GM’s Chief Marketer Not Worried About EcoBoost's Popularity

[William Maley]

GM’s Chief Marketer Not Worried About EcoBoost's Popularity

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

September 7, 2011

Ford's EcoBoost option on the F-150 has been a wild success, with 40% of F-150s sold being equipped with the option. Buyers love the fact the engine provide power and towing numbers a truck needs, while giving high MPG numbers. Through August, Ford has sold 340,783 F-150s.

With Ford posting numbers like these, you'd think competitors would be worried and at work on technologies to compete. Not GM.

“They’ve done very well with the EcoBoost, no doubt about it. But look at the numbers vs. our V-8. The miles-per-gallon aren’t significantly better,” said Chris Perry, GM’s Chief Marketer in a interview with Ward's Auto. “(Ford has) done a good job of marketing the EcoBoost, and that’s a challenge on our side to make sure that consumers understand you can get similar mpg out of a V-8 Silverado without sacrifice.”

Currently, the Silverado/Sierra equipped with the 5.3L V8 gets 15 City and 21 Highway. The F-150 EcoBoost gets 16 city and 22 highway on 2WD models, and 15 city and 21 highway on 4WD models.

Perry says GM is at work with a new set of technologies for the new Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra due out in 2013, that will blow Ford's EcoBoost out of the water.

Source: Ward's Auto

[hyperv6]

What do you expect him to say?

Gm is going to treat this as nothing special till they are ready to present their own late Turbo V6. The key is to make sure what they have out of the box does not just meet the Ford Ecoboost but superseed it and let Ford do some catching up on their own.

GM has proven with the LNF what they can do with a turbo and DI before Ford had it. Just the lack of funds prevented expansion and proper marketing of these engines. I am sure GM will get it right but the killer is the time they have to spend to catch up now. Everyone thinks Ford was first between GM and them when it was GM who had the first boosted DI American engine.

Credit does go to Ford to having the guts to put the V6 Ecoboost in the truck. While many dismissed it the engine has proven powerful and profitable. GM needs to take these kinds of risks now that they are in a stronger money postition.

[smk4565]

He should be concerned when 40% of the #1 selling vehicle in the country have that engine. But I'd agree that there isn't much he can say about it until the get a similar engine.

[balthazar]

Ford's "#1 best seller' is not the F-150, but the F-Series, which is the F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550.

Sooooooooooooo, the EB V-6 CERTAINLY is not in 40% of all those models, so we're not talking about that monstrous a quantity (yet).

[Robert Hall]

Ford's "#1 best seller' is not the F-150, but the F-Series, which is the F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550.

Sooooooooooooo, the EB V-6 CERTAINLY is not in 40% of all those models, so we're not talking about that monstrous a quantity (yet).

I wonder what the sales ratio of F150s to Super Duty models (F250-F550) is...100 to 1? 50 to 1? The F150 has the biggest volume of the F-series models, and may likely be the biggest selling Ford NA model.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[z28luvr01]

Well, using the 340,783 figure from above, which represents the number of F-150s sold through August, 40% of that is 136,313. That's a lot of F-150s.

Looking at the spec sheets, GM HAS to do something about the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 in the trucks. The MPG numbers are absolutely awful. Considering how many WT Silverados/Sierras are sold equipped with those engines, they'd be very wise to put more efficient engines in them.

[hyperv6]

No matter how you count them the F 150 is the best selling F series truck and at 40% represents a lot of vehicles sold. I also see this engine combo drawing in many import buyers and non Ford buyers as it is not something you can get anywhere else. It would be interesting to see how many are first time F 150 buyers.

The 4.3 has served it's time and has had really very little investment in the last 13 or so years since it became a Vortech. GM did not have the money to invest nor the money to risk on new things. Today that has changed. I expect the the new trucks will be a larger leap than we have seen in years. I expect changes on the scale of the 1988 trucks from the 87.

The changes will be needed not just for marketing needs but for the future rules and regs.

Stale trucks will fade fast so they need to make a leap and keep them fresh. Trucks are no longer a model that will take 10-18 years between changes well. Now it will need something fresh in every 5.

[balthazar]

Ward's says Ford sold 340K F-150s thru August.

Sales ticker says Ford sold 361K F-Series thru August.

NO WAY did Ford ONLY move 21K F-250s ~ F-550s in 8 months- that's only 1750/month. Ford moves way more F-250s alone than that. Something sure looks amiss.

This is in no way an attempt to belittle the EB V6. On paper at least, I think it's an excellent advance & (price aside), the appeal is real. I like Ford trucks a lot- I've had 4 Fords and only 1 GM truck.

But being a past F-Series owner, delving into the way Ford tallies their numbers AND reading countless unintentional published 'switcheroos' between 'F-150' and 'F-Series'... I smell the same thing going on here. I may be wrong here tho...

