Towing rpod 192 - Event Date: 28 May 2020 - 30 Jun 2020 |
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Author | ||
offgrid
Senior Member Joined: 23 Jul 2018 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5290 |
Calendar Event: Towing rpod 192 Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 4:56pm |
|
I explained the reasons why I preferred a normally aspirated engine, and I am far from unique in that opinion. I was not defending my choice nor was I asking you to defend yours. As you say, and I agree, it is a personal choice. You can drive whatever you want to.
I've never looked once at an elevator controller, but I have designed, installed and maintained many control systems for complex solar and hybrid power systems. And ac motor drives are essentially inverters, which I am quite familiar with. If you read what I wrote you would notice that I said microprocessor controllers are more reliable than relay logic, not less. We agree! That was not always the case, of course, in the early days as with any new technology microprocessors were unstable and suffered reliability issues. And turbos are in no way analogous to microprocessors, they are inherently less reliable than normally aspirated engines while microprocessors are inherently more reliable than relays, for the same reasons. Less moving parts undergoing less mechanical stress. As for Saabs, I had an old 1969 95 (normally aspirated) for awhile. Nice car to drive but very quirky. Got rid of it when the timing chain started to make noise and I realized the entire drivetrain had to be removed from the vehicle to get to it. Not good. I'm glad you had good luck with yours but Saabs in reality have only a middling reliability record. Owners are a loyal bunch though, they were often called Snaabs back in the day . |
||
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
||
lostagain
Senior Member Joined: 06 Sep 2016 Location: Quaker Hill, CT Online Status: Offline Posts: 2587 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 4:12pm | |
I don't know how many elevators you maintained, OG, but relay logic elevators with motor generators were so unreliable that they required nearly weekly maintenance in high use conditions and monthly low use. The modern micro-processors controllers with variable voltage variable frequency ac drives need maintenance even in the heaviest of use about every six months. Sometimes the new stuff is more reliable.
As for the turbo boosted engines, they've been around for a very long time. In fact, I had a Saab turbo that I put over 250K miles on with out a single repair and it would blow the socks off any comparable displacement naturally aspirated engine. Again, it all boils down to catsup or salsa picante, each person has his own preferences and we should not have to defend what we like. If you like your Prius, keep it until you run the wheels off as long as it fits your needs. If you don't want an eco-boost engine, don't buy one. You don't need to justify it to anyone.
|
||
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
||
offgrid
Senior Member Joined: 23 Jul 2018 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5290 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 11:54am | |
Its clearly not realistic for a turbocharged engine to be as reliable as a normally aspirated one, everything else being equal. It is more complex, has more moving parts, and exposes those parts to higher stresses. It always will. In this assessment the techs are correct. And their opinions count for a lot with me, most owners rarely even look under the hood.
Its not at all the same thing as substituting electronics for relay logic, that simplified the control systems significantly. Although in the early days of that transition microprocessors were pretty unstable, there was good reason to stick with relay logic to begin with. I've designed and installed both, for me the transition happened in the early 90's. If you have something really simple to do relay logic can still be the better choice. If y'all have need for a turbo to frequently climb the Sierras or the Rockies then that's fine, just like a turbonormalized aircraft engine is the right choice for pilots flying in the high teens to overtop those same mountains. But here in the East its not necessary, the benefits don't justify the reliability and maintainability concerns. Few folks buy turbonormalized aircraft here. I have no problem choosing to go with new technology, once proven to actually be better. I bought my Prius 10 years after Toyota released the first generation. It is now the highest rated vehicle for reliability on consumer reports. But its actually a pretty simple system, just elegant. Turbos have been around forever, and they still have reliability issues, for good reasons. I'll pass. Like I said, I'm fine if you like yours. I'm not in the market for another tow vehicle, but my next passenger car will be electric for sure. But if I wait till the Prius wears out it'll probably be a long time before that happens....
|
||
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
||
lostagain
Senior Member Joined: 06 Sep 2016 Location: Quaker Hill, CT Online Status: Offline Posts: 2587 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 10:44am | |
As for what engine mechanics prefer, those are just a few opinions based on personal preferences, i.e. catsup or spicy salsa. The hard data on the 2.7 engine is that it is very reliable, sturdy, more powerful than many V-8's, and innovative. It will take time to be accepted by those who prefer traditional naturally aspirated engines. But it serves its market well as a transitional technology that will ultimately be replaced by fuel cell and electric based motors.
