Livernois Motorsports 3.5 Ecoboost engine build with upgraded rods and pistons

[yowen]

We rate our Ecoboost engines with our rod and piston upgrade to 750-800HP.

Thanks for the update!  Is that a "safe" power level (longterm) or is that a "track-only" power level (short bursts only)?  What do you foresee regarding needed changes to the transmission/powertrain to support?

Hopefully transmission upgrades will be developed for both longitudinal and transaxle applications.

[BiGMaC]

Tranny and PTU will be the next big needed component for longevity in the 3.5 tuned/modded for extremes of power possible.

[ShoBoat]

I would be happy with 800hp on pump gas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BiGMaC]

I would be happy with 800hp on pump

Wish you could be more clear about what you want. 

[JimiJak]

We rate our Ecoboost engines with our rod and piston upgrade to 750-800HP.

From this it seems safe to assume rods and pistons are the weak link and the rest of the motor is bullet proof since my truck would explode into a pile of bolts at that HP.

[Livernois Motorsports]

With the Rod piston upgrade that would be safe power level.


The next area that will be the weak link will more than likely be the transmission. We have not seen any failures yet but like anything mechanical everything has its breaking point.

[SwampRat]

We rate our Ecoboost engines with our rod and piston upgrade to 750-800HP.

Thanks for the update!  Is that a "safe" power level (longterm) or is that a "track-only" power level (short bursts only)?  What do you foresee regarding needed changes to the transmission/powertrain to support?

With the Rod piston upgrade that would be safe power level.

The next area that will be the weak link will more than likely be the transmission. We have not seen any failures yet but like anything mechanical everything has its breaking point and once we come across this you can bet that we will be offering upgrades for the trans as well.

A proactive approach needs to be seriously considered by you on the trany issue and RDU as well .
I think as you are the only player that has the incentive and resourses available to beef up these WELL KNOWN  weak links it would be benifical to all .

[Tuner Boost]

Excellent insurance when pushing the limits. We see rod bolt stretch as a good ARP or similar is critical, same w/head studs as boost increases you want to maintain good clamping force and OEM bolts will stretch and allow head lift.  Rods would be the next weakest OEM link(and pistons...a toss up).

But even with the best internals, allowing water/unburnt fuel/carbon and soot as well as sulfuric acid to accumulate in the crankcase and contaminate the oil will still take out the best components. And the flawed PCV system of the EB guarantees some amount of this.

[JimiJak]

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

The horsepower numbers listed are based on observations of failed engines that we've received at various different power levels. Based on the types of failures, along with the corresponding power levels these engines were at during the failures, we're able to draw up an estimate for the max power capabilities. Like any estimate it's an educated guess based on the data we have to work with. In this case seeing the modes of failure spread out across multiple engines gives a good indication of what the limits are.

Like anything though there are variables that affect these kinds of things, you can take a stock Big Block Chevy out of an old truck and add parts and Nitrous to it and make over 700hp, but how long realistically before it blow's up. I think the term "ticking time bomb" is probably most appropriate in that scenario.

So this isn't to say that as soon as a 3.5L ecoboost hits 450whp for the first time it's guaranteed instant kaboom. But we do know that once you get around that horsepower number that we see a lot of failures in stock engines, so that must be right around the limit before things start failing. Knowing this we try and make an effort to educate the customer so they understand the implications of power at these levels, and that an engine failure at higher power levels like these with a stock engine is entirely possible and in fact likely to occur.

It's important to keep in mind that when the OEM is designing the engine they are only trying to meet the performance criteria for that specific application, while at the same time keeping costs as low as possible. So adding extra strength to components to handle power levels that exceed the stock power output is almost never an option. It would add cost in most cases and is unnessary, because to the OEM, they have no reason to worry about the engine beyond the stock power output. They'll design it to handle exactly the power output in factory form, then add a small percentage for a safety factor. This is why it's easy to get away with a mild tune and bolt on's on almost any stock vehicle. But as soon as you push outside of the smaller power gains over stock, you'll most likely be pushing the engine to it's limits in stock form.