Edited September 8, 2011 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

Ward's says Ford sold 340K F-150s thru August.

Sales ticker says Ford sold 361K F-Series thru August.

NO WAY did Ford ONLY move 21K F-250s ~ F-550s in 8 months- that's only 2600/month. Ford moves way more F-250s alone than that. Something sure looks amiss.

This is in no way an attempt to belittle the EB V6. On paper at least, I think it's an excellent advance & (price aside), the appeal is real. I like Ford trucks a lot- I've had 4 Fords and only 1 GM truck.

But being a past F-Series owner, delving into the way Ford tallies their numbers AND reading countless unintentional published 'switcheroos' between 'F-150' and 'F-Series'... I smell the same thing going on here. I may be wrong here tho...

For 2010, it was ~313k F150s and ~214k Super Dutys according to pickuptrucks.com. The Super Duty number is roughly 3 times the volume of Silverado HDs (75k). So it sounds like F150 sales are up for 2011 and down by over 90% for SDs, which doesn't seem plausable..(though I was surprised by the numbers for the SDs--I guessed they sold 50k a year, not 4 times that..)

2010 truck numbers

Edited September 8, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[PurdueGuy]

Anyone know what kind of real world numbers the Ford EB V6 & GM 5.3L V8 are seeing? Because I'd gladly give up 1mpg highway to not have the extra maintenance & repair costs of a twin turbo engine. Of course, I'm someone who'd be buying the truck to drive for 200k+ miles. Someone who's convinced themselves they need something new every 3 years can go with whatever floats their boat (even if it's getting a model for good fuel economy to save money while they're throwing their money away on short-term vehicle ownership).

[loki]

that's funny he puts up the mpg numbers. maybe not everyone buying the EB 150's care that much. if they did they'd buy the 3.7L version. i'm sure the EB is tons more fun to drive than the 5.3L based on power figures.

[hyperv6]

For the most part there is really no extra maintenance & repair costs with a Turbo. The only real cost I have seen is Mobil One. As for repair cost that remains to be seen.

The myth of added issues with Turbo engines are not like they used to be. the potential is always there but it is with most modern V8 engines too. My Neighbor just had issues on hi Chevy HD and just for a check engine light and some sensors they wanted over $700.

A modern Turbo is not the same as the old 3800 Turbo.

[dwightlooi]

What do you expect him to say?

Gm is going to treat this as nothing special till they are ready to present their own late Turbo V6. The key is to make sure what they have out of the box does not just meet the Ford Ecoboost but superseed it and let Ford do some catching up on their own.

GM has proven with the LNF what they can do with a turbo and DI before Ford had it. Just the lack of funds prevented expansion and proper marketing of these engines. I am sure GM will get it right but the killer is the time they have to spend to catch up now. Everyone thinks Ford was first between GM and them when it was GM who had the first boosted DI American engine.

Credit does go to Ford to having the guts to put the V6 Ecoboost in the truck. While many dismissed it the engine has proven powerful and profitable. GM needs to take these kinds of risks now that they are in a stronger money postition.

First of all, I don't think GM is putting a "similar" engine in the upcoming Silverado -- similar as in V6 twin-turbo. What will probably happen is that GM will keep the V8, keep the pushrods and keep the larger displacement over the Ford Twin-Turbo 3.5 V6. However, the new Gen 5 Smallblock V8 will feature Direct Injection, cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing. The target of course it to match or exceed the Ford turbo V6 both in terms of performance and in terms of fuel economy without the cost and maintenance disadvantageous of the Ecoboost engine. Given that even the current port injected V8 is only 1 mpg off, this is a very achievable target. If they keep the 5.3 liter displacement, expect about 400 hp / 400 lb-ft from a direct injected small block with mpg numbers about 1 mpg better than the Ecoboost 3.5 just from AFM and higher compression alone. If they really want, they can milk another 1 mpg out of it by going to a taller axle ratio which the increased torque output will allow with no degradation in acceleration or tow rating.

If they are smart, they will make a large displacement pushrod V6 (approximately 4.7 liters) with a similar output as today's 5.3 V8 (~300 hp / 300 lb-ft). Such an engine will be both cheaper, easier to maintain and more economical than a boosted 3.5. This may also make a good engine for the Caprice for instance when the Police department or some other fleet buyer will rather have a lower cost engine with better economy than the V8.

[riviera74]

That Chief Marketer should worry about the PERCEPTION that Ford created with that ECOboost V6 and the sales it generates. Ford charges $1000 MORE than the standard V8 in the F150. GM looks behind the curve, even if that is not really accurate from a CAFE/MPG perspective. Quite frankly, GM needs to upgrade/replace that Vortec 4300 with a toubocharged V6 option and charge more for it right now, not in 2013.

To most people, perception is reality. GM must combat this with creating a different perception based on product only.

