Go Back   iRV2 Forums > TRAVEL TRAILER, 5th WHEEL & TRUCK CAMPER FORUMS > Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2013, 07:57 PM   #29
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumminsfan View Post
I wouldn't get all crazy about the Eco boost. Read this. EcoBoost Stalls Ford (10/28/13)

Ford drop to 20 something in reliability.

Ram jumped 6 spots.
It helps to actually read the report. The engine ranks very high.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cr.png
Views:	52
Size:	39.3 KB
ID:	48826  
__________________

__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-29-2013, 09:08 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
While premium can be used for increased performance, it is not needed. Either is recommended. Not sure where you get better fuel economy from the use of Premium, but that is also incorrect. Premium fuel does not increase MPG but it does help with performance due to a more aggressive tune which usually related to less MPG because of the right foot.
Octane is a combustion inhibitor. Higher octane = less volatile fuel. That's why higher compression engines and especially those with direct injection and turbos benefit from it. Prevents the fuel from igniting from heat and compression pressure prior to spark.
So as I said, it will run on regular (poorly) with reduced boost and retaded timing, but if you actually want to achieve the performance numbers they claim and/or use it correctly under sustained load...

As far as where I get my info, go to the Ford website. Fine print is on every page about the 3.5V6 ecoboost: "†Figures achieved using premium fuel."
2014 Ford F-150 | View Full Engine Specifications | Ford.com

You'll note that this is for the HP and torque figures on the F150 page. When lower octane gas ignites too far before top-dead-center in the cylinder, a significant part of the combustion pushes against the piston while still on it's way UP! This is obviously horrific for the piston, rings, valve seats, connecting rods, bearings etc. and is far from efficient in terms of any performance figure (MPG or otherwise).
__________________

__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 09:30 PM   #31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post
Octane is a combustion inhibitor. Higher octane = less volatile fuel. That's why higher compression engines and especially those with direct injection and turbos benefit from it. Prevents the fuel from igniting from heat and compression pressure prior to spark.
So as I said, it will run on regular (poorly) with reduced boost and retaded timing, but if you actually want to achieve the performance numbers they claim and/or use it correctly under sustained load...

As far as where I get my info, go to the Ford website. Fine print is on every page about the 3.5V6 ecoboost: "†Figures achieved using premium fuel."
2014 Ford F-150 | View Full Engine Specifications | Ford.com

You'll note that this is for the HP and torque figures, not MPG.

While you just said what I just said, it will not run poorly on 87 octane fuel. The numbers are not that much different between the two octanes. So thanks for repeating what I already said.
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 09:40 PM   #32
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post

You'll note that this is for the HP and torque figures on the F150 page. When lower octane gas ignites too far before top-dead-center in the cylinder, a significant part of the combustion pushes against the piston while still on it's way UP! This is obviously horrific for the piston, rings, valve seats, connecting rods, bearings etc. and is far from efficient in terms of any performance figure (MPG or otherwise).
Since you mentioned direct injection but must not understand it, direct injection has the injector tip inside the combustion chamber. This allows for precise fuel delivery at the exact time that is needed for atomization and sequence for the piston travel. So, because the PCM knows what octane is in the tank, it can calculate the exact time that the fuel needs to be injected directly into the cylinder.

Now, while low octane for a specific engine set up that needs higher octane can cause preignition, higher octane for an engine that cannot use it can equally be bad. This relates to lost HP due to the fuel burning on the exhaust stroke causing combustion push on the piston. Dyno reports on a stock Suzuki Hyabusa showed a 5HP decrease when using premium over 87.
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 10:12 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kitts Hill, OH
Posts: 1,863
I said in the other thread so here is my take on it in this one. The big three will NOT do diesels right in the half tons. (Fords not doing it at all i think)This is history repeating its self for GM, if you folks remember GM did this back in 1977-80 with the 5.7L Olds diesel (somewhat a converted design) and if i recall correctly there wasn't a tow rating because it was for MPG, not work.
And we see how well that worked out now didn't it!!
__________________
(RVM#26) THE U-RV 94 F-700/24 foot U-haul box home built RV
Mekanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:13 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
Since you mentioned direct injection but must not understand it, direct injection has the injector tip inside the combustion chamber. This allows for precise fuel delivery at the exact time that is needed for atomization and sequence for the piston travel. So, because the PCM knows what octane is in the tank, it can calculate the exact time that the fuel needs to be injected directly into the cylinder.

