Ongoing General Automotive Thread 2.0

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think you'd have to worry about the 2.7 being underpowered. It has a zero to 60 of 5.9 seconds. That's bonkers for a truck. I have one and I love speed. It's fataing perfect. I also tow with it. My trailer is maybe 4500 pounds, so not too heavy, but at that weight I literally don't even know it's behind me. The truck does not notice. It's such a great engine. Really, you'd only need or want the 3.5 if you were towing something really heavy. For any other use, the 2.7 is ideal.

I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

Ecoboost engines are rad. Both the 2.7 and 3.5 pull HARD. But I went the 5.0L V8 route, and there's a few reasons why, and a few pro's/con's to each.

I appraise quite a few Ecoboosts a year, once they hit about 120,000 kms, they need stuff. Leaky turbo's, engine oil leaks, etc.... You also run the risk on older ones of the trucks being tuned and putting down way more power than intended. Not an issue if you are buying new, but it's a big issue on the used market. On the flip, I've brought in Coyote 5.0L with 300,000 kms that run perfect and don't have a single leak.

Pro's to Ecoboost:

- Deadly power out of the hole, especially the 3.5L.
- Very good fuel economy when not towing.
- They sound awesome. With the cabin noise maker, they actually sound throatier than the V8.
- Great resale if they are under warranty, about 10% higher than a V8.
- They pull like a beast.

Pro's to Coyote 5.0L V8

- Ultra reliable engines. Most fleets order them this way because they are so bullet proof. Literally the opposite of the 5.4L Triton which was literally the worst V8 of all time.
- Familiar sound and performance.
- Super smooth power. The Eco tends to surge a bit. But turbo lag is cool depending on who you talk to....lol
- Better fuel economy when towing than the Eco.
- Tons of cool aftermarket intakes, exhausts etc, that bolt on with no ECU issues. I out a K and N Cold air intake on mine and it makes the throttle response so much crisper, and it sounds so much better.
- Better resale on higher mileage trucks (120,000 kms +)

Con's to Ecoboosts:

- Very poor fuel economy when towing, as your turbo's are typically spooled up. I've towed my trailer with a 3.5 Eco and my 5.0L V8, to the same campground and back. I got 20% better fuel economy with the V8. Not towing, the Ecoboost is about 10% better. I'm towing 70% of the time the truck is used so I went the V8 route.
- Turbo's can be troublesome on them after 100,000ish kms. I've had some pretty ugly reconditioning bills on 3.5 and 2.7 Ecoboost trade-ins off warranty.
- Lower resale on higher mileage trucks vs the V8.

Cons to V8:

- Slower acceleration relative to Ecoboosts.
- Worse fuel economy when not towing.


In the end, if I knew I was keeping the truck under 100,000 kms or just leasing it, I would have gone 3.5 Ecoboost. I went into my purchase thinking I might have the truck for 10 years, as I'm done buying trucks until full electric hits the market affordably.

Also, I grew up with V8 trucks. It just seems 'right' to me. It's like a 4 cylinder Boxster. I'm sure it drives real cool, but any Porsche not a flat 6 just seems off.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

[bagofpucks]

Could not have said it better Pylon, excellent post. I went with the 5.0 as well as I hope to put 300K to 400K kms on the truck and keep it as a farm/plow truck after that. I also believe some of the real world gas mileage on the eco boosts aren’t great if you do like to lean on the gas pedal.

Sadly, I’ve only put 3000 kms on my truck since September....haha. Was cursing getting the 136L tank the other day as I was filling it up in the bitter cold!

[pylon]

Originally Posted by bagofpucks

Could not have said it better Pylon, excellent post. I went with the 5.0 as well as I hope to put 300K to 400K kms on the truck and keep it as a farm/plow truck after that. I also believe some of the real world gas mileage on the eco boosts aren’t great if you do like to lean on the gas pedal.

Sadly, I’ve only put 3000 kms on my truck since September....haha. Was cursing getting the 136L tank the other day as I was filling it up in the bitter cold!

It was a must have when I bought mine. I love it, I can get from Calgary to Vernon on one tank with about a 6000 pounds worth of trailer/gear.

When I had to put a $270 tank of fuel in it in Vancouver I was less than impressed though....lol

[bagofpucks]

Haha, yes, the first time I went to the pumps made the wallet quite a bit lighter. I agree though, it was a must have for me too. My commute is/will be 150 kms per day, so it will be nice to have to spend less time filling up. Won’t be back to the office for a while still, but it will be interesting what my fuel economy will end up looking like.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fulham

2021 Subaru Crossteck

or


2021 Mazda 3 AWD Turbo

want out of a rapidly depreciating German car, for something AWD that retains its value well.

The Mazda 3 is one of the better looking cars out there. If they drive the same as they used to, that's a great choice.