Since we will never tow a trailer heavier than the one we have now and we have a towing capacity, at least as claimed by Ford, that is 3000# over our greatest trailer load, the truck will work really well for us. Like I say, some would be happier with the Kenworth MontaƱero, probably one of the toughest and strongest conventional transport tractor ever. We don't hear any engine screaming as we climb up to the beautiful hidden campgrounds in the Sierra Nevada. It's a comfortable drive both up and down. Glue Guy is right about the reduced engine braking of the 2.7 as compared to the 3.5, but that is one of the compromises we chose make; catsup or spicy salsa. When I worked in the elevator industry, I heard many mechanics rave about old relay logic elevator controllers and bitch about the new computer technology they didn't understand and were forced to learn to keep working. We all have a tendency to prefer the familiar over the new. It's human nature.
|
||
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney Sonoma 167RB Our Pod 172 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost |
||
offgrid
Senior Member Joined: 23 Jul 2018 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5290 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 10:35am | |
5.0 395 hp. 2.7 eb 325 hp. 3.5eb 375 hp. So nope, the 2.7 is not more powerful than the 5.0. It does generate its peak hp at a lower rpm though. 5k vs 5750. As to off the line low rpm torque, the 2.7 gets great reviews for not having turbo lag, in fact it is apparently quicker on the boost than the 3.5. I probably have a lighter left foot than even lostagain, so to me that's not important. I baby my stuff. I keep my Prius in ECO mode all the time which makes it less responsive (ie, it feels really gutless) but allows me to be precise and gentle about how much torque I'm applying. So I'll still go with what has the lowest anticipated maintenance cost that meets the requirements. Simpler is better in my opinion. I could invoke the old adage "there is no replacement for displacement" but of course its not true. Turbos can certainly substitute. But if the replacement involves more complex engineering and lower reliability, and if high altitude driving isn't a requirement then why would I? Others my choose differently. |
||
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
||
offgrid
Senior Member Joined: 23 Jul 2018 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5290 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 10:01am | |
I think perhaps you mistook me raising some additional points for consideration with implying that those considerations would inevitably result in a different decision for everyone. That isn't the case, as said, I would personally pick the 5.0 which wasn't even on the original list of choices. The opinions of the maintenance techs who work on these things count for a lot in my book. Others can disagree of course. Not sure what you mean by how these decisions effect the rest of us?
|
||
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft 2015 Rpod 179 - sold |
||
StephenH
podders Helping podders - pHp Joined: 29 Nov 2015 Location: Wake Forest, NC Online Status: Offline Posts: 6289 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 10:00am | |
I know that from the 2L Ecoboost engine in the Escape we had. It is a world of difference from the NA engine in the Frontier we now have. I don't miss having to feed it premium gas, but I miss the performance.
|
||
StephenH
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
||
GlueGuy
Senior Member Joined: 15 May 2017 Location: N. California Online Status: Offline Posts: 2630 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 9:49am | |
and I will agree with lostagain. If you have not driven an F-150 with the 2.7L EB, you can not understand what that engine can do. It is more powerful than a 5L V8, and it does it at lower RPM than that same V8. Both of those EcoBoost engines perform more like a gas-powered diesel.
The peak torque & horsepower do not tell the whole story. You need to look at the torque and RPM curves. At 2,000 RPM both of those engines are head and shoulders above a 5L V8. They are different animals than what you might be used to.
|
||
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
||
StephenH
podders Helping podders - pHp Joined: 29 Nov 2015 Location: Wake Forest, NC Online Status: Offline Posts: 6289 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 9:46am | |
I appreciate the various opinions expressed. We'll see what is available when it is time to purchase a new(er) truck.
|
||
StephenH
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,... ouR escaPOD mods Former RPod 179 Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS |
||
GlueGuy
Senior Member Joined: 15 May 2017 Location: N. California Online Status: Offline Posts: 2630 |
Posted: 02 Jun 2020 at 9:41am | |
Both the 2.7L EB and the 3.5L EB produce close to full torque at less than 2,000 RPM. Neither of those engines is going to be "screaming" towing a trailer less than 7,000 lbs. The main attraction of the 3.5L is that it will have better engine braking than the 2.7L, and that it could handle a 10,000 lb trailer. The 2.7L will give a bit better fuel economy, and when unloaded, it's hard to tell the difference between the two. I will say that our 3.5L laughs at mountain passes. No screaming involved.
|
||
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River 2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost |
||
Post Reply | Page <12345 6> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |