Dealership Sales Woes

[shred5]

Yes, it's all about design. The EB engines are designed to be turbocharged. In a similar vein, virtually all semi tractor engines are turbocharged and typically last 500,000 miles or more. Of course, the 2.3L EB isn't designed with a 500,000 mile lifetime goal, but it is designed to a normal consumer vehicle lifetime, including the turbine component. Yes, they are a bit more complicated, and there may be some things that are more challenging for DIY repairs than the older and simpler 4.0 V6, and proper maintenance is more important, but that's been happening gradually for the past 40 years.

The biggest issues that have surfaced, like valve coking, have more to do with GDI than the turbine, and also affect NA engines with GDI.

Ford has flooded these onto the market over the last half-decade or so, and only time will tell, but with proper maintenance over the 150,000-mile design lifetime, turbines will sometimes fail, but I'll be surprised if they fail a lot more often than other complex components like alternators, AC compressors, transmissions, starting motors, etc.

You know it does not matter what you or I know we are not the general public. Allot people know about the old turbo issues or they get on the internet or YouTube and look up ecoboost problems. There are pretty many videos saying exactly the same thing. Some of the videos are really old but not everyone looks at that or even knows there are changes to them or Ford has worked out the issues.
Not every gets on the forums when they buy and find this stuff out.. It is ingrained into peoples beliefs that turbos are bad and bigger engines are better. It is just a hard thing for the general public to get over. I think people are slowly changing. I just have to believe that is part of the issue with slow first sales and not having options. Allot of truck people are into bigger engines and even how they sound. My first thought before they even launched was no 6 cylinder, I was very disappointed.

Again I didn't say it to tick off anyone..

I really like the Ranger but I have not decided yet what I want. I am looking at a long term truck this time. I really like my Colorado but every Chevy I have owned long term has been a issue. I like the Taco's reliability and resale value since this is long term buy but it really does not fit my needs. I really need a comfortable back seat and a truck that is more comfortable on longer trips and the Taco is not that for me.. I have even considered full size but that is just too big for my garage and driveway. I got time and I am going to research, read the forums and discuss. I have changed my mind several times which means I am not ready yet.The issue may be I do like my truck, I just have a issue with GM vehicles long term. The real reason I am looking is I have a long bed which means just extended cab. Hauling space was more important before and now passenger space is more important. Ranger is very comfortable and maybe one of the most comfortable.

I am in no rush to buy.

Sponsored

 

[DavidR]

The powertrain and it's operation is one thing but the electrical and electronics have gone exponential. These things are rolling computer rooms. Are they harder to work on? Yes. Are they harder to diagnose? Only if you don't connect a computer to it. If you do they TELL you what is wrong. Unfortunately there is a huge tendency to not check all the codes and fall back on the 'part change' method of diagnostics which is time consuming and expensive.

Yep, and this part has been increasing for decades. It's painfully obvious in a few threads here where the dealer's technicians have just not been able to diagnose the electronics properly and it sounded like even the factory-supplied tech was having trouble. Things are getting complex at a rate that is becoming difficult to deal with in the field for currently trained techs. Hopefully it will get better though. Things are at a point now there there are a dozen electronic modules instead of just the ECU, so hopefully techs will be hired and/or trained who know how to go beyond just the trial-and-error approach.

One aspect of argument is that if you run with a heavy foot you use more fuel than a normally aspirated engine...this is actually true. The reason why is simple; if you run with the boost on you are not driving with a 2.3L anymore. You are consuming air and fuel like a much larger engine. Keep out of the boost and you get better fuel economy. It really is not hard to understand.

Yeah it's not hard to understand but people don't think that way. You don't even have to be extremely heavy-footed, a lot of even relatively normal stop-and-go driving hits the fuel economy pretty badly in my experience, but I spend a lot of time in an area that has traffic signals every 1/4 to 1/8 mile on most main streets.