Source: Subaru owner who fully realizes they are ugly and boring

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The Mazda 3 is one of the better looking cars out there. If they drive the same as they used to, that's a great choice.

Source: Subaru owner who fully realizes they are ugly and boring

I’d take the Mazda in a heartbeat.

Subie would have less depreciation though

[CrunchBite]

Originally Posted by pylon

I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

Ecoboost engines are rad. Both the 2.7 and 3.5 pull HARD. But I went the 5.0L V8 route, and there's a few reasons why, and a few pro's/con's to each.

I appraise quite a few Ecoboosts a year, once they hit about 120,000 kms, they need stuff. Leaky turbo's, engine oil leaks, etc.... You also run the risk on older ones of the trucks being tuned and putting down way more power than intended. Not an issue if you are buying new, but it's a big issue on the used market. On the flip, I've brought in Coyote 5.0L with 300,000 kms that run perfect and don't have a single leak.

Pro's to Ecoboost:

- Deadly power out of the hole, especially the 3.5L.
- Very good fuel economy when not towing.
- They sound awesome. With the cabin noise maker, they actually sound throatier than the V8.
- Great resale if they are under warranty, about 10% higher than a V8.
- They pull like a beast.

Pro's to Coyote 5.0L V8

- Ultra reliable engines. Most fleets order them this way because they are so bullet proof. Literally the opposite of the 5.4L Triton which was literally the worst V8 of all time.
- Familiar sound and performance.
- Super smooth power. The Eco tends to surge a bit. But turbo lag is cool depending on who you talk to....lol
- Better fuel economy when towing than the Eco.
- Tons of cool aftermarket intakes, exhausts etc, that bolt on with no ECU issues. I out a K and N Cold air intake on mine and it makes the throttle response so much crisper, and it sounds so much better.
- Better resale on higher mileage trucks (120,000 kms +)

Con's to Ecoboosts:

- Very poor fuel economy when towing, as your turbo's are typically spooled up. I've towed my trailer with a 3.5 Eco and my 5.0L V8, to the same campground and back. I got 20% better fuel economy with the V8. Not towing, the Ecoboost is about 10% better. I'm towing 70% of the time the truck is used so I went the V8 route.
- Turbo's can be troublesome on them after 100,000ish kms. I've had some pretty ugly reconditioning bills on 3.5 and 2.7 Ecoboost trade-ins off warranty.
- Lower resale on higher mileage trucks vs the V8.

Cons to V8:

- Slower acceleration relative to Ecoboosts.
- Worse fuel economy when not towing.


In the end, if I knew I was keeping the truck under 100,000 kms or just leasing it, I would have gone 3.5 Ecoboost. I went into my purchase thinking I might have the truck for 10 years, as I'm done buying trucks until full electric hits the market affordably.

Also, I grew up with V8 trucks. It just seems 'right' to me. It's like a 4 cylinder Boxster. I'm sure it drives real cool, but any Porsche not a flat 6 just seems off.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents

That's a great bit of info.

Turbo issues after 100k KM though? That's brutal. That should be barely broken in territory.

[81MC]

I’m pretty sure the published service life on the for first Gen 3.5 eco boost was only 100k?

[speede5]

I have a friend who owned a Jiffy lube for a few years and he said that they saw a lot of ecoboosts come in with fuel in the oil. The engine is made to work and when you are just city driving/grocery getting they dump in a bit too much fuel. Anyone hear anything similar? I also have been in an ecoboost towing a 3oot heavy bumper pull and the thing handled it just fine, albeit with terrible fuel economy. I still prefer the 5.0 as per Pylon's post, It just seems like such a good choice. If the only V8 option was a 6.2 that got 12 mpg maybe the ecoboost would make sense but the economy savings over the 5.0 just don't seem worth it.

[jaydaybay]

Any recommendations for spot cleaning salt build up from ext. of car with little water use (i.e in the garage, cold weather)? Of course will go for good ext/undecarriage wash but something in the meantime while its so cold would give me some peace of mind.

Have read a water/vinegar mix could work...wondering if theres different approaches.

[bagofpucks]

Originally Posted by speede5

I have a friend who owned a Jiffy lube for a few years and he said that they saw a lot of ecoboosts come in with fuel in the oil. The engine is made to work and when you are just city driving/grocery getting they dump in a bit too much fuel. Anyone hear anything similar? I also have been in an ecoboost towing a 3oot heavy bumper pull and the thing handled it just fine, albeit with terrible fuel economy. I still prefer the 5.0 as per Pylon's post, It just seems like such a good choice. If the only V8 option was a 6.2 that got 12 mpg maybe the ecoboost would make sense but the economy savings over the 5.0 just don't seem worth it.

