7 Stupid Ford (EcoBoost) Engine Habits that are KILLING your Turbo

[jjack50]

Nah, blow-by and FOD can look exactly like that.
I've been running, racing, and dealing with turbos since around 1990 and have seen them that looked like that.

Not in a modern street car with a proper air box and filtration system. I can't imagine that anyone who owns and operates a modern, factory turbo, even or maybe especially off-road, will run without filtration. That's nonsense. It is also not the target demographic for that video. Also PCV vapors enter the intake stream after the turbos on eco boost engines when not under boost and not directly when under boost.

Sponsored

 

[jjack50]

This right here is the answer. I have worked for American OEMs, Tier 1, and Tier 2 suppliers. They'll never publish that they plan for things to break at a certain point, but it is absolutely true, in a round-about way.

See, they force themselves to meet 100k testing for as many components as possible. That is the point at which the financial guys start looking for ways to cut costs - 'what can we do to save money without sacrificing 100k?' Might be small design changes to save on material, processing changes, material changes, etc. And as noted, if it lasts 'too long' then they want to do whatever they can to get it closer to 100k.

Now, that is for American OEMs. Toyota and most of your other Eastern OEMs, they don't follow that guideline - they WANT their stuff to last as long as it can, because their culture isn't as much about 'How much money can we make?' but rather 'How can we make our products better for the consumer, that will keep bringing them back and taking money away from our competitors?' Sure, their growth doesn't show as explosive gains, but it is steady and continuous.

You should watch Valvoline' 500,000 mile engine teardown for 2 2.3l eco boost engines they ran to test the difference between their full synthetic and synthetic blend oils when following Ford's oil change recommendations. It is available on YouTube.

 

[timhood]

My favorite part of this AI-driven video is when he talked about the F "one hundred and fifty" truck's towing capability. Maybe there's a part of the country I'm not aware of where people pronounce it that way?

 

[BroncoChallenger]

You should watch Valvoline' 500,000 mile engine teardown for 2 2.3l eco boost engines they ran to test the difference between their full synthetic and synthetic blend oils when following Ford's oil change recommendations. It is available on YouTube.

But did they actually drive it for 500k, or did they just set it on a dyno and let it rip for the equivalent of 500k? One puts more wear on the engine than the other.

And I have a hard time trusting an oil brand's results...give me something from an independent lab that has absolutely no skin in the game, because they're going to be a LOT less biased.

 

[timhood]

And I have a hard time trusting an oil brand's results...give me something from an independent lab that has absolutely no skin in the game, because they're going to be a LOT less biased.

Good luck with that. What independent lab is going to have the deep pockets needed to buy an engine, run it for 500K miles, tear it down, analyze it, and report those results? Now multiply that by 5 or 10 major oils. How do they get their return on investment?

Toyota and most of your other Eastern OEMs, they don't follow that guideline - they WANT their stuff to last as long as it can, because their culture isn't as much about 'How much money can we make?' but rather 'How can we make our products better for the consumer, that will keep bringing them back and taking money away from our competitors?'

That doesn't make sense. The drive for quality is about competition. Automakers need to induce customers to purchase their products, and if competitors are building products that last 3, 4, 5 times longer, why would someone choose theirs? Sure, there are trade-offs that have to be made when engineering and producing for cost, longevity, performance, etc, but there is no fixed mandate of "build it so it only lasts x miles." By that standard, Ford must hate me (and everyone who was responsible for designing and building my vehicles) because two of them have already lasted far beyond their "planned obsolescence," and I didn't even do anything special to maintain them. (The third is the Bronco, which isn't anywhere near the mileage.)

 

[userdude]

Good luck with that. What independent lab is going to have the deep pockets needed to buy an engine, run it for 500K miles, tear it down, analyze it, and report those results? Now multiply that by 5 or 10 major oils. How do they get their return on investment?


That doesn't make sense. The drive for quality is about competition. Automakers need to induce customers to purchase their products, and if competitors are building products that last 3, 4, 5 times longer, why would someone choose theirs? Sure, there are trade-offs that have to be made when engineering and producing for cost, longevity, performance, etc, but there is no fixed mandate of "build it so it only lasts x miles." By that standard, Ford must hate me (and everyone who was responsible for designing and building my vehicles) because two of them have already lasted far beyond their "planned obsolescence," and I didn't even do anything special to maintain them. (The third is the Bronco, which isn't anywhere near the mileage.)

