Eco? or Just Boost?

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 12/19/2014 at 12:16 • Filed to: Truck Yeah

15

100

If you want power, its going to cost you in fuel: Supercharged, turbocharged or in cubes, it doesn't matter. This is my conclusion of the latest review from Car and Driver about the EcoBoost F150 from Ford.

"...the hard-working V-6 returned fuel economy only just matching the latest Silverado test subject's 6.2-liter small-block, at 16 mpg. There's no denying that the 3.5-liter is a magic machine, making huge and sophisticated power from just 213 cubic inches. But here again, Ford seems to take a complicated route to achieve similar results as Chevy."

From this review

(photo credit: Car and Driver )

I think its a great truck, and I think the aluminum weight savings will pay dividends at the pump but people need to come to terms with the concept that making a small turbo engine with similar power to a simpler, larger, naturally aspirated engine will get similar economy.

The GM engines will have less lifetime maintenance and the manufacturing costs are far less as well, not to mention that the 6.2 is likely the smaller, lighter engine. The ecoboost engines DO have their advantages, however, in that being forced induction they will loose less performance at altitude than will their naturally aspirated brethren.

Which one is better? Its a matter of choice, and I'm glad it exists and you should choose what is right for you. The truth is that the EcoBoost is, and always has been, more boost than eco, and that's fine; GM calls their tech Ecotec, and ram calls their fuel sipper EcoDiesel and with the EcoBoost making "Eco" the common component we can, and should, just eliminate from the equation. Lets just call them.

FordBoost

GMTEC

RamDiesel

and be done with all the "eco" nonsense all together.

Jedidiah > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:21

14

I maintain that occam's razor can be applied to car design. If they both yield similar results, then the simpler solution is the better one.

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:21

8

Some FP idiot kept on trying to say that american automakers should only make tiny turbocharged engines, and could not wrap his head around the fact that you can only extract so much power from gas, and that NA engines could be as efficient as smaller turbo engines depending on the application.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jedidiah 12/19/2014 at 12:23

8

Thats my thinking as well. Granted, I think the Ramdiesel will have a real mileage advantage (though long payoff) the Fordboost will have a real high altitude pulling advantage (though massive fuel consumption under load) and the GM will have the advantage of lower lifetime costs and good balance between consumption and work. It's all a matter of what tool you need, IMO.

I Do It For Miatas, NC Owner > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:24

0

This is what I've been thinking. I thought I was crazy because I was wondering why we use turbos if N/A engines of similar displacement is getting the same fuel economy. So is altitude performance really the only advantage?

Jedidiah > I Do It For Miatas, NC Owner 12/19/2014 at 12:28

2

Pretty much. That and turbo engines are marketable, so profit margins and bleh. Larger engines also have a bad image because the people who buy cars and make legislature for cars don't know shit about cars.

Reduce weight and change the gearing if you want to save gas. The larger might use more gas at idle, but combined mileage is probably the same.

HammerheadFistpunch > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 12/19/2014 at 12:29

12

Diesel engines you can turbo the hell out of and still get great mileage, because they are air burning engines. You can cram the hell out them with air and drop a little fuel in there and so long as you don't blow it up...you get more power. Gas engines operate in much tighter stoichiometry zones and, ignoring* small and complicated variables, their output can linearly tied to fuel use; i.e. inject X fuel, get Z power. You want all the power in the world from a tiny engine? Great! Find out how much fuel you need to make that power, then force the required amount of air into the engine for a fixed air/fuel ratio...boom, done. Doesn't matter if its 10 liters or 2; if you want Z power it will require X air + Y fuel.

*These variables DO add up under certain conditions like light load and off throttle, but they are relatively small in context of this argument.

HammerheadFistpunch > I Do It For Miatas, NC Owner 12/19/2014 at 12:30

6

There are other advantages, like marginal light load gains, which...IMO...are offset by increased lifetime maintenance costs. Different strokes and all that.

TheHondaBro > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:32

10

I can't help but think this looks great.

HammerheadFistpunch > TheHondaBro 12/19/2014 at 12:33

4

And that will certainly be a selling feature for some. Me? nah.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:36

3

Is that MPG while under load?