[Robert Hall]

I wonder if GM will offer the 3.6 in the trucks eventually.

[dwightlooi]

That Chief Marketer should worry about the PERCEPTION that Ford created with that ECOboost V6 and the sales it generates. Ford charges $1000 MORE than the standard V8 in the F150. GM looks behind the curve, even if that is not really accurate from a CAFE/MPG perspective. Quite frankly, GM needs to upgrade/replace that Vortec 4300 with a toubocharged V6 option and charge more for it right now, not in 2013.

To most people, perception is reality. GM must combat this with creating a different perception based on product only.

First of all it is pretty hard to argue with hard MPG numbers, so the whole perception thing is an illusion does not survive even a cursory reference to the window sticker. It is probably a harder sell convincing buyers that twin turbos will not cost more to maintain and will be as reliable 10 years down the line, than it is so point to the window sticker and say that your V8 is just as economical than their V6 or more so.

Secondly, I don't believe that truck buyers in general fall into the "early adopters of technology for technology's sake" crowd. What makes you so sure that the 40% of F-150 buyers who bought the Ecoboost engine bought it because its twin turbo and "high tech", rather than the fact that it is 5hp more powerful and 40 lb-ft more torquey than Ford's 5.0 V8?

[dwightlooi]

For the most part there is really no extra maintenance & repair costs with a Turbo. The only real cost I have seen is Mobil One. As for repair cost that remains to be seen.

The myth of added issues with Turbo engines are not like they used to be. the potential is always there but it is with most modern V8 engines too. My Neighbor just had issues on hi Chevy HD and just for a check engine light and some sensors they wanted over $700.

A modern Turbo is not the same as the old 3800 Turbo.

Really? How about the fact that every turbo I have had -- and I have had quite a number from a Talon TSi (Eclipse GSX), New Beetle 1.8T, Celica All-Trac Turbo and Audi S4 -- have shorter oil change intervals than their non-turbo counterparts. In addition, I have had several instances of leaking intercooler plumbing or end tanks and one instance of a bad waste gate solenoid valve. None of the cars were over 11 years old or had more than 115K miles, the average age was ~8 years when at the end of my ownership experience. Again... nothing catastrophic, nothing partcularly bothersome, but all of these are failure points which an NA engine DOES NOT have.

In short, a turbocharged engine has ALL the failure modes an NA engine has, plus additional ones. That is not a debatable notion, it is a fact. A turbocharged engine, by virtue of the high temperatures in the turbine bearings, also have more demanding oil requirements or more frequent change intervals or both. These are also not debatable.

[hyperv6]

What do you expect him to say?

Gm is going to treat this as nothing special till they are ready to present their own late Turbo V6. The key is to make sure what they have out of the box does not just meet the Ford Ecoboost but superseed it and let Ford do some catching up on their own.

GM has proven with the LNF what they can do with a turbo and DI before Ford had it. Just the lack of funds prevented expansion and proper marketing of these engines. I am sure GM will get it right but the killer is the time they have to spend to catch up now. Everyone thinks Ford was first between GM and them when it was GM who had the first boosted DI American engine.

Credit does go to Ford to having the guts to put the V6 Ecoboost in the truck. While many dismissed it the engine has proven powerful and profitable. GM needs to take these kinds of risks now that they are in a stronger money postition.

First of all, I don't think GM is putting a "similar" engine in the upcoming Silverado -- similar as in V6 twin-turbo. What will probably happen is that GM will keep the V8, keep the pushrods and keep the larger displacement over the Ford Twin-Turbo 3.5 V6. However, the new Gen 5 Smallblock V8 will feature Direct Injection, cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing. The target of course it to match or exceed the Ford turbo V6 both in terms of performance and in terms of fuel economy without the cost and maintenance disadvantageous of the Ecoboost engine. Given that even the current port injected V8 is only 1 mpg off, this is a very achievable target. If they keep the 5.3 liter displacement, expect about 400 hp / 400 lb-ft from a direct injected small block with mpg numbers about 1 mpg better than the Ecoboost 3.5 just from AFM and higher compression alone. If they really want, they can milk another 1 mpg out of it by going to a taller axle ratio which the increased torque output will allow with no degradation in acceleration or tow rating.

If they are smart, they will make a large displacement pushrod V6 (approximately 4.7 liters) with a similar output as today's 5.3 V8 (~300 hp / 300 lb-ft). Such an engine will be both cheaper, easier to maintain and more economical than a boosted 3.5. This may also make a good engine for the Caprice for instance when the Police department or some other fleet buyer will rather have a lower cost engine with better economy than the V8.

Well you know as much as I do on the new truck and that is little. You are afforded your opinion as I but you only look at these things from a engineering stand point and seldom from a marketing. Ford took a chance and so far it is paying off big time. Never assume what the public will want or pay more for. GM really needs to step it up as Ford is making their truck look more technically.