 

[RedlandRanger]

You know it does not matter what you or I know we are not the general public. Allot people know about the old turbo issues or they get on the internet or YouTube and look up ecoboost problems. There are pretty many videos saying exactly the same thing. Some of the videos are really old but not everyone looks at that or even knows there are changes to them or Ford has worked out the issues.
Not every gets on the forums when they buy and find this stuff out.. It is ingrained into peoples beliefs that turbos are bad and bigger engines are better. It is just a hard thing for the general public to get over. I think people are slowly changing. I just have to believe that is part of the issue with slow first sales and not having options. Allot of truck people are into bigger engines and even how they sound. My first thought before they even launched was no 6 cylinder, I was very disappointed.

Again I didn't say it to tick off anyone..

I really like the Ranger but I have not decided yet what I want. I am looking at a long term truck this time. I really like my Colorado but every Chevy I have owned long term has been a issue. I like the Taco's reliability and resale value since this is long term buy but it really does not fit my needs. I really need a comfortable back seat and a truck that is more comfortable on longer trips and the Taco is not that for me.. I have even considered full size but that is just too big for my garage and driveway. I got time and I am going to research, read the forums and discuss. I have changed my mind several times which means I am not ready yet.The issue may be I do like my truck, I just have a issue with GM vehicles long term. The real reason I am looking is I have a long bed which means just extended cab. Hauling space was more important before and now passenger space is more important. Ranger is very comfortable and maybe one of the most comfortable.

I am in no rush to buy.

Just curious - have you actually driven a Ranger? Although I knew the Ecoboost engines were pretty amazing, I was somewhat disappointed they chose the 2.3 4 cyl for the Ranger - that is until I drove it. It isn't just the engine - it is the combination of the engine and the glorious 10 speed that makes it so great (IMO). It is an absolutely impressive powertrain - I don't think any other mid size truck can touch it. It continues to amaze me.

Driving it sealed the deal for me. I had actually ordered my Ranger before I was able to test drive, but once I did the test drive, I was sure I made the right choice. Almost 6 months later and I couldn't be happier with my choice.

 

[Msfitoy]

I like to hear a Phil Schilke about this...can someone poke him?

 

[P. A. Schilke]

I like to hear a Phil Schilke about this...can someone poke him?

HI Sid,

Ouch...do not like being poked. Sorry for the delay...Wife faced serious medical issues that have me running her to Tucson...Old age problems...Turned out to be a false alarm...she if just fine...Whew!

The deal is specific output. The internal combustion engine is woefully inefficient. Na engines are about 30% efficient. So how to improve this efficiency? Well, do nothing but make the engine bigger. Now you have more hp and torque but still the same old 30%. Now lets address the age old volumetric inefficiency of the Na (naturally aspirated). Let's cram more air into the engine! How??? Supercharge...problem... parasitic losses but volumetric efficiency does increase. Now lets tap the waste heat energy of the engine...How about a Turbo. Much better, but talk about lag time. Maybe smaller, lighter weight to negate the lag..may be some tricks to keep the turbo spinning??? Okay probably exhausted this avenue...so how to make the engine more efficient. Maybe squirt the fuel into the combustion chamber directly...DI! works very well, but how to control? to be continued after back story

Back story,... in 1974 we had a experiment called PROCO...Programed combustion done with a High Pressure injection pump DI engine with a very complicated quasi computer control...the "computer was half the size of the trunk of the Crown Vic into which the motor was fitted....Fraught with problems and woefully down on power and torque and consumed too much fuel...Way before its time...

Okay, turn the page to today and incorporating latest turbos with today's electronics capability, you have a PROCO on steroids that increase the efficiency of the engine thus providing huge increases in specify power output that makes smaller engines power out put on par with the bigger engines of the past.

Why did Dodge bring back the Hemi. Still a boat anchor...Ecoboost scared the crap out of Dodge as they did not have the technology at the time. GM was also caught flat footed...This is why my 2.3L Ecoboost Ranger has 100 more hp than my old tech 2016 Lincoln V6...

Not sure this is what you ask for, but if not, just "poke" me again.

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired.

 

[Msfitoy]

HI Sid,

Ouch...do not like being poked. Sorry for the delay...Wife faced serious medical issues that have me running her to Tucson...Old age problems...Turned out to be a false alarm...she if just fine...Whew!

