Ecoboost torture and teardown

Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>

Looking at the pictures made me realize that I don't know how cam chain tensioners work. I can understand why you'd want one on the slack side of the chain. But why the other one on the taught side?

Reply to
mike

formatting link
>>

potential for variable valve timing. whether frod bother or not is another matter, but it's what some other manufacturers do.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>

"and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles"

anybody here average 500mph?

and 3000 hours is not a lot - 50mph is a real high average speed - most vehicles its closer to 30 with traffic, idling, parking, etc. add to that the fact that at 50mph the engine has good lubrication with full hydrodynamic separation, and at idle it doesn't, this so-called "torture test" really is in reality a cake walk compared to what it's going to encounter in the real world.

Reply to
jim beam

150,000 customer

"@Darryl: As the story states, Ford said 300 hours on the dyno was the "equivalent" of 150,000 miles / 10 years of testing because of the hot/cold shock tests they did to the engine while it was on the dyno. The dyno test wasn't mile-for-mile."

The engine was also run in Baja and did some other tasks in the real world.

Reply to
Rebus

yeah, irtfa, thanks for checking. there's no way that 300 hours replicates 150k miles of real world - it has to be a typo.

Reply to
jim beam

I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with accelerated life testing.

It would be reasonable for 300 hours to be around 10 years of use in such testing. 150K/10 = 15K/yr.

Reply to
Brent

but i am - i've done it. but of course, since your agenda is mere mindless gainsay, you /have/ to manufacture an untruth since you've got nothing else.

using your "math", that's 30 hours of driving a year. completely ridiculous.

Reply to
jim beam

Sure you have Jim... and yet you have already demonstrated your ignorance of what it is. A total unfamiliarity with the theory and operation. Although I suppose you could have 'done it', as a know-nothing tech who just did what he was told with no knowledge of the principles behind or meaning of his tasks.

There you go demonstrating your ignorance of what ALT is again. Accelerated means that each hour under test represents some much longer time span in actual use.

Reply to
Brent

if you know the arrhenius equation, you can do accelerated life testing for things like semiconductors, but it doesn't work that way for mechanicals.

hydrodynamic separation, what happens when a lubricant "floats" the elements of a bearing so that they no longer touch, only happens at high engine speeds. thus you cannot replicate 1000 hours of "city traffic" by 100 hrs of "freeway" because they're different tribological regimes.

it's like saying that accelerated fatigue testing of mild steel represents real world, except that it doesn't because, by definition, it can't give sufficient time for carbon diffusion, which is a known fatigue crack arrestor.

Reply to
jim beam

You are the master of misdirection to spackle over your demonstrated ignorance. Accelerated life testing does indeed work for mechanical systems, wether or not an arrhenius equation is applicable for the material or all the materials in question, as all accelerated life testing is not material aging. Accelerated life tests must be designed properly for what is being tested.

More misdirection is that is not what is being done here and that accelerated life testing of bearings does exist.

Your attempt to find exceptions that don't work to construct a rule is nothing more than a futile attempt to misdirect and mask ingorance you have already put on display. I would not expect an accelerated life test designed to simulate years of use of the engine to be particularly good at finding fatigue life of a a stamped carbon steel alternator bracket anyway. But hey, if exceptions make you feel better have at it. But ultimately it doesn't change your condition.

Reply to
Brent

Duh. Straw man. He obviously exhibits understanding of the premise of ALT.

He finds fault with this specific ratio, which, of course, you avoid addressing in favor of building upon a false premise of your own creation. -----

- gpsman

Reply to
gpsman

I can't resist getting involved in a pissing contest. So here goes.

Accelerated life testing is great as long as you're accelerating the thing you're testing.

I judge the reliability of a vehicle by how many times I have to take it in for repair and how much it costs.

Running an engine on a dyno has zero to do with whether the starter can start the engine over a period of 20 years sitting outside in the snow and road de-icer. Or whether some aerodynamic design sucks wet road grit into an area with an exposed oil seal or electrical connection. Or whether wear is increased in the first few seconds after starting because the oil ain't flowing yet. Or whether the blower has some resonance that eventually tears the blades apart at 55 MPH. Or whether the coolant decomposes into something that eats some gizmo made out of the wrong material. Or whether some seal can't stand the flexing...you could go on forever....

There are also statistical issues. Test a hundred and you get some statistics. Test one and you have the choice: Discard the bad result or FEATURE a good result at an auto show.

Summary. Poor correlation between things accelerated and failure modes in actual use. Zero statistics...sample of ONE that wasn't a "lemon".

Reply to
mike

What makes you think accelerated life testing is limited to just the engine?

There are tests developed for many different aspects. For instance, your starter would likely be tested by cycling it in temperature chambers and exposing it to salt spray.

