Not really a rant, just want to see what the rest of you think about the F150 with the eco boost v6? I have been reading up on ACTUAL mileages guys have been getting....they all seem to average around 17mpg...some higher some lower. I'm impressed with the power, but thats what happens when you put two turbos on an engine. I drove a 2005 silverado 5.3 4x4 and got 18mpg on average, I now drive a tundra crewmax 4x4 and average about 16 mpg....I just cant imagine spending more money for a v6 and get the same mpg. I really think Ford missed an oppportunity here to put a diesel in a half ton. I do applaud them for trying....I just don't think this engine will be in the half ton truck for more than a year or two. I am tickled that turbo engines are making a comeback in american vehicles....brings back memories of the old grand nationals and buick regal t-types.
Eco Boost Rant
- Thread starter robbz28
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
zookeeper
Founding Member
The 5.3 you drove must be a lot better than my bosses 4x4 with the 5.3 engine. He gets about the same in mixed driving that my V10 F250 gets (12-ish) with nowhere near the towing grunt or room. As for the eco-boost Fords, I've read lots of happy owners comments on the FTE forum. But until they make an F150 crew cab with a full-size bed I'll keep my F250.
It has a LOT to do with how one drives...we had a suburban with 5.3....average 17.5 mpg about everywhere we went. It also has a lot to do with the rear end gears, if your boss's truck had the 4.11 gears then that could have something to do with it. Everyone I have read was happy with their eco-boost, they just werent getting near the mileage they thought they was going to get....the sticker says 22 highway and most were getting 17.....14 around town....I would love to get behind the wheel of one myself and just see what I can do, but ill have to wait till a bud of mine goes out and gets one...I still got lots of notes on this tundra to make! I guess the point I was trying to get accross is why make an engine that in the end is not that much different in mileage/power that burns the same expensive gasoline? Whichever manufacturer that puts a smaller diesel engine in a half ton is going to have a winner on their hands. LOTS of diesel drivers in my part of the world crying for this, they dont care who it comes from, the rest of the world runs on diesel for a reason.
StangDreamin'
Founding Member
The one problem with diesel is that fuel companies know everybody wants a diesel! And price the fuel accordingly. Gas is down around $3.60 around here, diesel is still over $4. And most people don't drive around in empty pickups.... I do, but that's because my F150 is my only DD. It's empty right now; but Sunday it hauled 15 bales of hay, and will be hauling wood this weekend.
Once "ordinary people" were to buy a diesel F150; they'd find that they're probably getting about the same in-town fuel mileage; just paying more per gallon of fuel. THAT'S not gonna 'open the market' much, and people could well end up going back to gas powered pickups; unless they're constantly draggin' trailers across the countryside on freeways - which is where the diesel's fuel economy shines best.
Personally, I'd love one of the new 6.7L Super Duty's - particulate filter, urea tank and all; but I'd probably keep my 9 year old F150 for a DD - it's just "cheaper to keep 'er" for daily routine sort of stuff. Save the 'Stroke for when I'm hauling a dump (60 bales) of alfalfa, or a trailer-load of horses, or a Bobcat on a trailer; something that really sucks the tank dry on a gas-powered truck, but where the diesel would shine.
You think that Ford's marketing-types don't watch things like fuel cost when they decide to put out certain vehicles? Why do you think the Eco-Boost is being put in everything that Ford can put it in? It's not just the CAFE mileage standards, it's also the simple fact that people are "paring down" in this economy. Putting out a vehicle that uses a more expensive fuel is gonna be a non-starter for most of the customer base, which is not gonna use the diesel pickup to its best advantage. Because they don't have the NEED for what the diesel can best provide.
People can always rationalize a "need" for a blown 5.4 4V in a $50-60k ersatz "Shelby"; but a truck? Nope.
Don't yell at Ford on this one - it's "just bidness".
Once "ordinary people" were to buy a diesel F150; they'd find that they're probably getting about the same in-town fuel mileage; just paying more per gallon of fuel. THAT'S not gonna 'open the market' much, and people could well end up going back to gas powered pickups; unless they're constantly draggin' trailers across the countryside on freeways - which is where the diesel's fuel economy shines best.
Personally, I'd love one of the new 6.7L Super Duty's - particulate filter, urea tank and all; but I'd probably keep my 9 year old F150 for a DD - it's just "cheaper to keep 'er" for daily routine sort of stuff. Save the 'Stroke for when I'm hauling a dump (60 bales) of alfalfa, or a trailer-load of horses, or a Bobcat on a trailer; something that really sucks the tank dry on a gas-powered truck, but where the diesel would shine.
You think that Ford's marketing-types don't watch things like fuel cost when they decide to put out certain vehicles? Why do you think the Eco-Boost is being put in everything that Ford can put it in? It's not just the CAFE mileage standards, it's also the simple fact that people are "paring down" in this economy. Putting out a vehicle that uses a more expensive fuel is gonna be a non-starter for most of the customer base, which is not gonna use the diesel pickup to its best advantage. Because they don't have the NEED for what the diesel can best provide.
People can always rationalize a "need" for a blown 5.4 4V in a $50-60k ersatz "Shelby"; but a truck? Nope.
