Ecoboost torture and teardown

formatting link

There are errors in that artice. Instead of getting it second hand, why not get it from Ford directly?

formatting link

- there are movies here with a voice over to explain the testing - mostly pure advertising copy.

formatting link

In the links above Ford claims the dyno testing was equivalent to 150,000 miles of use, but they also clearly state it only took 300 hours. They claim the dyno test is equivalent to this by doing all sorts of stresses (hot / cold cycling, full throttle, etc.). But the video does clearly say they are "simulating" 150,000 miles of use. This is advertising hyberbole. I am sure their test is really, really tough but 150,000 miles of use would require at least 3000 hours which is 125 days. Ford's dyno test was only 300 hours.

300 really tough hours, but I don't think the test really simulates 3000 hours of use in the "real world." In some respect the Dyno tests, as described, are proably worse than typical real world usage, but in my opinion, there is no substitute for time when you are trying to prove something is really tough. On the otherhand, I know a couple of users who would probably exceed any torture these tests subjected the engine to.

To me this whole "torture test" was an advertising stunt. I suppose it is a good one and it is more "real world" than some of thos silly Tundra advertsing stunts, but it is still just a stunt.

I suppose these sorts of stunts impress some people, but do they really change peoples' minds? I am on a Ford specific mailing list and several people on that list have F150's with the Ecoboost engine. All seem enthusiastic, BUT, I'd like to see how happpy they are in three or four years.

formatting link

Such a test simulation could go either way. It usually depends on how old the test is and how well feed back from the real world has shaped the test over time. An old test with good feedback over the years will be pretty good. A new test can be wildly too harsh or missing key elements.

These tests aren't just for giggles either, if done properly and using historical data of real world use they can be used to predict warranty costs.

I believe they took a standard test and turned it into an advertising stunt. It's a fairly standard practice to a take a production sample and subject it to a development test or an abbreviated version there of. The advertising stunt was what they did with the engine after the dyno run was completed.

Nah... 10-20 years ;)