As we have learned from Toyota that generally precieved tech and quality always out performs reality. The customer is not always right but in his eyes he is. So you give him what he wants and make money while doing it. I see it daily with many auto performance parts. So many fool them selves with drilled or slotted rotors thinking they are getting a better performing part and all they are doing is adding to my profit sharing.

When looking at these things is is more than numbers but the psychological factor of customer preception. You have to look at the whole picture. The pushrod V8 is fine but GM needs to trump the Ecoboost in the eyes of the consumer not just on paper.

Edited September 9, 2011 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

For the most part there is really no extra maintenance & repair costs with a Turbo. The only real cost I have seen is Mobil One. As for repair cost that remains to be seen.

The myth of added issues with Turbo engines are not like they used to be. the potential is always there but it is with most modern V8 engines too. My Neighbor just had issues on hi Chevy HD and just for a check engine light and some sensors they wanted over $700.

A modern Turbo is not the same as the old 3800 Turbo.

Really? How about the fact that every turbo I have had -- and I have had quite a number from a Talon TSi (Eclipse GSX), New Beetle 1.8T, Celica All-Trac Turbo and Audi S4 -- have shorter oil change intervals than their non-turbo counterparts. In addition, I have had several instances of leaking intercooler plumbing or end tanks and one instance of a bad waste gate solenoid valve. None of the cars were over 11 years old or had more than 115K miles, the average age was ~8 years when at the end of my ownership experience. Again... nothing catastrophic, nothing partcularly bothersome, but all of these are failure points which an NA engine DOES NOT have.

In short, a turbocharged engine has ALL the failure modes an NA engine has, plus additional ones. That is not a debatable notion, it is a fact. A turbocharged engine, by virtue of the high temperatures in the turbine bearings, also have more demanding oil requirements or more frequent change intervals or both. These are also not debatable.

Oh please, you know as well as I today in just the last couple years Turbo engines have come a long way from just 5-8 years ago. GM for instance in the Eco Turbo offers things not heard of on any of the cars you owned.

Things like better cooling systems, better new advanced Eaton Turbo's, Better built and stronger engines that they are based on, Sodium valves, syntetic oils and more. The Oil changes on a LNF are no sooner than any other NA car I have ever owned.

In the past I would have never owned a turbo as they generally were poor builds and generally had less life spans in most all cases. Some of the cars you owned were ones I would never had considered because of the issues involved with them.

Generally today the LNF has been as reliable as most of the other Eco engines. The only real issues I have seen are some wastegate issues and dealers that have poorly trained techs to deal with it. The only real intercooler issues today have been hoses that may come loose because they were not tight enough or a owner hitting a curb and breaking it.

I do agree there is more possible to go wrong but for the most most are not having a great number of issues it any that are turbo related. I spend a lot of time on the LNF forums and cars related to them even with many modified they are holding their own.

You might want to read the Eco book GM put out. The new one goes over what all you can do and what the engine will take and it is amazing. I even was able to sit with John Lingenfelter before he passes and talk about the one he drag raced. He was using a stock head to 1500 HP before it would crack.

Today GM most other MFG are investing in Turbo engines. They are not just going to be fore performance but for just daily family cars. They are not going to except failure nor could they afford the rep of failure on a massive scale like the first Buick 3.8 turbo engines. Many on the one forum I am on have already passed 100,000 with nary an issue.

With the new 1.4 and V6 turbo's coming and becoming common turbo issue of the past will fade away. Whole a turbo engine still may have a failure here and there you are going to have that. Just like a failure on any other engine. Even my 3800 SC had a failure this year and as they say $hit happens.

Heck I had Buddy with a major failure in his 2010 LS powered truck engine. You don't see many but they have issue too. But that is what the warranty is for.

[hyperv6]

That Chief Marketer should worry about the PERCEPTION that Ford created with that ECOboost V6 and the sales it generates. Ford charges $1000 MORE than the standard V8 in the F150. GM looks behind the curve, even if that is not really accurate from a CAFE/MPG perspective. Quite frankly, GM needs to upgrade/replace that Vortec 4300 with a toubocharged V6 option and charge more for it right now, not in 2013.

To most people, perception is reality. GM must combat this with creating a different perception based on product only.

Now you see the big picture. It what people precieve and not always reality that counts. People often buy on emotion not fact. Other wise we all would be driving base Impala pushrod engine cars in white. You don't need anything more but people want more and often are willing to pay a lot more for it. With cars you can hear it and see it but we all need to feel it inside before we pay the big money. Otherwise we would all have bought Saturns or Hondas.