Ok, so planned obsolescence is a real thing and really was a manufacturing model used by the American automobile manufacturers for decades. This was based mainly on a captive market where the producers were able to prevent competition. It wasn't even hidden.

I say was because in the late 80's Bush the Elder allowed Japanese imports to flood the American market and their longer lasting, better-built vehicles became best sellers cuz hell, American cars in the 80's and 90's weren't worth a damn. Anybody remember the doors falling off Thunderbirds in the late 80's? The "mistake" of the car paint that was somehow resolved in the late 90's for the most part? Shock and horror.

So that whole fiasco American car manufacturers went through with the bankruptcies and gov't bailouts in the late aughts? That was digging out of the morass they'd made for themselves in the preceding decades and retooling to make vehicles that would compete with better made foreign manufacturing processes. Oh, real competition on large purchases for the win? I'd say, that and fire the MBAs cutting for "value".

 

[Badrap]

Think I'll keep hammering the living shit out of my 3.0, run Amsoil with FR3, drink beer while off-roading, rail the ol' lady in the back seat and use the extended warranty as a safety net.

 

[jjack50]

But did they actually drive it for 500k, or did they just set it on a dyno and let it rip for the equivalent of 500k? One puts more wear on the engine than the other.

And I have a hard time trusting an oil brand's results...give me something from an independent lab that has absolutely no skin in the game, because they're going to be a LOT less biased.

Watch the video. I think you will find your answers there. Of course they put their products in a good light but I think they did a good job. Its 500,000 miles of running, not 100,000.

 

[timhood]

Ok, so planned obsolescence is a real thing and really was a manufacturing model used by the American automobile manufacturers for decades. This was based mainly on a captive market where the producers were able to prevent competition. It wasn't even hidden.

I say was because in the late 80's Bush the Elder allowed Japanese imports to flood the American market, and their longer-lasting, better-built vehicles became best sellers cuz hell, American cars in the 80's and 90's weren't worth a damn. Anybody remember the doors falling off Thunderbirds in the late 80's? The "mistake" of the car paint that was somehow resolved in the late 90's, for the most part? Shock and horror.

So that whole fiasco American car manufacturers went through with the bankruptcies and gov't bailouts in the late aughts? That was digging out of the morass they'd made for themselves in the preceding decades and retooling to make vehicles that would compete with better-made foreign manufacturing processes. Oh, real competition on large purchases for the win? I'd say that and fire the MBAs cutting for "value".

At the risk of belaboring this divergence from the topic, I'll finalize with these thoughts:

The term "planned obsolescence" is overused. It implies that substandard design and manufacturing is by choice of desiring a reduced life of the final product rather than engineering or production incompetence, or simply allowing for evolving improvements. True planned obsolescence requires cooperation among competitors, or in the very least, a market that won't tolerate the additional costs required to make a substantially improved product. Certainly beginning in the late '60s through the '80s, U.S. auto manufacturers believed they would always control the U.S. market, and where foreign competition would exist, it would represent only a minority of market share.

While early Asian auto products were cheaper than U.S. products, initially, they were often lower quality, trading a cheaper cost for an inferior product. Autos lacked features and performed poorly in NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness), but the motors lasted well. Those early products were crappy cars that wouldn't die (relatively speaking). This allowed Asian manufacturers a chance to gain a foothold and build market share, eventually improving the quality of the rest of the vehicle.

Today, U.S. manufacturers are forced to compete with foreign products because the U.S. consumer will not tolerate inferiority just because the manufacturer is a U.S. company. The discussion becomes too complicated regarding the reasons why some U.S. products fall short of foreign competition, but there are plenty of examples where U.S. products are as good or better than foreign (even Asian) products. The bottom line is that any auto manufacturer must build a vehicle that is reasonably reliable for the current standard, with features and a price comparable to competitors. When a manufacturer earns a reputation for failing to meet those criteria, it loses market share and risks extinction. Planned obsolescence now means planned extinction.

