F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

701 - 720 of 746 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I'm a big fan of the new STX grills look wise... seams like they would flow way more than the high trim grills as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
I'm a big fan of the new STX grills look wise... seams like they would flow way more than the high trim grills as well.
They are definitely open, if that helps.
And I admit that they look great.

But, and this sounds like a snob, I can't make myself change to a grill that is so....... Un-rare?

I need to come up with some kind of amazing custom painting of it to differentiate.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
Here is an aftermarket example. Not saying I like the look necessarily, but wondering about any airflow improvement. As usual, there is a lack of any technical data.

2F37F655-F779-46E6-85C0-0EB2A3493154.jpeg


Also, OEM for the STX might flow as good or better. Who knows.
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
I suppose I could remove the grill inserts on my 2018 Platinum. Maybe replace them with a couple of horizontal billets to keep the birds out. :)

2018PlatinumOEM.JPG


2018Platinum.JPG


2018PlatinumBillets.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
I actually kind of like the blacked out look. Openings are pretty large so might still need to put some minimum “something”, even if also blacked out.

No mesh. Too much flow resistance.

My observation is the OEM cross-hatched grille looks pretty restrictive. Not sure how much additional flow removing it would gain, but I’m thinking maybe 10-15%.

BTW, for those questioning the potential for increasing airflow (eg Ford engineers must have provided enough, and more won’t help), consider that the OEM grilles on these trucks must be designed to flow properly at fairly high speed (80+mph?). So how much do they flow at heavy towing speeds (say 45-65mph), and could they flow more at these lower-than-max speeds? Hmm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
I actually kind of like the blacked out look. Openings are pretty large so might still need to put some minimum “something”, even if also blacked out.

No mesh. Too much flow resistance.

My observation is the OEM cross-hatched grille looks pretty restrictive. Not sure how much additional flow removing it would gain, but I’m thinking maybe 10-15%.

BTW, for those questioning the potential for increasing airflow (eg Ford engineers must have provided enough, and more won’t help), consider that the OEM grilles on these trucks must be designed to flow properly at fairly high speed (80+mph?). So how much do they flow at heavy towing speeds (say 45-65mph), and could they flow more at these lower-than-max speeds? Hmm.
You'll see more benefit from a radiator or CAC upgrade. Grille is the last thing I would upgrade if looking to improve the overall heating situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
The way i see the whole grille thing is this:

If your cooling system was fully open, it would be like blowing through a garden hose. Now you put the E-fan on the back and its like blowing through a garden hose with a drinking straw at the end. Now you put a restrictive grille on and its like blowing through a 3/8” ID fuel line, attached to a garden hose, with a drinking straw at the end.

In my head, that final scenario is no different than 2nd scenario

The pressure delta is ultimately driven by the fan shroud. That pressure delta extends all the way to the outside of the grille. The air hitting the front of the truck either needs to decide to go into the grille or around the body.

But maybe i am thinking about his wrong and its like a series of resistors in a circuit. Each one drops the voltage as a ratio of the total resistance.
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
I think it’s worth considering. In my case, as soon as Mishimoto can get me the radiator (due late Oct), I will be tearing in to the front end anyway. If there is anything reasonable (even simple/cheap) I can do to improve airflow through the grille (reduce pressure drop), I will do that at the same time.

I do think from a fluid flow perspective, each point of pressure drop is cumulative. A reduction of pressure drop across the grille should result in higher pressure at the face of the stack. This should increase flow across the stack.

Pressure at the rear of the stack is probably negative with the fans on high, unless there is more flowing through the stack than the fans can handle. At that point, the pressure would be positive. Either way, the fans will move more air because the increased flow through the stack increase the “head” available to the fans, and they will flow more air just like a pump will flow more water if it has more available suction pressure (head).

Of course, there will be a point of diminishing returns where more flow through the grille will result in very little net flow through the system, because pressure drop through the system will eventually build a pressure bubble in front of the stack until it starts pushing air around rather than allowing it through. I doubt we are at that limit at 44-65mph in high altitude hot/thin air.

I recently ran in to this in my home a/c system where I wasn’t getting enough air through the system to deliver the full cooling capacity of the evaporator/condenser to the living space. I used a manometer to check pressure drops across the return ductwork, filter, evaporator coil, and supply ductwork, and then worked to debottleneck where I could.

