Ford’s New Twin-Turbo V6 F150 Raises Longevity and Reliability Questions
Jason Lancaster | May 24, 2010 | Comments 60
Last week PickupTrucks.com published some spy photos of Ford’s 2011 V6 EcoBoost F150. The rumor is that the new engine will be a 3.5L V6 with a twin-turbo setup. Estimates are that this new V6 will have 400+ hp and 400+ lb-ft of torque, but that it will also get an EPA rating of 23 mpg on the highway.
While this new EcoBoost engine isn’t going to be “free” – it’s a premium option at this point with a hefty sticker price – it’s definitely the next killer app in pickups, and an indicator that the entire auto industry may use small-displacement motors with turbochargers to replace larger naturally aspirated motors.
However, as the comments in the PickupTrucks.com post point out, What about longevity and reliability?
First of all, let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t about bashing Ford’s reliability. Ford is just the first automaker that’s using turbo-chargers to replace displacement in a pickup. Please don’t read this as anything other than a commentary on the future of the industry. Ford deserves a ton of credit for bringing this technology to the table first.
Secondly, it’s important to recognize that the truck industry is in a bit of a pickle. Ford invested in EcoBoost engine technology because they anticipated the need to sell trucks that get upwards of 30mpg, which is the recently announced federal fuel economy standard for light trucks. While there are some caveats on that number (it’s not going to be 30mpg in real life), the fact of the matter is that trucks have to get about 25% more fuel efficient over the next 6 years. That’s not a lot of time.
As a result, automakers are looking towards turbochargers and/or superchargers, variable valve lift and timing, variable displacement, direct injection (both homogeneous like the EcoBoost and stratified like some diesels), HCCI, and other cutting-edge engine technologies to try and get a 25% fuel economy improvement without sacrificing power or features.
Of course, this begs the question: Would you rather have a high-tech V6 that gets great mileage or a significantly less complicated V8 that generates the same amount of power but with worse gas mileage?
We all know that mechanical parts eventually break down. It’s obvious that adding parts onto a V6 to make it perform like a V8 probably makes that V6 a little less reliable. We also know that more complicated engines take more time to fix, which means repairs cost more too. There’s also the fact that naturally aspirated engines have traditionally lasted longer than turbo-charged or super-charged engines.
In other words, it’s a triple whammy: More complexity = better fuel economy, but it also = decreased reliability, longevity, and increased repair costs.
The Fuel Economy Rules Are Different For Every Manufacturer
Over the next 6 years, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, and Toyota are all going to look at ways to make their engines more fuel efficient in order to meet federal standards. However, fuel economy rules allow manufacturers to use “credits” from sales of electric cars, hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles to offset truck fuel economy.
In Toyota’s case, every electric Prius sold will help offset a Tundra that gets less than 30 mpg. If Toyota has success selling cutting-edge cars that are either all-electric or powered by fuel cells, they’re not going to be under nearly as much pressure to make the Tundra and Tacoma more fuel efficient…which means their trucks will be less complicated…which means they’ll cost less, last longer, and be more reliable.
Or maybe not. No one can predict the future.
In any case, it’s important to pay attention to both sides of a manufacturers portfolio – a company that sells a lot of fuel-efficient cars can use that efficiency to offset trucks.
You decide: Will consumers embrace more complex truck engines that get great mileage, or will they buy less complicated trucks for a better price? Please vote and comment below.
Filed Under: Auto News
Do you think they will offer that engine in the Fiesta?
Honestly, for mulch haulers and annual appliance moving this is a GREAT answer. Awesome power and fuel economy. I don’t think the reliability will be an issue for the average truck buyer. For that group of people hauling actual loads there are diesels. I am glad Ford is biting the bullet on this one. someone has to put iut in an aplication to see how it holds up. If the turbos pop often, they will be cheap. If they hold up, Great. If they don’t, at least SOMEONE had the mushrooms to try it.
Dear Ford,
PLEASE DROP THAT ENGINE IN A FIESTA!
Toyota already has superchargers for the 4.0L V-6 and the 5.7L V-8 that are quite reliable, but take premium fuel. Is the tradeoff of better MPGs despite higher fuel costs per gallon worth it? Another question is: Does anyone who really needs 400+ HP/Torque on a daily basis want to trade a big V-8 for a V-6, and can the V-6 be made heavy enough to withstand the heavier loads of 5 ton towing capacities and 1 ton payloads? Also, where is that power made in the power band? Truck guys like their torque way down low to get loads moving. I love how my 5.7 has peak torque @ 3600 RPM. I know I can get heavy loads moving quickly and efficiently. If I have to rev to 5 or 6000 RPMs to do the same work, my engine life is shorter due to the higher revs and internal stresses on the powertrain (it will also take longer to get those turbos spun up and reach those higher RPMs where the power is). Just my thoughts, but I’ll take my big V-8. Multi-displacement would be nice, though. Are you listening Toyota?
Jeremy – I’ve heard that the Fiesta is definitely getting some sort of EcoBoost motor, but I don’t think it’s going to be a V6. I’ve also heard about a US spec Focus RS with a large 4cy EcoBoost. 250+ hp in a Focus? Ridiculous (and awesome).
