Wards does not like the Eco-Boost

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

This is not going to look good for the new F-150.

LINK

[brulaz]

2112 wrote:
I know what it does not like and that's 30-40 deg weather burning winter blend.
I can get 20-23 mpg going to and from work in the summer but it struggles to see 18 in the winter.

FWIW: I walked onto the dealer lot with every intention of buying a 5.0. They were all dressers with low payload. I found this stripped EB Max Tow with 2084 lbs payload and feel lucky I did.

I now have over 40,000 miles without a single issue.

Heh, we've got similar trucks and similar experiences.
My long-term mileage not towing is 20 mpgUS.

Towing the trailer below on premium gas is 10.7 mpgUS.
How is your mileage towing the 5er?

My only regret is not getting a 4x4. The new heavier trailer gives me some problems on wet muddy ground.

[Hannibal]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
As far as Fords so called "torture test". That is a joke goto 4:26 it shows them hooking up to a log on the ground and then 4:36 the log magically jumps on top of another and is dragged off the top of it! Posting infomercials just makes your point worthless.

The only issue Wards has with the Ecoboost is the poor fuel mileage, they actually like the Ecoboost just not the as rated mileage Ford attaches to the vehicles it is put in.

Who is Wardsauto?
From the link: WardsAuto is a world-leading provider of automotive insights and analysis, having served the industry's information needs for more than 90 years. A Southfield, MI-based division of Penton, WardsAuto provides a forward-looking perspective on all aspects of the automotive business, from the tech center to the plant floor to the showroom. Its services include the premium WardsAuto.com resource and suite of customizable data reporting tools, the WardsAuto Interiors and WardsAuto Outlook Conferences, and digital newsletters and magazines. Subscribe to WardsAuto and attend its events by visiting http://www.wardsauto.com.

Don

So because Wards praises the Ecodiesel and 6.0PSD engines, they're the end all be all for pickup truck reviews yet when Ford does a "torture test" with their own Ecoboost engine for an entertaining infomercial, it must be fake?:h

[atreis]

Michael in MN wrote:

The Mad Norsky wrote:

So eco-boost owners can relax and drive like the sedated 83 year old librarian for your best fuel mileage.

And when you drive like a sedated 83 year old:



That was from a 300 mile trip on the pan-flat prairie at 55-60mph, no wind or tailwind.

I got 24.5 on a 300 mile trip under similar conditions (snowy/slippery, no wind or tailwind, couldn't drive more than 55mph).

I've also gotten 6mpg on a 300 mile trip, towing against the wind on a red flag day at 60+mph.

:E

You took a picture of your gauges while driving 65?!? Yikes! (I think that's right up there with texting while driving.)

For those pointing out the eco-boost gets worse gas mileage in the winter - this is true of cars built to be fuel efficient too. Both my wife and I get around 10%-15% worse mileage during the winter than we do during the summer in our daily drivers: '03 Honda Insight, and '14 Prius. I've seen people on forums able to return their Insights to summer mileage by blocking the radiator (so the engine runs hotter - like it does during the summer), but our temperature around here varies too much day-to-day for me to be comfortable doing that. Just a thought that it might not entirely be the fault of the gas mix, but also the engine operating less efficiently in colder weather.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

2112 wrote:
Reminds me of someone posting only getting 20.2 mpg on their EcoDiesel this morning.
Now who was that? :B

Yep that was me, the truck has less than 2000 miles on it and like my 2004 Cummins is getting very poor fuel mileage new! But hopefully like my 04 Cummins it will improve with age. Unlike many others here, I don't have a problem posting my true mileage and no I'm not going to take a picture of my dash showing 30 MPG @ 65 MPH in the instant reading mode.

I posted 20.2 and that was the overall MPG I got on that tank. I don't drive this truck any different than my 2004 2500 CTD and it made 23 MPG for combined city/highway. I have yet to do a long (full tank) highway trip so I can not post any highway only mileage nor have a towed with it yet.

As far as Fords so called "torture test". That is a joke goto 4:26 it shows them hooking up to a log on the ground and then 4:36 the log magically jumps on top of another and is dragged off the top of it! Posting infomercials just makes your point worthless.

The only issue Wards has with the Ecoboost is the poor fuel mileage, they actually like the Ecoboost just not the as rated mileage Ford attaches to the vehicles it is put in.

Who is Wardsauto?
From the link: WardsAuto is a world-leading provider of automotive insights and analysis, having served the industry's information needs for more than 90 years. A Southfield, MI-based division of Penton, WardsAuto provides a forward-looking perspective on all aspects of the automotive business, from the tech center to the plant floor to the showroom. Its services include the premium WardsAuto.com resource and suite of customizable data reporting tools, the WardsAuto Interiors and WardsAuto Outlook Conferences, and digital newsletters and magazines. Subscribe to WardsAuto and attend its events by visiting http://www.wardsauto.com.

Don

[2112]

I know what it does not like and that's 30-40 deg weather burning winter blend.
I can get 20-23 mpg going to and from work in the summer but it struggles to see 18 in the winter.

FWIW: I walked onto the dealer lot with every intention of buying a 5.0. They were all dressers with low payload. I found this stripped EB Max Tow with 2084 lbs payload and feel lucky I did.

