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.)

[Samsonsworld]

I tend to agree with otrfun that the ecoboost gets thirsty when you get into the turbos, though in my experience the cutoff for 20mpg is around 68mph. It's also sensitive to weather. The engine shines in urban driving at speeds from 30-65mph....and when towing...but not because of economy. Again in my experience, it works better than GMs cylinder deactivation in town, though it might cost you a little economy at speeds over 70mph. I put 90% of the miles on my truck driving to work and back home, so it works out better for me.

[otrfun]

Adam R wrote:

otrfun wrote:

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?

I believe what ib516 is trying to say is, there's a very fine line between Economy and Boost with the F150 Ecoboost.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to drive a number of different F150 Ecoboosts on some long-distance trips. The only way I could consistently get 20 MPG highway was to keep them at 60 or below. As soon as I nudged any of them above 60 MPH, the MPG's dropped precipitously. Not very linear (in terms of MPH and MPG) from my experience.

Wind resistance, i.e. speed, kills mileage. In looking at the Drag equation, when doubling your speed, it requires the amount of power used to be cubed. Per wiki below:

"The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:

P_d = \mathbf{F}_d \cdot \mathbf{v} = \tfrac12 \rho v^3 A C_d
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Bottom line is that a 10 mph increase could easily cut mileage by 20% or more and it just gets worse the faster you drive.

Adam

Thanks for the explanation.

My bad. I guess I could have done a better job of putting my reply into perspective.

My 5.7 Tundra, with no wind, level ground, 2000 ft. elevation, will get 18 mpg all day, all night at 75 mph. Been doing it everyday for the last 3 years. Hand calculated.

Every F150 Ecoboost I've driven gets the same 18 mpg at 75 mph. Same conditions except for elevation, which was typically lower. Also, hand calculated.

My 5.7 Tundra has an EPA highway rating of 18 (2wd). The F150 Ecoboosts I drove had an EPA highway rating of 21/22 (4wd/2wd).

Below 60 MPH the F150 Ecoboost gets significantly better MPG's than my Tundra.

My point: Once the F150 Ecoboost goes into boost (above 60 MPH) the MPG's drop precipitously. Far from linear from my experience.

[Adam_R]

otrfun wrote:

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?

I believe what ib516 is trying to say is, there's a very fine line between Economy and Boost with the F150 Ecoboost.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to drive a number of different F150 Ecoboosts on some long-distance trips. The only way I could consistently get 20 MPG highway was to keep them at 60 or below. As soon as I nudged any of them above 60 MPH, the MPG's dropped precipitously. Not very linear (in terms of MPH and MPG) from my experience.

Wind resistance, i.e. speed, kills mileage. In looking at the Drag equation, when doubling your speed, it requires the amount of power used to be cubed. Per wiki below:

"The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:

P_d = \mathbf{F}_d \cdot \mathbf{v} = \tfrac12 \rho v^3 A C_d
Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Bottom line is that a 10 mph increase could easily cut mileage by 20% or more and it just gets worse the faster you drive.

Adam

[Samsonsworld]

[rjstractor]

Fordlover wrote:
Turbocharged engines are a lot of fun to drive, fun to drive but ya gotta pay the man at the pump.

Not so much as you might think. My turbo VW Passat is a blast to drive and I've averaged almost 32 mpg in 12K miles of 50/50 city/highway driving. This car replaced a normally aspirated Jetta that averaged 28 mpg and could barely get out of it's own way. So I'm getting good mpg and having fun.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

It is putting out more power at 2k than most N/A engines at 3k rpm.

Hu? :h

According to these charts from PUT'S the Eccoboost only puts out about 100 HP at 2000 RPM. The 5.0 puts out around 150 HP at 3000 RPM. I think the SBC 6.0 puts out around 200 HP at 3K.

[carringb]

Tystevens wrote:

Yep, they seem to expect Prius numbers before they will concede to the Eco part.

Well I'm averaging about 42 mixed driving my EcoBoost, and it easily tops 50 MPG highway driving regular speeds (i.e. ~5 MPG over the limit). If I drive it like a Prius (i.e. merging slowly onto the highway, going 5 MPH under the speed limit) I can get close to 60 MPG!

Granted, mine's only a 1-Litre. Well, 0.999 technically. But it is quicker than the BRZ and tows 1500 pounds effortlessly, and can fit 3-adults and 3-MTBs inside.

