3.5 Ecoboost vs. 3.0 EcoDiesel MPG Tow comparison

looking at the numbers in the OP.....

I call BS.

RoyJ wrote:

ib516 wrote:
I have a buddy with an ecoboost F150.

The lack of any type of engine braking is about his only complaint.

I bet low displacement and relatively low compression ratio is the reason.

My Hemi is pretty good at engine braking. My Vette with a 7.0 can stop in any non-emergency situation without touching the brakes! My bus with a 6V71 is downright scary in the hills...

I think you are right on. All the turbo gassers I have owned have had worse engine braking than their normally aspirated compatriots.

ib516 wrote:
I have a buddy with an ecoboost F150.

The lack of any type of engine braking is about his only complaint.

this was my only complaint about the EB, very little engine braking - the 6.7 sure is a treat going down hill's now.

ib516 wrote:
I have a buddy with an ecoboost F150.

The lack of any type of engine braking is about his only complaint.

I bet low displacement and relatively low compression ratio is the reason.

My Hemi is pretty good at engine braking. My Vette with a 7.0 can stop in any non-emergency situation without touching the brakes! My bus with a 6V71 is downright scary in the hills...

boocoodinkydow wrote:

Tystevens wrote:
Interesting comparison for sure. Sounds like something my family would do when we are all headed out together. Sounds like the Ecodiesel may well be the mpg winner hands down.

I also think the mileage on the downhill portion sounds a little bit off for the EB, but ... a lot of people also report much worse unloaded mpg than I seem to get with my EB, so who knows.

My own anecdote: A couple trips ago, we set out to camp at 10,600 elevation, so a gain of a little better than 6500 ft elevation over about 80 miles from our house, w/ about 30 miles of interstate and the rest 2-lane state highway with some quite steep (up to 10%) inclines. Yes, a few ups and downs headed each direction, but obviously mostly up hill one way and down hill the other.

After parking and getting set up at the campground, which is literally at the top of the mountain, the dash gauge on my F150 was showing about 7.8 mpg, if I recall correctly. I did not reset, but when we got back home it was showing 11.3 mpg over the roughly 160 miles, which I verified with a hand calculation when I filled up. So it definitely did a lot better on the way back down!

Definitely respectable mileage for that size tt under those conditions. To acheive that average, return trip must have been close to 15. Enough to make a lot of other tv's envious.

Yeah, that has been my best towing tank with the EB so far. My other tanks have been in the 9.8-10.6 range. We likely have our longest trip w/ the EB coming up this weekend (depends if I can win out and convince my wife we should take the EB vs. the Suburban!), which will be mostly flat, so I'm curious to see the returns on that trip

Tystevens wrote:
Interesting comparison for sure. Sounds like something my family would do when we are all headed out together. Sounds like the Ecodiesel may well be the mpg winner hands down.

I also think the mileage on the downhill portion sounds a little bit off for the EB, but ... a lot of people also report much worse unloaded mpg than I seem to get with my EB, so who knows.

My own anecdote: A couple trips ago, we set out to camp at 10,600 elevation, so a gain of a little better than 6500 ft elevation over about 80 miles from our house, w/ about 30 miles of interstate and the rest 2-lane state highway with some quite steep (up to 10%) inclines. Yes, a few ups and downs headed each direction, but obviously mostly up hill one way and down hill the other.

After parking and getting set up at the campground, which is literally at the top of the mountain, the dash gauge on my F150 was showing about 7.8 mpg, if I recall correctly. I did not reset, but when we got back home it was showing 11.3 mpg over the roughly 160 miles, which I verified with a hand calculation when I filled up. So it definitely did a lot better on the way back down!

Definitely respectable mileage for that size tt under those conditions. To acheive that average, return trip must have been close to 15. Enough to make a lot of other tv's envious.

ib516 wrote:
I have a buddy with an ecoboost F150.

The lack of any type of engine braking is about his only complaint.

I hear this a lot, but I haven't found it to be much worse than my V8 1/2 tons have been. The difference is that it needs to rev a bit higher before the engine starts to slow us down, so we have to use a gear lower than in my other trucks, but it does the job just fine when you let it get up to 4k rpms or so. We came down the steep grades mentioned in my previous post without hardly touching the brakes, just like we have done in my other trucks.

Interesting comparison for sure. Sounds like something my family would do when we are all headed out together. Sounds like the Ecodiesel may well be the mpg winner hands down.

I also think the mileage on the downhill portion sounds a little bit off for the EB, but ... a lot of people also report much worse unloaded mpg than I seem to get with my EB, so who knows.

My own anecdote: A couple trips ago, we set out to camp at 10,600 elevation, so a gain of a little better than 6500 ft elevation over about 80 miles from our house, w/ about 30 miles of interstate and the rest 2-lane state highway with some quite steep (up to 10%) inclines. Yes, a few ups and downs headed each direction, but obviously mostly up hill one way and down hill the other.

After parking and getting set up at the campground, which is literally at the top of the mountain, the dash gauge on my F150 was showing about 7.8 mpg, if I recall correctly. I did not reset, but when we got back home it was showing 11.3 mpg over the roughly 160 miles, which I verified with a hand calculation when I filled up. So it definitely did a lot better on the way back down!

Here's some first hand comparisons with a light load. My son recently traded his 2011 tundra for a new ecoboost. He often uses a 16' vee-nose cargo van to haul his Harley; gross weight of about 2500#. With the tundra, he typically got about 9 mpg. First trip with ecoboost netted 12.1. He was impressed with the improvement in handling as well as economy. I went with him on a second trip which marked only 10.6 (no, I'm not that heavy). Last year, I pulled the same rig with my 2013 gmc with a 5.3 engine & got 12.0 mpg. With the addition of a second bike & some gear, topping 4k lbs, my ecodiesel recorded 15.8. Probably not enough of a controlled test for some but telling results for me.

Fast Mopar wrote:

boocoodinkydow wrote:
your knucle dragging smart a$$ quip quoting fanboy.

Apparently I fall into this category as well.

The Ecodiesel fuel economy numbers I have seen have been very impressive. These are great numbers for a full size pickup. Say what you want, but I think Chrysler did the right thing by going with this V6 diesel for the 1500's instead of the V8 Cummins.

Be glad to share the role.