Ecoboost turbo question!!!

[Snox801]

I have corrected you twice on this: I am NOT saying that coking isn't possible. I am saying the mitigation strategies (water cooling and modern engine oil) make a cool down unnecessary.

I'll try one more time: Millions of Ford EcoBoost engines have been in operation around the world for a decade-and-a-half. If turbos in these engines were suffering from turbo-related oil coking then the many owner reports should be easy to find. Where are they? If you can't find any (I couldn't) then I think there's no point in continuing this debate. You clearly refuse to read any of the posts I've linked and continually mischaracterize my position.

Again I haven’t seen anyone on here claim they always needed to be cooled down. The only thing I’ve seen is people say of pushed hard they need to cool. Very few owners actually do that so out of millions very few would need to cool it down. You have also never experienced how ford does warranty claims. The tech will do certain tests which pass or fail. Say the turbo fail the test. The fix is replacement. Not take it apart and find out why? Ford will ask to send in parts. They do an internal investigation to see what happened. So they do replace a decent amount of turbo on ecoboost. But we will not know what the cause was.
So yes you could say I have no “proof” but you also would not know for sure.
what we both know is coming happens.

The only difference is you say that the oil and cooling Remove all chance of it. I say maybe. But the cool down is one added step. Say your oil breaks down faster than you thought say with fuel dilution. Now the oil won’t protect it.
I literally posted a link to turbo smart. They state that both oil and cooling help but they still say cool down should be used.
If it wasn’t why would they feel the need to post that?

Sponsored

 

[dalola]

I think we're just splitting hairs here.... maybe the guy that gives his EB Mav a minute to "cool off" after some heavy summer towing will get 250K miles out of his OEM turbo, and the guy who didn't gets 225K from his... who knows. No, it's not "necessary", I think we've all determined that. But it also certainly will not be detrimental, and "may" even help, fractionally, prolong the life/performance of the OEM system. I will still do it, after limit towing in the summer in hill country. Running to the grocery in the winter, no. I think it's whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[Snox801]

I think we're just splitting hairs here.... maybe the guy that gives his EB Mav a minute to "cool off" after some heavy summer towing will get 250K miles out of his OEM turbo, and the guy who didn't gets 225K from his... who knows. No, it's not "necessary", I think we've all determined that. But it also certainly will not be detrimental, and "may" even help, fractionally, prolong the life/performance of the OEM system. I will still do it, after limit towing in the summer in hill country. Running to the grocery in the winter, no. I think it's whatever lets you sleep at night.

That is my stance also.
Daily driving nope. But towing or running it hard yep. If I can see my cylinder head temps raise above boil point after shutdown. I assume the same is happing with my oil.

 

[Tbone289]

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.

You missed the entire point, being that just because the automaker isn't recommending it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

For instance, it is known by technicians that constantly service them that 8F35 transmissions live healthier lives when the fluid is changed more frequently, yet Ford still recommends 150K service intervals.

 

[Mark S.]

You missed the entire point, being that just because the automaker isn't recommending it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

No I didn't. Just because VW recommends a specific procedure for their vehicles doesn't mean it applies to Fords.

For instance, it is known by technicians that constantly service them that 8F35 transmissions live healthier lives when the fluid is changed more frequently, yet Ford still recommends 150K service intervals.

Go read your owner's manual again. There are specific inspection and service intervals for the transmission fluid based on use characteristics. Some of them recommend more frequent changes.

 

[Tbone289]

No I didn't. Just because VW recommends a specific procedure for their vehicles doesn't mean it applies to Fords.

I gave you two specific examples of Ford not providing a recommendation in the manual for something that absolutely is best practice. You are in denial and blindly follow the word of Ford, when they clearly don't always provide best practice recommendations.

I don't know what the hell VW has to do with this.

 

[Mark S.]

I gave you two specific examples of Ford not providing a recommendation in the manual for something that absolutely is best practice. You are in denial and blindly follow the word of Ford, when they clearly don't always provide best practice recommendations.

I don't know what the hell VW has to do with this.

LOL! I was responding to another poster who noted the VW fleet cars his company operates include a recommendation for a cool down after prolonged heavy use. Sorry!

Regarding Ford's recommendations, I thought I answered that. Your 1983 owner's manual did not include a recommendation for a cool down; that was more than 50 years ago. Ford has learned a lot about turbos since then. Even you acknowledge that Ford began using water cooling on their turbos in 1985. In other words, Ford decided to mitigate oil coking with a technological fix rather than imposing a requirement on owners to cool down the bearings manually. It seems to have worked over the past five decades given there are no widespread reports of oil coking with Ford turbocharged engines despite no cool down recommendation.

If you have any data regarding widespread issues with oil coking in any of Ford's modern vehicles please share it--I can't find any.

 

[Tbone289]

If you have any data regarding widespread issues with oil coking in any of Ford's modern vehicles please share it--I can't find any.

I have never stated nor implied in this thread that Ford's modern vehicles have widespread issues with oil coking, nor have I stated that you should cool them down. You're having difficultly keeping up with the conversation, so rather than repeating myself again I'll just bow out here. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Mark S.]

I have never stated nor implied in this thread that Ford's modern vehicles have widespread issues with oil coking, nor have I stated that you should cool them down. You're having difficultly keeping up with the conversation, so rather than repeating myself again I'll just bow out here. Have a nice weekend.

Then we are in agreement, I guess.

Sponsored