Ford Flex TV - ecoboost or no?

[Artie32249]

We just sold our Coachmen TT and are awaiting delivery of an Aliner Ranger 15, GVWR 3500#. Currently have 2012 F-150 with ecoboost that we used to haul the Coachmen TT, GVWR 5500# and are looking at trading the truck for a Ford Flex with the trailer towing package which has tow rating of 4500#. Anyone have insight about staying with the Flex's standard V-6 or going for the ecoboost?

[RoyJ]

Fordlover wrote:

Bamaman1 wrote:
I have a new Explorer with the stock 3.5 V-6--pushing 300 hp. It runs fine, but 21 mpg is about all we're getting on the open road...

That sounded a little like a complaint. My explorer has 240 hp, and gets 15 MPG average over the last 9 years, best case scenario 18 on the open road. Towing is around 10 MPG.

Your both complaining; my 210 hp Explorer still only gets 15 mpg avg 😛

Though to its credit, the 4th gen has a superb chassis, and a very good payload for its size - 1500 lbs with a bit of cheating (3rd row removed, spare removed).

[RoyJ]

marcsbigfoot20b27 wrote:
Losing 30% Hp at 10,000 ft really makes you wish you had a turbo or SC.

Cant we just call it Forced Induction (FI) and all be friends? :B

Careful when using ratios to describe superchargers - they loose JUST AS MUCH hp, percentage wise, as NA, at higher elevations. They just typically have more hp to begin with.

There are few exceptions to the rule. The Range Rover 3.8SC for example, bleed off boost at sea level. At higher elevations, it bleeds less and less to attain specified power levels. But once that limit is reached, it'll still start losing power.

A turbo can maintain relatively stable boost levels untill it runs outside of it's compressor map range. But unless you're climbing a mountain pass in Tibet you probably don't have to worry!

[Fordlover]

Bamaman1 wrote:
I have a new Explorer with the stock 3.5 V-6--pushing 300 hp. It runs fine, but 21 mpg is about all we're getting on the open road...

That sounded a little like a complaint. My explorer has 240 hp, and gets 15 MPG average over the last 9 years, best case scenario 18 on the open road. Towing is around 10 MPG.

[Road_Ruler]

Good day Artie. This article explains the differences when towing. Hope it helps. Go to link and advance to page 6.

http://rvlifemag.dgtlpub.com/?i=2800

[Bamaman11]

I have a new Explorer with the stock 3.5 V-6--pushing 300 hp. It runs fine, but 21 mpg is about all we're getting on the open road. It's leather is plush, the GPS/Electronics are unbelievable and it was a very good value in a people hauler.

Modern vehicles perform very well in road tests, however that's with the drivers manually shifting and rev'ing the engines hard. In the real world driving, my 300 hp Explorer feels pretty slow--upshifting quickly to the higher gears for fuel mileage. It can be manually shifted for RV towing, however.

I'm afraid the EcoBoost 3.5 V-6 would be a very pricey vehicle--breaking the camel's back. I'm fortunate to have a SuperDuty diesel to tow with. If I was towing the loads you're wanting to tow, a 1/2 ton SuperCrew truck would be hard to beat.

[Fordlover]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

OH48Lt wrote:
Having driven them both at elevations over 10,000 feet, I see no difference from almost sea level (600-700 feet) when not towing. The fuel injection, computer control, and variable cam timing on todays modern cars takes care of the previous AFR altitude problem inherent with carbureted engines. The turbocharging (NOT supercharging, big difference) is just the icing on the cake. If I was buying a Flex, I'd opt for the Ecoboost if you're going to tow often.

What? :h :S

OP, you don't have to worry about the AFR. You have to worry about the lack of O2 at 10,000. You will lose about 3% of power/1000' of altitude because of that fact.

BTW a turbocharger is a supercharger. A turbo just describes on how the compressor is connected to the engine to power it.

And a Bastard is a child whose parents are unmarried, but that's not how the term is used these days. If you point at a Turbo, and call it a supercharger you'll get a lot of snickers and fingerpointing from car guys, even if it's technically accurate.

[Fast_Mopar]

If the Ecoboost is within your budget, get it. You will be glad.

[mich800]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

OH48Lt wrote:
Having driven them both at elevations over 10,000 feet, I see no difference from almost sea level (600-700 feet) when not towing. The fuel injection, computer control, and variable cam timing on todays modern cars takes care of the previous AFR altitude problem inherent with carbureted engines. The turbocharging (NOT supercharging, big difference) is just the icing on the cake. If I was buying a Flex, I'd opt for the Ecoboost if you're going to tow often.

What? :h :S

OP, you don't have to worry about the AFR. You have to worry about the lack of O2 at 10,000. You will lose about 3% of power/1000' of altitude because of that fact.

BTW a turbocharger is a supercharger. A turbo just describes on how the compressor is connected to the engine to power it.

Is that like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. 🙂

[marcsbigfoot20b]

Losing 30% Hp at 10,000 ft really makes you wish you had a turbo or SC.

Cant we just call it Forced Induction (FI) and all be friends? :B

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

OH48Lt wrote:
Having driven them both at elevations over 10,000 feet, I see no difference from almost sea level (600-700 feet) when not towing. The fuel injection, computer control, and variable cam timing on todays modern cars takes care of the previous AFR altitude problem inherent with carbureted engines. The turbocharging (NOT supercharging, big difference) is just the icing on the cake. If I was buying a Flex, I'd opt for the Ecoboost if you're going to tow often.

What? :h :S

OP, you don't have to worry about the AFR. You have to worry about the lack of O2 at 10,000. You will lose about 3% of power/1000' of altitude because of that fact.

BTW a turbocharger is a supercharger. A turbo just describes on how the compressor is connected to the engine to power it.

[OH48Lt]

We have both versions of the 3.5 V6. Ecoboost in the F150, and it has PLENTY of power. The wife's Edge has the non-turbo 3.5, and it runs fine while not towing. Towing a very small ATV trailer (<2000 lbs total), you can sure tell its back there.

Having driven them both at elevations over 10,000 feet, I see no difference from almost sea level (600-700 feet) when not towing. The fuel injection, computer control, and variable cam timing on todays modern cars takes care of the previous AFR altitude problem inherent with carbureted engines. The turbocharging (NOT supercharging, big difference) is just the icing on the cake. If I was buying a Flex, I'd opt for the Ecoboost if you're going to tow often.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

I'm not a huge fan of the Ecoboost but for what you're trying to do I would buy the Ecoboost. A supercharged engine just tows so much nicer in mountains.

[APT]

Well you already have experience with the Ecoboost. If you liked it, buy it in the Flex. Personally, I would not want the naturally aspirated V6, towing or otherwise.