I now have over 40,000 miles without a single issue.

[MitchF150]

For the 3.5 Eco, you don't get 420 torque at only 2500 rpms for nothing.. 😉

But, once you learn how to drive it, you CAN get decent mpg's and not having to drive like an 83 year old all the time... 🙂

That's just my experience with one that I bought off the lot and over the last 12,000 miles have learned what it likes and does not like to get decent mpg's when needed, and what it likes and does not like towing and what it likes and does not like when having FUN with it... 🙂

Mitch

[Michael_in_MN]

The Mad Norsky wrote:

So eco-boost owners can relax and drive like the sedated 83 year old librarian for your best fuel mileage.

And when you drive like a sedated 83 year old:



That was from a 300 mile trip on the pan-flat prairie at 55-60mph, no wind or tailwind.

I got 24.5 on a 300 mile trip under similar conditions (snowy/slippery, no wind or tailwind, couldn't drive more than 55mph).

I've also gotten 6mpg on a 300 mile trip, towing against the wind on a red flag day at 60+mph.

[Fast_Mopar]

tragusa3 wrote:

I think Ford should not have marketed the engine for economy. It has speed and torque beyond anything a half ton owner will need. The engine stands on that merit alone.

I agree. I know at least 4 people who have a 3.5 Ecoboost, and they are all pleased with the power and would gladly buy another, but all are disappointed with the fuel economy. I agree that Ford should not have marketed the engine for economy. But, regardless, I have owned a lot of Fords over the years and hope to own a 3.5 Ecoboost myself some day, regardless of the fuel economy.

[Bird_Freak]

hone eagle wrote:

wwest wrote:
The EcoBUST engine MUST run in derated mode when not using BOOST.

An N/A DFI engine can have a compression above 12:1 even 14:1 in some cases (Mazda).

Whereas a BOOSTED DFI engine MUST be derated, ~10:1 CR, in cruise, off-boost mode.

Most engines run in cruise mode 98% of the time.

Ford's EcoBUST FE problem is compounded by the fact of the CAC collecting water and oil as an emulsion in the bottom of the CAC outflow endcap. Roll a perfectly good EcoBUST engine out of the factory door, within just a few miles engine components will begin to fail (bent connecting rods) due to (partial) hydro-locking.

Is it just me (cranky old guy) but this style of post makes me think - teenager?

made me think TROLL.

[The_Mad_Norsky]

RinconVTR wrote:
It gets better...the truth hurts. But some OEM's don't see another option.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24691/ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbocharging/

LOL, but I loved this quote from the above noted article: Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian.

So eco-boost owners can relax and drive like the sedated 83 year old librarian for your best fuel mileage.

[Hannibal]

The Eco-Boost seems pretty tough according to these guys. Unless you would suggest this never happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-DsrC57UD8

[mich800]

hone eagle wrote:

wwest wrote:
The EcoBUST engine MUST run in derated mode when not using BOOST.

An N/A DFI engine can have a compression above 12:1 even 14:1 in some cases (Mazda).

Whereas a BOOSTED DFI engine MUST be derated, ~10:1 CR, in cruise, off-boost mode.

Most engines run in cruise mode 98% of the time.

Ford's EcoBUST FE problem is compounded by the fact of the CAC collecting water and oil as an emulsion in the bottom of the CAC outflow endcap. Roll a perfectly good EcoBUST engine out of the factory door, within just a few miles engine components will begin to fail (bent connecting rods) due to (partial) hydro-locking.

Is it just me (cranky old guy) but this style of post makes me think - teenager?

In any case at least you can count out this source for accurate information regarding engines. There are many who contribute knowledgeable info on this board. The trick is to recognize the BS artists so you can ignore them.

[tragusa3]

I didn't buy mine for mileage. I bought it to tow. Performance for the dollar, I haven't driven anything else that tows as effortless. I would own mine even if it were the bottom of the pack for mpg.

I towed 6k miles this summer and got 11.5. After 12k miles of my commute, I'm getting 18.5. Does that meet EPA? Probably pretty close considering I'm 4x4 and that is a mixed drive commute.

I think Ford should not have marketed the engine for economy. It has speed and torque beyond anything a half ton owner will need. The engine stands on that merit alone.

[RinconVTR]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
This is not going to look good for the new F-150.

LINK

It gets better...the truth hurts. But some OEM's don't see another option.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24691/ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbocharging/

[hone_eagle]

wwest wrote:
The EcoBUST engine MUST run in derated mode when not using BOOST.

An N/A DFI engine can have a compression above 12:1 even 14:1 in some cases (Mazda).

Whereas a BOOSTED DFI engine MUST be derated, ~10:1 CR, in cruise, off-boost mode.

Most engines run in cruise mode 98% of the time.

Ford's EcoBUST FE problem is compounded by the fact of the CAC collecting water and oil as an emulsion in the bottom of the CAC outflow endcap. Roll a perfectly good EcoBUST engine out of the factory door, within just a few miles engine components will begin to fail (bent connecting rods) due to (partial) hydro-locking.

Is it just me (cranky old guy) but this style of post makes me think - teenager?