Some thoughts after demoing a 4th gen

But you aren’t out here championing a return to a pushrod v6 to avoid the failure of VVT systems or a 3-speed auto to avoid extra gears for reliability’s sake. Weird

 

I’m not “championing” anything. I am simply pointing out what I thought should be obvious to even the most mechanically disinclined (myself included).

More complexity = more potential for failure.

It doesn’t guarantee failure. But it definitely increases the potential for failure.

Turbocharged engines are more complex than NA engines.

That’s it. That’s all I am trying to get across. Not sure why you seem to be so eager to argue that.

 

This is only correct if the probability of every failure mode is identical. They aren’t, which is why modern, highly complex engines are so insanely more reliable than a flathead ford

 

I think we should call out the real issue here: no one in America wants a four cylinder vehicle. They’re for pussies or broke dicks who can’t afford or handle a V8. The six has always been a consolation prize, but we lived with it.

 

Poe’s law, automotive edition

 

I never said the probability of every failure mode is identical. I even said more complexity doesn’t guarantee failure.

 

Complexity alone does not increase failure rates, as I’ve explained

 

The dude’s a whiny troll. Just ignore him. Takes like that are a waste of space.

 

A turbo inline 4 is less complex than a NA V6

 

I will say this one last time, because I’m starting to grow tired of repeating myself. Increasing complexity of any system naturally increases the potential for failure at any point within that system. Increasing complexity does not necessarily guarantee failure. But anytime you add more components/variables, the potential for problems/issues/design flaws etc increases as well.

With regards to consumer products (including transportation vehicles) the initial “failures” are never exposed because they are rectified prior to the production phase. And sometimes, design failures are not identified until months or even years down the road.

I think I’ve stated the obvious. But if you are inclined to disagree, that’s fine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

You keep referencing added complexity…but what about the things that are less complex? We’ve got 33% less engine mechanical parts to fail. Being an inline 4 you have 5 main bearings to support the crank compared to 4 on a V6. Less injectors/plugs/coils. Less valves to burn. As I mentioned earlier since you have one cylinder head, you have no crappy coolant crossover to leak. With 1 cylinder head you only have one head gasket to go bad. With one cylinder head you have a shorter timing chain and only 2 cam actuators as opposed to 4. With the new motor it is utilizing rear and front timing cases which means as long as the rear is sealed properly at the factory, you shouldn’t really have leak issues besides a fluke here or there.

The only “complexity” would be from the turbo, the variable displacement oil pump, and the water control valve. The rest of the engine is pretty much simple 4 cylinder with the typical D4S injection.

Can we really quantify the potential for failures just because a turbo is there, when other aspects of the engine are arguable more reliable and less complex? That’s why I think these arguments are silly. Sure, someday, someone will be able to say they had a turbo failure. But does that really mean anything? What if the new motor has turbo problems, but doesn’t burn valves like the V6 does? Even if we can pinpoint some failures to turbos down the road, what does that tell us? I can’t come up with anything useful that that tells us. It’s still not any different than some ridiculous failure the V6 can already have.

Put another way, the only way in which the “NA motor can’t fail from a turbo since it doesn’t have one” argument has any merit, would be if it turns out that the new motor has all the same V6 problems, AND also has turbo problems on top of that. It would be at that point where we could finally say the turbo motor is less reliable due to complexity and having the turbo on top of having all the same problems the motor before it had. If the new motor does have turbo problems but doesn’t have all the other issues, then we can’t really compare them or say either is more complex or reliable because it’s not apples to apples.

 

Problem is the cost of labor and parts for just one item these days can run you thousands of dollars, a good percentage of initial cost of the truck. Look at the cost of a simple crossover pipe replacement, engine removal for a simple timing cover gasket. Some electronic modules are ridiculous in price. Were not many of those needed for cafe regulations back then lol. Much more cost than the old simple days even taking into account inflation adjusted numbers. As the years add up on the truck it becomes more expensive than beore.

 

Better question is how often when driving are you between 4600-6000 RPMs? I can drive my truck months without seeing 4600 RPMs. It isn't a race car.

 

I'm not sure about that better gas mileage. There can be conditions where it is better but not always. I have seen plenty of folks on here getting less than I get consistently in the V6. As for better acceleration look at Car and Driver tests 0-60 7.6 to 7.0 seconds, and quarter mile 15.9 to 15.3 seconds. You are talking .7 tenths of a second and .6 tenths of a second. I would not call that smoking the V6 by any stretch of the imagination.

 

.6 is a smoking in the 1/4 mile. May not sound like much but when you see it in person it's a big gap.

 

60 mph = 88ft/sec so .6seconds is ~50 ft or 3 car lengths. Don’t know how fast they’re going at the 1/4mi but it’s probably more than 100’. That’s getting roasted.

 

I didn’t feel like arguing it but, yep, exactly. And you sure feel it in the seat, too.

 

Not to mention that the trucks have similar max power output.

but at part throttle driving around normally, the turbo 4 delivers wildly more power at “useful” RPMs. It’s like 40-50 more hp at 2000-3000 rpm. That’s a completely different driving experience, even if the drag race is close (which it’s not. I’d spend $10k today for .6 seconds on my drag car).

 

So it sounds like this 4 cylinder is the truck motor everyone has been waiting for, especially after the 3.5. Although ironically, most people won't even try it due to the number of cylinders and displacement.

Nevermind that Ford and Chevy are running full size trucks with engines that are only slightly larger (2.7).

 

Fellas, it’s it gay to have fewer cylinders?