Attached are some photo's of some recent builds, as well as some shots of the machine and engine shop.

Thanks



- edited by 4DRHTRD to fix the title - was ernoise changed to Livernois

[Tuner Boost]

Not really. We see 500 plus and rods holding up. Similar to the GM 3.6L DI engine. Both are strong.   What we generally see as far as rod failure is when hydrolock occurs (have never in my career seen and engine experience it as often as the EB, and that is due to the PCV system flaw, not the engine design).  Several we have torn down for other reasons seemed to still run great, but we find a bent rod or two and that is not happening from power....it is when the piston cannot compress liquid ingested from upping the boost allowing the mix collected in the CAC to be pushed into the intake manifold. No rod even forged twice as strong can survive that. Something has to give, and rod or piston (or both).  The bent rod may last for the life of the engine, but the piston is now behind in timing and never reaches the top of the deck and the quench area will no longer be effective allowing heat build up beyond what the piston can survive with. Quench area is critical so you dont want a piston sitting low in the hole.  Empty and clean the CAC, correct the PCV system flaw and trap all of this mix before it can reach the combustion chamber and these motors seem to take 500 plus HP fine and live.  600 and your going to have failures period. May last a while, may not, but you will have reached all limits.

We sent Livernoise a complete Monster System to install and see first hand 2 months ago, but to date they haven't installed it so if we can get them to put aside the strange belief that this oil/water/fuel/sulfuric acid mix is NOT good for the engine, I think you will see them making much more trouble free power in the future. They do know how to make power and build strong engines no question.....just stuck on the PCV system and dont seem to want to even test in fear they will "see the light".

[JimiJak]

Always good to hear multiple viewpoints. Thanks again Tracy!

[kinder]

I know that some people here feel that Livernois is being 'targeted' and this, to me does not help.

This topic has been moved under your vendor threads.
The move is not a slight against you or your company. We appreciate all of the research you are doing, and the time you put into our EB engines, but until evidence of your claims is posted this is purely subjective, not "news".

Your company is not alone. All of the vendors are now being held to a standard of a zero-tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make a claim as a vendor, you must also post the scientific findings or empirical data that have lead you to that claim.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in moving forward.

-JimiJak

You will never get imperial data for this. The sampling is too small. We have people running big power with no problems yet, people with 400+ power with no problems yet, and stock cars with no problems yet.

Livernois has already stated that the failed engines THEY have seen come in were running around that 450+ mark. Is it the tune? Is it the climate? Is it the oil choice? Is it the driver? Is it the parts produced during a certain time frame? There is no way to determine this.

They never said that your engine will fail at 450hp. They said that based on the engines they have seen com in they recommend that as a daily driver 400hp is the highest they suggest. (At least to one client.)

Your comment about empirical data seems more petty than fair. And this type of marginalization may cost us a valued source of information. I mean why should they keep posting if they just get grief for it?

And then you post a question, that does not ask for empirical data, and was answered in the third paragraph.

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

I am not a Livernois client. In fact I will prob never be one as I plan on using the iTSX tuner. I have no problems with challenging vendors to back up their claims when they say their product is better than another. But this is not that. This is an opinion and maybe even a light warning, not a claim. Just like Tuner Boost's claims.

I have no idea who Tuner Boost / Tracey is and while I see merit in Tuner's thinking as to the possible problems in these engines (while looking for solutions) he has no empirical data to support his claims either.

Livernois seems to be the most vocal of the tuners. Torrie responds fast to PM's and emails but I don't see him as vocal on the site. Maybe I just don't read those threads?



In my opinion.

[FoMoCoSHO]

I know that some people here feel that Livernois is being 'targeted' and this, to me does not help.

This topic has been moved under your vendor threads.
The move is not a slight against you or your company. We appreciate all of the research you are doing, and the time you put into our EB engines, but until evidence of your claims is posted this is purely subjective, not "news".