And to redirect this back on topic, several of the points made in that AI-generated video aren't even valid for modern turbo-charged motors. Some of the others are generic advice that applies to any vehicle.

 

[demos1970]

Found this video today talking about maintenance and usage tips to prolong the EcoBoost engines in our Broncos. Most of us will know about these but sounds like he's talking from a lot of experience working on these engines and if anything a couple of the reminders seem good to review.

I saw this too. I never understood why the auto Start/Stop function was ever considered fuel efficient. There’s another out there to help save Ford transmissions. That one is also pretty good. If I find it again I’ll post it.

 

[BroncoChallenger]

The term "planned obsolescence" is overused. It implies that substandard design and manufacturing is by choice of desiring a reduced life of the final product rather than engineering or production incompetence, or simply allowing for evolving improvements. True planned obsolescence requires cooperation among competitors, or in the very least, a market that won't tolerate the additional costs required to make a substantially improved product. Certainly beginning in the late '60s through the '80s, U.S. auto manufacturers believed they would always control the U.S. market, and that where foreign competition would exist, it would represent only a minority of market share.

The fact of the matter is, the US-based OEMs still do this stuff, even though no, there is no 'fixed mandate' for it. It's part and parcel of their testing. Call it planned obsolescence, call it cutting corners and/or costs, call it whatever - but it is still happening, and greedy investors are going to keep it going for the foreseeable future.

They test everything to a simulated 100k miles and run safety rating tests. If the part passes, it hits production...but there are teams of engineers who answer directly to accounting, whose SOLE JOB is to find ways to either charge their customers more, OR save money on a product, and pass as little of the savings on to the customer as possible. I know this because I WAS ONE.

Now, looking at this as a Tier 1, sometimes it's an improvement that will push quality of some kind up (actual or perceived), and costs more to do it, so the customer is hit up for a higher percentage (say it costs $.05, the customer gets charged $.08 or $.10 more). Sometimes it's changing a supplier that cuts costs, then the contract with the customer has to be reviewed - if it says any savings must be passed along, then some percentage gets passed on. If not, then the savings all goes in the company's pocket. Maybe it's a processing change. Maybe the part was passing its testing TOO WELL, and so if we cut a little material out or change the processing slightly or even change the actual material, it will still pass its testing...but the company gets to save money on it.

This stuff happens ALL THE TIME in the auto industry, ESPECIALLY at US-based firms. It used to be common knowledge, but they've done a pretty good smoke-and-mirrors show of hiding it in the last few decades.

 

[Ducati1098]

There’s another out there to help save Ford transmissions. That one is also pretty good. If I find it again I’ll post it.

If you’re talking about this one that has been going around:


It’s not any good at all lol
Just another awful AI video full of inaccurate “information” disguised as credible facts, and yet people believe every bit of it.

 

[demos1970]

If you’re talking about this one that has been going around:


It’s not any good at all lol
Just another awful AI video full of inaccurate “information” disguised as credible facts, and yet people believe every bit of it.

I haven’t seen that one. This is the one I was referring to.

 

[Ducati1098]

I haven’t seen that one. This is the one I was referring to.

Yeah this basically the same style of video. Just classic clickbait AI-slop fear mongering people into thinking things are destroying their transmission when there’s absolutely no proof or even reasonable logic to the majority of it.
Very tiny amount of validity to maybe 1 or 2 of these claims, but overall far overblown or massively exaggerated at best.

I almost had to stop watching when it claimed the TCC was locked when the vehicle shut off for auto start stop that doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense.

 

[Aknobronco]

Not in a modern street car with a proper air box and filtration system. I can't imagine that anyone who owns and operates a modern, factory turbo, even or maybe especially off-road, will run without filtration. That's nonsense. It is also not the target demographic for that video. Also PCV vapors enter the intake stream after the turbos on eco boost engines when not under boost and not directly when under boost.

FYI, Ford factory Air filter sucks bag of shit. Less than 3k miles on road driving, its already full of dirt and deformed. Good job Jim Fartley!!!

Highly recommend quality good aftermarket drop in filter.

Sponsored