Edited September 9, 2011 by hyperv6

[regfootball]

one customer i had one day was driving a new ecoboost truck. my question, do you like it. the answer was basically gushing about how good the truck was. loved the f-150, loved the turbo, loved the power, and 24 mpg.

our ford stores, the ecoboost trucks are often sold before they get them off the trailer. if they do hit the lot, i doubt they stay beyond 5 days or so.

[PurdueGuy]

For the most part there is really no extra maintenance & repair costs with a Turbo.

The turbos going to be fine for 250k+ miles? Cuz a well maintained V8 is likely to be able to do that quite easily.

[dwightlooi]

Oh please, you know as well as I today in just the last couple years Turbo engines have come a long way from just 5-8 years ago. GM for instance in the Eco Turbo offers things not heard of on any of the cars you owned.

Things like better cooling systems, better new advanced Eaton Turbo's, Better built and stronger engines that they are based on, Sodium valves, syntetic oils and more. The Oil changes on a LNF are no sooner than any other NA car I have ever owned.

Actually, no. I know that turbo technology have not changed much over the last 5~8 years when it comes to reliability enhancing breakthroughs. Can you name ONE new feature on the turbo used in the LNF or LHU engines that isn't around at the turn of the millenium? No, you can't because there is none. The biggest improvement in turbo life came with the water cooled bearing section. That was over 30 years ago. Next came the after run water circulation pump. All the VWs from the late 90s had that. And, before that using a turbo timer to keep the engine running for a few minutes after the key is out has a similar effect of preventing stationary oil coking on red hot turbo bearings after a hard run.

Sodium filled valve stems do nothing to extend oil life. Nada, zero, zilch. What they do is help cool the exhaust valves better and prevent hot spots on them that may cause engine knocks or weaken the valves.

BTW, Eaton did not make the LNF turbocharger. The Turbo in the LNF engine (Solstice GXP / Cobalt SS) is a KKK K04 unit. It has the same reliability enhancing features -- a water cooled bearing jacket and an after shutdown electric coolant pump -- as a 1998 Passat 1.8T (which is a smaller but otherwise similar KKK K03). If you obey the oil life monitor, you'll probably get between 5000~7000 miles out of your Mobil 1 fill. At least that is what many owners are getting. The Malibu's 2.4 gets almost twice that (9,000~13,000). You can't say that that constitutes no difference. That may not bother you and it may be similar to an older car you drove, but it is significantly worse than the 10,000~15,000 mile oil change interval NA engines can get out of the same oil today.

The whole oil thing aside, you CANNOT argue that pressurized plumbing leaks, intercooler leaks, Bypass valve diaphragm failures, wastegate solenoid faults, thrust bearing failures, turbo oil seal leaks and a host of force induction paraphernalia failure is POSSIBLE on an NA engine. You cannot because stuff that do not exist cannot fail.

Edited September 9, 2011 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

Oh please, you know as well as I today in just the last couple years Turbo engines have come a long way from just 5-8 years ago. GM for instance in the Eco Turbo offers things not heard of on any of the cars you owned.

Things like better cooling systems, better new advanced Eaton Turbo's, Better built and stronger engines that they are based on, Sodium valves, syntetic oils and more. The Oil changes on a LNF are no sooner than any other NA car I have ever owned.

Actually, no. I know that turbo technology have not changed much over the last 5~8 years when it comes to reliability enhancing breakthroughs. Can you name ONE new feature on the turbo used in the LNF or LHU engines that isn't around at the turn of the millenium? No, you can't because there is none. The biggest improvement in turbo life came with the water cooled bearing section. That was over 30 years ago. Next came the after run water circulation pump. All the VWs from the late 90s had that. And, before that using a turbo timer to keep the engine running for a few minutes after the key is out has a similar effect of preventing stationary oil coking on red hot turbo bearings after a hard run.

Sodium filled valve stems do nothing to extend oil life. Nada, zero, zilch. What they do is help cool the exhaust valves better and prevent hot spots on them that may cause engine knocks or weaken the valves.

BTW, Eaton did not make the LNF turbocharger. The Turbo in the LNF engine (Solstice GXP / Cobalt SS) is a KKK K04 unit. It has the same reliability enhancing features -- a water cooled bearing jacket and an after shutdown electric coolant pump -- as a 1998 Passat 1.8T (which is a smaller but otherwise similar KKK K03). If you obey the oil life monitor, you'll probably get between 5000~7000 miles out of your Mobil 1 fill. At least that is what many owners are getting. The Malibu's 2.4 gets almost twice that (9,000~13,000). You can't say that that constitutes no difference. That may not bother you and it may be similar to an older car you drove, but it is significantly worse than the 10,000~15,000 mile oil change interval NA engines can get out of the same oil today.

The whole oil thing aside, you CANNOT argue that pressurized plumbing leaks, intercooler leaks, Bypass valve diaphragm failures, wastegate solenoid faults, thrust bearing failures, turbo oil seal leaks and a host of force induction paraphernalia failure is POSSIBLE on an NA engine. You cannot because stuff that do not exist cannot fail.

