GM Inside News Forum banner
61 - 80 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
All the more reason GM should leave out their TTV6 and stay out of the fiasco that has become of this ecoboost craze. Ram won't put a TTV6 in theirs, they are coming out with a diesel instead. All the ecoboost did was make the 5.0 much more low volume and look weak and make the 6.2L extremely expensive so nobody would buy it except in niche trim levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Amazing, I'm somehow just too slow ( and probably too clumsy at least in part ) for some of these Ford threads.

Thankfully, only happens within those kind .....

Just lost the third post here....... which brings me to about four or five over the last couple of days.
 

·
Back!
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
Nonsense. His story is also well documented on the f150 forums. Maybe it's just that you do not want to believe it.
Well, certainly, the one thing we do know here is that you absolutely do want to believe that it is true. But then, that isn't a surprise, and realistically you've really only served to prove my point, but then we all knew it to be true already anyway. This may or not be an accurate story, there's simply no way to know, and the reality that there have been issues with EB engines has nothing to do with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
Well, certainly, the one thing we do know here is that you absolutely do want to believe that it is true. But then, that isn't a surprise, and realistically you've really only served to prove my point, but then we all knew it to be true already anyway. This may or not be an accurate story, there's simply no way to know, and the reality that there have been issues with EB engines has nothing to do with that.
His conjecture is as good as yours.
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
The level of spin, and the level of Ford apologists on this great site has grown to a point that Ford is almost always held in a favorable light. Direct injection turbocharged gasoline engines have their own inherent issues , and quite simply if their longevity was as most assume it to be over the road trucks would utilize this engine concept.

To the original poster welcome to GMi, and we hope that you will stay. Please enjoy the community , and do not let this thread lead you to believe that this great site isn't a safe haven for those that own, and hold GM in high regard.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,313 Posts
The level of spin, and the level of Ford apologists on this great site has grown to a point that Ford is almost always held in a favorable light. Direct injection turbocharged gasoline engines have their own inherent issues , and quite simply if their longevity was as most assume it to be over the road trucks would utilize this engine concept.

To the original poster welcome to GMi, and we hope that you will stay. Please enjoy the community , and do not let this thread lead you to believe that this great site isn't a safe haven for those that own, and hold GM in high regard.
The issue as I see it is not the Ecoboost engine as such, it is Ford not stepping in to remedy problems.
None of this needed to be an issue if Ford made good on its word and helped a few affected buyers.

A bit of sympathy and assistance to owners in trouble is worth millions in good PR and advertising..
I thought Ford would be on board with this idea and turn it into positive spin.... oh well, silly me.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,817 Posts
That was more or less my point.
I don't read anywhere where impala02 'absolutely wants to believe that (the failure) is true'. All he did was state that there was more information provided on another forum, in addition to the photographic evidence shown here.

This is not the usual "copy and paste" comment trolled on 48 forums. It may or may not be true. With what information has been provided, and the written demeanor of the OP, I find it difficult to dismiss arbitrarily as have you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
I don't think this is a huge surprise generally. I know if I was buying an F-150 it would be a 5.0. But I think the LS-based motors are the simpler and better design to own, especially at high miles. Still dreaming of doing a 5.3 swap in an S-10 someday..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
400 Posts
The level of spin, and the level of Ford apologists on this great site has grown to a point that Ford is almost always held in a favorable light. Direct injection turbocharged gasoline engines have their own inherent issues , and quite simply if their longevity was as most assume it to be over the road trucks would utilize this engine concept.
Thank you Germeezy1! I am glad someone else here sees the truth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,050 Posts
Well, certainly, the one thing we do know here is that you absolutely do want to believe that it is true. But then, that isn't a surprise, and realistically you've really only served to prove my point, but then we all knew it to be true already anyway. This may or not be an accurate story, there's simply no way to know, and the reality that there have been issues with EB engines has nothing to do with that.
More nonsense on your part. Where did I ever state that I want the story to be true? I never stated it in this post, nor have I stated it in any other post. Just more conjecture on your part. Plain and simple. You stated, albeit indirectly, that the OP is a troll without anything to support your accusation and I simply countered that with additional information suggesting that he may actually have had a genuine problem. So please, syr74, do me a favor and prove to me that I "absolutely do want to believe that it (engine failure) is true." Forget proof, just show me where I have even suggested that I want it to be true.

What would my motivation be for wishing that someone's engine just blew up? Are you trying to say that I have something against the Ecoboost engine by Ford? I don't think that any of my previous posts would suggest that I am anti-Ecoboost or that I want them to fail.

I don't read anywhere where impala02 'absolutely wants to believe that (the failure) is true'. All he did was state that there was more information provided on another forum, in additional the the photographic evidence shown here.

This is not the usual "copy and paste" comment trolled on 48 forums. It may or may not be true. With what information has been provided, and the written demeanor of the OP, I find it difficult to dismiss arbitrarily as have you.
Exactly! How that gets misconstrued into "you absolutely do want to believe that it is true" is beyond me.


Any update from Ecoboom?
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
Imagine if you will a great GM site where those who own, and hold GM in high regard are ran off when they even speak of their bad experiences or thoughts on Ford.
 

·
Back!
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
I don't read anywhere where impala02 'absolutely wants to believe that (the failure) is true'. All he did was state that there was more information provided on another forum, in addition to the photographic evidence shown here.

This is not the usual "copy and paste" comment trolled on 48 forums. It may or may not be true. With what information has been provided, and the written demeanor of the OP, I find it difficult to dismiss arbitrarily as have you.
And I'll happily invite you to point out where I said I didn't want to believe it's true. Once again, you're just proving my point. As for the comments, if that meets your sniff test criteria be my guest, but being long winded and overly-detailed has never been a criteria I've see used to determine legitimacy. If that was the case Germeezy would be the King of 'truthiness'. I'm not saying it is true, I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying there's nothing to prove either out and that, on a GM website, a topic focused on bashing Ford is all but useless for obvious reasons.

Impala02 said:
More nonsense on your part. Where did I ever state that I want the story to be true? I never stated it in this post, nor have I stated it in any other post. Just more conjecture on your part. Plain and simple. You stated, albeit indirectly, that the OP is a troll without anything to support your accusation and I simply countered that with additional information suggesting that he may actually have had a genuine problem. So please, syr74, do me a favor and prove to me that I "absolutely do want to believe that it (engine failure) is true." Forget proof, just show me where I have even suggested that I want it to be true.
And again, where did I say that I don't want it to be true? What you are effectively arguing here is that assumptions you make are fantastic but the assumptions of those with an opposing viewpoint aren't, which ironically has the affect of casting doubt upon the objectivity you and Barry are insisting that you have. As for 'proving' that you want it to be true, I'll make you a deal. You prove the validity of your insinuation first and then I'll prove mine. And no, adding a 'maybe' in there doesn't buy you any extra credit here no matter what they told you on the internet. They're both unprovable, but if you want to pick nits I easily have a better basis for mine than do you. I simply observed the obvious, you seemingly took offense to it and did so rather quickly. If you're as objective as you claim, then what's the problem?

Impala02 said:
What would my motivation be for wishing that someone's engine just blew up? Are you trying to say that I have something against the Ecoboost engine by Ford? I don't think that any of my previous posts would suggest that I am anti-Ecoboost or that I want them to fail.
I was making a point, which was effectively that I didn't think you could take what you were dishing out and that, as such, I felt you overstepped the bounds of reason way to early in the debate. That there is a major opportunity for inherent bias on any manufacturer focused website isn't wishful thinking, it's common sense. Do I think the EB V-6 is trouble free? Of course not, you couldn't visit a Ford truck forum and not know better. Do I think somebody complaining about the same on a GM forum poses a credibility problem. Seriously? Does that really warrant a response? You should see what they say about GM on the Honda and Toyota forums, it's just not realistic to pay attention to it unless there is some measure of objectivity, not on those venues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Imagine if you will a great GM site where those who own, and hold GM in high regard are ran off when they even speak of their bad experiences or thoughts on Ford.
Imagine a Great GM site, where those who own and build GM's actually listen to other GM end users.

I realize that this is a Ford Atfault thread and Ford should be listening.

Through the years I owned several GM's 10 to be exact. I had some problems. That I won't get into. I have also had some Ford problems.

What I don't get is GM's seemingly Blind Eye to them. Intake Gaskets, Fuel Pumps. The 1 thing they did update was the Torision springs on my Safari van. Wound up replacing both sides and the spring holders for the tune of $1300.

Look at it as Constructive Critisim, rather than Bashing GM.

Look at Ford's ill fated 5.4L 3Valve spark plug issues, Ford did fix them by 2008. 4 years after the problem was first installed in a F150.

Silverado problematic intake gaskets, were first used in the early 90's, and continued into the late 2000's over multiple engine lines. Fuel pumps even longer.

The Asian Imports of the 70's rotted away within 4 years. Really tarnishing the rep. Did they keep building them that way? No they fixed thier problems and now are some of the soundest on the road.

Hyundia Pony 1987 was a disposable car with a 3-4 year shelf life. They fixed thier problems and look at them go now.

So if Ford and GM built such great reliable cars, if there was a problem they backed them for the customer, if not under warranty, they updated the next car you purchased from them to not have the same problems. They had a combined 60% market share in the 80's. Your parents always drove them. Then why the migration? To subprime cars of the previous era.

Blinders being on is what has placed GM where it is today. Minus Olds, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Saab. The later 2 was good rididance. 3/4 of it's dealers gone, and struggling for 15% market share.

Mulally sees that he has to build Brand Image again. That it is not the 70's anymore and people will not buy just because it is what they grew up in.

I have never once said that Ford is perfect. But I am saying that GM could do some listening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I'm not a a fan of turbo chargers on gas engines period!
They make the engine work too hard. Need the torque, then you need a big thirsty engine, simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Bottom line here is that Ford touted the countless hours of durability testing this engine underwent, yet, there are failures, as I predicted, and there will be more. You only buy this hype if you are TOTALLY clueless about the workings of engines and are mechanically inept. Those of us who's witnessed turbo or supercharger failure aren't so easily convinced.

I sincerely hope GM resists the temptation to follow this lead with Ford. This is nothing more than a temporary bragging right for Ford, and Ford will abandon this very soon.

Davevolt, sooner or later people will come to realize that there is no FREE ride. You gain something here, you LOSE something there. Ford is simply capitalizing on the very many uninformed consumers out there. I, too, will take the minimal mileage penalty that a larger, naturally aspirated engine may exact for the the same or superior performance. If the LS engines were available in ALL vehicle categories, that's what I would choose, EVERYTIME. Even the pushrod 3.8 V6s attained better mileage than these modern ohc 3.6s. And while they may have had lower redlines, they FELT fast off the line without revving to 5k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Interesting.

EcoBoom has, in an over all sense, received a far better welcome, treatment, and discussion at some of the Ford / F150 forums.
 

·
Firebird Concept (the turbine one)
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
Interesting.

EcoBoom has, in an over all sense, received a far better welcome, treatment, and discussion at some of the Ford / F150 forums.
Because the Ford shills, and apologists are here making sure that nothing ever is said to put Ford in a bad light. Most true Ford enthusiasts myself included understand that Ford has also made many mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes moving forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
Bottom line here is that Ford touted the countless hours of durability testing this engine underwent, yet, there are failures, as I predicted, and there will be more. You only buy this hype if you are TOTALLY clueless about the workings of engines and are mechanically inept. Those of us who's witnessed turbo or supercharger failure aren't so easily convinced.

I sincerely hope GM resists the temptation to follow this lead with Ford. This is nothing more than a temporary bragging right for Ford, and Ford will abandon this very soon.

Davevolt, sooner or later people will come to realize that there is no FREE ride. You gain something here, you LOSE something there. Ford is simply capitalizing on the very many uninformed consumers out there. I, too, will take the minimal mileage penalty that a larger, naturally aspirated engine may exact for the the same or superior performance. If the LS engines were available in ALL vehicle categories, that's what I would choose, EVERYTIME. Even the pushrod 3.8 V6s attained better mileage than these modern ohc 3.6s. And while they may have had lower redlines, they FELT fast off the line without revving to 5k.
Truely? This is 1 engine. I have seen a 350 SBC unloaded off of the Auto Carrier that needed an engine. Due to the Cam Bearings being out of line with the oil passages.

And 113000+kms in 2 years is alot of driving. Not saying that there may not be an issue but you cannot judge them from this 1 post.

I feel for his problems, and wish Ford would have done something different to sweep this whole thinh under the table. Not busting any balls here, but Ford isn't stepping up to the plate to salvage the Ecoboost name. And Ecoboom is out 1 ride. I think there Maybe more to this storey than we are hearing.

AWA or (After Warranty Adjustment) would pay something, not all but more than likley 1/3, of the bill. So that gets me thinking a Chip, or lack of servicing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Bottom line here is that Ford touted the countless hours of durability testing this engine underwent, yet, there are failures, as I predicted, and there will be more. You only buy this hype if you are TOTALLY clueless about the workings of engines and are mechanically inept. Those of us who's witnessed turbo or supercharger failure aren't so easily convinced.

I sincerely hope GM resists the temptation to follow this lead with Ford. This is nothing more than a temporary bragging right for Ford, and Ford will abandon this very soon.

Davevolt, sooner or later people will come to realize that there is no FREE ride. You gain something here, you LOSE something there. Ford is simply capitalizing on the very many uninformed consumers out there. I, too, will take the minimal mileage penalty that a larger, naturally aspirated engine may exact for the the same or superior performance. If the LS engines were available in ALL vehicle categories, that's what I would choose, EVERYTIME. Even the pushrod 3.8 V6s attained better mileage than these modern ohc 3.6s. And while they may have had lower redlines, they FELT fast off the line without revving to 5k.
Yep.


Except....if GM came with it , they wouldn't half ass it.

Nor would they run a Mickey Mouse / window dressing /marketing inspired durability test like the Ford One. Ooops, I mean like the one Ford ran.

In terms of real world value, not half as impressive as they would like you to think.


That actually was the first clue - all hat no cattle and they talked like they just had won a decade's worth @ Indy.


It is not my first nor second, nor third choice in terms of a prime mover configuration for a Pick Up, but the problems here have to do with Ford's execution, quality of engineering support, and finally as others have said, customer support, + a clear desire to go cheap and not with the configuration itself.

With regard to a strong V6TT, d results different from a well done diesel or simple ohv gasser 'whatever' - would come later.


The other thing is..... it is not just about water - oil is reported as well.

Lot of ways or aspects to a ****ty OEM charge cooler; Ford hit enough of them here - and we don't know all of the intercooler story do we - Ford hit enough of them here that one must next ask yourself; what else did they miss with a clearly incomplete development program ?


Not sayin' they did ( yes, I'm deliberately over looking some things ) but that question is now fair game.


The lack of modulation and variable optimization for the charge cooler - is stunning.


One must also wonder about hot and cold spots.... and ice.


And why some report oil being removed from the cooler.
 
61 - 80 of 84 Posts
Top