I think the only real benefit of the EcoBoost is that you can use the truck as a better MPG commuter while it's not working/under load.

And if that's the case then it's perfect for the person who needs the ability to tow/haul but doesn't do it frequently.

cazzyodo > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:38

2

It's like Tarzan talking.

Ford boost.

GM tec.

Ram diesel.

If I had time I would make a little cartoon...would be fun.

Jcarr > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:38

3

I can't help but wonder what an EcoBoost at 150,000 miles will be like compared to a Chevy 5.3 or Ram 5.7 at the same mileage. More pressure, more moving parts...etc.

HammerheadFistpunch > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 12/19/2014 at 12:39

2

That's the average test mpg. Its the same story with the Fordboost Expedition vs the GMtec Tahoe.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/20…

I think the cylinder deactivation on the GMtec engines is pretty good at negating the pumping loss advantage of the smaller boosted Ford engines.

HammerheadFistpunch > cazzyodo 12/19/2014 at 12:41

7

Tarzan, if we are honest, would make a great analog for truck marketing.

wantafuncar > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 12/19/2014 at 12:44

0

This is why you would choose the Ford.

I would say most truck buyers fit into the "doesn't do it frequently" category

HammerheadFistpunch > Jcarr 12/19/2014 at 12:47

2

The FordBoost engines are pretty tough, no questions, but it does have DOHC and timing chains which will need to be serviced, where the GM wont. I can't find a service interval for the chains but in my looking i discovered that many people are experiencing timing chain stretch and failure as low as 70-75k miles. Ouch. it doesn't take too many timing chains to wipe out any gains from the FordBoost (im sticking with it)

cazzyodo > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:50

1

We stumbled onto something that will (unfortunately) never be realized.

HammerheadFistpunch > cazzyodo 12/19/2014 at 12:52

11

You! You man?! You buy truck! Truck for man! This truck most truck!

AHAHAHAHA!!!

Tarzan out.

cazzyodo > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:53

12

Truck.

Man.

Truck.

Man.

BOOST!

Man!

BUY!

BE MAN!!!!!! NO JAAAAANE!!!!!!

HammerheadFistpunch > cazzyodo 12/19/2014 at 12:54

2

This is....honestly....Par for the truck ad course.

HammerheadFistpunch > wantafuncar 12/19/2014 at 12:56

1

Based on my research on Fuely and with conversations with real owners...this isn't a real advantage. The unladen light duty use is only marginally better, if at all, compared to the newer NA trucks.

 V8 Rustler > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 12:59

2

There's no replacement for dispkacement. Those chevy small block are great.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:02

3

EgoBoast.

Jcarr > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:05

1

I'm no expert on turbocharged engines, but do the turbos themselves need any kind of special treatment or maintenance? I remember a friend in highschool who had a early 90s Mitsubishi Eclipse turbo and he always said he had to let it idle for a bit before shutting down to let the turbo cool. Could very well have been BS.

As Du Volant > Jcarr 12/19/2014 at 13:06

4

The Chevy 5.3 and Ram 5.7 are durable as hell. Seen them both with tons of hard, hard miles and still doing great. Time will tell with the EcoBoost.

We had a Ram with a 5.7 traded in with 385,000 miles that'd never had any engine work done outside of routine maintenance. The rest of the truck was in the condition you'd expect of a vehicle built by Chrysler ten years ago. Something like this:

But the engine still ran like a top.

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Jcarr 12/19/2014 at 13:07

4

Ford did a neat little 'torture test' on the EcoBoost when it first came out. They randomly selected one off the assembly line, put it on a dyne, and simulated 150k miles on it. Then they hooked up a trailer with 11.5k lbs on it and towed at highway speeds around a race track for 24 hours straight. Then they took it up to a logging site and used it to drag fallen trees up to where they had to get loaded onto trucks. Then they pulled the engine, put it in a tube frame trophy truck, and ran it in the Baja 1000. Finally, they brought it to SEMA, tore it down in front of a crowd, and inspected all the parts. All of the internals were still within specifications for a 'new' part from Ford. So at least from that standpoint, it's a pretty rugged engine I suppose.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:08

0

Interesting.

