive problems.

Just relaying summary.

MT-Ford

This is a big state we need big engines. LOL

montanaman

"I think Montana would be the perfect place for an EcoBoost."


Except for the fact that until we can tune one they have a top speed of 96mph - even going down Homestake Pass flat out

NASSTY

I wonder what they are basing this theory from? Considering the fact that the Ecoboost test engine had over 160k on it and it was running fine and looked fine after the teardown.They were also going way over the recommended oil change intervals.

matt99

The only thing that would worry me is the heat and all of our trucks plastic parts.

They have been sticking turbos on cars for 20+ years and people only have major problems when they are modified or not maintained. I didnt really care which one I got, getting out of the Dodge was my biggest goal!