Forum Discussion
57 Replies
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
BenK wrote:
There is a reason why EPA MPG goals does NOT apply to +8.5K GVWR vehicles
They are 'work' vehicles and anything lower are 'cars'
I do not know Wards and guess will have to find out how credible they are to me...
Ben as far as credibility goes, look at who Wards picked for 4th on the list some years ago. :B
Now that's some funny sheet right there!:B45Ricochet wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Ben as far as credibility goes, look at who Wards picked for 4th on the list some years ago. :B
ROTFLMAO
Wow, ya, that's puts them in the same league as Consumer Reports.Grit dog wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
I've owned several Chrysler products as well as Ford products. I've never had any problem achieving either's rated fuel mileage. I easily get 14 city and 17+ interstate with my 5.4L F250 that the F150 was rated for. Even my Prius easily gives it's EPA rated 48mpg highway and 51mpg city. On the other hand, I can easily achieve much less than EPA rated fuel mileage on any vehicle with short trips in cold weather or excessive heavy pedal stop and go city or excessive speed on the interstate. I wouldn't refrain from buying a vehicle based on the likes or dislikes of the Lexus crowd. Damn the egg on the gas pedal trick. Put it on the brake pedal and you'll get EPA rated fuel mileage on any vehicle.
Hahaha I have yet to see ANY of the 20+ gasser trucks I've had get the epa est mileage. Cept maybe downhill with a tailwind. Lol
You must be that guy doing 53 mph down the freeway in the middle lane drafting a semi truck!
Not. I set cruise on 72-74mph most of the time. I have a friend/co-worker who can't hold a steady cruise. His right foot is on and off the gas constantly as he talks endlessly while he drives. He gets lousy mileage no matter what he drives. My guess is you're one of those.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Ben as far as credibility goes, look at who Wards picked for 4th on the list some years ago. :B
ROTFLMAOTurtle n Peeps wrote:
I have stated over and over on this site that turbo's were a double edge sword. Sure, they can vary CID with air but they also are the worst for BSFC figures.
And yet people on this site state over and over that they want a 5.0 turbo engine to tow with. LOL, good luck with that. As dockmasterdave stated above, "horsepower= burning gas." You take a little ol turbo engine and make it a 7.0 CID with the turbo's air flow and it will burn 7.0 worth of fuel. It really is that simple.
The problem with turbos on a gas engine is the fact that they still have to try and maintain a specific fuel/air ratio (In fact, they go richer when they are in the boost, just less so with direct injection), while on a diesel, ratio doesn't matter so much for the most part. That's why the BSFC is worse for turbo-charged gasoline engines and on a diesel they are just a pure benefit.
That's why I also questioned if some sort metric or careful balance is shattered when you spec a 2.7 on a 4x4 vs 2x4, as the fuel economy ratings vary widely (22 hwy vs. 26 hwy). Typically, adding 4x4 on most powertrains just results in a 1 mpg loss in fuel economy, typically not a big deal. Still, I think waiting for at least half a year on fuelly will tell the full story of the combination of a lighter chassis and the ecoboost motors.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
We Cant Wait wrote:
We all knew that ALL auto mfrgs. have been padding their MPG figures all along. They get their #'s while running on a Dyno thus no wind resistance, and only 2 tires for rolling resistance. There's no way real world MPG can come close to Dyno MPG.
1950 called and they want their post back. :B
1980 called and they want their post back. :B
I have stated over and over on this site that turbo's were a double edge sword. Sure, they can vary CID with air but they also are the worst for BSFC figures.
And yet people on this site state over and over that they want a 5.0 turbo engine to tow with. LOL, good luck with that. As dockmasterdave stated above, "horsepower= burning gas." You take a little ol turbo engine and make it a 7.0 CID with the turbo's air flow and it will burn 7.0 worth of fuel. It really is that simple.
A turbo increases an engines efficiency. That means it puts out more power for the fuel used.
