F-150 Eco Boost on Stacey Davids Gearz....

[STANG KILLA SS]

i do alot of light towing, and for some reason these trucks are very popular on my boat forums.

well last night flipping channels there was one on Stacy Davids Gearz show.
he put on a "Heart Throb" cat back exhaust. it was 4" tubing front to back
this seemed crazy excessive to me. knowing we put 3-3.5" on our V8s. but i dont have any boost experience. is 4" really needed for a TT v6?
then at the end he said they (heart throb) did back to back dyno testing and gained 38 rwhp and 50 ft lbs of torque i know manufactures inflate there claims but that sounded insane! anyone have any experience with these trucks?

[Devil Inc]

I'd say a single 4" would be good to go, the reduced backpressure allows the turbos to spin more freely. Thus, allowing them to spool quicker and more efficiently, making more power.

[BJoe]

Originally Posted by Devil Inc

I'd say a single 4" would be good to go, the reduced backpressure allows the turbos to spin more freely. Thus, allowing them to spool quicker and more efficiently, making more power.

This

I am curious though, how is it that turbocharged gasoline engines weren't suppose to be used for towing back in the 80's and 90's, but it's ok for the Ecoboost motors to be used for towing

[dkf]

That large exhaust is fine with forced induction.

As for the hp and tq gains just be aware those are not hp and torque gains at their peaks. They are the biggest gains at a particular point in the rpm range.

The guy that did the tuning on my truck also does the 5.0l, 6.2l and EB trucks. I was talking to him about the intake project I'm doing for him and he was telling me about the EB 150 he just bought. since he finished the work on his 5.0l. He said in stock form its a dog and lugs the engine and your in 6th gear in under 40mph.(shifting for fuel economy) I've seen the gains he got on the dyno with only 87 octane fuel on the EB and they are impressive, even better on 93. He also gets big gains with the 5.0l. The 5.0l with the Boss intake on 93 octane is fast for a truck and doesn't give up any power across the rpm range, only makes more. If I'd be buying one today I'd get the 5.0l over the EB.

I am curious though, how is it that turbocharged gasoline engines weren't suppose to be used for towing back in the 80's and 90's, but it's ok for the Ecoboost motors to be used for towing

The EB is intercooled. Ford designed the system to handle EGTs over 1700 degrees F. How the EB will hold up in the long run has yet to be seen. If it turns out to be problematic Ford is in for a hurtin. They can't stand to have another shit engine incident like they had with the 6.0l PSD.

[BJoe]

How bad is the transmission's "economy" shifting? The 6 Speed in my 200 does that too and it is annoying as hell at times!

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dkf

The EB is intercooled.

Interesting. I didn't know that intercooling was a new technology.

[BJoe]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Interesting. I didn't know that intercooling was a new technology.

It is Ford afterall

[dkf]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Interesting. I didn't know that intercooling was a new technology.

Its an F-150. The last F-150 that had an intercooler was the Lightning back in 04' and that was rated to tow 5k lbs and had a much lower GVWR and GCWR.

How bad is the transmission's "economy" shifting? The 6 Speed in my 200 does that too and it is annoying as hell at times!

Pretty bad, thank CARB and the EPA for that. Gets into 6th gear as quick as it can. Tuning is the only way you'll change it.(custom tunes not off the shelf canned tune garbage)

[4xFord]

I looked into them and read post after post of how the mpg claims are complete bs.

[BJoe]

Originally Posted by dkf

Its an F-150. The last F-150 that had an intercooler was the Lightning back in 04' and that was rated to tow 5k lbs and had a much lower GVWR and GCWR.



Pretty bad, thank CARB and the EPA for that. Gets into 6th gear as quick as it can. Tuning is the only way you'll change it.(custom tunes not off the shelf canned tune garbage)

Not sure about the Fords, but I did find that my 200 sometimes requires a bigger boot in the skinny pedal if I don't want to use the Autostick

[hoghead5150]

Originally Posted by Devil Inc

I'd say a single 4" would be good to go, the reduced backpressure allows the turbos to spin more freely. Thus, allowing them to spool quicker and more efficiently, making more power.

man i wish people would learn more about engine dynamics before putting stuff like this out. any backpressure in an exhaust system is a bad thing. i'm not going to go into all the details but the correct term is scavenging. on the exhaust stroke gas is pushed into the header pipe, this gas moves down the pipe creating a sort of vaccum behind it. this is an exhaust pulse. now on the next exhaust stroke when the valve opens this vaccum helps pull the spent gasses out of the cylinder. this scavenging effect helps keep everything going smooth. as rpm increases these pulses become closer together and at a point the scavenging effect is no longer. this is why they say if you run a big diameter exhaust you lose torque, what you really lost was the scavenging effect at the lower rpm's.

now when you go turbo you would like a smaller pipe going into the turbo inlet. this will help the turbo spool up faster as the air speed will be more. it needs to be big enough to get the air out of the motor, but small enough to keep up velocity. as far as exhaust pipe for a turbo motor, it really doesn't matter as long as it's big enough to get rid of all the spent gasses as there isn't a scavenging effect happening at this point.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by hoghead5150

man i wish people would learn more about engine dynamics before putting stuff like this out.

