The Ford Ecoboost is Nothing But Marketing Horsecrap

"BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE" (brelp7dzhm3ytyse) 08/18/2015 at 15:04 • Filed to: EcoBoost, Ford, f-150, Chevy, Silverado, trucks

12

100

In their February 2015 issue, Car and Driver !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! similarly-equipped Tundra, Ram, F-150, and Silverado models. Since the Tundra and Ram are both basically irrelevant for my purposes here, I want to focus on the battle between the Silverado and F-150. Here’s the deal.

The Silverado High Country’s top-of-the-line 6.2L Ecotec V8 makes 420 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque. The F-150 Platinum uses Ford’s flagship 3.5 EcoBoost V6, which puts out 365 hp and 420 lb-ft of twist. The Chevy, as tested by C&D, weighs 5658 pounds. The Ford, despite its new aluminum body panels, is only 81 lbs lighter, at 5577 lbs. The Silverado boasts 13.47 lbs/hp, and the Ford has a power to weight ratio of 15.28 lbs/hp. The Ford’s advertised EPA gas mileage rating is 20 mpg. But guess what it got in C&D testing? 16 mpg. Yes, 4 mpg under its advertised rating. Meanwhile, the Chevy matched that number with two more cylinders, two less turbos, more weight, and 2.7 more liters of displacement.

While some of you might bring up the fact that the Ford makes more power at lower RPMs, which is better for towing (and you’d be correct), I want to focus on fuel economy, because that’s what Ford’s main selling point is. Also, if you’re looking to buy a truck to tow with but don’t want to pony up for a ¾ ton, just get a Ram EcoDiesel.

With that out of the way, I’m not trying to tell you that the Chevy is better than the Ford. Both are great trucks and are pretty evenly matched. While personally I’d take the Silverado over the F-150 (I am a Chevy guy after all), I don’t think you can go wrong with either one of them. My point here is that there is a way to get V8 power and V6 fuel economy, and it’s the Ecotec, not the EcoBoost.

My question is this: why pour money into a TTV6 program when you can take your V8 and develop simpler and less costly ways to increase fuel efficiency such as cylinder deactivation, direct injection, and variable valve timing? It doesn’t make sense to me. Unless it’s a marketing thing.

Bear with me, as this might make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but here goes. Think of all of the media buzz surrounding Ford’s EcoBoost lineup. The press is fawning over this stuff. “It’s new and exciting!” “It has turbos!” “Downsizing and boosting is good because better mileage and more power!” “It’s the way of the future, just accept it.” Meanwhile, GM is sitting in the corner with its ancient 16-valve pushrod V8s and getting ragged on by the media.

I mean, you’ve really got to hand it to Ford. Name one other company that has made a gas-powered V6 truck desirable. Can’t think of one? Neither can I. I’ve gotten to where I actually look for the EcoBoost badges on F-150s, and boy are they numerous. I’d say more than half of the F-150s I see are EcoBoost-powered. I see people bragging on truck pages on Instagram and on f150forum.com about their 3.5s. Used to, if you had a V6 truck, it meant that you couldn’t afford a V8-powered one. Now, the people that would’ve gone for the V8 ten, even five years ago, are now going for the V6. And for this, we have Ford to thank.

This post is not to say that the EcoBoost is an actual piece of crap; it’s obviously very well-engineered. All I’m saying is that personally, I think it’s a step in the wrong direction. I had the chance to test-drive both the 2.7 and the 3.5 at an F-150 drive event last winter. I was actually fairly impressed, but not completely blown away, like a lot of autojournos seem to be. I drove both with an open mind, and found both trucks to be very quick and enjoyable. The 2.7 felt every bit as fast as my 5.4, which really surprised me. The 3.5 even had some V8 engine noise piped through the speakers to make it sound less like a V6. This brings me to my final point. I don’t want V8s to become neglected developmentally, and thus become obsolete.

