โJan-10-2015 02:07 AM
โJan-10-2015 01:09 PM
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.
โJan-10-2015 12:55 PM
โJan-10-2015 12:46 PM
Charlie D. wrote:
Never met anyone who bought an Ecoboost and would admit he was disappointed in fuel mileage. Difficult for most owners who buy for mileage admit that the mileage sucked. They would rather brag about everything else,
โJan-10-2015 12:03 PM
dockmasterdave wrote:
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.
โJan-10-2015 11:58 AM
โJan-10-2015 11:53 AM
ScottG wrote:Hannibal 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.
Ward, Don't you think you were a little hard on the beave last night?
LMAO - I wonder if he ever actually said that. :B
โJan-10-2015 11:08 AM
โJan-10-2015 10:55 AM
Hannibal 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.
Ward, Don't you think you were a little hard on the beave last night?
โJan-10-2015 10:06 AM
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.
โJan-10-2015 09:45 AM
โJan-10-2015 09:38 AM
Turtle n Peeps wrote:I guess reliability wasn't factored into their evaluations:EBenK 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
โJan-10-2015 09:29 AM
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
โJan-10-2015 09:29 AM
45Ricochet 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
โJan-10-2015 09:23 AM
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!
โJan-10-2015 09:23 AM
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Ben as far as credibility goes, look at who Wards picked for 4th on the list some years ago. :B