Gm's Rebutall For The Eco-boost

[MikeNH]

 

 

If you do buy one you won't be disappointed they are a real nice car inside and out!

 

 

 

I've already out one thorough it's paces pretty well. I had one (nice LTZ-spec car) for a week when I was in Ohio and drove it all over the place visiting a few different customers. I was very impressed by it. I just wish GM would follow VW's example and offer a diesel across their car lineup as the Cruze is still a small car, I'd be all over a diesel Malibu.

[NoMoreGM4Me]

It'll happen...give it a few years.

 

Mazda is also planning on bringing their new Clean Diesel tehcnology to the US next year. It will pass clean diesel requirements without the use of Urea Injection.

[arz71]

Anyone with common-sense will know that the Ford Ecoboost will go down in history like the infamous other wonders of engineering.

 

 

I could careless if it makes 500hp, what good is it when it grenades and/or breaks. The Ecoboost is marketed to a bunch of crash-test dummies ready to pay BIG dollars to beta-test a car engine with turbo's on it.

 

Has anyone read about all of the problems with these trucks, muchless transmission problems.

 

Ford if famous for electrical problems, how many ignition switches burned them to the ground. Did people forget about this, I had a F150 and after 2 of them in late 80's early 90's I was DONE with them. I don't care if they tested the engine in the Baja it is NOT the same as REAL ownership in the field.

 

I can't believe the love affair with a turbo-v6, turning 6,000+ rpm's = SHORT life span period.

 

If someone is going to sell me this crap about a turbo-v6 with a Ford transmission with endless defects in shifting, performance and durability good luck.

 

Go find one of these eco-boost wonders after 200,000 miles, YOU will not find one they will all be JUNKED due to the fact no one can afford to fix them!

 

GM please do not go this route of stupidity.

 

I see many full size late model 4.8, 5.3, 6.0 trucks with well over 200,000 miles and they are not requiring another income to keep them going...

 

Marketing HYPE means nothing when you the truck is in the shop, and the message forums are LOADED full of owners of these eco-junks with problems.

 

I think I remember the SVO turbo 4 cylinder Mustangs, turbo T-birds, Super Charged Thunderbird/Cougars go find one with 100,000 miles they don't exist.

They all grenaded broke and were JUNKED since no one could afford to dump thousands in something not worth it.

 

Go ahead build a turbo v6 with 500 hp at 7,000 RPM just be ready to spend money on it, a diesel at least will run long enough to get some money out it.

[arz71]

I find it quite amusing paying $40,000 for a truck that spends hours in the shop with NO fix for them. You can buy a diesel for what they cost, just stupid.

 

Good ole Ford electronics, you can fix mechanical you cannot FIX crap electrical engineered JUNK.

 

I have never endured such pain in breakdowns, sorry for the negative rant but geez their track record alone in IGNITION switches and CRUISE control the MOST basic function is defective with countless fiasco's... If someone doubts it look at the link.

 

http://www.switchfires.com/

 

http://www.flamingfords.info/tips.html.htm

 

NO THANKS

 

Will stay with GM, even with money problems I do not run the risk of being BBQ'd...

[chakis24]

right, because the heated washer fluid never caught fire on the gm trucks, and nhtsa isnt currently investigating the trailblazer for door fires right?

 

gm will be releasing an ecoboost competitor with the next truck that debuts for the 2014 model year (and they would be stupid not to).

 

and the ecoboost doesnt reach peak power at 7000 rpms. peak torque is around 2500 and hp is around 4500...that better than almost any gasser.

 

now i agree that i wouldnt want to be the guy beta-testing a completely new engine, but gm would be dumb not to enter a market that is obviously gaining traction...not to mention they have those things called CAFE and EPA to deal with.

[arz71]

right, because the heated washer fluid never caught fire on the gm trucks, and nhtsa isnt currently investigating the trailblazer for door fires right?

 

gm will be releasing an ecoboost competitor with the next truck that debuts for the 2014 model year (and they would be stupid not to).

 

and the ecoboost doesnt reach peak power at 7000 rpms. peak torque is around 2500 and hp is around 4500...that better than almost any gasser.

 

now i agree that i wouldnt want to be the guy beta-testing a completely new engine, but gm would be dumb not to enter a market that is obviously gaining traction...not to mention they have those things called CAFE and EPA to deal with.