Now, while low octane for a specific engine set up that needs higher octane can cause preignition, higher octane for an engine that cannot use it can equally be bad. This relates to lost HP due to the fuel burning on the during the exhaust stroke causing engine push. Dyno reports on a stock Suzuki Hyabusa showed a 5HP decrease when using premium over 87.
It knows what octane is in the tank because of knock sensors telling it that there is pre-detonation and effectively tries to retard the point of ignition. Glad you straighten that out. Still not performing as advertised. HP, Torque or MPG on regular. The fuel can still begin to ignite before the spark, regardless of where the piston is. Ignitin timing is ideally about 5 degrees before TDC. The whole performance POINT of direct injection is to keep the gas out of the combustion chamber because the compression is too high after turbo charging. That is why it came first on diesels which run 20:1 and more.

No one ever said to run high octane in an engine that doesn't need it. I certainly never would. My car is a turbo gas engine and calls for 91 octane and it kills me that all we get is 89 or 93.
As far as being "equally bad", you may have some unburnt fuel and that's not efficient and is bad for the catalytic converter, but equally bad??

Seriously... A Hyabusa? They ran 11.0:1 compression ratio. That engine should probably run 89 octane. Add some high compression 12.5:1 Weisco pistons and Premium fuel and it will run better. The reason Suzuki dind't was that they know people would run them on regular and didn't want them blowing up. Don't see your point here.
While we're off topic, for your 2L Escape ecoboost, Ford actually specifies 93 octane (not even 91) to perform as advertised.
Ford - Cars, SUVs, Trucks & Crossovers | Ford Vehicles | The Official Site of Ford Vehicles | Ford.com


The point is, why bother with all this in a tow vehicle when you can just get a Diesel? Your initial argument earlier was that regular is cheaper than diesel. At this level of the game, we're talking about what, $2 per tank in a $35,000 vehicle? Put that towards your timing belt.
If you want to run regular, go for it. Most others Ford buyers will too and that's why I would never buy an ecoboost used.

I don't dispute the merits of a gas turbo, though. I have one too and love them as an efficient, sporty, performance daily driver. My 1.8L has its peak torque at 2000rpm. You can't beat that! But for long distance highway rides and towing, you just can't compare a high-strung gas turbo engine to a diesel. Even with the correct octane and fuel price aside.

We can agree to disagree (though I think we are saying the same thing), but please don't start talking Suzukis when the topic is tow vehicles. My 1200 Bandit was my favorite bike and now I'm all teary eyed.
And yes, it ran best on 89 octane...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	b1.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	108.7 KB
ID:	48847  
__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:29 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
The numbers are not that much different between the two octanes. So thanks for repeating what I already said.
OK, maybe not poorly as in running bad, but certainly not running as well as it could or was designed/advertised.

Not sure what the two octanes are (87 to 91?). I see pump gas octane from as low as 86 to 94. That's not a small difference.
__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:29 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 107
You can't compare todays technology to the old diesel. Electronic engine controls are light years ahead in every aspect, reliability, economy, power. The old diesel engines with mechanical timed fuel injection are what they had at the time. How many of you remember riding in the old Austin taxicabs in London with the diesel engine 40 years ago?

I understand that the new Chevy Colorado will come with a diesel engine, a four cylinder model. Right now the diesel Cruze gets 42 mpg. Imagine 42 mpg in a pickup, haven't seen that since the VW Rabbit/Truck. I don't need to drive around the big dually just to pick up a few 2x4's.

Why the naysaying?
__________________
2004 Silverado Duramax Six-Pac Camper
1999 Coachman Leprechaun
2010 ATC Race Car Trailer
jamesgr81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 06:56 AM   #37
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post

We can agree to disagree (though I think we are saying the same thing), but please don't start talking Suzukis when the topic is tow vehicles. My 1200 Bandit was my favorite bike and now I'm all teary eyed.
And yes, it ran best on 89 octane...

Just sold mine. 750 but could keep up with the liter bikes with a much lower insurance cost.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gsxr750 002.jpg
Views:	36
Size:	324.6 KB
ID:	48858  
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 07:02 AM   #38
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post
While we're off topic, for your 2L Escape ecoboost, Ford actually specifies 93 octane (not even 91) to perform as advertised.
Ford - Cars, SUVs, Trucks & Crossovers | Ford Vehicles | The Official Site of Ford Vehicles | Ford.com


..

If you notice, the torque remains the same on both octane levels. However, HP does decrease by about 5 HP. Hardly noticeable in a roughly 3800lbs crossover. We never use anything other than 87 in it. Took a trip in it towing my jetskis and gear (over 2K lbs) and performance was more than expected with a return of 19 MPG. The need for high octane fuel comes from high compression with high RPMs. Towing you use mostly torque, not high RPMs and high compression (in this case full boost).
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 07:07 AM   #39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post
It knows what octane is in the tank because of knock sensors telling it that there is pre-detonation and effectively tries to retard the point of ignition. Glad you straighten that out. Still not performing as advertised. HP, Torque or MPG on regular. .