As a car enthusiast, I tend to be irrational, even impractical when it comes to what I look for in an ideal car/truck. In my mind, a fullsize truck should have a V8. I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that someone would willingly choose to buy a top-of-the-line F-150 with anything other than a V8. There’s just something about that sound. The emotions you feel when you press that accelerator to the floor on an onramp or when you’re passing somebody on a two-lane backroad. I experienced none of that when driving the 3.5 or 2.7. I think I might be rambling here, but I have a feeling you know what I’m talking about. I guess that what I’m trying to say here is that while there’s nothing wrong with wanting to decrease emissions and improve fuel economy, we shouldn’t have to give up our V8s for V6s to do so. Instead, automakers should develop less costly technology to apply to existing engines to increase mileage and performance.

I want to end on a question. Is it really innovative to spend a ton of money to come up with a whole new engine architecture in order to increase mileage and performance and end up with results equal to or in some instances less than that of the competition, who spent far less money on tech to improve an existing engine architecture? What do you think? Let me know.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This post is a revised and updated version of one I wrote before I had Oppositelock authorship. I decided to repost it on Oppo because I wanted to address some valid points made by commenters on the original post, and I thought it would generate more discussion. You can find the original post !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

All photos come from !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , which is fantastic.

Party-vi > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:10

10

Yep. A smaller-displacement higher-strung engine with power adders is going to get the same economy as a larger-displacement lazier engine. I think selling trucks by advertising MPGs is such a terrible American thing. We are the only people the drive trucks like cars instead of how they are intended to be used.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:11

8

Turbo engines need to be driven a helluva lot more carefully to match quoted economy numbers. I imagine most of the tests are done almost completely off boost. I know someone who went from a 2 litre 1997 accord to a 1.5 ecoboost focus and they get worse economy now...

HammerheadFistpunch > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:11

17

Eco OR boost. Choose one. I’ve been saying this for a while that gas engines, more or less, are locked into how much fuel they use for a given power output. If you want X power its going to cost Y fuel. There are subtle variations that are related to optimization but its largly the same equation. So the term “ecoboost” is a contradiction in its own right, unless you mean it as Eco/Boost.

Tekamul > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:13

8

Yeah.

The entire turbo-cum-lately fad just shows

Marketing is driving huge engineering decisions

The EPA tests as they stand have a gaping boost-fueled hole in them

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:14

4

Turbos make gaming the EPA numbers easier -we all know this. They also market well. From Ford’s perspective, win-win. Real world, some higher engine stresses and lower than advertised mileage when operated naturally sometimes equates to lose-lose. It’s one reason NA Hondas have had the staying power in the market they have. Real world mileage and reliability are both things. This isn’t to say that turbos are undesirable, nor that they don’t offer a lot in terms of tuning potential and some real-world gains, but they’re not a panacea to the extent some think they are.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:15

2

Actually, the EcoDiesel is for economy, not towing. The Hemi tows more, while the Ecoboost tows more than that IIRC.

LongbowMkII > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:15

2

When I think tough, I think operating after the apocalypse. When the world has turned to shit and for whatever reason I have the choice of a V8 or V6tt. I’m going V8 everytime.

Then again I’ve never seen the allure of a truck as a DD. One day I’ll probably get one (90’s silverado as of now) but I honestly don’t have the work needed to justify all those other compromises. maybe if I got a garage in order to more efficently deal with projects and take on new ones that may change.

Jedidiah > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:16

6

Calling pushrods ancient compared to ohc is ridiculous.

There are ohc vehicles as early as 1902

It’s leftover anti-V8 and anti-American stigma left over from the fuel crisis.

A good engine is competitive in fuel economy, power, and weight. If a company can build an engine that does that while using technology it’s used to, then that’s a good thing.

Research and development is critical to improvent, but things shouldn’t be made needlessly complicated.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:16

0

Something else to consider: from what I understand, in order to get the stated power levels out of the Ecoboost engine, you need to be running premium gas. You can run it on regular, but it won’t produce quite the same HP/torque numbers. Does the V8 run on regular or premium?

I think this could be another case of Ford overstating fuel economy numbers. I really should go through and compare EPA numbers to average numbers on something like Fuelly. I imagine there’d be a pretty consistent difference.

PatBateman > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:17

2

While the Ecoboost 3.5 doesn’t add any MPG for the consumer, it WILL help meet the CAFE requirements. That’s probably all they were going for with this iteration.

