Ford F150 3.5L Eco Boost

[BillTex]

Originally Posted by mojo

The only thing relevant I saw in that CR report was...

"One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand."

Seems that CR's main concern with any vehicle report centers around fuel economy. Hey we're towing 5,000 to 9,000 lbs here. If you want to get up the 10% grade on a 9,000 foot high mountain pass, I'll take the turbocharger over any normal aspirated vehicle.

Yes...but the OP (and others who have been shopping the EB) start out by saying they are looking for greater efficiency.
Looking at the data in this report, real numbers that others have posted, the need to run high test, and the up charge of the EB...I am not so sure there is much to be gained over a normaly aspirated gas motor...certainly not efficiency.

[slowmover]

A quote from TXIceman in re his 1989 34' AVION (weight 8k +):

The fellow to whom we sold our 1989 Avion 34V is towing it with a new FORD F150 Ecoboost. He is happy with the way the truck tows and reports 13-mpg at 60/65-mph on the flats in Texas.


Has anyone towed a travel trailer with a ford flex ecoboost? - iRV2 Forums

.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by BillTex

Yes...but the OP (and others who have been shopping the EB) start out by saying they are looking for greater efficiency.
Looking at the data in this report, real numbers that others have posted, the need to run high test, and the up charge of the EB...I am not so sure there is much to be gained over a normaly aspirated gas motor...certainly not efficiency.

The efficiency gain the Ecoboost offers is when NOT towing. It wouldn't be a great choice for a work truck pulling a heavy trailer every day for lots of annual miles, because a) you can make a diesel pay that way and b) the (likely) greater longevity of a diesel can be an advantage in that kind of use.

For someone like me, for whom about half my miles are without the trailer, it would be nice to have both more low-rpm torque and better fuel economy when I'm using the truck for other reasons (though the reported fuel burn when towing is slightly better than I see towing with an '07 (4 spd auto, 3.55 diff, 5.4l.) Someone driving the truck a lot of miles without the trailer and doing perhaps 10% or 20% of their miles would see an even bigger improvement.

If the manufacturers would put a moderate diesel in the half ton, it would be a great truck from an efficiency point of view. They can't figure out the marketing, because lots of the diesel truck market is the "mine's bigger'n yours" crowd. Since they're not doing that, the Ecoboost is an interesting option for good power, good low-end torque, decent fuel burn when not loaded, competitive fuel burn when loaded. The "up charge" is about the same as a good set of tires.

PS: At this point it seems like the truck with the most potential to get a small diesel would be the Ram 1500, since there's a diesel Grand Cherokee coming. They'll at least have the engine certified for the US market.

[iowaroots]

The Ford EcoBoost mileage is over stated. The higher gas mileage is for a 4x2 regular cab. The #11,000+ tow rating is ONLY for the 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends and it MUST HAVE the max tow trailering package as well. Your mileage will be less than stellar with the 3.73 or the 4.10 rear axle at all times but it is better than the V-8's. My 2011 EcoBoost 4x4 Crew w/3.73 at best got 17.5 mpg when not towing. This was traveling at Interstate speed limits. There is a link below where you can get the facts on towing and combined truck/trailer weights.

If the tongue weight is 1,000 and you carry another 1,000+ in people, fluids and belongings you may want to consider the possibility of being over the GVWR of the truck and likely the tires as well. Combine that with the trailer weight added to the F150 GCWR, I don't know. Be safe out there.

http://www.ford.com/services/assets/...-150&year=2011

Towing Guide 2011 F150

https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/...11_default.asp

That diesel w/110k on it may not be so bad in terms of 'total cost of ownership" and payload capacity.

Happy camping!!

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Earthcreeper

The Ford EcoBoost mileage is over stated. The higher gas mileage is for a 4x2 regular cab. The #11,000+ tow rating is ONLY for the 3.73 and 4.10 rear ends and it MUST HAVE the max tow trailering package as well. Your mileage will be less than stellar with the 3.73 or the 4.10 rear axle at all times but it is better than the V-8's. My 2011 EcoBoost 4x4 Crew w/3.73 at best got 17.5 mpg when not towing. This was traveling at Interstate speed limits. There is a link below where you can get the facts on towing and combined truck/trailer weights.

If the tongue weight is 1,000 and you carry another 1,000+ in people, fluids and belongings you may want to consider the possibility of being over the GVWR of the truck and likely the tires as well. Combine that with the trailer weight added to the F150 GCWR, I don't know. Be safe out there.

http://www.ford.com/services/assets/...-150&year=2011

That diesel w/110k on it may not be so bad in terms of 'total cost of ownership" and payload capacity.

Happy camping!!

