Drove a 365hp, 420lbs of torque Ford F150 Ecoboost today...

Consumer Reports tested a 5.0 V8 F150 along with an EcoBoost.

The acceleration times were pretty close and the observed fuel economy for both trucks was 15 MPG.

Given all that, I'll stick with a V8.

alfadriver wrote: And I still disagree, since it involves a lot of rework to get the security systems to not work. Possible, sure. It's easy to take motor out and put in. It's not easy to make ECU ignore all other stuff. PITA. And needing things that make swap not reasonable.

I agree that all the modern controller stuff is pretty complicated, but I think you underestimate the brain power out there to figure it out. And figure it out once and it's solved for all equivalent setups. The only way for Ford to break it again makes it more and more difficult for their own people to work on it.

And actually, a lot of swaps involve changing everything over to the new car. So take a wrecked ecoboost f150 and put 100% of the sensors into the new vehicle, it's not going to know any better as long as the installer is good with wiring. Yes it'll be harder than dropping a 1960's small block in, but it's not rocket surgery.

Otto Maddox wrote: Consumer Reports tested a 5.0 V8 F150 along with an EcoBoost...

Yeah, consumer reports is full of .... Always has been, always will be.

93EXCivic wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Zomby woof wrote: Regardless of how you feel about people tuning their own vehicles, your original assertion that these swaps would never be reasonable is almost certainly wrong. How warranty work became part of the discussion, I have no idea.

And I still disagree, since it involves a lot of rework to get the security systems to not work. Possible, sure. It's easy to take motor out and put in. It's not easy to make ECU ignore all other stuff. PITA. And needing things that make swap not reasonable.

Megasquirt FTW.

Partially my point. MS won't even be able to run the engine.

Cable the throttle, fix the cams, and MS still can't run it.

It would be a lot easier to turbo a normal v6

dculberson wrote:

alfadriver wrote: And I still disagree, since it involves a lot of rework to get the security systems to not work. Possible, sure. It's easy to take motor out and put in. It's not easy to make ECU ignore all other stuff. PITA. And needing things that make swap not reasonable.

I agree that all the modern controller stuff is pretty complicated, but I think you underestimate the brain power out there to figure it out. And figure it out once and it's solved for all equivalent setups. The only way for Ford to break it again makes it more and more difficult for their own people to work on it. And actually, a lot of swaps involve changing everything over to the new car. So take a wrecked ecoboost f150 and put 100% of the sensors into the new vehicle, it's not going to know any better as long as the installer is good with wiring. Yes it'll be harder than dropping a 1960's small block in, but it's not rocket surgery.

Part of the reasonable test.

Alfadriver, what do you think of Cobb Tuning and the accessport for cars like the Subaru WRX/STI, Mazdaspeed3, etc? They have pretty good results and reliability. I don't condone warranty hijinks but what's wrong with this?

alfadriver wrote:

Zomby woof wrote: Regardless of how you feel about people tuning their own vehicles, your original assertion that these swaps would never be reasonable is almost certainly wrong. How warranty work became part of the discussion, I have no idea.

And I still disagree, since it involves a lot of rework to get the security systems to not work. Possible, sure. It's easy to take motor out and put in. It's not easy to make ECU ignore all other stuff. PITA. And needing things that make swap not reasonable.

Plug and play crate motors. LS's all day long why not an eco-boost?

Im the original poster, you guys are making my head spin....no need to "tune" this engine, all you'll do is mess it up.... now, like I said the truck is fast....I'd like to put one of these engines in my 02 sport trac, but, I'd probably mess it up....

alfadriver wrote: I have yet to see one done responsibly. Which would mean at least *some* dyno time...

Come by the shop sometime.

I'll show you an '04 Duramax with over 800 lb-ft that was done by a GM diesel tech. It's reliable as all hell too.

Not everyone out there is a bunch of raging knuckleheads. I think most of the folks here fall outside the realm of the "Yo dawg, I wants more torques from my ride" crowd.

Shawn

ThePhranc wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Zomby woof wrote: Regardless of how you feel about people tuning their own vehicles, your original assertion that these swaps would never be reasonable is almost certainly wrong. How warranty work became part of the discussion, I have no idea.

And I still disagree, since it involves a lot of rework to get the security systems to not work. Possible, sure. It's easy to take motor out and put in. It's not easy to make ECU ignore all other stuff. PITA. And needing things that make swap not reasonable.

Plug and play crate motors. LS's all day long why not an eco-boost?

First of all, the LS IS a crate motor, which implies that it's being sold to be put anywhere, so the support ofor putting it anywhere is done by the factory.

IF the EcoBoost is ever sold as a crate motor, I would fully agree.

As it stands, though, it has a very unique ECU, which is pretty common among other DI engines, but you can't just put any ECU on it, and expect it to run, and, AFAIK, there are no aftermarket computers that can run DI. that's not counting the electric throttle or the VCT, even, just the DI part.

