"Ecoboost" & "hot shutdown"
03-26-2011, 12:18 PM
#1
"Ecoboost" & "hot shutdown"
I read through the 2011 manual and did not see any mention of shutdown procedures for hot engines and the ecoboost. I know this is a issue with many turbos, in fact if you do it with a new Cummins in a Volvo class A the computer will give you a hot shut down warning and log it for future warranty issues. Anybody heard anything. Having to wait for a cool down is a hassle, especially if you have a service business that involves towing and multiple stops each day.
03-26-2011, 12:23 PM
#2
Go Blue
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hudsonville, MI
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The turbos are water cooled and use convection to pull fresh coolant through them until they are sufficiently cool for the temperature gradient to cease to exist after you turn off the car. It wouldn't hurt to use a turbo timer or cool down after you work the turbos hard but there shouldn't be any major problems from overheating the turbos after towing. Let me guess, you have a 5.0 and are concern trolling?
03-26-2011, 12:31 PM
#3
The turbos are water cooled and use convection to pull fresh coolant through them until they are sufficiently cool for the temperature gradient to cease to exist after you turn off the car. It wouldn't hurt to use a turbo timer or cool down after you work the turbos hard but there shouldn't be any major problems from overheating the turbos after towing. Let me guess, you have a 5.0 and are concern trolling?
Last edited by Loki 5.0; 03-26-2011 at 12:46 PM.
03-26-2011, 03:07 PM
#4
Go Blue
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hudsonville, MI
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trolling at all, just inquiring minds must know answers to questions such as these. Given I have direct experience with turbo's as a former Commercial driver I was curious. If there is a issue would not you want to know? Regarding the eco- 5.0 running debate, I would take either engine , the reason I choose the 5.0 is it is the only one offered in the cab-bed -drive configuration that I wanted.
Sorry for the accusatory tone, just seems like a lot of 5.0 owners are looking for ways to justify their purchase recently and doing so by denigrating the ecoboost (which has benefits and drawbacks just like any engine).
03-26-2011, 03:56 PM
#5
Senior Member
All turbocharged engines are going to be harder on your oil and the direct injection will just add to that. That said, the modern water cooled ball bearing turbo doesn't need the extended cool-down period that the old sheath bushing oil cooled turbos do. Will it help? Absolutely. Will you coke your turbo oil lines if you don't? No. I had a WRX STi for 3 years and beat the ever living **** out of it. When I changed out the factory turbo for a larger one 2 years and 45,000mi in it still looked like new inside even though I never used a turbo timer or did any special cooldown procedures. I will always run a synthetic oil in any turbo car I own and I think it will be even more important in the EB given the direct injection, but I am not worried about reliability in the least with modern turbos.
Sorry for the accusatory tone, just seems like a lot of 5.0 owners are looking for ways to justify their purchase recently and doing so by denigrating the ecoboost (which has benefits and drawbacks just like any engine).
Sorry for the accusatory tone, just seems like a lot of 5.0 owners are looking for ways to justify their purchase recently and doing so by denigrating the ecoboost (which has benefits and drawbacks just like any engine).
You are right-on in your overview of the new technology turbos, e.g., the new Ford EB.
"Concern Trolling." Now that cracks me up!
I had never heard that term/label applied before; but I sure as hell at times, have had that stong perception here, in various threads/posts. 
03-26-2011, 04:01 PM
#6
Squishy Heads
Not trolling at all, just inquiring minds must know answers to questions such as these. Given I have direct experience with turbo's as a former Commercial driver I was curious. If there is a issue would not you want to know? Regarding the eco- 5.0 running debate, I would take either engine , the reason I choose the 5.0 is it is the only one offered in the cab-bed -drive configuration that I wanted.
Okay Yoda. Help you I will. muuahahahah
03-26-2011, 09:41 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it you all think that direct injection is bad for the oil? Seems to me it is injected just before top dead center and then immediately burned.
In a normally injected engine the gas mixes with the air and is sucked into the cylinder on the intake stroke, then compressed and then burned. This would give the gas a lot more contact with the cylinder wall and more chance of leaking past the rings on the compression stroke and diluting the oil.
Al
In a normally injected engine the gas mixes with the air and is sucked into the cylinder on the intake stroke, then compressed and then burned. This would give the gas a lot more contact with the cylinder wall and more chance of leaking past the rings on the compression stroke and diluting the oil.
Al
Trending Topics
03-27-2011, 02:03 AM
#8
Go Blue
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hudsonville, MI
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bigal1234
How is it you all think that direct injection is bad for the oil? Seems to me it is injected just before top dead center and then immediately burned.
In a normally injected engine the gas mixes with the air and is sucked into the cylinder on the intake stroke, then compressed and then burned. This would give the gas a lot more contact with the cylinder wall and more chance of leaking past the rings on the compression stroke and diluting the oil.
