2015 Expedition - Happy with Ecoboost 365HP + 420TQ!

[fugawi]

Two weeks ago I purchased a 2015 Expedition 4x4 with Ecoboost, optional 3.73 axle, Rear Load-Leveling Suspension, and Blind Spot Information System.

My previous car was a 2009 Expedition 4x4 with 5.4 V8.

I am really happy with the Ecoboost. Although I haven't timed it, the acceleration feels much quicker than the 5.4. The Expedition with Ecoboost is actually kind of fun to drive (for a big SUV).

Ecoboost 365 HP and 420 TQ = :B

I did my first towing today. We have a FunFinder 189FDS. I got about 10 mpg with 50 miles of freeway and around town driving. (Our previous tow vehicle was a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x4 with 5.7 V8 and we got around 8-9 mpg towing on long freeway trips.) The Expedition Rear Load Leveling Suspension seems to work well, and the integrated brake controller seems to work well.

With daily driving (not towing), I get about 15-16 mpg, but I press the pedal a bit more than you need to enjoying that turbo acceleration.

I got about 18.5 mpg on a long freeway trip (not towing) with some ecoboosting, so I'm guessing you could reasonably get 20 mpg on the road (not towing) taking it easy.

(All mpgs are per vehicle information display and are approximate.)

[theoldwizard1]

buddyIam wrote:
An automotive diesel will produce about 20 HP Hrs. on one US gallon of #1 diesel. That's 20 HP for a period of one hour.

I will bet those numbers are "pre-emission". When the new regs kicked in 4 or 5 years ago the fuel economy of diesel engines went down the toilet.

buddyIam wrote:
efficiency is different for each engine. But there is only so many HP you can make per gallon.

THAT I will agree with.

EcoBoost engines get very "thirsty" hauling/toeing big loads or when you crush that egg on top of the accelerator pedal.

[shooted]

Congratulations, I am envious. Please post pictures.

[Sport45]

Lessmore wrote:
Also to me, the jury is still out on the longevity of turbos or superchargers, on engines.

Don't let the turbo-diesel crowd hear you say that. 🙂

Is it safe to assume you meant gas engines? We had turbocharged natural gas engines driving compressors in the 70's and they held up well. Many had been running since the early 60's. Of course the turbocharger from one of those would be a load for a pickup. The truck certainly couldn't generate enough exhaust to spin one.

[Sport45]

RoyJ wrote:
In conclusion, if you're doing high duty cycle work, diesels are the best, followed by NA gas, then turbo gas, and possibly supercharged gas as the last resort.

That kind of depends on what fuel is available. In the oil patch we had big natural gas fueled recips running 24/7 to compress gas. I suppose we could have used diesel, but the fuel cost and delivery issues would have been ridiculous.

[Hybridhunter]

RoyJ wrote:


In conclusion, if you're doing high duty cycle work, diesels are the best, followed by NA gas, then turbo gas, and possibly supercharged gas as the last resort.

That was proven to categorically incorrect by more than one publication. The 3.5 ecoboost gets slightly better mileage when tested under the same conditions, with the same rate of acceleration and speed as the naturally aspirated engine (5.0 V8). Another point is most folks tend to enjoy the gobs of effortless torque and power the Ecoboost provides. The difference being in a consumer vehicle, the benefit will be seen under lighter loads, which is the usual duty cycle for a full sized SUV.

The statement about diesels is correct, but that is a case of spending much more on an engine to save on fuel, over a long period of time.

I'm curious what the naysayers feel would be a better gasoline alternative to the 3.5 EB?

[Hybridhunter]

8iron wrote:

ib516 wrote:
That's the thing with an EcoBoost. You can only have one. Eco, or Boost. Your right foot chooses.

Could not the same thing be said for virtually every internal combustion engine with a throttle ever built? Would a statement like " you get to choose one" be more accurate?

The 5.4 had neither.
The point is obvious, in that the potential for great mileage is there. I'd like to know what other engine, that has comparable power and performance, that can also can get great mileage. The apt comparison here is the GM 6.0, of even Fords 6.2 - There was no option for 20+ mpg with those, and they had less bottom end torque.

Not sure why I replied, as the hook you presented above was just a biased / provocative comment.

[travelnman]

Has anyone had any experience with All Wheel Drive towing. How does it
compare to a 4x4 or 4x2. Considering a Denali with AWD and the 6 liter.

[RoyJ]

8iron wrote:

ib516 wrote:
That's the thing with an EcoBoost. You can only have one. Eco, or Boost. Your right foot chooses.

Could not the same thing be said for virtually every internal combustion engine with a throttle ever built? Would a statement like " you get to choose one" be more accurate?

To some degree, yes, every engine uses more fuel as you push them harder. But gas turbo engines are the WORST.

The main reason is that forced induction gasoline engines run very rich when pushed, to cool the air/fuel mixture, thus preventing pre-detonation and cooling the EGT.

A diesel on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The LEANER a diesel runs, the cooler it is (in terms of EGT).

NA gasoline engines are somewhere in the middle, not nearly as lean as a diesel, but not pig rich like gas turbos.

In conclusion, if you're doing high duty cycle work, diesels are the best, followed by NA gas, then turbo gas, and possibly supercharged gas as the last resort.

[Tystevens]

Thanks OP for the post. I didn't know the 2015's were on the lots yet. Although we have a long history with Suburbans, an Ecoboost powered Expy EL may well our next family hauler (as long as my wife approves, of course!). I am very happy w/ the EB in my F150.

Congrats on the purchase. I'm a bit jealous, I have to admit!

[Lessmore]

As per usual, excellent posts from Ben, who IMO, has a marvelous gift for taking, then distilling complex mechanical issues down to easily understandable explanations.