I will be VERY interested to see what happens when Ford mates the engine with their upcoming ten speed transmission.

Margin Of Error > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:19

7

It’s fashionable to “brand” an engine. Ford called its turbocharged engines “ecoboost” to lure people into thinking that turbo engines are ecological. GM is naming its engines Ecotec to lure people into thinking that their engines are EcoloTechnical and finally, Chrysler is naming some of their engines TigerShark to lure people into thinking these engines aren’t complete bullshit.

fhrblig > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:20

1

I wonder, are the emissions from the Ecoboost engines significantly less than the V8 competitors? I haven’t checked. That would at least make SOME sense to me.

ChooChooMotherFudger > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 08/18/2015 at 15:22

2

Yeah the F150 has a higher towing rating then the ram1500, but in Ram’s (and mine) if you are towing that much, you should just get a bigger truck.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 08/18/2015 at 15:24

2

Both Ford and GM have better towing numbers than even the Hemi at the 1/2 ton level iirc. I know both Ford and GM can get up to 11,700 in crew cab applications.

Margin Of Error > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 15:24

3

That’s what I’ve been saying too. Turbo engines can be good on gas if you drive under the boost, but if you do that, what’s the point, get the smaller engine. It’s difficult and annoying to always drive below boost, especially with a manual. Modern multi-speed autos with programmed eco mode can make this task easier, doe.

Margin Of Error > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/18/2015 at 15:24

0

This.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Party-vi 08/18/2015 at 15:25

6

If they really were serious about increasing fuel economy, they would have gone the hybrid route. A plug-in hybrid truck has the potential to be incredibly awesome. Low-end torque from an electric engine, maybe the ability to plug in and run power tools right off the truck. Given how much people are paying for a medium to top-of-the-line truck these days, I’m surprised no one has done it yet.

Perhaps part of the reason is difficult it would be to sell a hybrid (sounds like a Prius) truck to a bro-truck compensating crowd. I suspect that could be a very hard sell.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Party-vi 08/18/2015 at 15:26

0

Ultimately, it's our choice do do so though. It comes down to personal preference IMO.

deekster_caddy > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:27

8

So... moving a 5600 lb brick takes the same amount of energy no matter what size the engine is. Yay physics!

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Jedidiah 08/18/2015 at 15:28

5

I called pushrods ancient because that’s how they’re marginalized. I think they’re great. The LS is a lighter and more compact engine due to the fact that it has pushrods.

RazoE > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 15:29

1

My 2.3L Turbo gets 4 mpg more than my old 3.0L inline 6 while making 50 more hp and 65 more lb/ft of torque. Just sayin’.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > PatBateman 08/18/2015 at 15:29

1

I think GM gets the 9-speed right? I know the 8-speed is the only one offered with the 6.2 in the truck now.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Margin Of Error 08/18/2015 at 15:30

0

Exactly. Marketing.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > fhrblig 08/18/2015 at 15:31

0

Haven’t thought about that. But that’s not one of Ford’s selling points, so I don't think it matters too much.

HammerheadFistpunch > RazoE 08/18/2015 at 15:31

7

my new ____ gets better mileage than my old____ AND it makes more power...is pretty much always true in the modern car world though, itsn’t it?

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > ChooChooMotherFudger 08/18/2015 at 15:31

1

I would definitely get a Cummins if towing was my goal, no doubt.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:32

0

I agree, but it’s amazing the influence that other people/the general public/good marketing can have on people. It’s going to get harder and harder to meet CAFE standards with the current way we are doing things. It’s the law of diminishing returns at play. Yes, you can make a truck lighter (aluminum, or use a smaller, boosted engine), cylinder deactivation, etc., but that will only get you so far. To go the rest of the way, it is going to require something different.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:32

0

I think the 5.3 is getting the 8-speed with the facelift

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 15:33

2

I'm waiting for one-ton trucks to go diesel-electric.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Margin Of Error 08/18/2015 at 15:34

2

I thought Hemi was originally because they had a hemisphere shaped combustion chamber (which hasn’t been the case for decades). Gotta love a brand name...

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > LongbowMkII 08/18/2015 at 15:34

0

I love GMT-400s. Good choice.