RazoE > TheHondaBro 12/19/2014 at 13:09

0

pre-bro'd.

Jcarr > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 12/19/2014 at 13:12

0

Interesting. That all sounds like fun.

Vicente Esteve > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:13

2

Answer to this: Coyote V8

nermal > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:13

2

I recently went thru the whole truck-shopping conundrum, and ended up with a new GMC with the 5.3 and the max-tow package with 3.73 gears. I drove the 2014 Ford with the 3.5, and the Ram with the diesel as well. Didn't get to check out a Toyota. Realistically, all four are great options, and most people would be happy with any of them.

If I lived somewhere high-altitude the Ford would have been a no-brainer. Since I'm not, and won't likely as long as I own the truck, it's not an issue. Otherwise, you need to be careful to get one spec'd the right way for your needs. There are a bazillion different ways to configure the trucks, which can get confusing very fast.

The Ram wasn't that bad actually, but honestly the reason I eliminated it was the crappy experience I had with their dealers getting service on the Jeep I was replacing. Since I didn't really trust them to work on a Jeep with a 20 yr old engine design, how could I trust them to work on a brand new truck with an engine they'd never seen before?

The GMC had everything I need, nothing I don't, and the best pricing to boot. On top of that, it came with 2 yrs / 24k of free maintenance, which basically works out to 4 oil changes. The dealer I bought it from does GMC / Buick / Cadillac, so the service center is a touch more "upscale" than the Ford or Ram ones.

There are only three big gripes I have with my truck. The first is the key, which is a separate key and remote. Not sure how long they've been doing that, but I'm used to having one that's integrated so it just seems cheap on a $40k+ truck. My 2nd gripe is that they put Goodyear Wrangler SR-A tires on, and charged $250 for them, while advertising them as "all-terrain". Both GY and TireRack classify this tire as "highway all season". I'm ok with an extra charge for a tire upgrade, but at least expected a *real* all-terrain tire if I'm getting charged for them. The final gripe is that I got telemarketed by Onstar while driving. I was just motoring along minding my own business, when an Onstar commercial barged in and tried to upsell me on services. Not cool.

nermal > As Du Volant 12/19/2014 at 13:17

1

I put the over / under on number of new transmissions for that 385k mile Ram at 5...

.....and I'm still taking the over.

cazzyodo > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:28

9

As Du Volant > nermal 12/19/2014 at 13:31

0

It was a manual actually, so they may have gotten by with only two.

BigBlock440 > Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. 12/19/2014 at 13:32

1

The Hellcat should totally have been a 1.2L 4 cylinder

BigBlock440 > I Do It For Miatas, NC Owner 12/19/2014 at 13:34

9

Possible EPA gains, which is the only fuel economy metric that matters for automakers.

Sweet Trav > cazzyodo 12/19/2014 at 13:36

2

It's this hyper-masculine truck crap that doesnt let me buy a normal sized work truck. Look at a 69 C10, or even an 88 Silverado, That's the size all full size half ton trucks should be.

HammerheadFistpunch > nermal 12/19/2014 at 13:37

1

Not cool onstar...for real.

thismightbemylastburner > Jcarr 12/19/2014 at 13:38

0

This was before the proliferation of fully synthetic oils. Old school mineral oil could potentially bake and harden in the turbo after you cut circulation by turning the car off. A cool down period was suggested and even engineered for in those days. See: turbo timer.

Synthetic oils don't have that tendency. So you can run the turbo hot right up to the moment you turn the engine off and chances are your oil won't coagulate in the turbo and make things go bad.

HammerheadFistpunch > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 12/19/2014 at 13:39

3

These torture tests are pretty great, but they don't really replicate the real world of vastly different work loads, operating environments, gas quality and sit time. i.e. a 60,000 mile torture test that took 1 year will be a very different thing than a 6 year old 60,000 mile engine.

Midwesternperson > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:42

4

Thing is, turbocharging CAN result in actual fuel savings and horsepower gains, without it being one or the other. Saab had a car do this.

BUT, the turbo is going to run at low pressure. I think the Saab (a 9-5 IIRC) got 7% better fuel economy and 4% more power. That was it. If you go light on the turbo, it actually will improve the efficiency of the engine overall.