Don't yell at Ford on this one - it's "just bidness".
something else regarding diesels in the US, the EPA treats diesels like gasoline engines, rather than as diesel engines, and thus diesel have to have the urea injection, and the particulate filters, and catalytic converters, among other items. while this isnt a problem with medium and heavy duty trucks, it is a problem with small cars where diesel power would prove to be a big advantage.
Im going to agree to disagree with u Dreamin....I am picking up what you are putting down, but perhaps its more of a regional need than a national need...I see a LOT of VW bugs and passats and jettas with the turbo diesels getting 45 mpg....you can afford a higher fuel when your mileage is 10 mpg better than the others, and I bought diesel today for 3.79 gallon...gas was 3.55, put it in my 07 Jeep Liberty Diesel that gets 27mpg. We as a nation used to have a diesel option in just about everything. When I came home from the hospital it was in a Diesel Buick Park Avenue of all things. Also diesel engines last forever because they are built to handle the high compression, so its "cheaper to keep'er" if you stretch that out over 200k plus miles. I drove to college in a 2000 dodge cummins diesel that got 22 mpg. There is a happy medium somewhere, maybe one day it will be right, I just dont think boosting a 6 cyl to have the power of an 8 cyl (only to bring the mileage back down to that of an 8) is the way to go. Dual turbos....sounds great, but what about when those bearings have been spinning for 100k miles and you have to replace a snail under the hood...Im just being negative i guess, not sold on it yet. If you have seen the commercial for the ford f150 pushing the "750 miles per tank" in the fine print thats for the standard 6 cyl, not the 2500 bucks over the cost of the v8 option for the eco-boost.
Not sure where you got that number but on an XLT it's only a $750 option. The biggest advantage of the eco-boost is it's flat torque curve, flatter than a lot of diesels. We can't keep them in stock and we also get premium pricing on them. I read somewhere that GM is working OT to get an equivalant engine for the Silverado.
zookeeper
Founding Member
I just talked to a buddy of mine who's the service manager for the local Ford store. He says that they have several on order and really don't know when they'll actually get one on the lot. Hopefully they turn out to be reliable, because as soon as they become affordable for me, I'll definitely be in line for a black one!
FYI, I'm a 2-year member at FTE and the majority of the Ecoboost owners absolutely rave about the mileage they're getting. Sure they get a little thirsty when you're hauling a heavy load, or pushing them on the highway....but so does every truck. The last 5.3L GM we rented was hovering around single digit mileage when I had to get to the other side of the Province in a hury one time last summer. Otherwise, the owners are quoting anywhere from 23mpg average with mixed driving to nearly 27mpg all highway driving (driven gingerly of course). I'm lucking if I squeeze out 22mpg on the highway with my '06 FX4 and I added U/D pulleys, electric fan, electric water pump, run 45lbs of air in the tires and drive it like I've got an egg under my right foot!!!
The 3.5L Ecoboost is a MASSIVE hit. Whether you agree with it or not.
Oh, BTW....I can't imagine spending more money on a full 1.2L larger, harder on fuel V8 just to get my ass handed to me by a V6? Not to mention being out towed by the sucker.
MPG example...
StreetsideStig
Active Member
- Feb 22, 2011
- 1,012
- 48
- 48
I'm a fan of the EcoBoost program. I wish they would have dropped the smaller one in the Ranger before they decided to kill it. And they say there's an EcoBoost Mustang coming in 2014.
iskwezm
10 Year Member
after driving a eco boost, i cant say enough about it.Unfortunately for the model I want, im not willing to spend $45K on a truck, so im going back a F250 Powerstroke 
StangDreamin'
Founding Member
robb, I can see where you're coming from.... I live in an area that's relatively FLAT and DRY (as opposed to a bayou), no major hills to climb; and the only time I really need the performance characteristics of a diesel is when the pickup's pulling something that weighs more than the pickup. (And an '02 5.4 2-valve doesn't exist in the same dimension as "performance" when it dragging a good-sized load of animals!) For times like that, I'm just getting by with with the Superchips box. The gas mileage goes down on "87 Octane Tow" -or "91 Tow" if I'm feeling rich- but not as much as when I try to drag something with the factory tune.
At that point in time, even a Cummins does a better job. (What can I say, I've driven more than a couple "Official PRCA Trucks" that belonged to stock contractors) However, MOST OF THE TIME a good "weekend load" is my always-there truck box full of 'important and handy stuff'; maybe 3/4-ton of alfalfa, sometimes lumber or sheetrock for "Honey-do's"; and Not Often Enough, the spinning target racks I use for blackpowder shooting. An Eco-Boost might be a better plan in that case; but my present F150's paid for, so there you go.
Personally, having seen the propaganda videos of a Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS running quarters at the track; I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd love to see an "Eco-Boosted" classic Mustang FB. That would be very cool.
At that point in time, even a Cummins does a better job. (What can I say, I've driven more than a couple "Official PRCA Trucks" that belonged to stock contractors) However, MOST OF THE TIME a good "weekend load" is my always-there truck box full of 'important and handy stuff'; maybe 3/4-ton of alfalfa, sometimes lumber or sheetrock for "Honey-do's"; and Not Often Enough, the spinning target racks I use for blackpowder shooting. An Eco-Boost might be a better plan in that case; but my present F150's paid for, so there you go.
Personally, having seen the propaganda videos of a Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS running quarters at the track; I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd love to see an "Eco-Boosted" classic Mustang FB. That would be very cool.
Similar threads