If you look at the 2013 info here, the Ecoboost Supercrew with the 6.5 foot box and a 3.73 LSD (that's the combo that gives you 8200 lb GVWR, the "HD Payload" pakcage) gives 2620 lb payload in 2WD trim, 2310 in 4WD.

[BillTex]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

The efficiency gain the Ecoboost offers is when NOT towing.

Not according to the CR data...

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by BillTex

Not according to the CR data...

The article posted really said nothing in the text about the F150, they were talking more about cars, such as the the 4-cylinder Ecoboost and others. Neither does it say anything about how the data about the F150 in the table was collected... was it a test with 2 trucks doing the same thing in the same conditions? Or was it 2 different test drives of the trucks in unrelated conditions?

There are 5 people in my WBCCI unit with Ecoboost F150s, and they're all very pleased with the performance and fuel economy of the trucks in actual use. I know 1 is a 3.55 rear axle, I think the others are all 3.73 diffs. The woman with the 3.55 hasn't had it long and has used it almost exclusively to tow (though lately she's towing a little WeeWind that would probably do fine with a Jetta towing it!) One friend has about 23k miles on his 4WD Ecoboost since he bought it, and has reported averaging close to 20mpg in rural driving without the trailer, and on a recent trip to New Mexico towing a CCD I think he said they averaged about 15mpg calculated over the entire trip. I think he generally tows in the low 60s, so that's going to make a difference for him, but I've never ever ever seen 15mpg averaged over a single tank towing with my older 5.4l, much less over a 2-week trip.

Even if it only does as-well in fuel economy as a 5.0l with the same differential, bringing the torque peak down from 4250 rpm to 2500 (and delivering 40 lb-ft MORE torque in the bargain) would improve drivability enough to be worth $1100 to me. And after all, if fuel mileage was the primary concern, we'd all be tent-camping with a Prius or a TDI.

Full disclosure, I'm a big fan of forced induction in general, and while I consider fuel economy it's never been my primary concern in a single vehicle I've purchased. I've had turbocharged vehicles since 2001, and in total I've driven turbocharged cars 20 years of the 32 years I've been licensed to drive. They've improved IMMENSELY over that time, and turbo+direct injection is a huge boost in drivability, power and overall performance over old-school turbo systems, and a day vs. night difference over a similar-displacement NA engine.

[Bill M.]

The idea for the turbo to save fuel is to run the turbo when you need power and to have a smaller displacement when you do not. So the fuel savings should be when running slow empty.

I thine I will just keep my 07 diesel. I do better than the numbers mentioned here both towing and empty. Of course the new diesels might not.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by Bill M.

The idea for the turbo to save fuel is to run the turbo when you need power and to have a smaller displacement when you do not. So the fuel savings should be when running slow empty.

I thine I will just keep my 07 diesel. I do better than the numbers mentioned here both towing and empty. Of course the new diesels might not.

The truck you have is almost ALWAYS more economical overall than a new truck... even if your older truck used MORE fuel. You'll note that I still have my '07 5.4l fuel-sucker, as much as I'd like a nice new Lariat Ecoboost with all that torque plus a backup camera and bluetooth. I'm not likely to pony up for a new truck until 2015-2016. Aren't they supposed to have auto pilot and videoconferencing by then?

[BillTex]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

The article posted really said nothing in the text about the F150, they were talking more about cars, such as the the 4-cylinder Ecoboost and others. Neither does it say anything about how the data about the F150 in the table was collected... was it a test with 2 trucks doing the same thing in the same conditions? Or was it 2 different test drives of the trucks in unrelated conditions?

I am sure the full report would have all of the test details...this was taken from a yahoo news post...
Even CR is intelligent enough to test under the same conditions...

Even if it only does as-well in fuel economy as a 5.0l with the same differential, bringing the torque peak down from 4250 rpm to 2500 (and delivering 40 lb-ft MORE torque in the bargain) would improve drivability enough to be worth $1100 to me. And after all, if fuel mileage was the primary concern, we'd all be tent-camping with a Prius or a TDI.

The OP stated efficiency as one of his criteria.

and a day vs. night difference over a similar-displacement NA engine.

Not according to CR's tests

[DKB_SATX]

You have misquoted by omission. I said "They've improved IMMENSELY over that time, and turbo+direct injection is a huge boost in drivability, power and overall performance over old-school turbo systems, and a day vs. night difference over a similar-displacement NA engine."

CR specifically said that the turbo direct injection engines provided better performance in real-world conditions. You were misquoting me to make it seem like I said better economy (the topic of the table you linked to above) rather than overall performance.

