Ford F-150 EcoBoost review

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by JFScheck

Chevy just announces their new 2014 V8 - comparable to the EcoBoost in both power and mpg.


Our EcoTec3 5.3L V-8 engine offers an EPA-estimated 23 mpg highway for 2WD models and 22 mpg highway for 4WD models. That’s better than any V-8 competitor and beats the EPA highway estimates for the Ford F-150 EcoBoost turbocharged V-6.† With our EcoTec3 5.3L V-8 engine, you keep the benefits of a larger-displacement engine and get better fuel efficiency. We think of it as “doing more with more.”

Hey Chevy, this is a truck, what's the torque compared to the EcoBoost?

If I were looking at a 1500/F-150 - just give me the 2013 Hemi/Ram package... The trucks wars march on - Great News for us consumers!

More importantly, what's the torque CURVE? Peak torque is a nice enough number for bench racing over a beer, but where that curve peaks and dips is very important to drivability, especially when towing. The exciting thing turbo direct-injection engines are doing is delivering a fat, flat torque curve with peak or near-peak torque available down around 2,000 RPM.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Originally Posted by JFScheck

Chevy just announces their new 2014 V8 - comparable to the EcoBoost in both power and mpg.


Our EcoTec3 5.3L V-8 engine offers an EPA-estimated 23 mpg highway for 2WD models and 22 mpg highway for 4WD models. That’s better than any V-8 competitor and beats the EPA highway estimates for the Ford F-150 EcoBoost turbocharged V-6.† With our EcoTec3 5.3L V-8 engine, you keep the benefits of a larger-displacement engine and get better fuel efficiency. We think of it as “doing more with more.”

Hey Chevy, this is a truck, what's the torque compared to the EcoBoost?

If I were looking at a 1500/F-150 - just give me the 2013 Hemi/Ram package... The trucks wars march on - Great News for us consumers!

Hi, Ford Eco-Boost is rated at 365 HP and 420 lbs torque; According to Trailer Life, the new 5.3 L Chevy is rated at 355 HP and 383 lbs torque. They say the Chevy gets 1 MPG more than the Ford Eco-Boost, 2 MPG more than the Ford 5.0 L V-8, and 3 MPG more than the Dodge. [Ram]

Not mentioned in this article is that Chevy will be using cylinder de-activation. Also a naturally aspirated engine loses much more power in high altitudes. It has been mentioned that Ford will have a second generation Eco-Boost soon. I'm sure Dodge is planning something too. [3.0 l V-6 Diesel?]

[Gene]

Toyota is showing what exteriors and interiors of the 2014 Tundra and 4Runner look like, but no engine specs: All-New 2014 Tundra

The Tundra is more square looking and the front of the 4Runner looks like a pig nose to me.

Gene

[lewster]

Originally Posted by Gene

Toyota is showing what exteriors and interiors of the 2014 Tundra and 4Runner look like, but no engine specs: All-New 2014 Tundra

The Tundra is more square looking and the front of the 4Runner looks like a pig nose to me.

Gene

Looks to be heavily influenced by the newer Dodge Ram models. The similarity is striking!

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by lewster

Looks to be heavily influenced by the newer Dodge Ram models. The similarity is striking!

While I've no doubt the Tundra would have better resale, and there's a pretty good chance it would be a more trouble-free vehicle, I think the newer Ram actually looks way better, especially than these new pics Gene linked to.

And I agree with Gene, the 4Runner looks like the dog's breakfast.

Weren't we talking about F150s?

[kscherzi]

Originally Posted by Gene

The front of the 4Runner looks like a pig nose to me.

Gene

I got a good laugh. Seriously, what were theory thinking!

[GinMame]

Originally Posted by Gene

Toyota is showing what exteriors and interiors of the 2014 Tundra and 4Runner look like, but no engine specs: All-New 2014 Tundra

The Tundra is more square looking and the front of the 4Runner looks like a pig nose to me.

Gene

Gene,

From my research on the web, it appears that the engine and transmissions will be largely unchanged from the 2013 models. As for tow specs, they may be upped a few hundred pounds or so. The big news for towing seems to be a built-in trailer brake controller and integrated tow-haul mirrors. Of course this is all conjecture and probably the info that has been released is more to gauge consumer response before the actual release and while last minute tuning can take place than to pre-release actual specs. It also makes it look like they are doing something to respond to the competition and keep potential buyers from switching over to a competitor. So now comes the fun part, anticipation....

Cheers,
Rion

[Gene]

Originally Posted by GinMame

Gene,

From my research on the web, it appears that the engine and transmissions will be largely unchanged from the 2013 models.
Cheers,
Rion

They did promote the 5.7 L. engine and said nothing about fuel economy, transmission or whether they would aspirate them differently. I don't know if the expensive dealer installed supercharger is still available, but with the smaller V8, that is an interesting alternative to the other brands.

Toyota has usually made major changes every 6 years, so they are stretching it here.

Gene

[mojo]

I thought this thread was about the Ecoboost?

[Jim Clark]

Originally Posted by mojo

I thought this thread was about the Ecoboost?

Mine is running great so I have nothing the gripe about.

[LL2]

FWIW I have a co-worker that has a 25" SOB and a 2012 2WD F-150 Ecoboost he states the best mileage he has gotten at 60-65 on the interstates is 10.5 with a wing he installed. Before the wing he was getting 9 The worst MPG he has seen is 7.5. in headwinds.