Who cares. Millions of ricers have already proven that bigger and louder is better. Who needs scavenging when you have v-tec!

[Rockthrasher]

Originally Posted by 4xFord

I looked into them and read post after post of how the mpg claims are complete bs.

Huh, I've also read many posts where people are doing better than claimed mpg. My 2011 FX4 Supercrew has been pretty darn close to the advertised mpg. It just depends on how you drive it. I love hearing those turbos wind up! I do gotta say, it's a very impressive engine. Here's a couple pics of mine.

[STANG KILLA SS]

Originally Posted by hoghead5150

any backpressure in an exhaust system is a bad thing.

wrong.

[Cordwood]

Originally Posted by STANG KILLA SS

wrong.

so very very wrong...

[Manning]

I hate it when physics gets in the way of an interweb legend.

My boss got an EB a while back. Pretty cool ride.

[opek]

Originally Posted by hoghead5150

man i wish people would learn more about engine dynamics before putting stuff like this out. any backpressure in an exhaust system is a bad thing. i'm not going to go into all the details but the correct term is scavenging. on the exhaust stroke gas is pushed into the header pipe, this gas moves down the pipe creating a sort of vaccum behind it. this is an exhaust pulse. now on the next exhaust stroke when the valve opens this vaccum helps pull the spent gasses out of the cylinder. this scavenging effect helps keep everything going smooth. as rpm increases these pulses become closer together and at a point the scavenging effect is no longer. this is why they say if you run a big diameter exhaust you lose torque, what you really lost was the scavenging effect at the lower rpm's.

now when you go turbo you would like a smaller pipe going into the turbo inlet. this will help the turbo spool up faster as the air speed will be more. it needs to be big enough to get the air out of the motor, but small enough to keep up velocity. as far as exhaust pipe for a turbo motor, it really doesn't matter as long as it's big enough to get rid of all the spent gasses as there isn't a scavenging effect happening at this point.

Do you have any sources for your explanation of scavenging? What you explain is not what I have read, though I have no formal education in these matters. As far as the exhaust manifold, smaller compared to what? AFAIK exhaust velocity has nothing to do with how a turbine gets spun up. Thanks in advance for providing a civil and informative response!

[Manning]

Originally Posted by opek

Do you have any sources for your explanation of scavenging? What you explain is not what I have read, though I have no formal education in these matters. As far as the exhaust manifold, smaller compared to what? AFAIK exhaust velocity has nothing to do with how a turbine gets spun up. Thanks in advance for providing a civil and informative response!

If you google exhaust scavenging, you'll be reading for hours and hours. Of course you will find interweb armchair forum experts. Like me.

If backpressure was good, we'd all be driving around with potatoes in the tailpipe. OEM manufacturers would be using coffee stirrers for exhaust tubing.

Re: the turbo and exhaust inlet size....Imagine what would happen if you had the exhaust port at one end of a airplane hanger, and the turbo at the opposite end. The hanger is perfectly sealed, so that there are no way for the exhaust to get out other than through the tubine. Would the turbo spool up? Of course you don't want a coffee stirrer for port/manifold size either. There is a happy medium for mass flow and velocity between the exhaust valve and the turbine. After the turbine is a different story of course.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Manning

If backpressure was good, we'd all be driving around with potatoes in the tailpipe. OEM manufacturers would be using coffee stirrers for exhaust tubing.

Not true at all. They'd just seal up the exhaust ports all together.

Originally Posted by Manning

Of course you don't want a coffee stirrer for port/manifold size either. There is a happy medium for mass flow and velocity between the exhaust valve and the turbine. After the turbine is a different story of course.

I don't think scavenging applies to turbo engines anyway. I don't see how it could.

[dkf]

Originally Posted by 4xFord

I looked into them and read post after post of how the mpg claims are complete bs.

There are too many variables to mpg. Flat highway, hot weather and low speeds yeah you can get good mpg with it. My mpg would suck because there is not a flat straight road in my state. Plus I do a lot of shorter trips.

Then you got guys like this that think just because the display says they are getting 30mpg that the truck will average 30mpg on a tank of fuel.

2011 F-150 Ecoboost MPG - YouTube

Not sure about the Fords, but I did find that my 200 sometimes requires a bigger boot in the skinny pedal if I don't want to use the Autostick.

Its gotten worse since throttle by wire was implemented. TBW allows the guy who wrote the program to basically control everything. On the newer Ford trucks you can have the pedal to the floor and the butterfly will not open all the way and it moves a lot slower than its capable of. With tuning the system can be made super responsive.

Who cares. Millions of ricers have already proven that bigger and louder is better.

Thats what the EB sounds like to me with louder and larger exhaust. Rice...