Also if you leave your house in the morning you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus than if you stay at home. But the odds are you won't. It could happen the more you leave but then again more than not you will live a fruit full long life. The same goes for a modern Turbo engine. I agree that there is more things on it so there is a chance more could happen but that does not mean it will. Same goes for a new LS engine as with the cylinder deactivation, coming cam in cam etc. It has more things to fail too but that does not mean it will happen. There was a time a 3.8 Turbo would never make it past 35,000 miles and today I have seen many 3.8 Turbo GN's with a couple hundred thousand miles with little or no repairs.

My engine runs around 9,000 running to 25% on the meter. This is mostly city driving. I tend to change it once I hit 25% so I don't forget it. In the past you would not even think of passing 3,000 miles.

Sorry You are correct it is a Honeywell unit. I was just hinking about my failed 3800 SC Eaton Supercharger intake at the time, Sorry.

Sodium valves add to the life of the engine and deal with the heat much better turbo or non turbo. These are. The material and turbo units are much more durable due to better materials. Also most of the new units are a new design witht he duel scrolling that make them run and drive much better. The fact is the greatest inprovments are in the engine the units go on as they can now deal with the added loads and stress better. They finally stopped bolting the units on near stock NA engines thinking they would get away with it.

While I agree more could go wrong does not mean they all will have issues. If so the industry is in grave trouble with all the small turbo engines coming out.

We have more turbo engines on the road today than ever. Failures do happen but are not common let alone epidemic. In the past companies would cheap out and has to pay for it.

Truckers are proof turbo engines can go hundreds thousands miles if properly cared for. Their mfg for the most have never cheaped out and it shows in the miles they rack up.

Same goes for the many Turbo aircraft engines that remain in long term service.

You can not argue that Trubo engines are all crap like they used to be. You can not argue the fact that most live long and reliable lives today with the many on the streets doing so. You can not argue that most peoplea are happy and are willing to pay more for these engines.

Do you rally think Ford would have gone to a Ecoboost in the trucks if they did not expect it to be reliable. The PR from massive failures would kill their money machine and they could not afford that. Even you have to admit todays engine are better in material and quality than your Talon. The fact the engines they are based on also have improved ten fold. The industry has learned you can cheap out or short cut these parts as they pay for them in the long run in warranty or even bad press. With all the Turbo Cruze out there GM knows they can't afford failures on the scale of a Vega engine. They have paid for that one for years by skipping the liners.

The trucking industry also has proven turbo engines can be reliable if not cheaped out. How many semi's run hundreds of thousands of miles with these yearly?

Most MFG's are going away from what you preach and moving in the oppisite direction. They seem have faith in these engines on a grand scale and in Fords case making more money because of it.

You have your view and I have mine we will just have to agree to disagree.

Edited September 9, 2011 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

Also if you leave your house in the morning you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus than if you stay at home. But the odds are you won't. It could happen the more you leave but then again more than not you will live a fruit full long life. The same goes for a modern Turbo engine. I agree that there is more things on it so there is a chance more could happen but that does not mean it will. Same goes for a new LS engine as with the cylinder deactivation, coming cam in cam etc. It has more things to fail too but that does not mean it will happen. There was a time a 3.8 Turbo would never make it past 35,000 miles and today I have seen many 3.8 Turbo GN's with a couple hundred thousand miles with little or no repairs.

My engine runs around 9,000 running to 25% on the meter. This is mostly city driving. I tend to change it once I hit 25% so I don't forget it. In the past you would not even think of passing 3,000 miles.

Sorry You are correct it is a Honeywell unit. I was just hinking about my failed 3800 SC Eaton Supercharger intake at the time, Sorry.

Sodium valves add to the life of the engine and deal with the heat much better turbo or non turbo. These are. The material and turbo units are much more durable due to better materials. Also most of the new units are a new design witht he duel scrolling that make them run and drive much better. The fact is the greatest inprovments are in the engine the units go on as they can now deal with the added loads and stress better. They finally stopped bolting the units on near stock NA engines thinking they would get away with it.

While I agree more could go wrong does not mean they all will have issues. If so the industry is in grave trouble with all the small turbo engines coming out.

We have more turbo engines on the road today than ever. Failures do happen but are not common let alone epidemic. In the past companies would cheap out and has to pay for it.

Truckers are proof turbo engines can go hundreds thousands miles if properly cared for. Their mfg for the most have never cheaped out and it shows in the miles they rack up.

Same goes for the many Turbo aircraft engines that remain in long term service.

You can not argue that Trubo engines are all crap like they used to be. You can not argue the fact that most live long and reliable lives today with the many on the streets doing so. You can not argue that most peoplea are happy and are willing to pay more for these engines.

