2wd Silverado - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
91 dodge dakota tooltime Vehicles & Transportation 22 12-30-2016 05:40 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2017, 04:29 PM
bighanded bighanded is offline
What would Mal do
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,209
Thanks: 294
Thanked 7,416 Times in 2,500 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

yep.. I completely regret EVER selling my old 68 chevy 10

and my 2004 silverado 327 had 233k miles on it when I traded it in for the duramax..the 1500 had given me flawless service, was easy on brakes and tires, worked very hard and never ever left me on the side of the road.

the 2011 goverment motors truck...14 sensor related failures that either completely shut me down, put me in limp mode, put me in a single stuck gear (try coming home 3 hours through the mountains stuck in 2nd gear.

I keep threatening to put a big bumper sticker on the back of that truck that says "I shoulda bought a Ford"

but to the point of the OP (lol)...yeah..2 wheel drive can get you a long way.
Old 01-24-2017, 04:31 PM
Backwoods Alaskan's Avatar
Backwoods Alaskan Backwoods Alaskan is offline
Last Frontiersman
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,766
Thanks: 398
Thanked 3,562 Times in 1,103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob3rd View Post
According to this http://www.tfltruck.com/2016/07/ford...boost-v6-news/ the Ford v6 is having to use not just one but 2 turbo chargers to get those numbers where as the Chevy is normally aspired. Just something else to break.
That is correct, the 3.5L EcoBoost is a twin turbo motor.

However, the "more parts=less reliability" argument is far from an absolute. A well engineered piece of equipment with more moving parts will still be more reliable than a poorly engineered piece of equipment with fewer moving parts.
Old 01-24-2017, 04:44 PM
Nomad, 2nd Nomad, 2nd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf coast and/or Nomadically
Posts: 18,057
Thanks: 11,548
Thanked 32,469 Times in 11,031 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
And that reason is, the Ford guys have to buy a new one every few years when the old one breaks, while the Chevy guys are still driving their old one.

And relax...I have a 1990 Ford F-250, as well as a 2006 GMC.


My dad always said a 4WD is just good for getting you stuck in a worse place, we never had one. And we never got stuck...for long.

After all the kids were gone, he finally got one. He really loved the 4WD then, couldn't stop telling me stories about how well it worked and what he'd driven through.


With a few exceptions (like driving up my hill in bad weather)
I leave it in 2 wheel drive and when I need it use 4x4 to get OUT!

I agree (mostly) that starting in 4x4 just gets yiu stuck deeper.
Although the added traction at times helps PREVENT issues.
 
Old 01-24-2017, 05:07 PM
Bob3rd's Avatar
Bob3rd Bob3rd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: East TX about 100 mi from Dallas
Age: 63
Posts: 822
Thanks: 5,844
Thanked 2,312 Times in 609 Posts
Default

I have a 2013 Silverado 1500 2x2. Don't usually go where 4x4 is needed, not even hunting (got a four wheeler for that). I made sure to get the option to lock the rear differential making it basically a solid rear axle when needed. To see how well it worked, the first winter we had a heavy ice I took it to a steep hill that only 4x4s could get up when iced, I hit the button to lock the rear axle and went right on up the hill, no wheel spin at all.
Old 01-25-2017, 09:00 AM
TacticalFarmer TacticalFarmer is online now
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 734
Thanks: 888
Thanked 915 Times in 361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Alaskan View Post
That is correct, the 3.5L EcoBoost is a twin turbo motor.

However, the "more parts=less reliability" argument is far from an absolute. A well engineered piece of equipment with more moving parts will still be more reliable than a poorly engineered piece of equipment with fewer moving parts.
If you have 10 parts in a system that each have a failure rate of a certain amount, then a different system that does the same thing but has 20 parts that have the same failure rate, then you get twice as many failures.

It is absolutely absolute unless not all things are equal, In which case you're changing the subject.

