350 hp ecoboost?

[RoryTate]

311 is more than 310. I guess we'll all have to wait per usual.

Sponsored

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Aren't people worried about engine life with boost running that high? I mean, is this an engine that's going to last 300,000 or 400,000 miles?

 

[wilkinda65]

What year model? The manual in a 2013+ only came with the 1.6L Ecoboost.
Only in FWD. I should've been more clear; We were talking about 2.3 and AWD.

Dodge knew months ago where the power in the Hellcat would be... these guys aren't rookies, believe that. Simply enough, they didn't share it till they thought was the right time, after extensive tests and changes. Their goal was always to be more powerful than the GT500 and they knew the basics of what they had to do for that level, which included a new engine in their minds.

I was with my sister in-law when she bought it. It's a 2013 with the base 4 cylinder engine

 

[Rob WH]

Aren't people worried about engine life with boost running that high? I mean, is this an engine that's going to last 300,000 or 400,000 miles?

No worries... the turbocharged engine has come a very long way over the past 30 plus yrs. With a proper inter-cooler and enough of a cooling system itself, today we can expect a turbo engine to last for many years, though maintenance will indeed be required and more expensive than N/A vehicles in general, particularly older ones w/o OHC engines.

The typical heavy equipment vehicle these days has a turbo diesel, as does the typical over the road tractor(semi). Millions of vehicles in Europe and America, etc. have been successfully using turbos since the 1980's.

As for actually gettign 300-400k... most gas engines still don't last that long even though they could, so that's asking too much. Still, generally a turbo or S/C'd engine will have lower compression and when not being stressed, is going to be like a low power vehicle putting along.

I was with my sister in-law when she bought it. It's a 2013 with the base 4 cylinder engine

Rest assured, it is in fact a 1.6L Ecoboost turbo engine... Ford didn't offer the 2.5L(the base engine) with a manual, according to their printed information, as well as the EPA's information on fuel economy .gov(if you'd like to look)... At any rate, we were talking about AWD and a 2.3L.

 

[Brent302]

No worries... the turbocharged engine has come a very long way over the past 30 plus yrs. With a proper inter-cooler and enough of a cooling system itself, today we can expect a turbo engine to last for many years, though maintenance will indeed be required and more expensive than N/A vehicles in general, particularly older ones w/o OHC engines.

The typical heavy equipment vehicle these days has a turbo diesel, as does the typical over the road tractor(semi). Millions of vehicles in Europe and America, etc. have been successfully using turbos since the 1980's.

As for actually gettign 300-400k... most gas engines still don't last that long even though they could, so that's asking too much. Still, generally a turbo or S/C'd engine will have lower compression and when not being stressed, is going to be like a low power vehicle putting along.

Rest assured, it is in fact a 1.6L Ecoboost turbo engine... Ford didn't offer the 2.5L(the base engine) with a manual, according to their printed information, as well as the EPA's information on fuel economy .gov(if you'd like to look)... At any rate, we were talking about AWD and a 2.3L.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

EcoBoosts have had growing pains even into last year. This is the first of the smaller EBs to be put into a performance application...if you don't expect problems and growing pains with the 2.3L then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Great potential but I expect problems just like the 3.7 and 5.0 experienced.

 

[Rob WH]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/16/ford-ecoboost-engine-problems/2168865/

EcoBoosts have had growing pains even into last year. This is the first of the smaller EBs to be put into a performance application...if you don't expect problems and growing pains with the 2.3L then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Great potential but I expect problems just like the 3.7 and 5.0 experienced.

I never suggested there won't be problems(not enough to worry over, however). Any time a totally new vehicle is introduced, there will be problems(regardless the engines used) and any time a new engine is introduced, that's likely to have problems of its own.

I'm simply saying that turbocharged engines are... normal, everyday engines anymore. Btw, that article is well over 1yr old now and as far as I've been able to see, the problem has been fixed. I've had no trouble with my own, that's for sure. I have had trouble with the vehicle, but not the engine or transmission.

 

[Brent302]

I never suggested there won't be problems(not enough to worry over, however). Any time a totally new vehicle is introduced, there will be problems(regardless the engines used) and any time a new engine is introduced, that's likely to have problems of its own.

I'm simply saying that turbocharged engines are... normal, everyday engines anymore. Btw, that article is well over 1yr old now and as far as I've been able to see, the problem has been fixed. I've had no trouble with my own, that's for sure. I have had trouble with the vehicle, but not the engine or transmission.

It wasn't an attack just a general statement. I understand that turbos are now standard fare. They should have been standard 20 years ago with the monster 87 GNX but i digress.

Yes the article is a year old but I just used it as an example since it's the 3.5 EB which has been out since 2010 showing it still had problems in 2013. Woosahhhhh we are all friends here lol.