[BillTex]

Performance delta;...at least as measured in this test...was negligible;

3.5 V6 Turbo
0-60mph; 7.7
EPA mpg; 17
CR mpg; 15

5.0 l V8
0-60mph; 7.8
EPA mpg; 16
CR mpg; 15

The title of the article is; "Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims"

[DKB_SATX]

A full Consumer Reports article: 2011 F150 - to Ecoboost or not?

This is likely the article from which the Yahoo excerpt was taken, since the non-towing fuel economy numbers are the same. Their take, comparing an Ecoboost with a 3.31 diff (for some reason) to a 5.0 with a 3.55 diff, was that the Ecoboost towing a 7500 lb trailer was 1.6 seconds faster 0-60 and 1.2 seconds faster 45-65.

And that's with the Ecoboost hobbled with a 3.31 diff that no one buying a towing rig would likely order, therefore NOT a good comparison test since the trucks are each available with the 3.55 and 3.73 diffs.

Lest you say the Ecoboost would get even worse fuel mileage with a better differential, again the experience of people I know personally towing Airstreams with them suggests otherwise.

[KJRitchie]

I'm still trying to read all this thread.
Test drove a 2010 Tundra 5.7 Double Cab with tow package at a Ford dealer. It had the Tow Haul button and the 5/7 pin connectors and and had manual pull out factory tow mirrors. The salesman didn't kow much about the Tundra but mentioned he had still some 2012 EB XLT Crew Cab. With incentives knocked the MSRP from $39k to $29k. The 2010 Tundra has 14k miles and despit its low miles it had a pretty scratched up bed and I noticed some paint scratches on the drivers door frame and body. Steering wheel was not straight driving on a straight road.

The new Ford EB is XLT with 145" WB SuperCrew with the short bed, 6 speed transmission, 3.53, regular tow package, integrated brake controller, sway control, Ford Sync. Seems like a better deal than buying a low mileage truck. I'm not sure the payload on this truck. With the 3.54 I believe the tow capacity is 8900lbs. I bet payload is about 1600lbs which is similar to the Tundra. I don't have an Airstream but may look to purchasing up to a 25fb.

We are not sure what we may do regarding the trailer. We found a 2009 FC 20 that we could tow with our 4.7L 2005 4Runner and not buy a new TV or a 25FB but need a new TV. However the F150 EB with incentives is down to $29K after incentives. Can this be negotiated close to 25k which is the upper limit of purchasing used?

Do I really need a 3.73 if I'm never going to tow more than 7000lbs?

Kelvin

[ROBERT CROSS]

Kelvin,

One of the paramount Airstream rules.....NEVER say never.

Bob

[Jim Clark]

No you don't need the 3.73 but remember what Bob stated. Airstreams are like boats they seem to grow in 2 foot increments every few years. BTW I tow with the same version of the EB, I have no issues and like the truck.

Jim

[pappy19]

To DKB SATX and others; if you want to make your 5.4 act like a new truck contact Mike at 5 Star Tuning | Custom Dynomemeter Chassis Tuning Products and Services and purchase his custom tuner. I have one on both my 2008 V-10 and also on my wife's 2007 5.4 Lincoln LT (fancy F-150). On the LT I bought his tuner with 87 octane economy, 87 tow/performance and 89 tow/performance. Takes about 5 minutes to reprogram. When you tow, use one of the tow programs, when not towing reprogram to the economy mode. I gained 2 mpg using the 87 economy and when I do tow with the LT, the 89 tow/performance holds the tranny shifts and the power difference is significant. I have been running Mike's programmer on my V-10 for 4 years and there's no programmer out there that can come close to his. Mike is the foremost Ford gas engine programmer around. He also has a new programmer for the Ecoboost although I don't know anyone personally that has one, reports from others say it's amazing.

[BigAl]

Thanks for the info Pappy, but I find my Ecoboost amazing stock. Use 87 octane even while towing and have no issues.
Al

[Jim Clark]

Originally Posted by BigAl

Thanks for the info Pappy, but I find my Ecoboost amazing stock. Use 87 octane even while towing and have no issues.
Al

Feel the same about mine.

[KJRitchie]

I was able to find some Ford Specs for 2012 F150 Supercrew 145" WB. Payload capacity with the 7100GVW is 1750lb and the tow rating is 9800lbs (not the 8900lbs I typed in error earlier)
Seems like with Ford/dealer incentives for the 2012 $29k I was quickly quoted last night is close to advertised 2013 dealer internet prices for a similarly equipped F150 but maybe the dealer would be more motivated on the 2012. I'm assuming I can get the Ford brake controller installed by the dealer if not included from the factory. it would integrate with the Ford sway system while my Prodigy 2 in my current vehicle wouldn't.

Kelvin