 

 

 

People can thank the Oboma for all of the new job killing regulations and EPA standards on a milk cow passing gas.

 

I am against the 7,000 RPM engine, again it makes no difference if it makes 1000HP would good is it when it is high strung.

 

Ford has a good track record on these miracle engines, they are beta-testing and the suckers are idiots buying into the HYPE of the hysteria.

 

The fact is they do NOT get the advertised MPG, fact is they are problem plagued, fact is MORE moving parts = MORE EXPENSE.

 

The entire FAILED logic has been proven in motocross, manufacturers jumped on the earth bandwagon, now they are faced with expensive 4 stroke race-bikes NOT selling and no one wants a used one due to the fact they grenade. I spent about 10 years at a Kawasaki shop as a mechanic and then started night school (now in IT).

 

Small displacement + High RPM's + Complex (electrical engineering/software) built by Ferd = DISASTER

 

I believe the full size truck has officially become a throw away vehicle, fast forward 5 years and these Eco-boost (money pits) will be like trying to sell these will be the opposite of the HYPE.

 

I have seen this before, it is just like the other FAILED concepts.

 

Go back in time, history repeats itself, find Jimmy Carter and his policies are being reinvented by Oboma = DISASTER economically.

 

No thanks, I have seen it before and I am not going to be schooled again.

 

A simple push rod v-8 is 1000 times less expensive even if you spent more on fuel, so having 1000 more parts, electrical crap, and buggy firmware to run it is a great investment?

 

The push rod (ancient) in today's sohc/dohc motors do not have 5 foot timing chains, timing belts, that WILL have to be replaced, more valves, more complexities.

 

The motors do not last, Ford had the spark plugs blowing out denting hoods, timing chains stretched, these Triton motors were deemed the BEST on earth.

 

So now a turbo v-6 built by them is the best, granted GM has had problems but at least you can work on them and they can run to 250,000+ miles without spending your 401k plan on them.

 

Logic is flawed, I have a friend who is a big fan of 4 strokes, I have been riding 2 strokes since I was 6 years old. I am not 40 years old, less moving parts = LESS expensive. We do not agree on this, however take a late model 250cc 2 stroke bike and a late model 450F 4 stroke bike see what last and see which one cost more money.

 

GM please, use what works focus on making a truck look like the 1999-2002 models.

[arz71]

Simple = More cost effective

 

Simple = More control over quality not high-tech wizard bug riddled, firmware

 

Simple = Intelligence without stupidity

 

They can meet the requirements of the EPA/CAFE by being smart, not by copying a failed/flawed concept from word go.

 

Again, Ford has produced how many turbo'd, super-charged vehicles over the years?

 

How many Tritons blew out spark plugs, stretched timing chains, on and on wide as a big block and HEAVY slugs that guzzled gas, I actually made the mistake of buying one and traded it in for a Silverado (crappy trade-in)...

 

GM motors are simple, but they are not stupidly designed to be the latest fad.

 

Look at the location of the OIL filter on a GM 4.8 5.3 6.0 ect or even an old 350 305 400 the oil filter is accessible.

 

Look at the turbo v-6 ford engine, what has to be replaced during the engines life the OIL FILTER the location is sideways where it will pour oil all over. It is a THROW away engine, not designed to last 10 years much less 20 years. I love the 3-4 timing chain, that inspires dollar signs, and it WILL need replacing only an idiot will say it will last.

 

If someone is going to tell me this f150 with the turbo v6 is going to last 10 years of REAL world driving/maintenance they are nuts.

 

Running a engine in a Baja is NOT the same as real world hot/cold conditions, also it was NOT a independent test. Not buying it, how many other wizardry of small engines high strung has failed?

 

I agree Ford had some solid engines the 4.9 inline 6, 302/351 and 460 were not grenades.

 

Go into the future and find a F150 with the Eco-boost about 15-20 years old still running... WITHOUT major part(s) being replaced/repaired ect.

 

It is not going to happen...

[stlavsa]

Who cares if its gonna last 15 years?? How many trucks do u see on the road now that are 15 years old?? the answer: NOT TOO MANY!! I have a hard time finding silverados and sierras that are anything bout NNBS GMT-900s. Some times you find the NBS trucks out there but now that the GMT-900 has been out for about 5 years its like 75 percent of the GMs out there are '07+ and I bet a good chunk of them are still under their powertrain warranty..