Do you rally think Ford would have gone to a Ecoboost in the trucks if they did not expect it to be reliable. The PR from massive failures would kill their money machine and they could not afford that. Even you have to admit todays engine are better in material and quality than your Talon. The fact the engines they are based on also have improved ten fold. The industry has learned you can cheap out or short cut these parts as they pay for them in the long run in warranty or even bad press. With all the Turbo Cruze out there GM knows they can't afford failures on the scale of a Vega engine. They have paid for that one for years by skipping the liners.

The trucking industry also has proven turbo engines can be reliable if not cheaped out. How many semi's run hundreds of thousands of miles with these yearly?

Most MFG's are going away from what you preach and moving in the oppisite direction. They seem have faith in these engines on a grand scale and in Fords case making more money because of it.

You have your view and I have mine we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have never said that "Trubo engines are all crap like they used to be". You said that. What I said was that Turbocharged engines had, have and will continue to have, higher maintenance requirements and more points of failure than Normally Aspirated engines. This is not to mention higher production costs.

I also do not believe that the overwhelming majority of vehicle buyers will buy a vehicle with a turbocharged engine for the sake of it being turbocharged. I'll say the same about alphabet soups like DOHC or whatever. I honestly do not believe that any of these matter to the majority of car buyers. In fact, most wouldn't even know what these things stand for or how they work. This is especially not the case with truck buyers.

I believe that what's important is hitting or exceeding the performance, refinement and fuel economy targets. In this regard, when it comes to light trucks, a direct injected pushrod V8 is a fully viable, competitive and economical alternative to a twin turbo V6. Fully viable in that GM knows how to do it. Fully competitive in that it can match or exceed the ecoboost engine on performance, refinement and/or fuel economy. Economical in that it is a lower cost solution. I believe that consumers will judge the vehicle and its engine on their merits. In fact, I do not believe that there exist a prevalent perception that turbocharged engines are desirable for the sake of the fact that it is smaller displacement and turbocharged.

[Justin Bimmer]

Is it just me or were the MPG numbers the same and generally similar power output for the two engines? I see no benefit of one engine over the other.

[hyperv6]

Also if you leave your house in the morning you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus than if you stay at home. But the odds are you won't. It could happen the more you leave but then again more than not you will live a fruit full long life. The same goes for a modern Turbo engine. I agree that there is more things on it so there is a chance more could happen but that does not mean it will. Same goes for a new LS engine as with the cylinder deactivation, coming cam in cam etc. It has more things to fail too but that does not mean it will happen. There was a time a 3.8 Turbo would never make it past 35,000 miles and today I have seen many 3.8 Turbo GN's with a couple hundred thousand miles with little or no repairs.

My engine runs around 9,000 running to 25% on the meter. This is mostly city driving. I tend to change it once I hit 25% so I don't forget it. In the past you would not even think of passing 3,000 miles.

Sorry You are correct it is a Honeywell unit. I was just hinking about my failed 3800 SC Eaton Supercharger intake at the time, Sorry.

Sodium valves add to the life of the engine and deal with the heat much better turbo or non turbo. These are. The material and turbo units are much more durable due to better materials. Also most of the new units are a new design witht he duel scrolling that make them run and drive much better. The fact is the greatest inprovments are in the engine the units go on as they can now deal with the added loads and stress better. They finally stopped bolting the units on near stock NA engines thinking they would get away with it.

While I agree more could go wrong does not mean they all will have issues. If so the industry is in grave trouble with all the small turbo engines coming out.

We have more turbo engines on the road today than ever. Failures do happen but are not common let alone epidemic. In the past companies would cheap out and has to pay for it.

Truckers are proof turbo engines can go hundreds thousands miles if properly cared for. Their mfg for the most have never cheaped out and it shows in the miles they rack up.

Same goes for the many Turbo aircraft engines that remain in long term service.

You can not argue that Trubo engines are all crap like they used to be. You can not argue the fact that most live long and reliable lives today with the many on the streets doing so. You can not argue that most peoplea are happy and are willing to pay more for these engines.

Do you rally think Ford would have gone to a Ecoboost in the trucks if they did not expect it to be reliable. The PR from massive failures would kill their money machine and they could not afford that. Even you have to admit todays engine are better in material and quality than your Talon. The fact the engines they are based on also have improved ten fold. The industry has learned you can cheap out or short cut these parts as they pay for them in the long run in warranty or even bad press. With all the Turbo Cruze out there GM knows they can't afford failures on the scale of a Vega engine. They have paid for that one for years by skipping the liners.

The trucking industry also has proven turbo engines can be reliable if not cheaped out. How many semi's run hundreds of thousands of miles with these yearly?

Most MFG's are going away from what you preach and moving in the oppisite direction. They seem have faith in these engines on a grand scale and in Fords case making more money because of it.