Your company is not alone. All of the vendors are now being held to a standard of a zero-tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make a claim as a vendor, you must also post the scientific findings or empirical data that have lead you to that claim.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in moving forward.

-JimiJak

You will never get imperial data for this. The sampling is too small. We have people running big power with no problems yet, people with 400+ power with no problems yet, and stock cars with no problems yet.

Livernois has already stated that the failed engines THEY have seen come in were running around that 450+ mark. Is it the tune? Is it the climate? Is it the oil choice? Is it the driver? Is it the parts produced during a certain time frame? There is no way to determine this.

They never said that your engine will fail at 450hp. They said that based on the engines they have seen com in they recommend that as a daily driver 400hp is the highest they suggest. (At least to one client.)

Your comment about empirical data seems more petty than fair. And this type of marginalization may cost us a valued source of information. I mean why should they keep posting if they just get grief for it?

And then you post a question, that does not ask for empirical data, and was answered in the third paragraph.

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

I am not a Livernois client. In fact I will prob never be one as I plan on using the iTSX tuner. I have no problems with challenging vendors to back up their claims when they say their product is better than another. But this is not that. This is an opinion and maybe even a light warning, not a claim. Just like Tuner Boost's claims.

I have no idea who Tuner Boost / Tracey is and while I see merit in Tuner's thinking as to the possible problems in these engines (while looking for solutions) he has no empirical data to support his claims either.

Livernois seems to be the most vocal of the tuners. Torrie responds fast to PM's and emails but I don't see him as vocal on the site. Maybe I just don't read those threads?



In my opinion.

All vendors advertising their products must post those threads in their individual vendor areas and is being applied equally to ALL vendors.

If you look closely you will notice that many threads have been moved lately in an effort to clean up the board.

Feel free to ask TCE Todd about it if you have any doubts about what I'm saying, or just check out his vendor area.

[SwampRat]

Kinder .. for those that ask vendors to provide data it is not "petty".
Some folks like to dig deeper and are wanting factual information and are not reliant on opinions or a Vendors trustworthiness .

It is a matter of critical thinking and analysis .
Firstly, recognize that thinking critically does not mean simple criticism. It means not simply accepting information at face value in a non-critical, or non-evaluating way.

The essence of critical thinking centers not on answering questions but on questioning answers, so it involves questioning, probing, analyzing, evaluating.

Beware of groupthink. This can seduce you at any time, but especially if you are a member of a close-knit group of people where there is a strong sense of loyalty to the group, deference to an authority figure within the group, and a demonized view of those outside the group.

Take your bias out of the equation. Do not defend a standpoint just because you always have defended it. Look at it as if you were getting involved for the first time. How would others view the situation for the first time? Don't get attached to a hypothesis just because it is yours.

To ask questions and asking for proof and data does not equate to being petty or flamethrowing/demonizing as long as it is fairly and objectively done .

[JimiJak]

Kinder,
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I see where you're coming from and think you have a good point. There's just one thing I would like you to consider:
I have in no way asked LMS not to post what they did. I appreciate what they do, and respect their opinion, just as I do Torry's. But it's just that, their opinion. This thread is very valuable, and everyone's opinion counts. The only problem here was that a thread of opinions is not "news" so it was moved to the appropriate category. Just like everyone else's threads have been getting moved lately. Mine included.

I did however take the time to write them a brief description of why it was being moved as to hopefully dismiss speculation of bias.

Also, (no disrespect intended) "empirical" does not mean "absolute, proven, or scientific", data it means; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
The problem wasn't that they hadn't absolutely proven their theory to be accurate, it was that they provided no information explaining how they had reached their conclusion other than; it's not a detonation problem, so it must be rods and hp."

They have since provided a great deal of very appreciated information regarding how they made their determinations.

I'm sorry this ended up so long, but hopefully it provides some different insight to you and others that may feel this way.