Some people don't understand that engines are only around 20% efficient. That is only 20% (up from around 12% of years ago) of the energy used (fuel) is used to propel the vehicle. The rest is lost in heat and emissions.
Turbo'd engines are a few percentage points more efficient.
The more a manufacturer can tap into that wasted 80%, the better fuel economy.
So yes, more power can be had with the same or better economy.
In my own case I wen't from a Cummins that put out 125 HO to one that is more than double that (stock) and weighs 1500# more and got the exact same MPG. That's because the newer engine is that much more efficient.BenK wrote:
There is a reason why EPA MPG goals does NOT apply to +8.5K GVWR vehicles
They are 'work' vehicles and anything lower are 'cars'
I do not know Wards and guess will have to find out how credible they are to me...
Ben as far as credibility goes, look at who Wards picked for 4th on the list some years ago. :BWe Cant Wait wrote:
We all knew that ALL auto mfrgs. have been padding their MPG figures all along. They get their #'s while running on a Dyno thus no wind resistance, and only 2 tires for rolling resistance. There's no way real world MPG can come close to Dyno MPG.
1950 called and they want their post back. :B
1980 called and they want their post back. :B
I have stated over and over on this site that turbo's were a double edge sword. Sure, they can vary CID with air but they also are the worst for BSFC figures.
And yet people on this site state over and over that they want a 5.0 turbo engine to tow with. LOL, good luck with that. As dockmasterdave stated above, "horsepower= burning gas." You take a little ol turbo engine and make it a 7.0 CID with the turbo's air flow and it will burn 7.0 worth of fuel. It really is that simple.- There is a reason why EPA MPG goals does NOT apply to +8.5K GVWR vehicles
They are 'work' vehicles and anything lower are 'cars'
I do not know Wards and guess will have to find out how credible they are to me... dockmasterdave wrote:
Agree. I believe most truck owners realize and accept******mileage when towing or when "putting (their) foot in the turbos".
I own an ecoboost.
No I don't get the advertised fuel economy, but I like putting my foot in the turbos, and am willing to pay for that fun.
I also tow with it and love it.
Has anyone here, heard any one who owns one saying, they are disappointing with the towing performance?
If you are reading here and looking for fuel economy, you are lost.
It takes horse power to tow a heavy load. "if you want more power, burn more gas" pretty simple.
I have owned several 5.0's and Chevy small blocks. No comparison in my opinion.
I was out last weekend towing a 5000 lb TT into a 20 MPH headwind at 65 mph. It wanted to stay in 5th gear at 2000 rpm. Fine with me.
Without the headwind, I can tow with cruise on, in 6th at 1300 rpm.
Try that with a normally aspirated V8.
Instead of listening to the complaints from people who have never even driven one, why not ask the owner of one, if they would buy it again? I would and will.
I have also towed the same trailer with a Ford V8 2010 and the base V6 2006. They all got about the same gas mileage to produce the same result, towing or not.
Horse power = burning gas.
However, here's the rub. The EPA Fuel Economy ratings for the 2014 2WD Ecoboost are 16/22. For the remaining time they're not towing or "in the turbos", a lot of folks would like to get something resembling the EPA Fuel Economy rating without a lot of fuss.
Visit any Ford forum and search on "Ecoboost mileage". You'll notice a very common theme. Try visiting a Ram or Ecodiesel forum and search on "Ecodiesel mileage". Again, you'll notice a very common theme. Visit fuelly.com. If you take the time to selectively sort/weed out the incorrect engine configurations that result from the fuelly.com "filter", you'll see the MPG numbers back-up the themes noted in the Ecoboost and Ecodiesel forums.
And, yes, I've driven 5-6 different Ecoboosts on lengthy trips. Awesome low-end torque! Almost purchased one based on the excellent EPA Fuel Economy ratings. For those that did purchase one based on the EPA Fuel Economy ratings . . . well . . .
Some vehicles can produce their EPA Fuel Economy ratings without a lot of fuss. Some, require a conscious effort. While others, require some serious hypermiling. While others simply cannot obtain their ratings.
As for why? Who knows.
