Ecoboost turbo question!!!

[AMTRV]

Yep that is sound thought. Manufacturers made a very specific test that tests oils and the ability to limit coking for a thing that according to you doesn’t exist. Yep that sure checks out.

If it wasn’t a problem they would t have created a test for it. But you do you.
let the op decide who seems more legit. The guy on the internet or the manufacturers of oils and the automakers. They may ah e a few dollars into RD.
or they should just save the money in rd and just ask your opinion.

Pretty cute there snoxy

Sponsored

 

[Snox801]

Pretty cute there snoxy

I know I am especially for the back side!

 

[CajunMick]

Ok, I going offline on this one. Just drive ur trucks.

 

[Mark S.]

Now your turn show me the Data that proves it you don’t need to cool it down after running it hard?
Even if cooled by coolant what do you think happens to the coolant after the engine shuts off with bright red turbos from pushing them hard?

I don't think you understand how evidence works. Evidence is used to prove a claim, not to prove doubt. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, you claim that owners should employ a procedure to prevent oil coking on turbochargers. You made the claim; you must provide evidence to back it up. I don't need to provide evidence that the manufacturer makes no recommendation to cool down the turbocharger since we all know that's the case.

Regarding the "proof" you offered. GM (like all manufacturers I would imagine) conducts all sorts of tests during engine research and development. This particular one tests motor oil susceptibility to coking, and it's used to set recommended oil specifications, i.e. if you use the recommended oil then there is no danger of oil coking. Further, I don't view marketing claims from someone trying to sell me something as a good source. What else ya got?

 

[Mark S.]

The guy on the internet or the manufacturers of oils and the automakers.

I'll take automakers, who interestingly enough do not recommend a cool down.

 

[Snox801]

I don't think you understand how evidence works. Evidence is used to prove a claim, not to disprove doubt. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, you claim that owners should employ a procedure to prevent oil coking on turbochargers. You made the claim; you must provide evidence to back it up. I don't need to provide evidence that manufacturers make no recommendation to cool down the turbocharger since we all know that's the case.

Regarding the "proof" you offered. GM (like all manufacturers I would imagine) conducts all sorts of tests during engine research and development. This particular one tests motor oil susceptibility to coking, and it's used to set recommended oil specifications, i.e. if you use the recommended oil then there is no danger of oil coking. Further, I don't view marketing claims from someone trying to sell me something as a good source. What else ya got?

Well it works both ways. You say you don’t need to so to prove me wrong show your evidence.
I provided as much evidence as I could. Ie hot spots I can show in the head, and the fact they have a test for it.
You have provided nothing. Your stance seems to be that the manufacturers don’t specifically state you need to.
Ok but use of the vehicle matters. Ford also recommends 150k mile transmission fluid swaps. Most fluid tests show it’s needed before that.
I at least showed something that supports my claim. You on the other hand just offer “ it’s not needed”

 

[Tbone289]

I'll take automakers, who interestingly enough do not recommend a cool down.

I owned a 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe that didn't have turbo water cooling. They were known for oil coking on the bearings, so I always did a cool down after running it hard. Interestingly enough, Ford didn't recommend a cool down in the manual for that car. I'm glad I didn't follow your line of logic.

In 1985, Ford added turbo water cooling to the Turbo Coupe. I wonder why they bothered to do that when a cool down wasn't needed.

 

[Snox801]

I'll take automakers, who interestingly enough do not recommend a cool down.

The same manufacturers that recommended 150k trans fluid changes? The same guys that actually have a very specific test for coking? Hmm so they have a test specifically for something you say doesn’t happen? Thats sure checks out. Yes it’s for oil. But the fact they have a test says it still happens and can happen. They seem to be relying on the oil manufacturers to prevent coking.

 

[Mark S.]

Well it works both ways. You say you don’t need to so to prove me wrong show your evidence.