Jedidiah > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:35

2

Every piece of engineering ever made has a viable application and distinct advantages / disadvantages.

The ultimate deciding factors depends on how the consumers use the trucks and the cost

erikgrad > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:35

1

I didn’t think the purpose of the 3.5L F150 Ecoboost in aluminum bodied form was ordinary fuel economy (other than the hitting its MPG numbers by being attuned to the EPA cycle) but rather towing capacity and towing MPG?

That said - when I heard about the 2.7 Ecoboost, I had lofty thoughts of a ‘near 30 mpg’ truck hitting the market. Instead...meh. Edmunds long term test is getting 16 MILES PER GALLON. Consumer Reports tested it at 17 mpg. Maybe not the best sources of information, but the internet seems to make it clear; the 2.7 Ecoboost doesn’t provide much if any economical advantage in the F150.

fhrblig > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:35

1

I was just thinking maybe that’s why they would be pushing it so hard in other ways, because maybe they believe this is the only way they’ll be able to meet long term emissions standards.

Again, I have no idea if it’s true, because I haven’t bothered to check. I just can’t think of another reason why they would go this way.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 15:38

2

I think you’ve already kind of said this, but if you have more power, you SHOULD get better economy, because you have the same power you were using before at lower RPM, and therefore lower consumption.

Trouble is, if you gave me and extra 50hp, I would use that extra 50hp.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:40

0

Don’t mock my dreams....

PS9 > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:40

5

Remember in transition out of the brand motor era when manufacturers noticed that pouring R&D into multiple engines made no sense when you could just build one ‘good’ engine that would serve multiple purposes? This is how the ‘Pontiac’, ‘Cadillac’, ‘Buick’, and ‘Chevy’ V8s became just one V8 GM makes for all brands.

Now the same thing is happening, only with even more specificity and even broader potential applications. You have to make a near-luxury sedan, a truck, a sports car, and a mid-range camry competitor. 4 vehicles that all have to make 300-400HP. Wouldn’t it be great if just one engine could do all those jobs instead of pouring R&D into four seperate ones? Given that just one new car is a multibillion dollar proposition today, you better believe it.

That’s why the 3.5EB exists. It’s only as good as a V8 would have been in it’s place. But that’s the point; A V8 is not really great for transverse applications (as hard a GM tried to make it good, they never quite got there), but that’s not a problem for a V6. An N/A V6 isn’t quite good enough for a top-of-the-range truck, but that isn’t anything a pair of snails can’t fix. And with transverse applications, you can have FWD, RWD, AWD, and whatever else the situation calls for. The ‘Ecoboost’ label and marketing might annoy enthusiasts, but no one else cares; they’re too busy giving ford their truck money.

It’s good enough for a truck, good enough for near-lux, good enough for a large sedan, and even good enough for a sports car. Mount it however you want to, power whichever wheels in whatever configuration you want; there is simply no limit to the type of vehicle you can build around the 3.5EB, and that is why it will probably replace Ford’s V8 almost entirely.

HammerheadFistpunch > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/18/2015 at 15:41

3

Thats the gist of the boost problem. Its a solution to reducing hp when its not needed, but if you WANT all the advertised power, you are going to pay the price.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:41

0

I think they were getting the same transmission. One of the ones they were developing was for cacrs, the other was for trucks.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 15:42

0

iirc, a true hemi is very difficult to pull off, and THE Hemi is as close as reasonably possible.

That could well be some Chrysler marketing BS though.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:43

2

I’ve often heard the argument that trains (or large dump trucks) are diesel-electric for efficiency, which really isn’t the case. They are that way because designing a transmission/clutch that can take that kind of torque/power is incredibly difficult.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 15:44

2

Meh... I’ll have my V8 thanks

consider your comment recommended, kinja is bjorked.

HammerheadFistpunch > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/18/2015 at 15:45

0

its unborked now. But I like comments with words on them better anyway

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 08/18/2015 at 15:45

3

I know someone with an Ecoboost Flex. They get 14(!!!) IMPERIAL (!!!) MPG.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 15:48

0

Chevy’s V8?