I quote from Ben:

"The high MPG of hybrids are due to two things. Two sources of power,
the liquid fuel (gasoline or diesel....toss in propane and the other
forms of liquefied gaseous fuel) and the battery...which has a higher
power density than either gasoline or diesel

False MPG, as the day of reckoning is the day you have to replace the
worn out Li-Ion battery. Tens of thousands of bucks at todays current
cost structure

The same can be said for 100% electric too. Plus using the grid
to recharge skirts the various road taxes...for now"

In my opinion, many people are attracted to 'new' technology....such as hybrid or electric technology...assuming it will be all benefit, without any penalties.

As Ben says, the expense of replacing Li-on batteries is significant. I realize that manufacturers tout long battery lives....think around 8 years or so....for these batteries, but sometime they will need to be replaced at great cost.

I can only imagine what the resale value on a Toyota Prius will be , when the car is 7 or so years old and the battery replacement issue is coming near.

Ben also mentions that:

"....using the grid
to recharge skirts the various road taxes...for now"

I agree. IMO, once significant numbers of cars are made and sold on the market with either Hybrid or complete electric power....I can see the price of electricity going up. It's only a matter of time.

Also to me, the jury is still out on the longevity of turbos or superchargers, on engines.

I read about an interesting engine (Hot Rod Magazine ) that a Ford engineer mentioned in an interview. Apparently it's a 4 cylinder engine...very small...1.4 liters....with both a supercharger and a turbocharger .The supercharger provides non lag low end power, the turbo...high end power...the small displacement provides good MPG.

My preferences would be to have a larger displacement, non super or turbocharged, engine. My view....is that a fuel injected gas engine,is not working as hard as as a forced induction engine and less expensive parts replacement in the future. Also some mechanics see turbos as service items which will need to be replaced at certain time intervals. Ie;... cold/hot cycles, lubrication of bearings, high rpm of internal turbocharger components.

Maybe I'm just an old fogey ? Perhaps....or...maybe not.

In the end, there is no free lunch.

If there was...well I'd go for a corned beef on rye, with Swiss cheese and a regular coke.;)

[BenK]

Bruce....yes, interesting and love this stuff too

NOx is going to be managed with bigger CATs and there are new sensors
that will come along with that evolution

Particulate, for now, looks like diesel like exhaust filters and the
onerous cleaning/purging cycle(s), but the latest in this embryonic
technology looks like the shape of the piston top.

It is looking more and more like a bowl than a flat top. DEEP bow with
a flatter head CC area. Controversy over flat or protruding into the
piston bowl cavity or ???

The torque curves looks much like a big block gasser and diesel

Top RPM won't reach small block gassers at this point, but who knows
what these kids in their labs will come up with

No throttle...just like diesel. Forced fed is amazingly doable.



Back on this topic's IP...direct injection of gasoline...

Now that the injectors are 'FAST ENOUGH', multiple squirts of varying
duration (control the burn from very rich...to extremely lean)

Much work is being done with the nozzles. Ruby is the leading material

BUT...with pressures above the diesel common rail...Bosch CP4 pump
issues are going to come up...but they are now aware of the stupidity
in design from those Bosch engineering teams...a better pump will
come and betcha a CP4 for diesel will morph from this work

So similar to the GDICI work and are now married. We will see it in
the next gen DI gassers...ruby orifices...IMHO

Finally, pre-chambers are also coming from GDICI into current DI
to most likely become next gen DI

Yes, fun stuff...

[APT]

Thanks for the updated info! Enjoy the new ride!

[Fordlover]

fugawi wrote:
Two weeks ago I purchased a 2015 Expedition 4x4 with Ecoboost, optional 3.73 axle, Rear Load-Leveling Suspension, and Blind Spot Information System.

My previous car was a 2009 Expedition 4x4 with 5.4 V8.

I am really happy with the Ecoboost. Although I haven't timed it, the acceleration feels much quicker than the 5.4. The Expedition with Ecoboost is actually kind of fun to drive (for a big SUV).

Ecoboost 365 HP and 420 TQ = :B

I did my first towing today. We have a FunFinder 189FDS. I got about 10 mpg with 50 miles of freeway and around town driving. (Our previous tow vehicle was a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x4 with 5.7 V8 and we got around 8-9 mpg towing on long freeway trips.) The Expedition Rear Load Leveling Suspension seems to work well, and the integrated brake controller seems to work well.

With daily driving (not towing), I get about 15-16 mpg, but I press the pedal a bit more than you need to enjoying that turbo acceleration.

I got about 18.5 mpg on a long freeway trip (not towing) with some ecoboosting, so I'm guessing you could reasonably get 20 mpg on the road (not towing) taking it easy.

(All mpgs are per vehicle information display and are approximate.)

Thanks for the info on the new Eco Expedition. You are the first buyer I've heard of with one. Enjoy!

[Bruce_H_]

BenK wrote:
The next gen ICE after the above Ford and GM offerings will be GDICI,
which will have even better efficienies

Ben, I enjoyed reading your post and was actually able to follow it up until the last paragraph! GDICI is a new acronym for me and I did a little reading on it. I didn't have any idea that compression ignition for gasoline engines was even being considered. From one PowerPoint presentation that I skimmed, it appears that one hurdle is that a GDICI engine will produce more particulate emissions than DISI engines, which produce more than the older carbureted spark ignition engines. Interesting stuff...

Bruce

[fugawi]

Triker33 wrote:


To bad they only raised the HP on the 2015 Navigator to 380HO with 460 lb ft torque and not the other Ecoboost models.

I agree. I'm Curious if the Navigator is really tuned higher, or if that is just the marketing spec to differentiate.

If it is really higher, that would suggest the Expedition transmission should hold up ok to an ecu tune.