The major offender was the air filter which was a high MERV restrictive type. I experimented with several brands/MERVs and found a Honeywell model that was 8 MERV, 4” thick (high surface area) and had a very low pressure drop at the ACFM I needed to get full system capacity. I also changed some of the register settings that were attempting to balance room airflows but cumulatively were restricting the supply ductwork too much.

In the end, I got the ACFM needed at the evaporator to get the full design BTU of the system. Improvement was nearly 20%. So yes, pressure drop at each component had a cumulative impact on the entire airflow through the system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
I think it’s worth considering. In my case, as soon as Mishimoto can get me the radiator (due late Oct), I will be tearing in to the front end anyway. If there is anything reasonable (even simple/cheap) I can do to improve airflow through the grille (reduce pressure drop), I will do that at the same time.

I do think from a fluid flow perspective, each point of pressure drop is cumulative. A reduction of pressure drop across the grille should result in higher pressure at the face of the stack. This should increase flow across the stack.

Pressure at the rear of the stack is probably negative with the fans on high, unless there is more flowing through the stack than the fans can handle. At that point, the pressure would be positive. Either way, the fans will move more air because the increased flow through the stack increase the “head” available to the fans, and they will flow more air just like a pump will flow more water if it has more available suction pressure (head).

Of course, there will be a point of diminishing returns where more flow through the grille will result in very little net flow through the system, because pressure drop through the system will eventually build a pressure bubble in front of the stack until it starts pushing air around rather than allowing it through. I doubt we are at that limit at 44-65mph in high altitude hot/thin air.

I recently ran in to this in my home a/c system where I wasn’t getting enough air through the system to deliver the full cooling capacity of the evaporator/condenser to the living space. I used a manometer to check pressure drops across the return ductwork, filter, evaporator coil, and supply ductwork, and then worked to debottleneck where I could.

The major offender was the air filter which was a high MERV restrictive type. I experimented with several brands/MERVs and found a Honeywell model that was 8 MERV, 4” thick (high surface area) and had a very low pressure drop at the ACFM I needed to get full system capacity. I also changed some of the register settings that were attempting to balance room airflows but cumulatively were restricting the supply ductwork too much.

In the end, I got the ACFM needed at the evaporator to get the full design BTU of the system. Improvement was nearly 20%. So yes, pressure drop at each component had a cumulative impact on the entire airflow through the system.
The fans are not doing anything at freeway speeds. Evans cooling even suggested they could be causing poor flow if left on due to turbulance.
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
The fans are not doing anything at freeway speeds. Evans cooling even suggested they could be causing poor flow if left on due to turbulance.
So at 75-80mph at sea level (dense air) the fans are restricting airflow through the stack? I’m not doubting Evens, just wondering if they have experience/data on this specific design, or are the generalizing ... maybe even wrt much older designs.

Even if the fans are causing pressure drop at highway speeds, all else being equal lower pressure drop through the grill will still help move more air through the system. How much? .1%, 1%? 10%? I don’t know.

What I don’t have, like so many other elements of this whole discussion on curing the overheat issue, is definitive data on this or any of the other potential improvement steps. Perhaps the CAC improvement step is (so far) the only thing I can point to and say definitively, yes, my IAT2 temps are lower and more stable. I measured them. How much will this help manage ECTs? Alas, I don’t know that either.

I guess we all just keep poking around (and spending money) until good things start happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
So at 75-80mph at sea level (dense air) the fans are restricting airflow through the stack? I’m not doubting Evens, just wondering if they have experience/data on this specific design, or are the generalizing ... maybe even wrt much older designs.

Even if the fans are causing pressure drop at highway speeds, all else being equal lower pressure drop through the grill will still help move more air through the system. How much? .1%, 1%? 10%? I don’t know.

What I don’t have, like so many other elements of this whole discussion on curing the overheat issue, is definitive data on this or any of the other potential improvement steps. Perhaps the CAC improvement step is (so far) the only thing I can point to and say definitively, yes, my IAT2 temps are lower and more stable. I measured them. How much will this help manage ECTs? Alas, I don’t know that either.

I guess we all just keep poking around (and spending money) until good things start happening.
I was discussing the whole ECT thing with my buddy today, who designs and builds turbo upgrades for diesels. We are actually wondering if the advancing of ignition timing actually causes ECT’s to be higher.

Retarding ignition timing causes exhaust temps to rise because it spends less time in the cylinders after firing. Advanced timing should cause pressure and temperatures to be higher, but also spend more time in the cylinder, which means the cylinder walls absorb more heat.