The deal is specific output. The internal combustion engine is woefully inefficient. Na engines are about 30% efficient. So how to improve this efficiency? Well, do nothing but make the engine bigger. Now you have more hp and torque but still the same old 30%. Now lets address the age old volumetric inefficiency of the Na (naturally aspirated). Let's cram more air into the engine! How??? Supercharge...problem... parasitic losses but volumetric efficiency does increase. Now lets tap the waste heat energy of the engine...How about a Turbo. Much better, but talk about lag time. Maybe smaller, lighter weight to negate the lag..may be some tricks to keep the turbo spinning??? Okay probably exhausted this avenue...so how to make the engine more efficient. Maybe squirt the fuel into the combustion chamber directly...DI! works very well, but how to control? to be continued after back story

Back story,... in 1974 we had a experiment called PROCO...Programed combustion done with a High Pressure injection pump DI engine with a very complicated quasi computer control...the "computer was half the size of the trunk of the Crown Vic into which the motor was fitted....Fraught with problems and woefully down on power and torque and consumed too much fuel...Way before its time...

Okay, turn the page to today and incorporating latest turbos with today's electronics capability, you have a PROCO on steroids that increase the efficiency of the engine thus providing huge increases in specify power output that makes smaller engines power out put on par with the bigger engines of the past.

Why did Dodge bring back the Hemi. Still a boat anchor...Ecoboost scared the crap out of Dodge as they did not have the technology at the time. GM was also caught flat footed...This is why my 2.3L Ecoboost Ranger has 100 more hp than my old tech 2016 Lincoln V6...

Not sure this is what you ask for, but if not, just "poke" me again.

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired.

Just what I expected Phil...thanks for the insight

Very happy for you Mrs came out ok

 

[DavidR]

Hi Phil,

That's a great description; however, one question I have is what's next? As others have pointed out, and now from my own experience, the small-displacement turbo approach works great if you're mostly cruising the highway and need to tap the extra power only occasionally. I get 28+ MPG even going over 10,000 ft. mountain passes and back as long as I don't lead-foot it and it's not stop-and-go. But once the turbo starts getting called up on a regular basis during stop-and-go driving, the fuel economy falls to little better than that of a larger engine.

On the other hand, our Honda Insight hybrid has a different set of trade-offs. It is also small-displacement due to the help of the electric boost motor, so it also has good fuel economy on the highway, but the boost battery only has limited capacity, so unlike a turbo, the extra power can't be maintained, especially while driving up long grades, and at that point the power really sucks. On the other hand, in stop-and-go driving, it really shines, as the electric motor provides much of the acceleration that still needs to come from the gasoline engine in, say, the Ranger.

So, they both have improved highway mileage, but the turbo has sustained extra power when needed and the hybrid improves fuel economy even during stop-and-go driving.

It seems like with steadily increasing fuel economy requirements, a solution is going to be needed that also boosts stop-and-go city fuel economy as well as highway. Will we ever see a combination of both, hybrid and turbo? Is it just too expensive? Do you know if it's ever been contemplated? Outside of all-electric, it seems like it might provide the best overall combination of fuel economy for both highway and city, while providing high sustained power when needed.

HI Sid,

Ouch...do not like being poked. Sorry for the delay...Wife faced serious medical issues that have me running her to Tucson...Old age problems...Turned out to be a false alarm...she if just fine...Whew!

The deal is specific output. The internal combustion engine is woefully inefficient. Na engines are about 30% efficient. So how to improve this efficiency? Well, do nothing but make the engine bigger. Now you have more hp and torque but still the same old 30%. Now lets address the age old volumetric inefficiency of the Na (naturally aspirated). Let's cram more air into the engine! How??? Supercharge...problem... parasitic losses but volumetric efficiency does increase. Now lets tap the waste heat energy of the engine...How about a Turbo. Much better, but talk about lag time. Maybe smaller, lighter weight to negate the lag..may be some tricks to keep the turbo spinning??? Okay probably exhausted this avenue...so how to make the engine more efficient. Maybe squirt the fuel into the combustion chamber directly...DI! works very well, but how to control? to be continued after back story

Back story,... in 1974 we had a experiment called PROCO...Programed combustion done with a High Pressure injection pump DI engine with a very complicated quasi computer control...the "computer was half the size of the trunk of the Crown Vic into which the motor was fitted....Fraught with problems and woefully down on power and torque and consumed too much fuel...Way before its time...