Regular. I believe you can get a little more if you use premium, but the given numbers afaik are on regular.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 15:49

0

Not for me. I can only recommend when someone else has already.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 15:49

0

That and batteries are jolly expensive and very, very heavy. You’ve already got a nearly 6,000 pound behemoth wallowing around our streets, adding enough battery life to do anything worthwhile you’d need to gain massive amounts of weight, thus negating any benefits the batteries give you.

sausagefingers76 > Margin Of Error 08/18/2015 at 15:51

1

Yeah, a 6.2 420hp “Eco” tec engine. Makes complete sense...

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 15:53

0

With the torque wars shaping up the way they are, I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody made the move. The only question would be cost I think

Husaberg's Uncertainty Principal > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 15:58

2

Your fuel mileage doesn’t matter to Ford, CAFE mileage does. The rest is just turd polishing, I mean marketing

Full disclosure, I daily drive a Coyote powered f-150 & average 16/18 mpg.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Husaberg's Uncertainty Principal 08/18/2015 at 16:01

0

I have a 5.4 with 195k miles and can almost match these numbers. Normally get 15.5 but have been averaging 15 flat lately.

CONFIGANCE > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:01

0

I’m not familiar with it, but does the F150 have a rev limiting “eco” mode?

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > CONFIGANCE 08/18/2015 at 16:02

0

I'd imagine it's got an Eco mode but I'm not sure if it limits revs.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:04

0

Given that people seem pretty comfortable paying $50k+ for a fancy pickup truck, it’s only a matter of time.

That’s $50k+ Canadian, not sure what truck prices are like in the U.S.

Stygian Blue > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:08

4

This. I am a Ford guy. And I love me some Ecoboost, especially the 2.0T in my Fusion. But the Ecoboost should be viewed as a “performance” motor, not an economy one. As much as I hate to say it, Ford played games with the EPA drive cycle to get those numbers with the turbo motors. That mileage is only attainable with very specific driving habits and under very specific conditions.

Think about it this way. Let’s compare the 2.0T top-of-the-line engine in the current Fusion to the 3.0V6 in the previous one. Under steady state cruising, the 2.0T should get better fuel economy, because it’s only 67% of the displacement of the ‘6. However, any time you need to accelerate (or go up a mountain), you’re not using 2.0 liters of air. You’re using more, because the engine is under boost. At only 15 psi of boost (~1 bar), the 2.0T is now ingesting air (and fuel) at the rate of a 4.0L engine: 33% greater than the old 3.0 V6. And that assumes that you’re only running 1 bar of boost; may Ecoboosts run more than that.

To compound the problems further, N/A motors are run at an A/F ratio of ~14.0:1. This ratio is considered unsafe on boosted motors, which generally run richer under boost, further decreasing fuel economy.

Like I said, it’s a performance motor, not an economy one. Ford would have been better served to further develop the technology in the Coyote 5.0 V8 if their aim was truly fuel economy. But it wasn’t: it was to post official MPG numbers.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 16:09

0

You can easily option out an F-350 to over $70k.

BigBlock440 > Margin Of Error 08/18/2015 at 16:09

0

I know (think?) you’re not being serious, but I don’t think too many people outside of Chrysler call it the Tigershark, as it’s just the internal name for it. They don’t (to my knowledge) advertise it as a 2.4 tigershark or put tigershark badges on the cars.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:14

1

OK, but did Ford have a big pushrod V8 that was going to go toe-to-toe withe the 6.2? Sure they’ve built big V8’s before, but their last one was pretty hit or miss.

Maybe Ford went in a different direction because they had to . Even if it wasn’t a better engine (performance and mpg wise) than GM’s that just meant they had to market it well. That’s smart business.

And at least they don’t have spark plugs exploding out of cylinders anymore...

BigBlock440 > erikgrad 08/18/2015 at 16:15

2

I didn’t think the purpose of the 3.5L F150 Ecoboost in aluminum bodied form was ordinary fuel economy (other than the hitting its MPG numbers by being attuned to the EPA cycle) but rather towing capacity and towing MPG?

Actually, it’s the opposite. The theory is that you don’t need all the power of a V8 when driving normally and you should be able to get V6 economy (though it doesn’t appear to be the case), then when you need to to, you have V8 power and the associated hit in fuel economy. In the real world, it seem the V6 advantage isn’t really there, and the towing economy is even worse than the V8s.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/18/2015 at 16:16

0

Ouch.