Again, you do not understand how octane affects MPG. It does not unless you are running at WOT the entire tank. Most people run the speed limit of 65-70 MPG. Under these conditions there is little to no boost. So what this means is there is not high combustion chamber pressures that require higher octane fuel.

For instance, this truck ran in the high 12s. Higher than normal boost levels and torque. But on road trips I would use 87 octane fuel because it made no difference in MPG and the combustion pressures were similar to a stock 5.4L engine. Highway was 18.5 MPG. And yes, I was used as a tow vehicle.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	motorhome 050.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	76.8 KB
ID:	48859   Click image for larger version

Name:	motorhome 049.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	74.8 KB
ID:	48860  

__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 07:57 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
TDI-Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
If you notice, the torque remains the same on both octane levels. However, HP does decrease by about 5 HP. Hardly noticeable in a roughly 3800lbs crossover. We never use anything other than 87 in it. Took a trip in it towing my jetskis and gear (over 2K lbs) and performance was more than expected with a return of 19 MPG. The need for high octane fuel comes from high compression with high RPMs. Towing you use mostly torque, not high RPMs and high compression (in this case full boost).
These small, variable-vane turbos are used to spool up very early and creat great low-end torque. That's why they use two small ones instead of one big one. At 2500rpm, they are running high, if not full boost already when you hit the gas. That's why you don't get the abrupt turbo lag to boost onset at 3000rpm you used to get on a old Porsche 930.

I've never heard an engine knocking at high rpm. It happens you just can't hear it as well. But I have certainly heard it at low rpm under load where max torque is being applied.

Like I said before, you can run whatever you want and the car will go down the road. You can also use cheap oil once every 25,000 miles and the car will go down the road. I just don't see how you justify it by saving $2 on a tank of gas when the engine was designed perform best with higher octane. I put my pedal on the floor on a regularly on acceleration and when I maintain 75-80mph at 3,000rpm uphill on the interstate, my turbo is spooling hard.
I leave it in top gear (manual) and drive the torque in the gas engine. Never needs a downshift, but there is heavy load.
__________________
2013 Winnebago 2301BH-Red
2012 Ram 2500 Megacab HO CTD
TDI-Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 08:00 AM   #41
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDI-Minnie View Post
These small, variable-vane turbos are used to spool up very early and creat great low-end torque. That's why they use two small ones instead of one big one. At 2500rpm, they are running high, if not full boost already when you hit the gas. That's why you don't get the abrupt turbo lag to boost onset at 3000rpm you used to get on a old Porsche 930.

I've never heard an engine knocking at high rpm. It happens you just can't hear it as well. But I have certainly heard it at low rpm under load where max torque is being applied.

Like I said before, you can run whatever you want and the car will go down the road. You can also use cheap oil once every 25,000 miles and the car will go down the road. I just don't see how you justify it by saving $2 on a tank of gas when the engine was designed perform best with higher octane. I put my pedal on the floor on a regularly on acceleration and when I maintain 75-80mph at 3,000rpm uphill on the interstate, my turbo is spooling hard.
I leave it in top gear (manual) and drive the torque in the gas engine. Never needs a downshift, but there is heavy load.

These turbos are not variable vane (aka VGT).They are standard turbos with a wastegate.
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 08:21 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
jenandjon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey View Post
Diesels have been the work horse for ever seems like... Now days they get great fuel mileage ! I used to hate the clatter banging noise of the first pickup diesels.. Haveing to shut them off at a drive through .. But now days, things are different. So quiet and smooth, even our newer 400-500 Cummins at work are very quiet.. Can't wait till I can get a pickup again...

My boss and I both have stock Duramax engines. Mine is 07 his is 13. We still have to shut them off in the drive through.
__________________

__________________
93 Jayco RK 325
07 Chevy classic crew cab long box LBZ Duramax
Farmer, Trucker, Equipment operator, Mechanic
jenandjon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diesel



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jack-knifed & totaled...advice NRiley Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 149 01-02-2017 10:57 PM
Fleetwood excursion 40x Tom222 Fleetwood Products Owner's Forum 7 08-18-2013 07:36 AM
F150 w/Ecoboost . . . again jesilvas Trailer Towing and Tow Vehicles Discussion 24 06-22-2013 04:29 AM
new to camping/RV best travel trailer Alphaco1997 Travel Trailer Discussion 36 06-20-2013 06:30 PM
Traveling with full fresh water tanks Vette4ba MH-General Discussions & Problems 36 06-09-2013 06:30 AM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.