F150 Ecoboost Reliability

I have a Ram and have always wondered about how long one of these "smaller" engines "boosted" would function reliability towing for years. I do notice no one talking about them giving up, blowing up or falling apart so I guess that answers my question. As someone noted, this thread has not gravitated in that direction. They must be pretty decent and unbelievably well engineered or we would have heard about it. Pretty amazing to see that they appear to be as good over the long haul as Ford says. Darn it... As a Ram owner, I was hoping otherwise.

From speaking to owners, the biggest complaint I have heard anecdotally is that the mileage thing is over stated and rated by Ford. They say if you have an empty truck a feather foot and a tail wind, you can get the mileage stated, but if you even drive like a normal person and want to get on a highway fast on a regular basis, forget about the mileage stuff stated. In general, I find those owners I have spoken with very interested in how the Rams function and open minded to them. I wouldn't miss a step if I was Ford. The statements from many owners has not been the "I love my truck" kind but more of the "Oh, it's OK but..." But as noted, I am a very satisfied Ram owner. And one guy I spoke with bought a tricked out Laramie and had never been able to get his wife to drive in his trucks for decades until they took a trip in the Laramie. Now that's what she prefers to ride in and he noted the Cadillac sits in the driveway a lot more.

bigbullelk wrote:

mich800 wrote:
The take away here is the Ecoboost is a solid engine, purchase with confidence. Otherwise there would be 7 pages of issues and not 7 pages of Ecodiesel mpg debate.

I have no dog in this hunt, but I clicked on this thread to learn a bit about the reliability of EcoBoosts (I've always wondered) and it appears to have turned in to a mpg and manufacturer debate unfortunately.

Would enjoy seeing this thread get back on track with some more posts from the OWNERS of the EBs on reliability.

x2

mich800 wrote:
The take away here is the Ecoboost is a solid engine, purchase with confidence. Otherwise there would be 7 pages of issues and not 7 pages of Ecodiesel mpg debate.

I have no dog in this hunt, but I clicked on this thread to learn a bit about the reliability of EcoBoosts (I've always wondered) and it appears to have turned in to a mpg and manufacturer debate unfortunately.

Would enjoy seeing this thread get back on track with some more posts from the OWNERS of the EBs on reliability.

FishOnOne wrote:

Fordlover wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

For my good ole buddy Troy, The EPA did investigate the F-150 BUT found it to be within the the acceptable range and it was dropped.

For Fordlover, you said "I've never particularly enjoyed a long trip riding in the back seat of a crew cab of any of the brands" well maybe you drive a Ram 1500 or even the 2500 and see how well they ride. Dear ole Dad owns a big ole 14 Caddy and thinks my truck rides as good as his car! Me not so much but then he owns a 1991 Ram 350 CTD so that might be the reason. :W

In closing I'll say it one more time the Ecoboost has proven itself to be a very good engine just a bit more thirsty than Ford said it would be.

Don

In your first sentence, you said Ford F-150 was investigated by the EPA, but was dropped because it was within the acceptable range (ie, the EPA estimates published). Then you said it is more thirsty than Ford said it would be. So which is it, can't have it both ways?

As far as my complaint about long rides in pickups, it's not suspension related, but rather the upright seatback that is uncomfortable to me on long car rides. I haven't seen any crew cabs that allow you to recline in the back seat without losing legroom, with the exception of the megacab.

Yeah I'm having a hard time with that one too... coming from an FCA employee you just to accept your going to get this kind of behavior.

:B

Here's a video of a fuel economy test for a 3.5 Eco Boost.

Link

Here's a 2.7 Eco Boost making almost 24 mpg.

Link

Tows with in it's ratings (and over) WITHOUT having to strip the truck to fool the little mindless sheep!

I have a delivery of stones. Did you say your glass house was on the corner of Delusional and Hypocrite Streets?

Do the math on some of your J2807 ratings for the Rams and they don't work either. They only take in to consideration a 150lb driver, no passengers. Put 400lbs of people in those trucks and the ratings are too high.

Also take a look at you Ram tow ratings and they state they are an "estimate" only.

Take a look at note 1.

http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2015/docs/ram/rammlup1500.pdf

Also the f150 has been J2807 compliant since 2015. So the same rating formula applies with the Ram.

mich800 wrote:
The take away here is the Ecoboost is a solid engine, purchase with confidence. Otherwise there would be 7 pages of issues and not 7 pages of Ecodiesel mpg debate.

If it was an ED tread you would have 7 pages of legitamit actual issues that are going on and nobody comparing the Ecoboost to it. The Ram mafia is strong here, just like the "blue oval junkies" and GM fanboys, always stirring the pot....

The take away here is the Ecoboost is a solid engine, purchase with confidence. Otherwise there would be 7 pages of issues and not 7 pages of Ecodiesel mpg debate.

Fordlover wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

For my good ole buddy Troy, The EPA did investigate the F-150 BUT found it to be within the the acceptable range and it was dropped.

For Fordlover, you said "I've never particularly enjoyed a long trip riding in the back seat of a crew cab of any of the brands" well maybe you drive a Ram 1500 or even the 2500 and see how well they ride. Dear ole Dad owns a big ole 14 Caddy and thinks my truck rides as good as his car! Me not so much but then he owns a 1991 Ram 350 CTD so that might be the reason. :W

In closing I'll say it one more time the Ecoboost has proven itself to be a very good engine just a bit more thirsty than Ford said it would be.

Don

In your first sentence, you said Ford F-150 was investigated by the EPA, but was dropped because it was within the acceptable range (ie, the EPA estimates published). Then you said it is more thirsty than Ford said it would be. So which is it, can't have it both ways?

As far as my complaint about long rides in pickups, it's not suspension related, but rather the upright seatback that is uncomfortable to me on long car rides. I haven't seen any crew cabs that allow you to recline in the back seat without losing legroom, with the exception of the megacab.

Yeah I'm having a hard time with that one too... coming from an FCA employee you just to accept your going to get this kind of behavior.

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
Funny the Ecodiesel in most cases exceeds the 27 MPG rating and mine has 3.92 gears and fully loaded CC 4X4. Tows with in it's ratings (and over) WITHOUT having to strip the truck to fool the little mindless sheep!

I honestly feel sorry for these guys that can understand there are better trucks out there. But it did take me a half dozen Blue Oval junks before I figured it out also.

Don

Don,
My advice is not to rev that Eco Diesel up to 3,400 rpm while racing one of those Eco Boost trucks or towing that dingy... :W

Link 1

Link 2