[King Sun]

Loving that interior but exterior still looks the same

[shaffe]

thats because it is. its a 2013 body on a 2015 chassis, did people not read the description in the link? Or the thread title which says INTERIOR spied?

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by shaffe

thats because it is. its a 2013 body on a 2015 chassis, did people not read the description in the link? Or the thread title which says INTERIOR spied?

I thought the revision was supposed to be in 2015

[Witt]

Originally Posted by King Sun

I thought the revision was supposed to be in 2015

It is, you're looking at a 2013 car with 2015 parts installed that are in development.

Close friend of mine did clutch design work in the s197s before they were released. They used a New Edge mule for the developmental work.

[matt55]

for the love of.... its just a mule
:notheadlights:

[C5RocksC5]

Originally Posted by matt55

for the love of.... its just a mule:notheadlights:

Oh good. That means it can't reproduce. Got worried there for a bit.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Sincerest apologies for the confusion, I must have lost you in the first few words of my post. No need to feel embarrassed, these things do happen. May I recommend this program to you so we can avoid future confusion?

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english

That didn't help.

I checked their site and could not find a version that could teach me how to read jibberish.

I will add you to my ignore list to avoid any future misunderstandings.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by scrming

couple early issues with the early EB's with oil return lines leaking on a few cars, so there is a TSB for that... but other then that these little turbos seem to be very solid... have you watched the torture tests?

I've seen the torture tests, but I've always felt that a few weeks of hard running on a dyno is an inadequate simulation for 15 years and 200,000 miles in the real world. I've known a number of people with turboed cars from across the brand spectrum. When they get to the 7-9 year range and around 125,000 miles or so, the turbo failure rate seems to be rather high. Not saying it happens to all of them, but the situation is not rare, either.

If Ford really is that confident in the long-run durability of these turbos, they should warranty them for the typical useful life of the car. Until then, I'm not interested. If Ford ends up replacing N/A engines entirely, and making EcoBoost only cars in the near future, they can either stand behind it for the normal life of the car, or I'll be shopping a different brand. It is for this very reason I've already ruled out the Cruze when it comes time to replace my daily driver. Buying and driving a car is already expensive enough as it is without adding new upfront costs, and very large potential expenses down the road.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I've seen the torture tests, but I've always felt that a few weeks of hard running on a dyno is an inadequate simulation for 15 years and 200,000 miles in the real world. I've known a number of people with turboed cars from across the brand spectrum. When they get to the 7-9 year range and around 125,000 miles or so, the turbo failure rate seems to be rather high. Not saying it happens to all of them, but the situation is not rare, either.

If Ford really is that confident in the long-run durability of these turbos, they should warranty them for the typical useful life of the car. Until then, I'm not interested. If Ford ends up replacing N/A engines entirely, and making EcoBoost only cars in the near future, they can either stand behind it for the normal life of the car, or I'll be shopping a different brand. It is for this very reason I've already ruled out the Cruze when it comes time to replace my daily driver. Buying and driving a car is already expensive enough as it is without adding new upfront costs, and very large potential expenses down the road.

Most of these durability tests are designed to give the extreme impression of durability by creating situations which are perceived as very abusive, but are actually quite the opposite.

No test other than everyday use will simulate the effects that time imposes on materials unless the test is conducted over the same timer period. Compressing 10 years of use into 2 weeks of static testing does not allow for the proper temperature cycling and oil settling and a myriad of other things.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Most of these durability tests are designed to give the extreme impression of durability by creating situations which are perceived as very abusive, but are actually quite the opposite.

No test other than everyday use will simulate the effects that time imposes on materials unless the test is conducted over the same timer period. Compressing 10 years of use into 2 weeks of static testing does not allow for the proper temperature cycling and oil settling and a myriad of other things.

Full throttle running means nothing. Cold/dry starts, short trips, heat soak after shut off....things like this is what slowly wears down engines. That's why cab companies are able to get 500,000+ miles out of some their cars with mostly hard city mile driving, or courier vans sometimes go over a million. They never shut them off.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

That didn't help.

I checked their site and could not find a version that could teach me how to read jibberish.

I will add you to my ignore list to avoid any future misunderstandings.

ZOMG, so witty.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I've seen the torture tests, but I've always felt that a few weeks of hard running on a dyno is an inadequate simulation for 15 years and 200,000 miles in the real world. I've known a number of people with turboed cars from across the brand spectrum. When they get to the 7-9 year range and around 125,000 miles or so, the turbo failure rate seems to be rather high. Not saying it happens to all of them, but the situation is not rare, either.

If Ford really is that confident in the long-run durability of these turbos, they should warranty them for the typical useful life of the car. Until then, I'm not interested. If Ford ends up replacing N/A engines entirely, and making EcoBoost only cars in the near future, they can either stand behind it for the normal life of the car, or I'll be shopping a different brand. It is for this very reason I've already ruled out the Cruze when it comes time to replace my daily driver. Buying and driving a car is already expensive enough as it is without adding new upfront costs, and very large potential expenses down the road.

I can't disagree with the potential for costs down the road as turbochargers present an additional part of the system, but the turbocharged engines of 10 years ago are worlds behind the modern versions. Modern synthetic oils have also nearly eliminated some of the problems exhibited by earlier turbo cars which necessitated turbo timers. Personally, I never keep cars long enough to worry about 100K+ miles, but I can see where your concern is.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

I can't disagree with the potential for costs down the road as turbochargers present an additional part of the system, but the turbocharged engines of 10 years ago are worlds behind the modern versions. Modern synthetic oils have also nearly eliminated some of the problems exhibited by earlier turbo cars which necessitated turbo timers. Personally, I never keep cars long enough to worry about 100K+ miles, but I can see where your concern is.

The issue most people have is that they are being denied the ability to choose which type of engine they will be able to get because some pencil pushers in an office building decided they know what is best for everyone else.

The "everyone else" are left to choose between something that may not suit their needs, and something else that does suit their needs but is only available as a high end limited run model with a high price and limited production (to keep it from impacting the prescribed quotas the office masterminds "decided" upon.)

I suggest offering whatever engine that most people will choose. If they choose turbos then so be it. If not, then turbos are not what is needed at this time.

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The issue most people have is that they are being denied the ability to choose which type of engine they will be able to get because some pencil pushers in an office building decided they know what is best for everyone else.

The "everyone else" are left to choose between something that may not suit their needs, and something else that does suit their needs but is only available as a high end limited run model with a high price and limited production (to keep it from impacting the prescribed quotas the office masterminds "decided" upon.)

I suggest offering whatever engine that most people will choose. If they choose turbos then so be it. If not, then turbos are not what is needed at this time.

I really wish you would go away. A car company cannot afford to offer 6 engine choices for each model.