Al
In a normally injected engine the gas mixes with the air and is sucked into the cylinder on the intake stroke, then compressed and then burned. This would give the gas a lot more contact with the cylinder wall and more chance of leaking past the rings on the compression stroke and diluting the oil.
Al
03-28-2011, 12:12 PM
#9
FX4 SCrew TT'd V6
Doesn't the DI on the ecoboost inject part of the gas at the top (beginning) of the intake stroke, then the rest near the TDC?
EDIT:
I was correct, but not fully. I found this in another post and it explains what I was touching on:
EDIT:
I was correct, but not fully. I found this in another post and it explains what I was touching on:
Someone posted a thread on this a few days ago. I never noticed it until I read his thread. The next morning I looked and I indeed did get some black smoke for about 10 seconds. I also heard something that I never noticed before, and during that 10 seconds or so I could hear the turbos spool up significantly. Did some reading and found that is in the design; to get the turbos moving and warmed up quickly. It's interesting because the idle doesn't get any higher, it's just shoving some extra fuel to get em moving. At least that's how I interpret it.
Here is a small section of an article I found about the ecoboost that was written a couple years ago. It did not state that this was specifically the F-150 spec engine, but all things being equal this might explain why we are seeing some soot around the tail pipe ends when it's cold out and the engine is cold:
As said above, it appears they are making a rich mixture for quick warm up and smooth running when cold. Normal for a rich mixture when cold, but a strange approach to me. Kind of sucks actually. Seems the best thing to do is get in it and drive vs letting it idle and warm up. Not suggesting it gets hammered on until the oil temps are up to snuff, but drive it nicely while it warms.
Here is a small section of an article I found about the ecoboost that was written a couple years ago. It did not state that this was specifically the F-150 spec engine, but all things being equal this might explain why we are seeing some soot around the tail pipe ends when it's cold out and the engine is cold:
Since the system direct-injects fuel into the chamber, games can be played with the actual flow of the spray. For instance, on start up, when the engine is cold and the catalysts aren't functioning, the engine injects a half-shot of fuel into chamber on the downward stroke of the intake cycle, then, as the piston comes back for ignition, a second half-shot is fired at the piston head. Notice the shape of top of the piston (sans the CNC'd EcoBoost logo): The little trough is designed specifically to ramp that secondary spray at the spark plug — the result is a locally rich mixture good for ignition, but a globally lean mixture, great for making heat fast.
Last edited by mrpositraction; 03-28-2011 at 12:31 PM.
09-10-2011, 07:06 PM
#10
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this sentence in a Truck Trend Mag and thought it would be relevent to this thread, since this thread popped up on Google when I searched Ecoboost Cool Down.
"In early testing, it was clear the EcoBoost would use a less aggressive timing map if a proper amount of cooldown was not given. These runs were thrown out as nonrepresentative. We'd also be curious to see if higher-octane fuel would make a considerable difference in performance on the forced-induction engine."
I printed the arcticle here.
2011 Ford F-150 Comparison: V-6 vs V-8
3.5-liter EcoBoost Twin-Turbo Lariat SuperCrew
This is the first time in a long time that a V-6 has been the engine at the top of a half-ton's lineup. The EcoBoost doesn't come standard on any F-150, but pricing is aggressive: The upgrade from the 5.0-liter can cost a mere $750, depending on trim level. For that money, you add only 5 horsepower (which peaks at a lower rpm). Big deal, right? The true benefit is with torque, where the gain is 40 pound-feet (420 versus the 5.0's 380), and peak torque is at 2500 rpm as opposed to the 5.0's 4250. The EcoBoost engine doesn't sound like a V-8, but it certainly pulls like one. The twin-turbo's power delivery is much smoother than expected, with no noticeable turbo lag, and much quieter. You can hear the diverter valves, which give it a slight turbodiesel-like sound.
At 17.2 mpg, our fuel economy was within the EPA estimates at 16 mpg city/22 highway, and best of the test. Febbo feels "this is the perfect truck engine. A torque curve you can lay a ruler on and decent mileage--why do we even mess around with V-8s anymore?"
When we first set up this story, the idea was to see whether it makes more sense for buyers to get the twin-turbo V-6 or the 5.0-liter V-8. From the results at the dyno and the track, the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2. The EcoBoost F-150 was the fastest of the test, reaching 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and finishing the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95.0 mph. The last time we tested a 5.4-liter-powered F-150 (not a Raptor) was in 2009, when the four-wheel-drive Lariat took 8.1 seconds to hit 60. And we can only imagine what a regular-cab EcoBoost would feel like. That combination is available -- and would be like a modern-day Lightning.
Things got a little more complicated at the dyno, where the guys at K&N said that this was the most finicky turbocharged vehicle they had ever tested. For dyno testing, the rear wheel speed sensors had to be disconnected. The traction control would not allow operation with the front wheels stationary. But K&N completed four successful runs. Febbo explains: "In early testing, it was clear the EcoBoost would use a less aggressive timing map if a proper amount of cooldown was not given. These runs were thrown out as nonrepresentative. We'd also be curious to see if higher-octane fuel would make a considerable difference in performance on the forced-induction engine."
