General truck talk

[ABMax24]

I had read about F150 turbo gassers having a similar issue, but obviously not as much of an issue with a gas engine vs diesel.

They have definitely had their issues as well, but I don't know anyone that's had half the issues with the ecoboost that we have had with this colorado. If we could go back in time we would have never bought the truck as GM refuses to stand behind their product. We have to take it in again on Monday, it sounds like one or more of the motor mounts has gone as the engine vibration rattles throughout the entire truck.

 

[begreen]

I had read about F150 turbo gassers having a similar issue, but obviously not as much of an issue with a gas engine vs diesel.

Our F150 eco-boost ran smooth as a kitten. It was an impressive setup. Tons of torque. One thing I did read was that the intercooler duct can accumulate moisture. Owners were drilling a small weep hole at the low spot to eliminate this issue. There are several youtube videos on the topic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SpaceBus]

Our F150 eco-boost ran smooth as a kitten. It was an impressive setup. Tons of torque. One thing I did read was that the intercooler duct can accumulate moisture. Owners were drilling a small weep hole at the low spot to eliminate this issue. There are several youtube videos on the topic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That is a questionable way to prevent that issue. I can't say I would suggest a modification that would place metal particles inside of the intake tract or permitting unmetered and unfiltered air into the engine. Perhaps a catch can system would work better. For the record I think the Ford Ecoboost six cylinder engines are great, but I have not had any first hand experience with the new 2.7TT. The 3.5TT, at least in the F150, is a powerhouse. That's not the engine I would spec for better fuel economy, but definitely the pick for the torque delivery. I think Ford made a mistake trying to pitch it as power of a V8 with fuel economy of a V6. A better idea would have been selling them on the power and durability. A hot DOHC high RPM V8 probably wasn't a good pick for the F150, and I think the 3.5TT was intended from the start to be the top engine pick.

 

[begreen]

It's a 1/16" hole and I have not read of any negative effects. Yes, some folks do the catch can and that is a good alternative. I was wondering if this is what is plaguing the Colorado too?

We had the 3.5 ecoboost and it had gobs of power. When not under great load on fairly level ground at 55-60mph it got good economy, but under load or up mountains that disappeared as soon as the turbos kicked in. I was getting 12-14mpg with the camper on and about 9mpg if going over local passes. I have a buddy with a 2015, naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 that gets better mileage under load on the same roads.

I sold the truck and camper last year and switched to a 2018 Dodge Grand Caravan. I love it. It gets great gas mileage, hauls a ton of stuff (including 7 passengers) and with the stowaway seats it makes a great camper. Over the same 6,000 ft passes I am now getting 28mpg average and 30 with regular freeway driving.

 

[SpaceBus]

It's a 1/16" hole and I have not read of any negative effects. Yes, some folks do the catch can and that is a good alternative. I was wondering if this is what is plaguing the Colorado too?

We had the 3.5 ecoboost and it had gobs of power. When not under great load on fairly level ground at 55-60mph it got good economy, but under load or up mountains that disappeared as soon as the turbos kicked in. I was getting 12-14mpg with the camper on and about 9mpg if going over local passes. I have a buddy with a 2015, naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 that gets better mileage under load on the same roads.

I sold the truck and camper last year and switched to a 2018 Dodge Grand Caravan. I love it. It gets great gas mileage, hauls a ton of stuff (including 7 passengers) and with the stowaway seats it makes a great camper. Over the same 6,000 ft passes I am now getting 28mpg average and 30 with regular freeway driving.

I have a secret love for minivans. I converted my wife a few summers back when we had a tire failure on the side of the road and were able to call in a rental van. We had three dogs in the car with us, so it was amazing for the rest of the drive. If they did better over the near logging roads we deal with locally I would probably buy one of the various vans on the market. I have considered buying an imported Mitsubishi Delica, but the time is not right for anything like that. My 06 Dually diesel four door averages 24 MPG around the hilly countryside. I think it averaged 18 MPG towing all of our stuff through the Green and White mountains when we moved to Maine.