But what Ford did was put two big stonking turbo's on the truck and cranked the power up to V8 specifications. Now can you still get better than V8 fuel economy? Sure. As most EcoBoost owners have found out, you just have to stay off the gas. If you don't rev the engine very much and keep it from building boost, you get GREAT fuel economy. As good as the 3.7L V6 from the 2014 truck. And then when you need it you still have V8 power when you do stomp on the gas.

But you have to drive the truck very, very carefully to attain those gains. It is always one or the other on power and fuel economy with the EcoBoost.

So in real world driving, an engine matched to the heavier load of a truck's curb weight like the Chevrolet V8 or the Ram Ecoboost (with its gobs of torque) will see similar gas mileage to the EcoBoost.

Sweet Trav > nermal 12/19/2014 at 13:44

0

Glad to see you bought a GM product.

Here's one time when OnStar was REALLY COOL

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/my-dad-is-actu…

HammerheadFistpunch > Midwesternperson 12/19/2014 at 13:46

1

Turbocharging a gas engine can result in reduced fuel use, but it really is a marginal gain compared to the costs of the hardware, the weight and the complexity and even then its pretty small gains in the real world. One of these days I'm going to table all the data I can on the downsize turbo trend and find out where real world economy has gone (up or down) relative to the NA engines in the same power class.

472CID > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:48

2

It'd be a lot easier to get behind a Ecoboost F150 if it was an inline six.

Sweet Trav > Vicente Esteve 12/19/2014 at 13:48

0

the 5.0 is an also ran shit-sipper compared to the GM 5.3 or 6.2l

Midwesternperson > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:50

0

I totally agree. Again, like with the Saab, the gains were marginal. Now, over long enough period of time? Definitely. If the car will last 300,000 miles (and I'm seeing a lot more cars get past 200k these days), then maybe the hardware and maintenance will pay for itself. Maybe.

But a few years ago, when Ford came out with an Ecoboost Fusion, Consumer Reports did a test that found that the most fuel efficient cars were the non-turbo charged Accord and I think also the non-turbo Nissan. It didn't surprise me at all, even though the EPA numbers for the turbo cars were better.

HammerheadFistpunch > 472CID 12/19/2014 at 13:51

2

a 2 liter Fordboost I6 (two 1 liter I3 Fordboosts put together)? yeah, I'd be down with that.

(authors terrible photoshop)

RallyWrench > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:51

0

How far we've come: Aluminum, twin turbos, direct injection, diesel, and cylinder deactivation only gets new trucks to average 1-2 mpg better than my perfectly adequate, reasonably sized, $2200, stone simple '95 5.0 F150 4x4 in normal use. I should put a 5.EC0 badge on the side.

HammerheadFistpunch > Midwesternperson 12/19/2014 at 13:53

1

"It didn't surprise me at all, even though the EPA numbers for the turbo cars were better."

And THAT is the nail on the head. Downsize turbo engines do better than larger na engines on the EPA cycle...and THATS why they are popular.

HammerheadFistpunch > RallyWrench 12/19/2014 at 13:54

2

Weight gains, size gains, refinement gains, capacity gains, etc. These new "half tons" are what a mid 90's 3/4 ton was in terms of power and capability...even size. in that respect, their mileage is pretty great!

yamahog > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:55

0

Relevant:

HammerheadFistpunch > Jcarr 12/19/2014 at 13:56

0

Turbo cooling is much more sophisticated now, its still a problem, but its mitigated in a much more comprehensive and less intrusive way.

Midwesternperson > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 13:57

1

Yep. Between proper programming and tuning, I have no doubt that the EPA test cycle is being taken advantage of. But under constant load on the highway? Or in stop and go traffic where building boost and suddenly having to stop will make the mixture just a bit rich and then deprive it of air?

Real world driving is going to sap those engines.

HammerheadFistpunch > BigBlock440 12/19/2014 at 13:58

0

nailed it.

HammerheadFistpunch > Vicente Esteve 12/19/2014 at 13:59

0

Coyote is a great engine, but were it me I would take a larger displacement cam in block with cylinder deactivation over a more complicated heavier and physically larger DOHC. Sounds great though.