With my 2007 Tundra Crewmax pulling an AS 23FB up and down the west coast Mountains, Winds etc... I have averaged 9-13 MPG. He is pretty upset and feels Ford was optimistic in its number in relation to towing and wishes he had kept his 305

I was in the market a few months ago before I purchased the Tundra to replace my 97 Toy T-100 (that averaged 10-13 MPG a lot more uncomfortably) The price of the new Fords with Eco-boost was at a premium here in the Northwest.

I am very happy with my Used Tundra and it was about half the price of a new Eco-boost. I too read a CR report and the 10 MPG number while towing stated in the report made me reconsider the purchase as 25K will buy a lot of fuel!

The Ford engine is great...but as the saying goes there is no replacement for displacement and larger normally aspirated engines with improved fuel management and aerodynamics may win out when it comes to real world towing, longevity and simplicity. http://www.airforums.com/forums/imag...lies/brows.gif

[mojo]

Once again those who haven't owned an Ecoboost seem to know more about their performance than those that do. I beg to differ about "normally aspirated" engines versus turbo charged vehicles as i own two of them and live at 7800'. Turbos do much better at altitude.

Just came from Denver to Durango over Kenosha and Wolf Creek which are over 10,000 feet high towing 7200 lbs and the computer states 12.3 mpg average. The Ford gets anywhere from 10-14 mpg towing and averages around 12mpg towing and 25 mpg when not.

There are those who are not satisfied with the published MPG claims because they are based on a 3.15 axle ratio as opposed to the 3.73 or 4.10 they actually buy to tow with. You have to look at reality vs. hearsay in the neighborhood.

[Jim Clark]

Are estimated mpg while towing even published by Ford. The city/highway numbers or published but I can't find any for towing, if someone has a the information published by Ford please point me in the right direction. Seems like way to many variables to nail that one down.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Originally Posted by LL2

FWIW I have a co-worker that has a 25" SOB and a 2012 2WD F-150 Ecoboost he states the best mileage he has gotten at 60-65 on the interstates is 10.5 with a wing he installed. Before the wing he was getting 9 The worst MPG he has seen is 7.5. in headwinds.

Hi, you can't even begin to compare towing mileage with an SOB compared to an Airstream. Tow that SOB with your Toyota and tell us what you get. Or read what mileage people on this forum are getting and then read the same stories on the SOB forum. My Lincoln has gotten between 10.0 and 11.5 towing. [an Airstream]

[ROBERT CROSS]

"averages around 12mpg towing and 25 mpg when not."

A 50% reduction when towing seems a little excessive.

I certainly don't get 25mpg when not towing, but only lose 2-4 when. 17%

Bob

[LL2]

Mojo said...Once again those who haven't owned an Ecoboost seem to know more about their performance than those that do.

It would seem to me that regardless of published high MTBF (mean time between failure) for the Ford Turbos that if I can achieve the same numbers without that factor what is the benefit? We don't all live at 7800 feet. My co-worker has firsthand knowledge of his gas mileage and I am merely reporting the outcome... faithfully. I have no axe to grind against any manufacturer

This was my choice to purchase a non turbo motor after doing my research and owning other Turbo charged VW and Audi products.

I have been a member of numerous forums and a lurker for the most part. I hope your dismissal of my story and attempted invalidation of my opinion merely shows you are having a bad day.

As always, folks should vote with their pocketbooks. All the best Mojo.

[Jim Clark]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

"averages around 12mpg towing and 25 mpg when not."

A 50% reduction when towing seems a little excessive.

I certainly don't get 25mpg when not towing, but only lose 2-4 when.

Bob

Bob, I have to think that is because the computes can retune the engine so dramatically, the Variable-geometry turbochargers give you a lot of flexibility. You can cut down the displacement but when you need the power you have to pour on the fuel. The big trick is developing the torque at low rpm. If all you are going to do is tow with the truck the Ecoboost is not the truck for you. If you use the truck as a daily drive and a weekend tow vehicle then it may be a good option.
Variable-geometry turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gene]

Some people use the mileage numbers from the truck computer and some divide gallons into miles when we get gas. Truck computers have a reputation (confirmed in our SUV's and trucks) to overstate mileage. If I take the computer's word for it, I get one to two mpg better than simple math tells me, but I still have to buy gas in reality world.

Gene

[LaBigDogs]

On my 2nd EcoBoost 1st 2011 now 2013. Will purchase the 2nd gen in 2015. This engine Rocks.... It's like the ultimate driving machine yes it like my x5 BMW. All wheel drive sure footed and smooth quite clean burning sheer power and monster torque! The best Truck I have ever owned.

[Jim Clark]

Originally Posted by Gene

Some people use the mileage numbers from the truck computer and some divide gallons into miles when we get gas. Truck computers have a reputation (confirmed in our SUV's and trucks) to overstate mileage. If I take the computer's word for it, I get one to two mpg better than simple math tells me, but I still have to buy gas in reality world.

Gene

You are taking a leap of faith on what those gas pumps are telling you, if you don't trust the truck manufactures numbers why would you trust the gas pumps? Time to break out the certified gallon gas containers and get down to business. BTW My mileage is just what I was told so I have no I idea what you are talkng about, and yes I can do simple math. Sounds like the issue is with your computer.