Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-08-2013, 09:59 AM   #323
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillTex View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:02 AM   #324
3 Rivet Member
 
Dallas Center , Iowa
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 127
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!!
__________________

__________________
Earthcreeper is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:22 AM   #325
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthcreeper View Post
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.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:55 AM   #326
1 Rivet Short
 
1989 25' Excella
By The Bay , Rhode Island
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,547
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKB_SATX View Post
The efficiency gain the Ecoboost offers is when NOT towing.
Not according to the CR data...
__________________
*Life is Good-Camping all around the Continent*
*Good people drink good beer-Hunter S Thompson*
BillTex is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:29 PM   #327
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillTex View Post
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.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:32 PM   #328
Rivet Master
 
1988 25' Excella
1987 32' Excella
Knoxville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,164
Blog Entries: 1
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.
__________________
Bill M. is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:44 PM   #329
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill M. View Post
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?
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:59 PM   #330
1 Rivet Short
 
1989 25' Excella
By The Bay , Rhode Island
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,547
Images: 3
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKB_SATX View Post
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...


Quote:
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.

Quote:
and a day vs. night difference over a similar-displacement NA engine.
Not according to CR's tests
__________________
*Life is Good-Camping all around the Continent*
*Good people drink good beer-Hunter S Thompson*
BillTex is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 01:07 PM   #331
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
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.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 01:35 PM   #332
1 Rivet Short
 
1989 25' Excella
By The Bay , Rhode Island
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,547
Images: 3
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"
__________________
*Life is Good-Camping all around the Continent*
*Good people drink good beer-Hunter S Thompson*
BillTex is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 02:12 PM   #333
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,401
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
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.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto — 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:32 PM   #334
Rivet Master
 
KJRitchie's Avatar

 
2008 25' Classic
Wichita Falls , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,220
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
__________________
KJRitchie is online now  
Old 02-09-2013, 07:22 AM   #335
CLOUDSPLITTER "Tahawas"
 
ROBERT CROSS's Avatar

 
2003 25' Classic
Zanadude Nebula , WNY
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,153
Images: 1
Thumbs up

Kelvin,

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

Bob
__________________
PFC.....

“After all these years the reason I continue to love Thanksgiving.....I still sit at the kids table.”
RLC

Sandra wanted to go to Cleveland on vacation,
but I’m the Husband, so we went to Cleveland.
RLC
ROBERT CROSS is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 07:56 AM   #336
Rivet Master
 
Jim Clark's Avatar
 
2012 28' International
Currently Looking...
New Orleans , Louisiana
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,077
Images: 6
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
__________________

__________________
Jim N5TJZ Air# 174
2012 International Serenity 28
2005 Safari 25 SS Traded
1968 Globetrotter Sold
2011 F150 Ecoboost
Jim Clark is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
ecoboost, f-150


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newb hitch question Wryknow Hitches, Couplers & Balls 16 10-09-2013 05:25 PM
Passenger van as tow vehicle? DanielB Tow Vehicles 51 05-31-2011 12:02 AM
Ford hitch 2.5" to 2" adapter hhendrix Hitches, Couplers & Balls 15 03-28-2011 09:32 PM
TV Questions - 1980 Ford F100 jmdotter Tow Vehicles 7 02-05-2011 02:48 PM
2011 Ford Super Duty Diesel, Don't trust the fuel calculator hhendrix Tow Vehicles 19 01-13-2011 10:18 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.