RallyWrench > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:00

0

True in that context, but that's also why I consider mine to be reasonably sized!

CAAD2 > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:00

1

Has anyone tested the new F150 with the 5.0? It would be interesting to see what gas mileage you get with that motor.

HammerheadFistpunch >  V8 Rustler 12/19/2014 at 14:01

3

That's the ironry though isn't it? A turbo literally IS a replacement for displacement, since its replacing the volume of air that would be naturally induced with the same volume of air being naturally induced. It terms of air volume, an engine of a specific power class will ingest similar amounts of air, regardless of piston swept area.

HammerheadFistpunch > Midwesternperson 12/19/2014 at 14:02

0

THANK YOU! people don't get mixture on these engines and its so refreshing that you do.

shop-teacher > That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms 12/19/2014 at 14:04

0

I remember that. It was very impressive.

 V8 Rustler > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:12

3

Yes, but the engine power/torque curve is not the same. A big displacement NA motor has a very linear and instant response, unlike a small engine with a conventional turbo, which kicks around 3-4k. I'm saying this from experience from driving a Mustang GT and a WRX STI. The Mustang has power all across the rev range, while the STI feels sluggish until you hit 3-4k.

Now twin scroll turbos with 6 cylinders or more are impressive, like the BMW 3.0L I6 Twin-Scroll Turbo in the M235i. That engine had pull from all across the rev range.

shop-teacher > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:13

1

I will consider an Ecoboost whenever the time comes to replace my '06 Sierra, but I will do so knowing that it's all boost, and zero Eco. That's OK with me. I will also consider a Ram Ecodiesel. I have no doubts that the engine is fantastic and durable, but will the truck around it last? I have my doubts. I really like the simple solution that GM has put together. LS motors are excellent and durable, and easy to work on.

Now if only GM would put the 6.2 in something lower than the top trim level.

claramag, Mustaco Master > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:14

0

Mmmm...that's some tasty fantasy engine

Stupidru > Midwesternperson 12/19/2014 at 14:15

0

Honda actually got a slap on the wrist a few years back because they had tuned their engines to behave a certain way when the car was under EPA-like cycles. Regardless, as a former owner of a turbo-4 engine, I can say that they are tremendous fun and can attain great mileage, but there are so many more headaches than they're worth. More frequent oil changes, terrible fuel economy in town and in cold weather, premium gas, and the constant worry that the turbo will die when you see anything out of the ordinary in your oil analysis. The proof is in the pudding at the last 24 Hours of Daytona where Ford lost that race due to their EcoBoost engines having to pit more often from their awful fuel economy

Dru > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:17

0

Mixed feelings on the EcoBoost. It seems asinine to engineer the hell out of a small engine to make it turn power like a big engine, and have it consume just as much fuel. RamDiesel is probably the best bet since they turn the best mpg numbers and still make a whopping amount of torque.

Though I got beside an ecoboost at a stoplight one day while I had my windows down, and listening to that turbo spool up was rather cool.

472CID > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:22

0

I was thinking more along the lines of a reborn Falcon turbo six, but a 2l Ecoboost six would be an interesting animal.

Stupidru > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:24

0

I wish I could find the data from last year's 24 Hours of Daytona where Ford's EcoBoost cars were all but out of the race before they all retired due to mechanical issues. Why were they all so far behind? Fuel economy. They all had to pit so much more often than the Corvettes because they were sucking up fuel like a thirsty camel

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:24

0

Oh absolutely. I mean you figure that 150k miles was simulated in a lab, probably right at 70 degrees too. But things like seals don't really age with miles so much as with time, so you're spot on, 150k on a dyno certainly isn't 150k in a truck. To me, the test is impressive in that it turned a lot of revs in that time and for the internals to still be within spec is a pretty good sign, you know?

Ente Süßsauer > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:43

0

Yeah, I haven't met a single person with the EB that gets good gas mileage. Sure, it puts down impressive power and torque, but they sure do drink down gas.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 14:55

0

I recommend the Suzuki Every Joy Pop Turbo.