That’s interesting. Anecdotally, I have a few friends that have had issues after 125K kms with their 3.5L eco boosts, but I also guarantee they were bagging their trucks pretty good. Alternatively, I have a friend who is on his second or third 3.5L eco boost and he puts a ton of mileage on his trucks and has had zero issues.

I used to be buddies with our fleet manager at my old company and we had a complete mish mash of 60-70 trucks. I actually don’t think we had any 3.5Ls in the fleet, but we had really good luck with 5.0L F150s. We ended up going all GM with our new orders, but only because they offered a trim level that met our needs perfectly. In the gravy days of oil and gas, the company offered every single make of truck to field guys until we had so much trouble with Dodge trucks that we took them off the menu...haha.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

So...Jag is going all electric by 2030.

[browna]

Originally Posted by speede5

I have a friend who owned a Jiffy lube for a few years and he said that they saw a lot of ecoboosts come in with fuel in the oil. The engine is made to work and when you are just city driving/grocery getting they dump in a bit too much fuel. Anyone hear anything similar? I also have been in an ecoboost towing a 3oot heavy bumper pull and the thing handled it just fine, albeit with terrible fuel economy.

Our first 2.7 (2016) which I think was the first year of that engine, had that oil issue. Dealership did a pretty good look at the engine, and there were more than usual service bulletins they pulled up, and didn’t come up with anything definitive as to why. We replaced with a 2019 two years ago with the same engine and zero issues of that nature with the engine.

In general, the first few years of the 3.5 had issues. But the 2.7 is a great engine, we had the 5.0L before that in the f150 (and before that and alongside GM V8s) and the towing(4500lbs) was much much smoother (7 speed trans helped, now it’s 10) in the 2.7 over the 2014 V8 and never felt like it was struggling, where the V8 f150 when towing geared down more than I would’ve thought (my GMs even didn’t need to gear down and that was with 4 speed transmissions).

Needless to say fuel economy is superior both towing and especially day to day.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

So...Jag is going all electric by 2030.

Bumper to bumper Lucas electrics!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

So...Jag is going all electric by 2030.

It will be interesting to see what fluid their EV's leak on your driveway.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It will be interesting to see what fluid their EV's leak on your driveway.

You can at least guarantee the electrical systems won't work properly.

[btimbit]

Jaguar, the company with maybe the worst reputation for their electrical systems, is going all electric.

Oh boy, now this will be fun

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Jaguar, the company with maybe the worst reputation for their electrical systems, is going all electric.

Oh boy, now this will be fun

I predict a lot of Land Rovers having overnight stays in mall parking lots.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I predict a lot of Land Rovers having overnight stays in mall parking lots.

You know what they say: if you ever want to see the Outback, take a Land Rover. If you want to come back, take a Toyota or Jeep.

[Erick Estrada]

Our car brand report card this year saw some significant reshuffling as some brands rocketed up the rankings and others fell. Big moves can usually be attributed to changes in predicted reliability for individual models within a brand’s lineup. We determine reliability by asking our members in surveys to report on problems they’ve experienced with their vehicles.

Honda showed the most improvement, increasing 10 spots into the Top 5, aided by improved reliability. (All but two Hondas now have average reliability or better.) BMW also rose this year into the Top 5. A pair of gainers—Chrysler and Buick—made it into the Top 10 because of incremental improvements in their product lines and downward movement by rivals. The luxury brands Genesis and Lincoln registered the biggest drops, each because of subpar predicted reliability.

We compile the report card by looking at the Overall Score for each model, factoring in road-test performance, predicted reliability, owner satisfaction, and safety. Then we average all of them to come up with a brand Overall Score.

Brands that rise to the top tend to have the most consistent performance across their lineup. However, it is important to research the individual models when shopping because every brand has a range of product performance.

To be included in our report card, a brand must have at least two models that we’ve tested. Fiat, Maserati, and Ram didn’t have the minimum number this year. Fiat was the lowest ranked brand last year. Alfa Romeo now holds that last spot.

How We Rank the Car Brands
The Overall Score for individual models is based on four key factors: the road test, reliability, owner satisfaction, and safety.

For the Road-Test Score, we put the vehicles we buy through more than 50 tests and evaluations.

Predicted Reliability ratings are based on the problems reported by members in 17 trouble areas in CR’s auto surveys.

Owner Satisfaction predictions are based on whether CR members say in our surveys that they’d buy the same vehicle again, if given the chance.

Safety includes an assessment of crash-test results and extra points awarded for vehicles that come with proven safety features standard on all trims.

Green Choices reflect how many tested vehicles from a brand earned the Green Choice designation for being among the cleanest, lowest-emitting passenger vehicles.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars...best-vehicles/

I hadn't realized Mazda had improved that much as I've had poor experiences in the past with the brand. The Italians and Brits reliability struggles seem to be eternal.