You have your view and I have mine we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have never said that "Trubo engines are all crap like they used to be". You said that. What I said was that Turbocharged engines had, have and will continue to have, higher maintenance requirements and more points of failure than Normally Aspirated engines. This is not to mention higher production costs.

I also do not believe that the overwhelming majority of vehicle buyers will buy a vehicle with a turbocharged engine for the sake of it being turbocharged. I'll say the same about alphabet soups like DOHC or whatever. I honestly do not believe that any of these matter to the majority of car buyers. In fact, most wouldn't even know what these things stand for or how they work. This is especially not the case with truck buyers.

I believe that what's important is hitting or exceeding the performance, refinement and fuel economy targets. In this regard, when it comes to light trucks, a direct injected pushrod V8 is a fully viable, competitive and economical alternative to a twin turbo V6. Fully viable in that GM knows how to do it. Fully competitive in that it can match or exceed the ecoboost engine on performance, refinement and/or fuel economy. Economical in that it is a lower cost solution. I believe that consumers will judge the vehicle and its engine on their merits. In fact, I do not believe that there exist a prevalent perception that turbocharged engines are desirable for the sake of the fact that it is smaller displacement and turbocharged.

As I have said before it is more than just numbers you have to take in the whole picture.

You vastly underestimate people and their wants buy just relying on pure numbers. Who would have ever though Ford could pawn off 40+ of the F150 market on a Turbo V8 at $1000 premium? While what you say about the engine and cost for the most may be true it does not play with the people. Marketing, precieved value and precieved quailty is what people look at and often willing to pay more for.

We all here know Toyota's have been not any better than most other cars on the road but that is not what the general public thought till some bad PR came up.

You can spout all you like about push rods or large V6 engines but with out proper exciting marketing and something to get people excited they will get passed over.

The fact is more and more small turbo engines will arrive and most MFG will have them. If you hold out you will lose sales right or wrong. The customer may not always be right but you have to give them what they want.

This is a case where for the most on the techinical side you may be right but you will end up wrong on the sales end unless they take control of public opinion and trump others marketing.

Buying a car is emotional for most people, even non car people. They want to get excited and feel good about their cars and technology today is one thing that leads to sales no matter if it is I drive Sync or Ecoboost. Times have changed and in an age where we all may be better off with a cheap cell phone everyone has to have a Droid or I Phone V as soon as it comes out. THey line up and pay top price for it too.

[hyperv6]

Is it just me or were the MPG numbers the same and generally similar power output for the two engines? I see no benefit of one engine over the other.

Just a one MPG and as more 5 more horse power and 9 more pounds of torque are what people getting excited about. Good marketing can do this to a sheep like public. That is why they need to be fleeced for their money. It is the idea of the engine that is selling more than the real numbers. That is what I mean by the whole picture. They think it is better so it has to be better even if it is just a little.

[dwightlooi]

Is it just me or were the MPG numbers the same and generally similar power output for the two engines? I see no benefit of one engine over the other.

Today, Ford's Ecoboost 3.5 V6 has a 1 mpg advantage over the 5.3 GM V8. It also has higher output. However, with the addition of direct injection, cylinder deactivation, variable timing and approximately 1 point increase in compression ratio in the Gen V pushrod V8s, it is not unreasonable to expect no less than 1~2 mpg improvement from the V8 along with 72~76 hp/liter. This allows the V8 to match or exceed the performance and fuel economy of today's Ecoboost 3.5 V6 without the cost, complexity and bulk of two turbo chargers, intercoolers and a pasta bowl worth of plumbing, not three more camshafts and 50% more valve train parts.

Back to my original point... what it means is that going to a small displacement, twin turbo V6, is NOT the only competitive way forward for GM trucks.

[BuddyP]

The issue with the 5.3 and such is while the 340 hp rating may look good, the torque band absolutly sucks. No 1/2 ton GM truck has had a better pulling motor than the late '90ls 5.7. While down on power they pulled way better. This is where the Ecoboost F150 shins, turbo's give a gob of torque down low. Our 2007 Tahoe, as much as I like it, sucks when a trailer is attached behind it. The motor has no low end.

GM... stop with the HP wars and tube a motor for what it is supposed to do, not for peak hp.

[hyperv6]

The issue with the 5.3 and such is while the 340 hp rating may look good, the torque band absolutly sucks. No 1/2 ton GM truck has had a better pulling motor than the late '90ls 5.7. While down on power they pulled way better. This is where the Ecoboost F150 shins, turbo's give a gob of torque down low. Our 2007 Tahoe, as much as I like it, sucks when a trailer is attached behind it. The motor has no low end.

GM... stop with the HP wars and tube a motor for what it is supposed to do, not for peak hp.

The new Variable Valve Timing will address this in the new engine. It is the VVT more than the Turbo that does this.