[tragusa3]

I hate that they gave it the "Eco" name. They shouldn't have played up the economy part. I can make a list of things to love about the engine that don't include economy.

That said, I am very pleased with the mix of ability vs. economy. In 30k miles I've averaged 16.3 mpg. This includes 10k miles of towing! In the last 2k miles of work commute, I'm at 18.8 mpg. It's not city and not highway. On freeway trips I tend to get about 19.8 mpg. Come on...those are fantastic numbers for a 6k pound crew cab, 4x4 with 3.73 towing gears.

All that and I can tow my 7k pound TT on the interstate at 1600rpm. I climb most hills at 2500rpm and only a few of the steepest mountains have needed more than that.

I could care less for the little green leaf badge on the side. It is not the focus of this engine.

[Tystevens]

Fordlover wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:

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

You are correct. That is why the Motor Trend long-term F150 4X4 Ecoboost averaged 14.4 mpg over 30,000 miles and the long-term Ram 1500 4X4 Hemi averaged 15.6 mpg over 30,000 miles. A year of different lead-foot drivers resulted in these numbers. But, I assume a year of careful conservative driving would have resulted in the Ford getting higher mpg.

Either way, to the OP, congratulations on your new ride. You will enjoy the power.

Turbocharged engines are a lot of fun to drive, fun to drive but ya gotta pay the man at the pump.

Props to those who can keep their tachometer below 2K RPM all day, but I've got no interest in that game. My daily driver sees 6+ grand on the tach at least once nearly every day I drive.

OP, my neighbor has had their Ecoboost Expedition for a couple months, and they are very pleased with it over their previous 5.4 powered Expy.

Well, with the low end torque, it is quite easy to keep the EB below 2k rpms for normal daily driving, without even trying to do so. It is putting out more power at 2k than most N/A engines at 3k rpm.

[Tystevens]

Samsonsworld wrote:
The eco bests the 5.0l in economy and the 6.2l in usable torque...and people still want to gripe. 😕

Yep, they seem to expect Prius numbers before they will concede to the Eco part.

I am averaging 17.6 mpg over the 18k miles I've driven my '11 since July of last year, and I have tracked every tank. That includes about 1500 miles of towing. We took an 1100 mile trip not towing (but bed loaded with gear), cruise set at 80 mph across I80 each way. 18.9 mpg going west, 19.7 mpg coming east; prevailing wind blows west to east, but neither day was particularly windy. I am quite happy with the mileage and the power.

[Samsonsworld]

The eco bests the 5.0l in economy and the 6.2l in usable torque...and people still want to gripe. 😕

[Fordlover]

Fast Mopar wrote:

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

You are correct. That is why the Motor Trend long-term F150 4X4 Ecoboost averaged 14.4 mpg over 30,000 miles and the long-term Ram 1500 4X4 Hemi averaged 15.6 mpg over 30,000 miles. A year of different lead-foot drivers resulted in these numbers. But, I assume a year of careful conservative driving would have resulted in the Ford getting higher mpg.

Either way, to the OP, congratulations on your new ride. You will enjoy the power.

Turbocharged engines are a lot of fun to drive, fun to drive but ya gotta pay the man at the pump.

Props to those who can keep their tachometer below 2K RPM all day, but I've got no interest in that game. My daily driver sees 6+ grand on the tach at least once nearly every day I drive.

OP, my neighbor has had their Ecoboost Expedition for a couple months, and they are very pleased with it over their previous 5.4 powered Expy.

[otrfun]

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?

I believe what ib516 is trying to say is, there's a very fine line between Economy and Boost with the F150 Ecoboost.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to drive a number of different F150 Ecoboosts on some long-distance trips. The only way I could consistently get 20 MPG highway was to keep them at 60 or below. As soon as I nudged any of them above 60 MPH, the MPG's dropped precipitously. Not very linear (in terms of MPH and MPG) from my experience.

[Samsonsworld]

Fast Mopar wrote:

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

You are correct. That is why the Motor Trend long-term F150 4X4 Ecoboost averaged 14.4 mpg over 30,000 miles and the long-term Ram 1500 4X4 Hemi averaged 15.6 mpg over 30,000 miles. A year of different lead-foot drivers resulted in these numbers. But, I assume a year of careful conservative driving would have resulted in the Ford getting higher mpg.

Either way, to the OP, congratulations on your new ride. You will enjoy the power.

I've averaged over 17mpg over the past 3-4 k overall out of my 4x4 screw and get on it plenty.