CONFIGANCE > Margin Of Error 08/18/2015 at 16:20

0

When is Chrysler coming out with the supercharged v10 hell-snake

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 08/18/2015 at 16:21

0

Precisely.

lone_liberal > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:28

2

It’s for CAFE purposes. The truck may not hit the numbers in the real world but they do better in government testing.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 08/18/2015 at 16:29

0

Exactly. Smart marketing (what Ford is currently doing) is bringing the money home. It doesn’t necessarily matter to Ford if it’s better than the competition as long as they market it as such. The average consumer likely won’t look into it too much.

Thunderface > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:31

0

If kinda is, but it’s working so good on Ford

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Thunderface 08/18/2015 at 16:32

0

It’s working because of marketing. Not because of the results.

Teleph0nes > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 16:35

2

I’ve been saying this for a while, but the whole downsized turbocharged motor trend isn’t actually to increase fuel economy. It’s to increase listed fuel economy since it will basically let you cheat your way through the official tests. The f150 is listed at higher mileage, since the TT v6 needs less fuel to putter around at 6% throttle than the bigger v8 from Chevy.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 08/18/2015 at 16:39

2

depends on what you are towing. If its under 7000 lbs than I would choose the ED over just about anything for towing economy and ease. Like a nice heavy ski boat...perfect.

SchwarzeEwigkt > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 08/18/2015 at 16:43

0

Could be that it’s an anomaly, but the turbo car I have gets better mileage when I flog it. I get 24 when I drive like my grandmother and 27 when I drive like a hooligan. Plus, it’s one of those “use the turbo to improve torque" engines. Man, I dunno.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > PS9 08/18/2015 at 16:44

0

This is the only logical case for the EcoBoost. As sad as it is, I think you’re right. I really hope the 3.5 doesn’t replace the Ford V8.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > BigBlock440 08/18/2015 at 16:45

1

More load on the engine, hence lower economy.

nermal > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:50

1

I have a new GMC with the 5.3, after driving all available options it was the best one. I originally was gonna go for a Ram diesel / manual, but they cost too much, and the dealers in my area are a-holes.

The Ford would be a better option if you’re in high altitudes a lot. Otherwise my truck is great, does the intended job, and is easy on fuel, relatively. It uses less fuel than the Jeep it replaced in regular driving and towing a small trailer.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > nermal 08/18/2015 at 16:51

0

Nice! What color?

Quadradeuce > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:52

1

I went with the GM truck because it’s simpler. That ancient pushrod engine couldn’t be easier to work on. Plus, even if the engine craters you can get a decent replacement from your local junkyard for $1200. I’ve seen guys swap them out in their driveway. Of course, I plan on owning mine forever, so that was the biggest factor in my purchase. I’m getting 17-18MPG in 80% city driving too. Not too shabby.

Nick-Speed > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:53

0

That’s a lot of words to say “I prefer archaic pushrod technology, I don’t understand turbos and don’t like them, change is not good.”

nermal > BaconSandwich is tasty. 08/18/2015 at 16:53

0

I have a truck with the GM 5.3 V8. Will run on regular, premium, or E85.

E85 gives you the most power, but worst efficiency. I run premium in it because it makes me feel better, regular would be cheaper but will give up a few HP.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Quadradeuce 08/18/2015 at 16:55

0

That’s another thing. Why overcomplicate something when you can go with a simpler design and get basically the same, if not better results? Side note, I like pushrods, when I called the design ancient it was not meant to be a knock.

Steve Zissou > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:57

1

“Sure...it drives really well, gets as good gas mileage as a V8, and is better for towing, but it just doesn’t have as many cylinders as I want.” -My summary of your article, which makes it sound like you are stuck on a marketing sales pitch you’ve heard...just an older one. “No self-respecting truck has any less than 8 cylinders.”

Quadradeuce > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 16:58

1

I love pushrood engines. But again, it works for a driveway mechanic like myself. Of course, 65k miles in, and I’ve only had to change oil and filters...