But, right now, in the current for you see in the cars and the trucks, it's a very PITA to get it to run without the entire vehicle around it. We've done it- and it's hard WITH the hardware we have. Oddly enough, those projects were done with the idea that crate motors would happen someday. But with the very high volume of trucks with the motor, I think that's going to be pushed back for some time.

I hope does become easy someday. But even GM's DI turbo V6 isn't the same as the LS motor...

Trans_Maro wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I have yet to see one done responsibly. Which would mean at least *some* dyno time...

Come by the shop sometime. I'll show you an '04 Duramax with over 800 lb-ft that was done by a GM diesel tech. It's reliable as all hell too. Not everyone out there is a bunch of raging knuckleheads. I think most of the folks here fall outside the realm of the "Yo dawg, I wants more torques from my ride" crowd. Shawn

So, what part of the calibration did he have to compromise to do that? Emissions, durabilty?

I don't doubt that one CAN make power, it's how it's done that's the problem. Honestly, I don't put a "GM diesel tech" above the engineers who calibrated it. They did it for very specific reasons- nobody leaves power on the table if it's really free.

frenchy wrote: Alfadriver, what do you think of Cobb Tuning and the accessport for cars like the Subaru WRX/STI, Mazdaspeed3, etc? They have pretty good results and reliability. I don't condone warranty hijinks but what's wrong with this?

I would love to see what they are changing, specifically. Like I just posted, calibrations are released with specific goals in mind, and nobody will leave free power on the table. So Cobb compromises some of the goals that the OEM's originally went out with. What did they compromise?

Note- depending on what they are changing, it could put them looking down the Anti-Tampering laws. And since they sell the product over state lines, well, Hess will hate me for pointing out who would do it.

How many times does it have to be explained to you before you'll get it? The factory tunes are so generic that you can custom tailor them for your own circumstances without detriment to either longevity, or emissions. The premium fuel/added timing is a no brainer. The manufacturers cannot do that. That, and the fact that some of the factory tunes are just not very good.

In some cases (the Trailblazer SS is a good example), people were doing things they shouldn't have and destroying the undersized transmissions. That's not what we're talking about here.

alfadriver wrote:

frenchy wrote: Alfadriver, what do you think of Cobb Tuning and the accessport for cars like the Subaru WRX/STI, Mazdaspeed3, etc? They have pretty good results and reliability. I don't condone warranty hijinks but what's wrong with this?

I would love to see what they are changing, specifically. Like I just posted, calibrations are released with specific goals in mind, and nobody will leave free power on the table. So Cobb compromises some of the goals that the OEM's originally went out with. What did they compromise? Note- depending on what they are changing, it could put them looking down the Anti-Tampering laws. And since they sell the product over state lines, well, Hess will hate me for pointing out who would do it.

What anti-tampering laws?

Any way so we are all just supposed to sit around and not modify our cars because they are perfect from the factory right?

I'm not sure you're right - more power might be easy, but do you still pass the OEM emissions levels in all conditions? Adding timing was a no-brainer on 80's and 90's tech, but modern ECU's are WAY better at optimizing timing for the fuel, with closed loop feedback in many cases.

I think the problem is the multitudes who reflash their ECU, don't understand that they DID compromise something (be it engine or "other part" ie clutch, transmission longevity) and then expect full warrantee coverage. Some even "go back to stock" to get it fixed. That's fraud. If you want to mess with the factory settings, you have to pay the price.

The OEM stands by the product as it was designed, it shouldn't be expected to stand by the product as tuned by someone outside their organization withdifferent compromises in mind.

I love that people will often claim "no detriment to longevity or emissions" without data to support it. How many people run durability tests with their aftermarket tune? How many people run before and after exhaust analysis at all (any?) running conditions?

Zomby woof wrote: How many times does it have to be explained to you before you'll get it? The factory tunes are so generic that you can custom tailor them for your own circumstances without detriment to either longevity, or emissions. The premium fuel/added timing is a no brainer. The manufacturers cannot do that. That, and the fact that some of the factory tunes are just not very good. In some cases (the Trailblazer SS is a good example), people were doing things they shouldn't have and destroying the undersized transmissions. That's not what we're talking about here.

Nobody said you can't tamper.That's been going on since the world began. The OEMs are constrained because EVERY CAR has to pass emissions standards plus last a reasonable amount of time. They are going to build a nice fat cushion into their tunes etc for that reason.

So if the average Joe wants to bypass those tunes, have at it. But if it blows up, don't expect the mfg to be left holding the bag.

I have personal experience with a kid who put a nitrous fogger setup on his Firebird and blew the motor up. He had drilled a hole in the air intake snorkel just ahead of the throttle body. So he removed the Nos system (left the bulkhead fitting in place, though) bought a new snorkel and stuck it on the car (stll had the P/N sticker on the underside), then had it towed in and demanded a new engine. Last I heard, the GM rep was still adamant the kid was on his own. Farking with the stock ECU tunes is pretty much the same thing if you think about it.

Sometimes the OEs get it wrong, diesel Libertys would shred the torque converter. The fix: replace the converter then reflash the ECU to cut down engine power output to prevent damage to the new one.