I almost wonder if none of us ever upgraded intercoolers, if we would experience overheat as often. I remember on my stock CAC i would be climbing and the truck would slowly run out of power as the IAT2 would head to the high 100’s. By the top of some hills i would have my foot to the floor and the truck would still be slowing down. But it didn’t overheat. The intercooler was the weak link and protected the rest of the engine.
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
Well that would suck.

I think the computer starts dumping in a lot of fuel at some point, as well. On my truck it’s very clear because when I make towing power with boost, It gets hot and also really terrible mpg. When I make towing power with rpm, it runs cooler and gets better mpg. So much going on ...

I still go back to basics when I get stuck in these “thought loops”. These trucks generally run cooler in colder temps (winter) while otherwise operating under the same conditions. Only 2 differences are much colder inlet air temps and much colder radiator approach temps which result in lower coolant temps to the engine.

So why don’t they overheat? If it’s not the lower ambient air temps what else is materially different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
While not scientific and completely random, my truck seems to tow cooler, and (not sure how to quantify this) better, using 87 octane fuel. I know Ford recommends premium while towing, but even with 7000lbs attached running through the Rockies, somehow it feels more controlled. Maybe it shifts sooner or something, but with about 15 camping trips this summer, I no longer buy a tank of premium before heading out.
 

·
Registered
2013 F150 FX4, 3.5L TT, SCrew, S&B CAI, FR CAC, Solo OR Downpipes, 3.5 in exhaust, 5* Tune
Joined
·
39 Posts
I was discussing the whole ECT thing with my buddy today, who designs and builds turbo upgrades for diesels. We are actually wondering if the advancing of ignition timing actually causes ECT’s to be higher.

Retarding ignition timing causes exhaust temps to rise because it spends less time in the cylinders after firing. Advanced timing should cause pressure and temperatures to be higher, but also spend more time in the cylinder, which means the cylinder walls absorb more heat.

I almost wonder if none of us ever upgraded intercoolers, if we would experience overheat as often. I remember on my stock CAC i would be climbing and the truck would slowly run out of power as the IAT2 would head to the high 100’s. By the top of some hills i would have my foot to the floor and the truck would still be slowing down. But it didn’t overheat. The intercooler was the weak link and protected the rest of the engine.
I overheated with the stock cac in ALASKA. it was like in the 70s or 80s that day. Granted I was going up a gravel mountain pass that had a "trailers not recommended" sign, but still.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
While not scientific and completely random, my truck seems to tow cooler, and (not sure how to quantify this) better, using 87 octane fuel. I know Ford recommends premium while towing, but even with 7000lbs attached running through the Rockies, somehow it feels more controlled. Maybe it shifts sooner or something, but with about 15 camping trips this summer, I no longer buy a tank of premium before heading out.
There have been some interesting tests done by folks trying to figure out whether “premium is worth it” on various vehicles. It seems many modern engines do not benefit from premium gas. However, 3.5 eco does by quite a bit. It produces more hp and more torque on premium gas. It must therefore be producing more heat as well (assuming you are using that increased power).
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
I overheated with the stock cac in ALASKA. it was like in the 70s or 80s that day. Granted I was going up a gravel mountain pass that had a "trailers not recommended" sign, but still.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
70-80 degrees is still warm (borderline?). What about 20-40 degrees? Maybe nobody camps (tows) at these temps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
70-80 degrees is still warm (borderline?). What about 20-40 degrees? Maybe nobody camps (tows) at these temps.
He was probably also going somewhat slow since it was a gravel pass and was relying on the fans to cool the stack. When I went camping outside of Cedar Breaks and had to climb from Parowan to Brian Head, my truck also got hot even though I was only climbing at 25-30mph.
 

·
Registered
2018 F150 3.5 Ecoboost Platinum FX4 10-speed w/max tow, stock tune, Mishi CAC
Joined
·
92 Posts
He was probably also going somewhat slow since it was a gravel pass and was relying on the fans to cool the stack. When I went camping outside of Cedar Breaks and had to climb from Parowan to Brian Head, my truck also got hot even though I was only climbing at 25-30mph.
I know that road well. Some tight turns and very steep grades, especially toward the top. Two very tight switchbacks just before the top. Elevation around 11000 at the top, so very thin air.
 
701 - 720 of 746 Posts
Top