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Nick-Speed 08/18/2015 at 16:58

0

I don’t think you read all of the words. If change has no net benefit, what’s the point? The only way you can recover the development costs is through sales generated by BS marketing. On the one hand, you have a solid, proven design improved by better peripherals. Then on the other hand, you’ve got a clean-sheet design that’s very complicated and yields no net benefits. I don’t see why that’s so hard to grasp.

trunkmonkey > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/18/2015 at 16:58

1

I believe the larger engines will be around when these things are laying in the junkyard.You can engineer out stress to a point,but the question remains on whether the degree/costs they went to were enough to even things up.I seriously doubt it.Pressure and metal fatigue is a factor not easily overcome on the cheap.Nor are duty cycles to do a given job.Time will tell I guess on whether there is still “No replacement for displacement.”

TheOnelectronic > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:00

0

Honest question, though; how much of the Silverado’s mileage is due to cylinder deactivation or similar? I’m short on time or I’d read through more completely, but how do both trucks fair under consistent load, where the Ford can’t get off boost and the Chevy can’t deactivate cylinders or cut power?

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Steve Zissou 08/18/2015 at 17:01

0

Gets as good gas mileage as a V8, but is marketed as getting much better mileage. “V8 power and V6 economy” is the theme here. But in reality it’s an either/or thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Textured Soy Protein > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:02

0

The Ford’s advertised EPA gas mileage rating is 20 mpg. But guess what it got in C&D testing? 16 mpg. Yes, 4 mpg under its advertised rating. Meanwhile, the Chevy matched that number with two more cylinders, two less turbos, more weight, and 2.7 more liters of displacement.

You’re jumping to a conclusion about the Ford’s mileage or the lack thereof based on too little information. Essentially you’re saying that because on this one occasion the Chevy & Ford got the same mileage, that they always get the same mileage.

This is a screenshot from the C&D article you linked to. Chevy on the left, Ford on the right.

C&D’s observed mileage was in fact the same in both the Chevy and the Ford. But there are no details on what kind of driving C&D did over the 350 miles they recorded this mileage.

One possibility, given that 16 mpg is down towards the lower range of both trucks’ EPA fuel economy ratings, is that when driven hard, both of them return crappy mileage. There’s just not enough information here to make the kind of conclusion you’ve jumped to.

Now, a more fair criticism, based on nothing more than the EPA ratings, is that the Ford is only rated for 2 mpg better than the Chevy, but it needs premium unleaded gas which is often $0.40/gallon more expensive than regular unleaded.

Let’s say you drive 1000 miles in mixed city/highway driving, and get the average of the city/highway ratings. In the Chevy that’s 18 mpg, in the Ford it’s 20 mpg. With those numbers, the Chevy would use 55.55 gallons of gas, and the Ford would use 50 gallons.

But if regular unleaded costs $2.75, and premium costs $3.15, then your actual fuel cost for the Chevy would be $152.76 and the Ford would be $157.50.

ly2v8-Brian > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:03

1

I just got back from driving about 350 miles. My Silverado averaged 20 mpg. Does that help your point?

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > TheOnelectronic 08/18/2015 at 17:03

0

But see that’s the thing. Cylinder deactivation is a less costly technology that can be applied to existing engine architecture, while the EcoBoost is all-new. A V8 with cylinder deactivation is just a V8 that uses less fuel. I’m all over that.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Teleph0nes 08/18/2015 at 17:04

4

It’s actually a double-edged sword. The smaller-displacement turbos give you two things:

High torque at low RPMs and decent gas mileage when you drive carefully. This is actually good for a lot of driving in this increasingly-congested country.

Higher horsepower numbers in the boost with terrible gas mileage.

This is really good for marketing. You sell the really great performance numbers and the really great economy numbers, you just don’t mention that you don’t get both simultaneously.

In real world driving, the boost gets you up to speed faster when you want to and gives you the benefit of very low fuel consumption when your engine is under low load (which it is most of the time on public roads), so I don’t think it’s completely lying, it’s just that people have heavy feet and when they have more power available they’ll use it even if their fuel economy goes to crap.