Okay, turn the page to today and incorporating latest turbos with today's electronics capability, you have a PROCO on steroids that increase the efficiency of the engine thus providing huge increases in specify power output that makes smaller engines power out put on par with the bigger engines of the past.

Why did Dodge bring back the Hemi. Still a boat anchor...Ecoboost scared the crap out of Dodge as they did not have the technology at the time. GM was also caught flat footed...This is why my 2.3L Ecoboost Ranger has 100 more hp than my old tech 2016 Lincoln V6...

Not sure this is what you ask for, but if not, just "poke" me again.

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired.

 

[dceggert]

* Snip

It seems like with steadily increasing fuel economy requirements, a solution is going to be needed that also boosts stop-and-go city fuel economy as well as highway. Will we ever see a combination of both, hybrid and turbo? * Snip.

Yup, it is expensive but yes, you will see this soon in a bunch of vehicles. The new Aviator from Lincoln has a 3.0L twin turbo V6 AND a Hybrid electric motor. I think I read somewhere that it is 400 HP and 400 ft-lbs of torque. The new Explorer has a non-turbo hybrid.

 

[shred5]

Just curious - have you actually driven a Ranger? Although I knew the Ecoboost engines were pretty amazing, I was somewhat disappointed they chose the 2.3 4 cyl for the Ranger - that is until I drove it. It isn't just the engine - it is the combination of the engine and the glorious 10 speed that makes it so great (IMO). It is an absolutely impressive powertrain - I don't think any other mid size truck can touch it. It continues to amaze me.

Driving it sealed the deal for me. I had actually ordered my Ranger before I was able to test drive, but once I did the test drive, I was sure I made the right choice. Almost 6 months later and I couldn't be happier with my choice.

Yea I have driven one and I have said that. I know the torque numbers and have said in post on how it moves, it is not slow.. That is not what we are talking about, we are discussing if the there is more cost of owning a turbo long term and longevity of a turbo engine now a days. I guess only time will tell though.. We actually have owned other ecoboost vehicles before for example We had a Escape up till two years ago.

I was doing a search last night on how many miles people were getting with different trucks. I have seen some Tundras rolling over at 999,999, that is insane I would have never thought. Any way I did find this: F150 with over 200,000 miles. I watched the video of it with over 200,000 miles. Under the comments was a update leading me too a second video I did not watch yet. I did not see it till I was posting this actually..

 

[Lunchbox88]

Hi Phil,
It seems like with steadily increasing fuel economy requirements, a solution is going to be needed that also boosts stop-and-go city fuel economy as well as highway. Will we ever see a combination of both, hybrid and turbo? Is it just too expensive? Do you know if it's ever been contemplated? Outside of all-electric, it seems like it might provide the best overall combination of fuel economy for both highway and city, while providing high sustained power when needed.

Yep, infernal combustion engines will continue to be developed and improved ( See Mazda's new Skyactive-x engine https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15339942/mazdas-gasoline-skyactiv-x-spcci-engine-explained/)

But at the same time developments in electric car technology are happening quite quickly. and eventually will probably overtake a majority of ICE vehicles over time and probably through a blending of the technology with hybrids like we are already seeing. This will help as the stop gap while the charging infrastructure and battery tech (biggest hurdles IMO) improves.

 

[RedlandRanger]

Yea I have driven one and I have said that. I know the torque numbers and have said in post on how it moves, it is not slow.. That is not what we are talking about, we are discussing if the there is more cost of owning a turbo long term and longevity of a turbo engine now a days. I guess only time will tell though.. We actually have owned other ecoboost vehicles before for example We had a Escape up till two years ago.

I was doing a search last night on how many miles people were getting with different trucks. I have seen some Tundras rolling over at 999,999, that is insane I would have never thought. Any way I did find this: F150 with over 200,000 miles. I watched the video of it with over 200,000 miles. Under the comments was a update leading me too a second video I did not watch yet. I did not see it till I was posting this actually..

Interesting videos. Thanks for posting them.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the ecoboosts, properly maintained are reliable, long term engines. And the newer ones have improvements to address issues found in the earlier incarnations.