 

[Rob WH]

It wasn't an attack just a general statement. I understand that turbos are now standard fare. They should have been standard 20 years ago with the monster 87 GNX but i digress.

When I was a kid, I drove a 1986 GN... couldn't afford it, for real! Still, aside from a strong running 85 Mustang GT, not much unmodified stood a chance in a 1/4 mile. We thought they were SO fast!

Yes the article is a year old but I just used it as an example since it's the 3.5 EB which has been out since 2010 showing it still had problems in 2013. Woosahhhhh we are all friends here lol.

I see that point, but the 4cyl models haven't been having troubles to speak of, nor has the Taurus, which I think has had the 3.5L longest. I would agree on 1 thing... the economy just hasn't been there. It's close, but I apparently cannot baby mine enough... :tsk:

Btw, let's remember, the 2L and the 1.6L have already been used as a performance engine in the Focus and Fiesta ST's(plus European models), so it's not really the 1st performance app for the 4cyl stuff. It's made way more power than our version overseas, so I see no real concerns in buying one. Besides, since I already have one and like it, that makes it even easier for me... and that SUCKS because I really think the GT will be my better bet unless I convince myself I'm just not racing. :eyebulge: ... not EZ!

 

[Brent302]

When I was a kid, I drove a 1986 GN... couldn't afford it, for real! Still, aside from a strong running 85 Mustang GT, not much unmodified stood a chance in a 1/4 mile. We thought they were SO fast!

I see that point, but the 4cyl models haven't been having troubles to speak of, nor has the Taurus, which I think has had the 3.5L longest. I would agree on 1 thing... the economy just hasn't been there. It's close, but I apparently cannot baby mine enough... :tsk:

Btw, let's remember, the 2L and the 1.6L have already been used as a performance engine in the Focus and Fiesta ST's(plus European models), so it's not really the 1st performance app for the 4cyl stuff. It's made way more power than our version overseas, so I see no real concerns in buying one. Besides, since I already have one and like it, that makes it even easier for me... and that SUCKS because I really think the GT will be my better bet unless I convince myself I'm just not racing. :eyebulge: ... not EZ!

The 87 GN and GNX dominated every V8 of those years....GM was foolish for killing the project. My blood boils....woosahhhhh lol

Right I forgot about the ST. Well we can say the first large performance application...not sure how much an ST weighs...all in all i hope all EB owners have a problem free experience.

 

[aspensilver]

Aren't people worried about engine life with boost running that high? I mean, is this an engine that's going to last 300,000 or 400,000 miles?

Considering probably .01% of new car buyers will still own the car at 300,000 miles no nobody here is worried

 

[Rob WH]

The 87 GN and GNX dominated every V8 of those years....GM was foolish for killing the project. My blood boils....woosahhhhh lol

Those GN's, thanks to the GNX and there was also a lightweight model or two which used aluminum bumpers or whatever... were HIGHLY overrated. Not to take a thing away, but we're talking about what was literally a mid 14's 1/4 mile car in standard form and I laugh today when people "remind" me that they consistently ran mid to high 13's... nuh uh... the X did, but thousands of others ran mid 14's.

Right I forgot about the ST. Well we can say the first large performance application...not sure how much an ST weighs...all in all i hope all EB owners have a problem free experience.

Idonno what the ST's weight, but less than a Mustang, to be sure. The Fiesta is a true lightweight. I actually considered swapping my Escape for one, but my knees hit on both sides and I don't want a manual. :headbonk:

 

[RoryTate]

What were K-Cars running back then?

 

[scottpe]

Those GN's, thanks to the GNX and there was also a lightweight model or two which used aluminum bumpers or whatever... were HIGHLY overrated. Not to take a thing away, but we're talking about what was literally a mid 14's 1/4 mile car in standard form and I laugh today when people "remind" me that they consistently ran mid to high 13's... nuh uh... the X did, but thousands of others ran mid 14's.

They were overrated by today's standards for sure. But it's all relative, right? Back in the mid-late '80s even Vettes were low-mid 14 second cars. For a car like the GN to match or exceed that performance was a big deal. And of course, people knew how to modify cars back then too... a GN could be made faster with a lot less effort, thanks to the turbocharged engine.

 

[Brent302]

They were overrated by today's standards for sure. But it's all relative, right? Back in the mid-late '80s even Vettes were low-mid 14 second cars. For a car like the GN to match or exceed that performance was a big deal. And of course, people knew how to modify cars back then too... a GN could be made faster with a lot less effort, thanks to the turbocharged engine.

[emoji106]

Not to mention the ones now hitting 1200 HP....Hellcat what? lol

 

[scottpe]

Not to mention the ones now hitting 1200 HP....Hellcat what? lol

You're not kidding there! Some of the fastest cars I've seen at the test n tunes in recent years have been GNs.

Sponsored