The dyno showed 316 rear-wheel horsepower at a peak of 5000 rpm, with 347 pound-feet of torque at 4395. The torque peaked at a much higher rpm than predicted, but if you look at the curve at 3000 rpm, the torque there is very close to what Ford's numbers show when factoring in driveline losses. There, it makes 344 pound-feet of torque on this dyno -- the curve is so flat, you'd think this was a diesel. The runs showed that the turbos don't produce full boost until above 2000 rpm. Febbo tested this further at the track with a G-Tech performance meter, and got a real boost signal. However, the torque converter doesn't lock up until 2000 rpm, and after doing several experiments holding it in gear, etc., he couldn't get it to actually accelerate under 2000 rpm. But while driving around with the windows down, he heard the turbos start to spool at about 1800. The results: The 5.0- and 6.2-liter V-8s showed an average of 22-percent driveline loss in power and torque. If that number were to be believed, you could estimate that the EcoBoost engine is actually making closer to 385 horsepower instead of the Ford-rated 365. These are best-guess theoretical numbers and should not be considered fact
Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1Xapd3IMb
"In early testing, it was clear the EcoBoost would use a less aggressive timing map if a proper amount of cooldown was not given. These runs were thrown out as nonrepresentative. We'd also be curious to see if higher-octane fuel would make a considerable difference in performance on the forced-induction engine."
I printed the arcticle here.
2011 Ford F-150 Comparison: V-6 vs V-8
3.5-liter EcoBoost Twin-Turbo Lariat SuperCrew
This is the first time in a long time that a V-6 has been the engine at the top of a half-ton's lineup. The EcoBoost doesn't come standard on any F-150, but pricing is aggressive: The upgrade from the 5.0-liter can cost a mere $750, depending on trim level. For that money, you add only 5 horsepower (which peaks at a lower rpm). Big deal, right? The true benefit is with torque, where the gain is 40 pound-feet (420 versus the 5.0's 380), and peak torque is at 2500 rpm as opposed to the 5.0's 4250. The EcoBoost engine doesn't sound like a V-8, but it certainly pulls like one. The twin-turbo's power delivery is much smoother than expected, with no noticeable turbo lag, and much quieter. You can hear the diverter valves, which give it a slight turbodiesel-like sound.
At 17.2 mpg, our fuel economy was within the EPA estimates at 16 mpg city/22 highway, and best of the test. Febbo feels "this is the perfect truck engine. A torque curve you can lay a ruler on and decent mileage--why do we even mess around with V-8s anymore?"
When we first set up this story, the idea was to see whether it makes more sense for buyers to get the twin-turbo V-6 or the 5.0-liter V-8. From the results at the dyno and the track, the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2. The EcoBoost F-150 was the fastest of the test, reaching 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and finishing the quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at 95.0 mph. The last time we tested a 5.4-liter-powered F-150 (not a Raptor) was in 2009, when the four-wheel-drive Lariat took 8.1 seconds to hit 60. And we can only imagine what a regular-cab EcoBoost would feel like. That combination is available -- and would be like a modern-day Lightning.
Things got a little more complicated at the dyno, where the guys at K&N said that this was the most finicky turbocharged vehicle they had ever tested. For dyno testing, the rear wheel speed sensors had to be disconnected. The traction control would not allow operation with the front wheels stationary. But K&N completed four successful runs. Febbo explains: "In early testing, it was clear the EcoBoost would use a less aggressive timing map if a proper amount of cooldown was not given. These runs were thrown out as nonrepresentative. We'd also be curious to see if higher-octane fuel would make a considerable difference in performance on the forced-induction engine."
The dyno showed 316 rear-wheel horsepower at a peak of 5000 rpm, with 347 pound-feet of torque at 4395. The torque peaked at a much higher rpm than predicted, but if you look at the curve at 3000 rpm, the torque there is very close to what Ford's numbers show when factoring in driveline losses. There, it makes 344 pound-feet of torque on this dyno -- the curve is so flat, you'd think this was a diesel. The runs showed that the turbos don't produce full boost until above 2000 rpm. Febbo tested this further at the track with a G-Tech performance meter, and got a real boost signal. However, the torque converter doesn't lock up until 2000 rpm, and after doing several experiments holding it in gear, etc., he couldn't get it to actually accelerate under 2000 rpm. But while driving around with the windows down, he heard the turbos start to spool at about 1800. The results: The 5.0- and 6.2-liter V-8s showed an average of 22-percent driveline loss in power and torque. If that number were to be believed, you could estimate that the EcoBoost engine is actually making closer to 385 horsepower instead of the Ford-rated 365. These are best-guess theoretical numbers and should not be considered fact
Read more: http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1Xapd3IMb