I have a friend who as an F-150 with a 3.5 EB that he uses to tow his travel trailer. He LOVES it. He says it tows much better than his old big block Suburban that he used to use. He did a lot of research before he bought it and he has been very happy with it. I know several others in the same situation. Again, all anecdotal evidence, but I do believe they have been a proven platform if properly maintained. The engines have been in production for 9-10 years now, so that is plenty long to see any real longevity issues with them I think.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Hi Phil,

That's a great description; however, one question I have is what's next? As others have pointed out, and now from my own experience, the small-displacement turbo approach works great if you're mostly cruising the highway and need to tap the extra power only occasionally. I get 28+ MPG even going over 10,000 ft. mountain passes and back as long as I don't lead-foot it and it's not stop-and-go. But once the turbo starts getting called up on a regular basis during stop-and-go driving, the fuel economy falls to little better than that of a larger engine.

On the other hand, our Honda Insight hybrid has a different set of trade-offs. It is also small-displacement due to the help of the electric boost motor, so it also has good fuel economy on the highway, but the boost battery only has limited capacity, so unlike a turbo, the extra power can't be maintained, especially while driving up long grades, and at that point the power really sucks. On the other hand, in stop-and-go driving, it really shines, as the electric motor provides much of the acceleration that still needs to come from the gasoline engine in, say, the Ranger.

So, they both have improved highway mileage, but the turbo has sustained extra power when needed and the hybrid improves fuel economy even during stop-and-go driving.

It seems like with steadily increasing fuel economy requirements, a solution is going to be needed that also boosts stop-and-go city fuel economy as well as highway. Will we ever see a combination of both, hybrid and turbo? Is it just too expensive? Do you know if it's ever been contemplated? Outside of all-electric, it seems like it might provide the best overall combination of fuel economy for both highway and city, while providing high sustained power when needed.

Hi David,

The modern era of Formula 1 race engines is probably the best snapshot of where we are headed...The racecars are technological wonders. Hybrid by design and the engines are approaching 50% efficiency.

Here is an article on the Mercedes F1 engine.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target

Best,
Phil

 

[DavidR]

I agree. Things are definitely moving fast in the direction of electric. I think with certain kinds of vehicles, though, especially ones used recreationally, there will need to be a long period of overlap with ICE (probably hybrid, but still ICE-based). The main reason is just the charging grid. Especially here in the west, there are many places we go with the truck/camper combination that will likely be too far from charge points for some time to come. Even with gasoline, you sometimes want to carry a bit extra in a 5-gal. can, though admittedly, it's not that often. But in more densely populated parts of the country, mostly the eastern half, I agree that electric will take over sooner.

Yep, infernal combustion engines will continue to be developed and improved ( See Mazda's new Skyactive-x engine https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15339942/mazdas-gasoline-skyactiv-x-spcci-engine-explained/)

But at the same time developments in electric car technology are happening quite quickly. and eventually will probably overtake a majority of ICE vehicles over time and probably through a blending of the technology with hybrids like we are already seeing. This will help as the stop gap while the charging infrastructure and battery tech (biggest hurdles IMO) improves.

 

[DavidR]

That's an interesting bit of info. I'm not a big follower of formula 1 racing, and I don't know if a strict fuel consumption limit has always been in place, but it's a great way to encourage pushing the technology on efficiency. It's good to see that things are moving in the turbo/hybrid direction, since it seems to be the best way to gain more stop-and-go efficiency while retaining high power on demand short of 100% electric.

I've been surprised hybrid hasn't made more inroads since the Prius popularized it over a decade ago, especially in trucks where it's still essentially non-existent at the consumer vehicle level. I guess the technology has just proven difficult to cost-reduce. Honda's first system (the IMA used through the gen2 Insight) was much simpler and less costly, but didn't have quite the same fuel economy gains and has been dropped in favor of a more complex system.

Hi David,

The modern era of Formula 1 race engines is probably the best snapshot of where we are headed...The racecars are technological wonders. Hybrid by design and the engines are approaching 50% efficiency.

Here is an article on the Mercedes F1 engine.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target

Best,
Phil

 

[SubVet]

IF the 2023 Tacoma gets its own 4 banger turbo, it will be fun reading the gnashing of teeth at TacomaWorld

Sponsored