Case closed

HammerheadFistpunch > shop-teacher 12/19/2014 at 15:20

1

"Now if only GM would put the 6.2 in something lower than the top trim level." seriously. 6.2 and 8 speed all the things already!

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:24

1

Looks like a show heavy duty diesel.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 12/19/2014 at 15:25

0

it was a 2 show EB 1.0L I3's before being shopped.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:29

0

I actually have heard of people getting better than advertised mpg out of the Ecoboost... After they voided the warranty and gave it an adequate exhaust system. Ford stuck the normal exhaust they put on the other trucks on a turbo engine, that is going to kill gas mileage.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:30

0

Oh I know, just saying that's what it looks like.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:33

0

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA That's awesome that the GM was called the better engine in almost everyway. hahahahahaha.

*Not a single ounce of bias in that at all* **I'm lying there's a ton of bias there**

HammerheadFistpunch > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 12/19/2014 at 15:37

0

not sure if serious. where did anyone call the GM engine better in anyway, what leads you to believe someone (me or car and driver) have a bias?

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > nermal 12/19/2014 at 15:37

0

GM has been doing the separate key things since at least the 90's.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:42

0

I was being biased. I also took it a bit far. Mainly the cheaper cost over time and that it got basically the same mpg as the ecoboost.

HammerheadFistpunch > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 12/19/2014 at 15:47

0

ah, gotcha. I must have read it wrong. Yeah, in my opinion the conservative natural progression approach taken by GM is the better choice for most people.

wantafuncar > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 15:59

0

That is suprising. I would think that the smaller displacement engine would return better average economy when not driven in boost.

I guess that means the GM would be the best overall choice, assuming you could purchase all three for a comparable price.

onemoretime > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 16:14

0

Most trucks aren't used for hauling and towing; they are sitting in traffic at idle, as a commuter vehicle. In that mode, they will definitely save gas.

I can really only have one car and one motorcycle, so the "car" pretty much has to be a truck. I don't tow or haul massive stuff with it every day, so I got a V6 F150 that get 20 on the freeway, but can't tow a massive trailer (which I no longer do).

I would much rather have a truck that gets 25+ but still has the power when I need it . For guys like me, a small displacement turbo motor in a truck is perfect. Power when I need it, economy when I'm not using the power.

Axial > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 17:05

1

Finally, somebody who gets it!

Axial > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 12/19/2014 at 17:08

0

EggoBlast

ErichLOL > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 17:16

2

The EPA ratings are kinda BS depending upon the application. I've never rented a hybrid where I've been able to meet the highway rating. Every vehicle I've owned I've been able to beat the highway rating, except on this Raptor, I can only manage to meet the highway rating. My old TDI smashes the old EPA ratings set for it and the new ones regularly beat the ratings if you talk to owners, so YMMV.

ErichLOL > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 12/19/2014 at 17:30

0

I highly doubt they would put all the immense engineering and testing around that engine and the aluminum body, then do something stupid like that, unless it was too loud.

troverman > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 17:40

0

I think the eco boost can achieve fine economy if driven gently. Fact is, no one does because they are addicted to the power and torque.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > ErichLOL 12/19/2014 at 17:42

0

The 6.7 Powerstroke is nearly silent and has adequate exhaust. Sound isn't the issue, it's the bean counters. A turbo needs a larger diameter exhaust to flow better, and putting on standard exhaust that you have laying around isn't very well thought out. And let's not talk about well thought out, they've already been sued for issues involving that. Still would buy one over a GM truck, though.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > RallyWrench 12/19/2014 at 19:29

0

At least your 302 gets that decent fuel economy. You must have the mileage 3.08 gears (or similar).

That truck would get a little different fuel economy numbers with the 351 engine, and 3.55 gears (or 3.73 gears. Or if you are crazy, a swapped out 4.10 ring gear and pinion).

About 10MPG.

But if I can get a Ram EcoDiesel for a very reasonable cost, it would cut back on my fuel expenditure drastically. Heck, even the 5.7 Hemi/5.3 Ecotec/5.0 Coyote would be more efficient and more powerful than the 351 Windsor in my F-150.

samssun > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 19:39

1

Displacement is your base, and compression ratio, forced induction, and valve timing are multipliers. The latter tools can be used to scale your base, but displacement is still a fundamental limiting factor, meaning they're complements rather than replacements.