Statistics are typically done in the development program and over the samples pulled from the line over time. This is just the story of one sample pulled from the line. Such samples should be pulled out for testing on a regular basis, as well as other subsystems and entire vehicles.

Reply to
Brent

You must have missed the second line of my post. I'll repeat it her so you can't miss it:

Accelerated life testing is great as long as you're accelerating the thing you're testing.

We have no details, but I'd bet that an engine running 300 hours on a dyno wasn't started very many times. And they didn't spray road de-icer on the engine.

The question wasn't whether the starter was tested. It probably had its own test plan. (I'm on my fourth starter on my Honda Motorcycle. Somebody missed the boat on reliability testing that one.)

The claim was that the engine was reliable. And MAYBE the part they torture tested was reliable... In this case...sample of ONE. You think they would have published the results if they'd been bad??? You think they might have avoided risky reliability scenarios?

You've probably seen the hot actress on TV claiming that she lost

100 lbs. on some fad diet. There's no disputing the results for THAT case. But you'd have no trouble finding hundreds of others who had different results. They advertise successes, not the many more failures. There's always that YMMV disclaimer that absolves them of any responsibility for misleading you.

I'd be careful drawing global conclusions from a carefully scripted marketing extravaganza based on ONE sample.

Encouraging result, yes. Proof of long-term reliability, not so much.

How about a side-by-side identical test on a Chevy and a Toyota and...and...

And how about we drive 'em over curbs and drag the pan on rocks and haul sand for a while and get 'em stuck in the mud up to the frame and all the other stuff that gums up the works?

Hauling a trailer across country ain't the same as hauling it the same number of miles around town in traffic.

I once loaned my car to a roommate. He got it stuck in the mud and got the clutch so hot that the steel starter gear fell off the aluminum flywheel. Think that would have showed up in an accelerated test?

I do loves me a good pissing contest....

Reply to
mike

I read it just fine. Then you went on about how it was only the engine tested. So don't expect to save face by pulling that out of the context you created around it.

What does that have to do with "jim beam" and yourself not understanding how products and parts there of can be tested to simulate years of use in weeks or less? This is the same context you used before, that somehow because every single test wasn't demonstrated for you, you act as if they do not exist.

Could be a variety of factors from component manufacturing quality to business decisions regarding known factors. You'll have to read Honda's internal documents to find out.

I neither made nor defended such a claim. You might want to take an argument on that up with the voices in your head, but I have no opinion either way regarding the reliability of that engine.

Since I was pointing out that "Jim Beam" doesn't know what he was babbling about and not drawing conclusions, what does sample size have to do with anything here? If you are concerned with sample size you'll need to get your hands on internal specifications regarding development testing and line sampling and testing. However sample size is irrelevant to pointing out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they claim X amount of use can't be simulated in Y about of time.

A typical production line sample test is the same or lesser test than what is done during development, so yes it was low risk because samples of these engines were already tested and passed these things and more in development.

You would have noted, if you had decent reading comprehension, that I drew no conclusions from the test. Only pointed out that as usual "Jim Beam" didn't know what he was babbling about.

I really don't give a shit about about your personal experiences and silly tribal make arguments. Let me know when you learn how to read and comprehend rather than make attempt lame misdirections like that above.

As to your touching story of you being foolish enough to loan your car to someone who not only got it stuck but then proceeded to burn up the clutch, it was probably a business decision assuming that all the other customers didn't want to pay extra to keep the ring gear on the flywheel when someone burned up clutch by slipping it exceesively.

Reply to
Brent

no shit sherlock. and you're blowing my mind with your ability to get sidetracked. the arrhenius equation is seldom if ever used in mechanical life testing analysis. the context in which it is relevant however, just went WHOOOOOSH.

and running an engine at an average of 50 mph isn't it - for the reasons stated before.

really? i never knew that!!!

now go ahead and state what are the different tribological regimes that would be experienced real world [hint - i've already outlined part of this], and how you would do accelerated testing for them. and do so for each of the bearing types used.

as opposed to your "contributions"? right.

red herring. you're wriggling and squirming because you obviously don't understand the implications for more critical engine components.

your condition is that of a rodent.

Reply to
jim beam

Once again Mr. Beam accuses the other person of irrelevant the side track he created.

Who stated that was done? Nobody. Once again you interject irrelevancy to try to spackle over your ignorance.

I'm not going to follow your attempt at saving face by derailing the conversation into something else. Your further attempt to hide your ignorance and save face is noted.

Lame attempts at deflection doesn't change anything. And since you're not here to contribute, but simply insult people to boost your ego and troll to get your jollies... well...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Nice projection there Beamo.

*yawn* the true level of your discourse is reached again.
Reply to
Brent

piss and moan. rodent.

Reply to
jim beam

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

You need some new tricks.

Reply to
Brent

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.