1. Welcome To GMTruckClub.com!

    The #1 Chevy Truck Forum Online
    Online since 2004, we are the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV forum and user community. If you have any questions about your Chevy or GMC Truck, SUV or Crossover, or just want to connect with other GM owners and enthusiasts around the world, you've found the best place on the internet to do that.

    Join Today ~ It's Free
    Registering is Free and Easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Ecoboost Issues

Discussion in 'Chevy Silverado Forum (GMC Sierra)' started by paracutin, May 15, 2013.

  1. txdutt

    txdutt New Member

    Let's see so far with the "Eco-Bust" complaints: faulty fuel injection harnesses, intercooler causing condensation in the intake making the trucks go into limp mode & now the shake-rattle & role lawsuit...had doubts about turbocharging the Pi$$ out of a little 3.5 V6 achieving any longevity in a full size pickup...no thanks!
  2. tbplus10

    tbplus10 Epic Member Staff Member 5+ Years 5000 Posts Platinum Contributor

    Im not sure how many actually know the history of Turbo Charging.
    The first Turbo Charger was patented in 1905 and from the 20's through WWII was used extensively and very succesfully to boost performance on aircraft engines.
    The first automobile passenger car use was 1962 with the Oldsmobile Jetfire option on the 1962-1963 F85/Cutlass 215 CI V8 and the 1962-1964 Corvair Monza Spyder flat 6 engine.
    As far as technology the basic turbo has been in use for a long time and has proven reliability, its the hybrid versions that have issues, variable geometry turbos have proven to be the most problematic versions, while they work well at maintaining a constant backpressure through the engines rpms a reliable mechanism for vane geometry has been hard to develop.
  3. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    TB
    Yes remember that Corvair Turbo very well.
    Buddy of mine had one-and he-stupidly-let me drive it
    I/we would intentionally toss it around the corners-shell and gravel roads streets-just to get the tail to hang out
    like I was some kind of racer.
    Not as if it was tough to get it to come around-and back then-there wre little ditches on both sides of all the streets
    wouldn't flipped that sucker and killed our stupid selves!!
    Fun little car-dangerous-and its fan belt-would COME OFF- not break- but come off- and being air cooled-it would heat up really fast!!
    cHARLIE
  4. shibby2oo8

    shibby2oo8 Member 2 Years 100 Posts

    I think i may have used the wrong words, in design turbos are good but normally the execution ends up with low qaulity bearings and seals and poor tolerances so most production turbos lack longevity with is why i do not like them.
  5. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    The factory turbo craze from the late 1970's- mid 80's soured folks on turbos.
    They were supposed to give big engine performance-small engine mpg
    but they actually gave at best-good 4 cyl performance-with V-6 economy.
    and they BROKE- cooked/coked THE OIL did in their expensive turbos.
    Ford and Dodge put them in cars-4 cal-on pitiful Mustang I remember-and a "Shelby" something or other Dodge(150 hp I think)-GM of course used them less-and in the 6's as performance boosters-can't remember any GM turbo 4's.

    This time turbos will work better-GM uses them PLENTY in their 1.4 cal to get decent performance-great mpg
    Pretty sure the Cruze 1.4 turbo with a 6 speed MT is rated 42 mpg hy-pretty good!!
    They won't have the reliability problems they had 30 years ago

    Now the dual turbo 3.5 V-6 seems awfully complicated-looked great for a while-but now that GM has beaten its MPG- with a primitive 5.3 pushrod V-8 it doesn't look quite as good.
    I expect Ford will respond-and beat the 5.3 MPG wise-"somehow"
    Never would have guessed the 5.3 could get 23 mpg EPA HY in a pickup-never.
    The 23 mpg means actual 25 mpg trips at 65 mph.Minivan MPG from 5-8 years ago from a blocky V-8 1/2 ton-amazing.
    My primitive 98 Suburban gets 21 mpg hy on long-3000 mile trips-but that is at 62-63 mph or less
  6. shibby2oo8

    shibby2oo8 Member 2 Years 100 Posts

    I do like those new cruze eco's and they have good power for such a small engine. They should put a light on the dash to tell you when to shut the engine off so the turbo can cool off at idle like you are supposed to.
  7. steved

    steved Former Member


    The Grand National and/or GNX seemed like a pretty viable combination of V6 and turbo charger that GM put together...I want to remember it was quicker than the Corvette of the same time period. A girl I worked for back in college had four of GNs, and a mint GNX (as in less than 20 miles on the clock, and #5 in production of only 2000 cars IIRC); the one was a street/strip drag car and was ignorant for a V6.

    Again, a lot of the "failures" of turbo chargers stems from incorrect/poor oil being used. Turbos require a turbo approved oil, or the life expectancy of the turbo is greatly impacted.

    As for the issues the current EcoBoosts are having, that goes for any and all manufacturers that try something different...they all have bugs that need worked out in the beginning. I doubt there is a single car made that didn't have some sort of issues that needed sorted out.
  8. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    That Buicck Grand National must have been some sort of RINGER car
    Because it was only rated at 250-290 hp-but it ran much much faster than that.
    At least that is my memory of claimed hp
    Hey she had 4- and you didn't marry her??
  9. steved

    steved Former Member


    She was already spoken for...
  10. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Bet she was!!

Share This Page