 

[begreen]

We had a Honda Odyssey several years ago. It was a good car, but I like the Dodge a lot better. It is more practical and gets better mileage. That said I do worry a bit when I take it on some of the rowdier roads that lead up to trailheads. Unfortunately, they don't come in AWD. I was torn about getting an Outback instead, but I need that huge opening to load things like garbage cans for the biannual dump run. That and the fact that we rarely get snow down in the lowlands, biased me toward the van.

 

[Ashful]

We had a Honda Odyssey several years ago. It was a good car, but I like the Dodge a lot better. It is more practical and gets better mileage. That said I do worry a bit when I take it on some of the rowdier roads that lead up to trailheads. Unfortunately, they don't come in AWD. I was torn about getting an Outback instead, but I need that huge opening to load things like garbage cans for the biannual dump run. That and the fact that we rarely get snow down in the lowlands, biased me toward the van.

We just went with a Durango R/T for the same usage profile. It’s full time AWD with a shift knob to select 4wheel low. Bonus: it’ll tow my 7000 lb tandem axle trailer, it even came preloaded with a factory in-dash proportional brake controller, and it will be a great family boat hauler. Seats 6-7, depending on configuration, plus storage, plus roof rack. Nice big rear hatch for begreen’s garbage cans, although since it’s my wife’s car, the only hauling I’ve done with it is grass seed and fertilizer on days too rainy to use my pickup.

I’d have preferred a 300+ mile EV with the same space, performance, and price point, but this will do just fine until the market provides that. My wife’s commute is 200 miles round trip, and this thing gets surprising good mileage for 5.7 liters.

 

[PaulOinMA]

VW did an intercooler kit that I had installed after my 2011 Jetta Sportwagen TDI wouldn't start. I told the tow truck driver what the problem was and to just tow me to the dealership. He tried to start it with a battery, and burned out the starter.

Intercooler lockup was a big problem with the VW diesel about 10 years ago.

 

[SpaceBus]

VW did an intercooler kit that I had installed after my 2011 Jetta Sportwagen TDI wouldn't start. I told the tow truck driver what the problem was and to just tow me to the dealership. He tried to start it with a battery, and burned out the starter.

Intercooler lockup was a big problem with the VW diesel about 10 years ago.

Because water and water vapor does weird things inside of diesel engines.

 

[PaulOinMA]

Yeah. It was a big issue in cold weather and condensation. I knew what the problem was from tdiclub.com, and I needed a tow to the dealer. Tow guy kept trying to get it to start even though I told him it wouldn't start.

He finally stopped when he asked, "what's burning?"

That would be my starter.

 

[ABMax24]

I have a secret love for minivans. I converted my wife a few summers back when we had a tire failure on the side of the road and were able to call in a rental van. We had three dogs in the car with us, so it was amazing for the rest of the drive. If they did better over the near logging roads we deal with locally I would probably buy one of the various vans on the market. I have considered buying an imported Mitsubishi Delica, but the time is not right for anything like that. My 06 Dually diesel four door averages 24 MPG around the hilly countryside. I think it averaged 18 MPG towing all of our stuff through the Green and White mountains when we moved to Maine.

If your getting 24 mpg out of a 1 ton dually that's pretty respectable. In my F350 I'm getting 16 mpg on the flat highway empty, that goes down to 10 mpg towing my fifth wheel.

 

[ABMax24]

It's a 1/16" hole and I have not read of any negative effects. Yes, some folks do the catch can and that is a good alternative. I was wondering if this is what is plaguing the Colorado too?

From what I have read catch cans can help with the problems on the Colorado's. The problem for us is at the sub -20c temps we have the catch can is also froze solid and runs the risk of plugging off the crankcase vent, and on the 2.8 Duramax if the crankcase is over pressured for the first seal to blow out is the rear main, which makes for a messy expensive repair.