All things being equal, the system with more parts fails more and its directly proportional to the amount of parts.
Old 01-25-2017, 09:03 AM
TacticalFarmer TacticalFarmer is online now
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 734
Thanks: 888
Thanked 915 Times in 361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Alaskan View Post
They've proven themselves to be very reliable engines. With the exception of some issues early on in 2011 when they were introduced, which is to be expected, they've been largely problem free. They're also rated to tow over 10,000 pounds, and many use them to do just that.

Turbocharger technology has advanced so far, reliability has largely been a non-issue.

They also do much better in regarding fuel economy than larger NA engines, loaded or unloaded.
Yeah that certainly is to be expected from Ford. I don't think chevy has had that big of a blunder in their truck engines pretty much ever.

Ford makes the best school busses and the cheapest cop cars tho
Old 01-25-2017, 10:44 AM
Backwoods Alaskan's Avatar
Backwoods Alaskan Backwoods Alaskan is offline
Last Frontiersman
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,766
Thanks: 398
Thanked 3,562 Times in 1,103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacticalFarmer View Post
Yeah that certainly is to be expected from Ford. I don't think chevy has had that big of a blunder in their truck engines pretty much ever.

Ford makes the best school busses and the cheapest cop cars tho
You really are ignorant, aren't you? There was no "big blunder", and I'll bet you can't even tell us what issues the early EcoBoost engines had without Googling it.

What about that little blunder where GM had to get bailed out by the American taxpayers? That was a pretty colossal ****-up, and that's before you even look at their vehicles.

First year rollouts of a new product always have a few issues of one kind or another, it doesn't matter what the product is or who the manufacturer is. This is common knowledge. It's why many people are hesitant to buy the first model year of pretty much anything.

If you want to talk about expecting problems, how about the ten Silverado recalls between 1999-2017? In fact, most recently, they recalled nearly 4 million in September of 2016.

You're just desperately looking for something to attack. You keep losing your point, and move on and try something else. Just like liberals with no argument of substance, you're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Old 01-25-2017, 11:16 AM
TacticalFarmer TacticalFarmer is online now
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 734
Thanks: 888
Thanked 915 Times in 361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Alaskan View Post
You really are ignorant, aren't you? There was no "big blunder", and I'll bet you can't even tell us what issues the early EcoBoost engines had without Googling it.

What about that little blunder where GM had to get bailed out by the American taxpayers? That was a pretty colossal ****-up, and that's before you even look at their vehicles.

First year rollouts of a new product always have a few issues of one kind or another, it doesn't matter what the product is or who the manufacturer is. This is common knowledge. It's why many people are hesitant to buy the first model year of pretty much anything.

If you want to talk about expecting problems, how about the ten Silverado recalls between 1999-2017? In fact, most recently, they recalled nearly 4 million in September of 2016.

You're just desperately looking for something to attack. You keep losing your point, and move on and try something else. Just like liberals with no argument of substance, you're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Desperately looking for something to attack? I've been rather fixated on the engine's durability this entire time. I've owned 4 of ford's sohc and dohc modular engines and know a thing or two about their durability. I've even Removed, rebuilt, and replaced them in fords. I've owned factory turbocharged vehicles made by ford and Volvo (owned by ford when they made the car that I had). I'm no stranger to turbocharged cars or fords. The ecoboost engines will fail sooner than their NA counterparts. They have higher thrust load on the pistons, higher combustion temps, more stress concentrated into each combustion event, and they are at risk of turbocharger failures. All signs that we can see as of now point to that being true. They're just like any other factory-turbocharged gasoline engine. They aren't breaking the mold with this one.
Old 01-25-2017, 01:09 PM
Backwoods Alaskan's Avatar
Backwoods Alaskan Backwoods Alaskan is offline
Last Frontiersman
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,766
Thanks: 398
Thanked 3,562 Times in 1,103 Posts
Default

Saying "they will fail sooner than their NA counterparts" is simply not a claim that you can substantiate. First off, they don't have a NA counterpart. If it started life as a 3.5L NA engine and then they just threw twin turbos on it, then yeah you'd be right. But comparing a purpose built turbo engine from one manufacturer to a purpose built NA engine from another manufacturer and saying "it's got a turbo, it will fail sooner" simply doesn't hold water without real world head to head reliability testing. There are too many other variables to consider. "It's got a turbo" isn't the deciding factor. Not even close.