Modern turbos take advantage of thermal siphoning of coolant. When the engine is running the water pump forces coolant through the turbo. After you shut the engine down residual heat in the turbocharger causes continued movement of coolant via convection, or what turbo manufacturers call "thermal siphoning." Convective movement of coolant continues until turbo components no longer retain enough heat to support it.

You can read more about it here, from Garrett:

https://www.garrettmotion.com/racin...-a-turbocharger/water-cooling-for-your-turbo/

And here, from BorgWarner:

https://www.borgwarner.com/docs/def...-technologies/efr_technical_training_book.pdf

In addition, the advent of synthetic oils and additives have vastly improved resistance to coking (refer to your own link for more on that). So, my proof is that modern tech has eliminated the need for any cool down operation for your turbocharger. My data comes from turbocharger and engine oil manufacturers.

Cool down your turbo if it makes you feel better, but absent some kind of malfunction with your engine's cooling system, there's no reason to do so with a modern turbocharged engine.

 

[todd92]

I guess the 'running hard on the interstate guy' doesn't realize that by the time he's reached the end of the off ramp the turbo has 'cooled' down.

 

[Mark S.]

I owned a 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe that didn't have turbo water cooling. They were known for oil coking on the bearings, so I always did a cool down after running it hard. Interestingly enough, Ford didn't recommend a cool down in the manual for that car. I'm glad I didn't follow your line of logic.

In 1985, Ford added turbo water cooling to the Turbo Coupe. I wonder why they bothered to do that when a cool down wasn't needed.

Turbocharging was a relatively new technology for production automobiles at that time. If I recall correctly, the fox-body Mustang (1979?) was the first turbocharged production car of the modern era for Ford. In other words, it had little experience with turbo engines. I'm not surprised at the lack of details for owners. That doesn't apply today. Ford has been selling turbocharged cars for more than 50 years now. I'd say it probably knows a bit more about them today than in 1983.

Manufacturers learn new things all the time. When they do, they often incorporate improvements that make their products more robust and reliable. I don't know the details of Ford's product improvement cycle from that time, but it seems clear it thought water cooling was a worthwhile product improvement in 1985. Since it still uses it today, I'd say it made a good decision.

 

[Mark S.]

The same manufacturers that recommended 150k trans fluid changes?

Go back and reread your manual. There are very specific change recommendations for different use cases.

The same guys that actually have a very specific test for coking?

What is the purpose of the test? Do you think they are testing to prove that coking is a problem, or to ensure the mitigation strategies they employ actually work?

 

[Mark S.]

We could settle this debate very easily. If anyone has any evidence that oil coking is a widespread issue please share it. I've looked, and I can't find any. Ford has been making its line of EcoBoost engines for well over a decade now; there are literally MILLIONS of them in operation around the world. If there were any widespread issues with turbo-related oil coking I think we would know about it by now. Show me the data.

 

[Snox801]

Go back and reread your manual. There are very specific change recommendations for different use cases.


What is the purpose of the test? Do you think they are testing to prove that coking is a problem, or to ensure the mitigation strategies they employ actually work?

So that is where you are making a mistake.
Your argument is that coking doesn’t happen.
The test says yes it happens and how to mitigate it.
So yes the purpose of the test is to mitigate it. Yes but why would they need that test if it didn’t happen?
With your argument they have absolutely no need to even run the test.

 

[Snox801]

We could settle this debate very easily. If anyone has any evidence that oil coking is a widespread issue please share it. I've looked, and I can't find any. Ford has been making its line of EcoBoost engines for well over a decade now; there are literally MILLIONS of them in operation around the world. If there were any widespread issues with turbo-related oil coking I think we would know about it by now. Show me the data.

Part of the problem is that most people that have high mileage like myself do cool it down.
As for the ecoboost being around forever yes. You certainly can find many many turbo failures. Part fails they replace.
Again probably some of them from coking hence ford, gm, and other constantly updating the parameters of the test.

Sponsored