I think what I'm going to do is just vent it to atmosphere and keep that moisture out of the intake completely.

 

[SpaceBus]

If your getting 24 mpg out of a 1 ton dually that's pretty respectable. In my F350 I'm getting 16 mpg on the flat highway empty, that goes down to 10 mpg towing my fifth wheel.

It's an 06 5.9 24v, so pre emissions and it's also a six speed. Loaded seems to be the same FE and I haven't been close to loading up a trailer to its max yet.

 

[SpaceBus]

From what I have read catch cans can help with the problems on the Colorado's. The problem for us is at the sub -20c temps we have the catch can is also froze solid and runs the risk of plugging off the crankcase vent, and on the 2.8 Duramax if the crankcase is over pressured for the first seal to blow out is the rear main, which makes for a messy expensive repair.

I think what I'm going to do is just vent it to atmosphere and keep that moisture out of the intake completely.

Could you put a check valve on a direct atmosphere vent? I guess like a BOV or nitrous purge valve.

 

[ABMax24]

Could you put a check valve on a direct atmosphere vent? I guess like a BOV or nitrous purge valve.

I could, but again worried about icing of that valve. I would just point the vent downward to keep moisture and dirt out, these motors have a fair bit of blow-by so the flow is always out of the vent.

 

[ABMax24]

It's an 06 5.9 24v, so pre emissions and it's also a six speed. Loaded seems to be the same FE and I haven't been close to loading up a trailer to its max yet.

I'm also emission free as well, not that it made a difference to fuel economy on this truck. I notice that weight doesn't make much of a difference to fuel economy unless driving in stop and go traffic. Although wind resistance does make a big difference, my fifth wheel is 8' 4" wide, 13' 6" high and 33' long so there is a lot of extra wind drag there.

 

[SpaceBus]

I'm also emission free as well, not that it made a difference to fuel economy on this truck. I notice that weight doesn't make much of a difference to fuel economy unless driving in stop and go traffic. Although wind resistance does make a big difference, my fifth wheel is 8' 4" wide, 13' 6" high and 33' long so there is a lot of extra wind drag there.

I was hoping to get a gooseneck equipment trailer this year, but with recent events I've put the money elsewhere.

 

[Ashful]

I'm also emission free as well, not that it made a difference to fuel economy on this truck. I notice that weight doesn't make much of a difference to fuel economy unless driving in stop and go traffic. Although wind resistance does make a big difference, my fifth wheel is 8' 4" wide, 13' 6" high and 33' long so there is a lot of extra wind drag there.

That length is helping you, at least in theory. You may recall that I’m into sailing, used to do a bit of sailboat racing, now just spirited cruising with the kids. In any case, displacement (as in non-planing and non-foil) hulls suffer from something known as hull speed, the speed at which shearing of the water molecules between the wetted surface (I.e. the molecules sticking to the hull), and the surrounding water reaches a critical rate, as calculated by Reynolds number. When this number hits roughly 1 million, the energy required to push the hull any faster goes up exponentially, and this is why displacement hulls of a given length typically travel at a given speed. Air is about 1000 times less dense than water and 50 times less viscous, so the critical speed becomes v = 1E6/7E4/L, with all units in meters and seconds. Your 10m trailer should be pretty friendly on mpg up to 1.42 m/s or 5.1 km/hr. You just need to drive slower.

I will admit I just had a double Old Fashioned, so it’s very possible I lost a decimal place in the math.

 

[ABMax24]

That length is helping you, at least in theory. You may recall that I’m into sailing, used to do a bit of sailboat racing, now just spirited cruising with the kids. In any case, displacement (as in non-planing and non-foil) hulls suffer from something known as hull speed, the speed at which shearing of the water molecules between the wetted surface (I.e. the molecules sticking to the hull), and the surrounding water reaches a critical rate, as calculated by Reynolds number. When this number hits roughly 1 million, the energy required to push the hull any faster goes up exponentially, and this is why displacement hulls of a given length typically travel at a given speed. Air is about 1000 times less dense than water and 50 times less viscous, so the critical speed becomes v = 1E6/7E4/L, with all units in meters and seconds. Your 10m trailer should be pretty friendly on mpg up to 1.42 m/s or 5.1 km/hr. You just need to drive slower.

I will admit I just had a double Old Fashioned, so it’s very possible I lost a decimal place in the math.

That very well could be, although I'd have very angry fellow motorists and an even angrier co-pilot at those speeds. But there is a very noticeable difference it fuel economy at increasing speeds, 110 km/hr is the fastest I tow it, at 120 km/hr the truck works much harder and burns significantly more fuel than the 9% increase in speed over 110 km/hr. Ideally though I try to run closer to 100 km/hr.

I also like boating, although we don't have big enough lakes for sailing, so I run a little 13ft jet boat on the rivers, at 25 mph I burn 4 gal/hr of gasoline, at 55 mph i'm up to 20 gal/hr. To double the speed it takes 4 times the energy, which in my case is just about spot on. I also take great interest in the race boats they run on the local river once per year. The bottom class runs CT 525 crate engines at 533 hp and achieve 90 mph top speed. The top unlimited boats are pushing 1850 hp from a helicopter turboshaft jet engine to achieve 155 mph. Works here too double the speed 4 times the energy.

To tie this back to the original topic, our little diesel Colorado works in a similar way, although less drag from air than water. At 80 km/hr we get 7.0 L/100km. At 110 km/hr we get 8.3 L/ 100km. The weird thing is this truck carries that 8.3 L/100km all the way to 125 km/hr. There seems to be an anomaly in the tuning that at highway cruise it burns the same amount of fuel making more power at a higher rpm, which defies everything I understand about drag and engine pumping losses. The only thing I can think of is it increases injection timing and might reduce the number of injections per cycle as the rpm go up.

 

[Ashful]

No comment on your last point, but the 4x energy to 2x speed observation would agree with my rudimentary understanding of the physics. Even in the absence of drag, the kinetic energy of an object is proportional to velocity squared, and by reciprocity the reverse would hold, it takes 4x the energy to double the velocity.

Drag is simply another force, proportional to velocity, and that force multiplied by your displacement (distance traveled) would also go into the energy equation. Possibly something like E = (m*v^2)/2 + Fd*s, where Fd is the drag force and s is the distance traveled. But I’m not so close to my school days anymore that I can quickly boil that all down to mpg, without sitting down and writing it out, which ain’t gonna happen in the three minutes I have to kill with my phone right this moment.

 

[Ludlow]

FYI regarding electronic power steering:

GM Recalls More Than 1 Million Trucks, SUVs for Steering Problem

GM is recalling more than a million trucks and SUVs because of an electrical issue that may cause a sudden loss of power steering.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[bholler]

FYI regarding electronic power steering:

GM Recalls More Than 1 Million Trucks, SUVs for Steering Problem

GM is recalling more than a million trucks and SUVs because of an electrical issue that may cause a sudden loss of power steering.

www.consumerreports.org

To be fair they also recently had a recall due to brakes. Maybe it is just gm not electric power steering.

(broken link removed to https://www-motor1-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.motor1.com/news/370217/gm-recall-trucks-brake-problems/amp/?amp_js_v=a3&ampsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15962179761989&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s)

 

[bholler]

Or their seatbelt tensioners

GM Recalls 2019-2020 Pickup Trucks Due to Fire Risk

Consumer Reports shares of the GM recall of 2019-2020 pickup trucks. More than half a million Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra light- and heavy-duty pickup trucks are being recalled due to concerns that seat belt pretensioners, when deployed to tighten belt amid a collision, could lead to a fire.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[Ludlow]

Subaru Recalling 10,417 Vehicles Because of Power Steering Problem | MotorSafety.org

www.motorsafety.org

 

[Ludlow]

Too prone to failure IMO.