When you add 7-8 psi of boost to an engine, you're scaling its NA breathing, proportional to that base displacement and only while under boost. So 7-8 psi on a 6 liter is a lot more air than a 2 liter, and the FI engine still "acts small" when out of boost.

In fact that's how you gain mileage: not by making the same power with less gas, but by letting you make less power (which happens to use less gas). The fuel savings are in direct proportion to the performance you give up, you just have the flexibility to get that power back when needed (which in turn gives back the fuel savings). TANSTAAFL.

CRider > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 19:41

0

Ford has branded and sold turbocharged small engines to truck buyers. That's no small feat. The fact that realistically, in 90% of application a SBC can get similar fuel economy doesn't matter. In certain conditions, lite at altitude of off boost, the EB will be the better engine by a good margin. What Ford really needs now is a 8+ speed transmission that can keep the engine off boost more often.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs >  V8 Rustler 12/19/2014 at 19:55

1

Counterpoint: The torque curve of a turbo gas engine (or turbo diesel, for that matter), is far more useful for hauling heavy loads, and can have close to instantaneous response, in non-maximum torque designs. The trick is either using a compound turbo setup or a smaller, lighter pressure twin turbo setup instead of a single large turbo (Like Subaru is apt to do on the EJ).

Examples would include the BMW N54 (Parallel), Audi APB (Parallel), the Porsche 3.6L flat 6 in the 911 (Parallel), and the Mazda 13B-REW (Sequential setup).

But when it comes to trucks? You still want to have a quick spooling system so you can start getting more fuel in at lower RPMs to increase torque. Couple this with a Diesel Cycle engine, and you get close to an unstoppable truck engine.

Large single turbos are great for high end power, but a quicker spooling turbo system is better for user-friendliness. (I'd direct you to the video of The Clarkson driving an Evo VIII or IX and doing a top gear pull from 30MPH against a Fiat Panda, and losing over a specified length of track. Turbo Lag matters, unless you are always on boost, and aren't shifting)

'Wägen, EPA LOL > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 21:18

0

Biggest disappointment to me regarding the ecoboost is that you can't put a plow on it. Supposedly, the plow blocks too much air and the engine can't stay both cool and adequately fed. In the northeast, a plow is a deal breaker.

44444444444 > HammerheadFistpunch 12/19/2014 at 23:32

0

The moment I saw 30lbs of boost and an idle spool of 50k RPM and 250k RPM spooled I literally laughed out loud... Good thing Ford added an aux oil pump for the turbos... I wonder how big the intercooler is for that thing... gotta be huge given the massive increase in temperature the air is going to get. Highway it probably does quite well with a lot of cooling air for the intercooler. Low speed in the summer is what's gonna kill the fuel economy of this thing.

Bowtie_Guy > shop-teacher 12/20/2014 at 08:04

1

Look for a truck with the VortecMAX option. The early ones came with a 6.0/4l70e/4.10s but from 09-14 it came with the 6.2/6l70e/3.73 gears. Basically its the max towing package with a 6.2 engine. You could get them optioned out at LS or all the way to LTZ trim levels

Vicente Esteve > Sweet Trav 12/20/2014 at 11:54

0

Yes, but at least it makes a noise that makes the fuel bills worth it.

Vicente Esteve > HammerheadFistpunch 12/20/2014 at 11:56

0

A bigger displacement engine with less "stress" or "pressure" (I don't know exactly how to explain it) will always be more durable and even economical. Thing is, for the fuel bills, its just worth it to stick with the V8 and enjoy the soundtrack.

shop-teacher > Bowtie_Guy 12/20/2014 at 12:22

0

Yep, that's what I want them to make available on the new trucks.

agrobmwdriver > HammerheadFistpunch 12/20/2014 at 13:39

0

Packaging is where the turbo motors can really make a difference. V8 power from 2.0 liters. That said, the F-150 also comes with a v8, so the benefit is small.

HammerheadFistpunch > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 12/20/2014 at 15:23

0

now that feel 4.56 gears on the cruiser right now