My car has a 2.0L EcoBoost and I have never quite made it down to the city rating even with hours of sitting-in-traffic-idling-with-a/c-on, so it isn’t that bad. That said, I have no clue what you have to do to get the highway MPG, because I have never seen anywhere near it.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Textured Soy Protein 08/18/2015 at 17:05

0

That’s fair. But I think that we can safely assume that they did the same type of driving with all of these trucks. It’s not so much the low numbers, but the fact that there is little difference between the two. So I’d still be bringing this up if they both got 40 mpg, if that makes sense.

Diavel in Hawaii > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 17:05

1

As an example in my current garage, my 2014 4.0 V6 Nissan Frontier gets a little better then 20mpg overall. My 1990 Acura Legend with 2.7 V6 gets around 18. 25 year old sedan vs modern mid sized truck. Efficiency continues to go up, as does horsepower and torque.

I am a fan of how things are moving (even though my wife drives the truck and I drive the Acura or the Bronco...which gets gallons per mile fuel economy numbers)

I am totally on the author’s side about the V8 noise though. I cant imagine my bronco with anything other then a rumbling V8. (A diesel is a possibility though)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > trunkmonkey 08/18/2015 at 17:05

0

People tend to miss that what got imports sold here back in the day on “better reliability” wasn’t anything to do with size, just a little bit better tolerances, etc. Smaller size was more an enabled cofactor. Anybody who conflates that to a sense of NA brute lump engines being less reliable in the mean than a small engine will eventually receive a rude awakening.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > ly2v8-Brian 08/18/2015 at 17:06

1

Yes, Brian. SBC for the win!

HammerheadFistpunch > Diavel in Hawaii 08/18/2015 at 17:08

1

Im in the V8 camp myself. All else being equal, choose the simplier solution. The V8 is the simpler solution to similar results.

TheOnelectronic > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:10

1

I remember cylinder deactivation being utter shit for a very, very long time. You got all the weight of a V8 with all the power of a V4, minus a little loss from driving those extra cylinders up and down.

Turbos are hardly a new technology. My point is, I don’t know if either one of them wins out in terms of being “simple” and “established.” Less costly perhaps, but I don’t know what if any mechanical intervention is needed for deactivation, or if it’s just a software thing. I’d imagine they’d need separate cam lobes for those cylinders, at least, or you’re just wasting power compressing air.

jkm7680 > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:10

0

All trucks should have a V8 or more than that.

ly2v8-Brian > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:15

1

To take the point further I don't have cylinder deactivation and I have a 4 speed automatic.

Textured Soy Protein > BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE 08/18/2015 at 17:15

2

I’m sure they did the same type of driving in both trucks.

What I mean is, if we assume C&D drove both trucks aggressively (and to a similar level of aggression), the only real conclusion that evidence supports is that the Chevy and Ford get similar mileage when driven aggressively .

But what if someone took the same 2 trucks and drove them like grandmas? Maybe in that situation the Ford might show more of a mileage advantage. We just don’t know.

That said, even if the Ford has somewhat of a mileage advantage, Ford drivers aren’t actually saving any money at the pump because they’re stuck paying for premium unleaded.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > TheOnelectronic 08/18/2015 at 17:16

0

Yeah it was awful in that GM V8-6-4 engine back in the 80s. And I’m thinking it might just be a software thing, but I’m not sure. I don’t think air compression would be awful on the engine but I’m not sure.

BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE > Textured Soy Protein 08/18/2015 at 17:18

0

Some others on here have made the same point I think. Basically, you can have Eco or Boost, not both at the same time. Get into boost and you use more fuel, negating the increases. But yeah you’re right.

Diavel in Hawaii > HammerheadFistpunch 08/18/2015 at 17:19

3

This all day. Why increase the maintenance, or even the chance of maintenance, for nearly identical results? The tried and true V8 is not only the more simple choice, but parts are cheaper and more plentiful. I’m pretty sure cockroaches and parts for small block domestic V8s will be the only things to survive the apocalypse. Complex and crazy is fine for sports cars and luxury stuff but at the end of the day, I just want my truck to do the job and take me home.

HammerheadFistpunch > Diavel in Hawaii 08/18/2015 at 17:20

0

As someone whos driving a 265000 mile overbuilt and understressed but slow and thirsty engine...I know that feel.