Yes, a turbocharged engine has greater risk for turbo failure than a NA engine. No ****.

Yes, there is more stress on an engine that's turbocharged, but that can be compensated for by building a stronger engine. Just because there's more stress doesn't automatically equate to earlier failure, because the engine was built and designed around that stress so it can handle it. Now if you just threw a turbo on a factory NA engine, that would be a different story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacticalFarmer View Post
Desperately looking for something to attack? I've been rather fixated on the engine's durability this entire time. I've owned 4 of ford's sohc and dohc modular engines and know a thing or two about their durability. I've even Removed, rebuilt, and replaced them in fords. I've owned factory turbocharged vehicles made by ford and Volvo (owned by ford when they made the car that I had). I'm no stranger to turbocharged cars or fords. The ecoboost engines will fail sooner than their NA counterparts. They have higher thrust load on the pistons, higher combustion temps, more stress concentrated into each combustion event, and they are at risk of turbocharger failures. All signs that we can see as of now point to that being true. They're just like any other factory-turbocharged gasoline engine. They aren't breaking the mold with this one.
Old 01-26-2017, 10:26 AM
TacticalFarmer TacticalFarmer is online now
Hiker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 734
Thanks: 888
Thanked 915 Times in 361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Alaskan View Post
Saying "they will fail sooner than their NA counterparts" is simply not a claim that you can substantiate. First off, they don't have a NA counterpart. If it started life as a 3.5L NA engine and then they just threw twin turbos on it, then yeah you'd be right. But comparing a purpose built turbo engine from one manufacturer to a purpose built NA engine from another manufacturer and saying "it's got a turbo, it will fail sooner" simply doesn't hold water without real world head to head reliability testing. There are too many other variables to consider. "It's got a turbo" isn't the deciding factor. Not even close.

Yes, a turbocharged engine has greater risk for turbo failure than a NA engine. No ****.

Yes, there is more stress on an engine that's turbocharged, but that can be compensated for by building a stronger engine. Just because there's more stress doesn't automatically equate to earlier failure, because the engine was built and designed around that stress so it can handle it. Now if you just threw a turbo on a factory NA engine, that would be a different story.
Its true that it can be made to last as long, but when I say "counterpart" I mean an engine that has similar cost and similar power output. You can definitely make a turbocharged engine that lasts as long, but there are some challenges that can't be addressed as thoroughly as they can be with NA engines. That is especially true if you need to design a rotating assembly that is light weight enough to rev as high as it needs to in order to make the power that you want out of it. That is even MORE true when you need to have that rotating assembly be balanced enough to work in a V6 configuration. Its easier to design a brick-****house solid engine when designing a diesel engine that will not rev as high.
Old 01-26-2017, 10:45 AM
Backwoods Alaskan's Avatar
Backwoods Alaskan Backwoods Alaskan is offline
Last Frontiersman
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,766
Thanks: 398
Thanked 3,562 Times in 1,103 Posts
Default

Okay. Easier to build more reliability in to a diesel engine. Check. I don't think that's groundbreaking news.

The bottom line is that, as a whole, the EcoBoost family of engines have proven themselves to be strong, reliable engines. If they hadn't, Ford would not be expanding their development and production.

Yes, there are a handful of catastrophic failures plastered all over YouTube. That is not indicative of the average performance of the engine.

There are some unhappy customers I'm sure, just as there are many very happy customers.
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net