Wranglers could have the traction control disabled by the owner using a really weird process, that was for rock crawling etc. If the ECM was reflashed for any reason, it would turn the TC back on because 99% of Wrangler owners really needed the TC.

OBTW: it is possible to disable the seat belt warning light/chime on just about any new car, generally the instructions are in the owners' manual. But the dealer/mfg will NOT do it for you because the liability is just too high.

Anti Tampering- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/October/Day-27/a28368.htm

Zomby woof wrote: How many times does it have to be explained to you before you'll get it? The factory tunes are so generic that you can custom tailor them for your own circumstances without detriment to either longevity, or emissions. The premium fuel/added timing is a no brainer. The manufacturers cannot do that. That, and the fact that some of the factory tunes are just not very good. In some cases (the Trailblazer SS is a good example), people were doing things they shouldn't have and destroying the undersized transmissions. That's not what we're talking about here.

How many times does it have to be explaind before you are convinced that I not only GET IT, but I also do it. The factory tunes are NOT generic. Can they be made better? Depends. Some things you can do and get things better without harming other aspects of the calibration. Generally, power is not one of them, since it's very much used in advertising.

The premium thing is a perfect example of it, especially in the EcoBoost, since it has a knock sensor and retards spark when it sees lower octane fuel.

not only can manufacturers do that, they DO that. OEM's spend 2 years tuning the car, and you think you can do better, without risking something, in just a few min. ok...

93EXCivic wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

frenchy wrote: Alfadriver, what do you think of Cobb Tuning and the accessport for cars like the Subaru WRX/STI, Mazdaspeed3, etc? They have pretty good results and reliability. I don't condone warranty hijinks but what's wrong with this?

I would love to see what they are changing, specifically. Like I just posted, calibrations are released with specific goals in mind, and nobody will leave free power on the table. So Cobb compromises some of the goals that the OEM's originally went out with. What did they compromise? Note- depending on what they are changing, it could put them looking down the Anti-Tampering laws. And since they sell the product over state lines, well, Hess will hate me for pointing out who would do it.

What anti-tampering laws? Any way so we are all just supposed to sit around and not modify our cars because they are perfect from the factory right?

If you want to put it that way, yes. But if you read through the laws close enough, if you can prove that a modification does not harm the emissions, then it's legal. Which is why you see "50 state legal" or "CARB legal" on aftermarket parts. Heck, I'm sure that there are tuners out there who even claim that label is true. Then again, places like Cobb don't have to be 100% sure that all of the cars will meet 120-150k emissions.

You can modify a car if you can prove that it's not tampering, aka- not actually hurting the emissions and the OBD's ability.

alfadriver wrote: Anti Tampering- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/October/Day-27/a28368.htm

And California's anti tampering http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm

alfadriver wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Anti Tampering- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/October/Day-27/a28368.htm

And California's anti tampering http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm

And California's legal mods program- http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/aftermkt.htm

alfadriver wrote: How many times does it have to be explaind before you are convinced that I not only GET IT, but I also do it. The factory tunes are NOT generic. Can they be made better? Depends. Some things you can do and get things better without harming other aspects of the calibration. Generally, power is not one of them, since it's very much used in advertising. The premium thing is a perfect example of it, especially in the EcoBoost, since it has a knock sensor and retards spark when it sees lower octane fuel. not only can manufacturers do that, they DO that. OEM's spend 2 years tuning the car, and you think you can do better, without risking something, in just a few min. ok...

The factory tunes are very much generic to their particular applications. The tune in your X car is the same as the tune in my X car, although we use it for very different things, under very different circumstances. There is no way the manufacturer can tune them to be ideal for everybody, so they're ideal for nobody. In the case of my truck, it has 2 knock sensors, and also has 2 completely different timing maps. Do I think I can do better, when I know my application better than some engineer in an office? With my 30 years of engine building and wrenching experience, Absolutely, 100%.

Since you say you have all that experience doing it, do you admit that some tunes are just not very good, and can be improved on? Or are you saying that they're all perfect?

I don't believe for a second that they are any different than any other part on the car. Pick a part, any part, and I bet it can be improved on.

alfadriver wrote: Anti Tampering- http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/October/Day-27/a28368.htm

I think you didn't actually READ the document you're linking to, and I quote:

"Purpose. The purpose of this document is to clarify and revise the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) tampering'' enforcement policy for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines originally designed to operate on gasoline or diesel fuel and subsequently modified to operate exclusively or in conjunction with compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquified petroleum gas (LPG or propane), hereinafter referred to asalternative fuels''. "

What exactly does a tune that's BETTER than yours have to do with alternative fuels conversions?

alfadriver wrote:

alfadriver wrote: And California's anti tampering http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27156.htm

And California's legal mods program- http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/aftermkt.htm

And 99% of the "crap tunes" you keep knocking ARE California emissions legal.

http://www.steeda.com/store/carb-legal-flash-tuner-for-2005-ford-mustang.html

In reply to Javelin:

Yea, that covers 99% of all the crap tunes... not.