 

I will be all over the GM ecoboost variant as soon as it comes out. I couldnt give a damn about the advertised MPG i know people with the ecoboost gettin over 22 MPG on the highway with em.

 

We are finally going to have a factory 1500 series truck that will be able to get serious gains from just a tune alone (similar to the diesels in WHP/tq gains). Throw on a nice suspension like mid-travel with UCAs and fox shocks and a tuner and it will be a Ford Raptor EATER.

[stlavsa]

right, because the heated washer fluid never caught fire on the gm trucks, and nhtsa isnt currently investigating the trailblazer for door fires right?

 

gm will be releasing an ecoboost competitor with the next truck that debuts for the 2014 model year (and they would be stupid not to).

 

and the ecoboost doesnt reach peak power at 7000 rpms. peak torque is around 2500 and hp is around 4500...that better than almost any gasser.

 

now i agree that i wouldnt want to be the guy beta-testing a completely new engine, but gm would be dumb not to enter a market that is obviously gaining traction...not to mention they have those things called CAFE and EPA to deal with.

 

 

 

People can thank the Oboma for all of the new job killing regulations and EPA standards on a milk cow passing gas.

 

I am against the 7,000 RPM engine, again it makes no difference if it makes 1000HP would good is it when it is high strung.

 

Ford has a good track record on these miracle engines, they are beta-testing and the suckers are idiots buying into the HYPE of the hysteria.

 

The fact is they do NOT get the advertised MPG, fact is they are problem plagued, fact is MORE moving parts = MORE EXPENSE.

 

The entire FAILED logic has been proven in motocross, manufacturers jumped on the earth bandwagon, now they are faced with expensive 4 stroke race-bikes NOT selling and no one wants a used one due to the fact they grenade. I spent about 10 years at a Kawasaki shop as a mechanic and then started night school (now in IT).

 

Small displacement + High RPM's + Complex (electrical engineering/software) built by Ferd = DISASTER

 

I believe the full size truck has officially become a throw away vehicle, fast forward 5 years and these Eco-boost (money pits) will be like trying to sell these will be the opposite of the HYPE.

 

I have seen this before, it is just like the other FAILED concepts.

 

Go back in time, history repeats itself, find Jimmy Carter and his policies are being reinvented by Oboma = DISASTER economically.

 

No thanks, I have seen it before and I am not going to be schooled again.

 

A simple push rod v-8 is 1000 times less expensive even if you spent more on fuel, so having 1000 more parts, electrical crap, and buggy firmware to run it is a great investment?

 

The push rod (ancient) in today's sohc/dohc motors do not have 5 foot timing chains, timing belts, that WILL have to be replaced, more valves, more complexities.

 

The motors do not last, Ford had the spark plugs blowing out denting hoods, timing chains stretched, these Triton motors were deemed the BEST on earth.

 

So now a turbo v-6 built by them is the best, granted GM has had problems but at least you can work on them and they can run to 250,000+ miles without spending your 401k plan on them.

 

Logic is flawed, I have a friend who is a big fan of 4 strokes, I have been riding 2 strokes since I was 6 years old. I am not 40 years old, less moving parts = LESS expensive. We do not agree on this, however take a late model 250cc 2 stroke bike and a late model 450F 4 stroke bike see what last and see which one cost more money.

 

GM please, use what works focus on making a truck look like the 1999-2002 models.

 

 

I disagree with the motocross thing too.. it was the AMA (and honda) that decided to go "green" with the 4-strokes. And it just so happens that honda did jump the gun because THEY werent ready, Other manufacturers like Kawi and Yamaha built solid 4-stroke mx bikes from the get-go.

 

And to say it was a failure is crazy. Go to any ama sanctioned race (forget pros) and still most of the bikes you see are 4-strokes, even with 250 vs 250f the 250fs are more popular and the fastest guys are riding them. Theres more maintenance (somewhat) than the 2-strokes but that whole idea is blown out of proportion. Maybe in 2005 it was a big deal, but just a few years later the 4 -stroke are dialed in and performing on a level the 2-strokes cant touch. Shit we are getting 42whp out of a STOCK 250f now.. that marks not too far off from the 250s and they power is much more linear/tunable/useable. etc etc etc

 

Start talking pros and the difference is amazing. There are guys in lites classes in SX tripling stuff that a 125 could NEVER DO.