##
Brian – MDS is coming I think. Toyota has long said that the fuel economy benefits don’t justify the expense, but new fuel economy regs are changing that. As for the power band, Ford says it will have a diesel-like torque curve. I would agree with that assessment if it’s using a twin-turbo setup. As for your other questions, you make some great points. Premium fuel and heavy towing need consideration too.
I love technology. Heck 20 years ago who would have thought there would be computers in autos. I hope all of the manufacturers begin the race to see which engine does more with less. In the end, we all win. As far as reliability, we all know the growing pains of first generation products….over the years that shouldn’t be a problem.
Rich – Reach back further, friend. Most cars had electronic fuel injection in 1990. Now in 1980? It would have been inconcievable!
Jason – I had not read the pickuptruck.com article before posting earlier. It’ll be interesting to see the dyno spreadsheet on this engine.
The only issue I would think of is the cost of a replacement turbo or engine. I think it’s a great idea. 87 GN was a great engine.
Brian,
1980’s? I’ve still got my 1986 Buick Grand National. It’s has sequential fuel injection, computerized and turbocharged and still mostly stock in the original 231 v-6. The vin-7 is a realiable and powerful engine. The technology has been around for a very very long time. Neccesity is the mother of invention. With fuel prices going up again, the manufacturers will go back to the old drawings from the 1970’s gas crunch and try again to squeeze out the ponies and mpgs and change the mind set of cubic inches equal horsepower. Then again, who would have thought that toyota could get 310 ponies from a 4.6L when in the 1990’s, gmc was only getting 200hp from a 5.7L/350cid.
Jason,
i have no issues with turbo’s but a gas turbo has never been know for hauling or towing, especially when you dont really get that power or toque until the turbo spools. None the less, the Ford’s turbo will be any interesting beast and i’m looking forward to reading more about it.
Danny is now on my “People to steal cars from” list
Toyota just partnered with Tesla. Most likely Toyota is going electric. I like to have an electric motor working side by side with the 5.7L. Instant torque at almost any speed.
Jeremy,
you and many others my friend! You know the saying, forget the dog, beware of owner. hahaha. Seriously tho, that has always been a major concern, not just with the GN but every thing these days, sadly.
Art64 – Yeah ive read that on a tweet from CNN…Supposedly toyota and tesla are joining together to make an electric car! Gasp!
But i serriously think toyota should be more worried about fuel cell technology. Hell, Honda already beat toyota to it with their FCX Clairity.
rich – That’s a point for sure – the march of technology is inevitable, and I’ve never been one to argue for lower tech before. However, I feel like the progression towards twin-turbo V6’s to replace V8’s isn’t “natural” – it’s legislatively induced. While that might not be important, I feel like consumers might not like 30 mpg trucks if they need $5k turbos every 100-120k miles. Having said that, it’s possible a twin-turbo setup could last 500k without a hitch. Diesel trucks with turbos do 300k-500k miles every day…so maybe I’m all wet! 🙂
##
Brian – Agreed. Paired with the right transmission, I bet that truck will be a rocket ship when it’s empty.
##
Mickey – That’s my issue as well.
##
danny – Seriously – your stock just went up 1000%. Those old GNs man…bad ass. I worked with a guy who had the Olds version and that car was sick. As for towing/hauling, the twin-turbo setup is supposedly going to eliminate the spooling issues (just like the old Supra). Whether or not they’re reliable pulling 10k up the pass? Probably so, but I don’t want to be the one to find out. That’s an expensive repair I’d guess.
##
Jeremy – If it was anyone else I’d be planning the heist right now, LOL.
##
Art64 – That’s an interesting idea. I read that Toyota’s biggest gain from this deal is access to Tesla’s LI-ion battery technology, but I don’t see any reason why Toyota couldn’t start building electric pickups at some point. Assuming the battery packs are manageable in terms of weight, consumers would love the gobs of torque. The truck would only be an around-town delivery beast, but there’s definitely a market for them. It also makes commuting in a truck socially responsible, opening up the market to the levels we saw back in 2001.
##
Jr – Great point. Toyota has announced a fuel-cell sedan by 2015, and they’ve been demoing a fuel-cell Highlander too. While all the attention is on electric, some people say that fuel cells are the next big thing.
##
Can I just say to everyone who commented on this post that this has been a great topic of conversation? So many smart comments, great points…this is fun. Thank you.
Doesn’t look like Ford has any concerns with reliability nor longevity. They’ve already had a press release that states this motor with turbos will last a minimum of 150K miles. Which we know plenty of people today trade or sell their vehicles by this point. But looks like Ford will be dropping the EB 3.5L into the Raptor. Amazing, right now you have the 5.4L and 6.2L available, and in the near future you’ll see the EB 3.5L, 5.0L Coyote (replacement for the 5.4L Triton) and the 6.2L Boss. Choices galore! Think since they are now releasing the Raptor in Screw form, I may just have to drive it with each motor to see what will eventually be my ’06 150 Screw replacement.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/0.....-r-coming/
Justin – If you buy a Raptor SuperCrew with the 3.5L, I’ll feature your truck. Seriously.
Jason: That would be cool! Problem is, this won’t be for a minimum of 5yrs. Of course I wouldn’t want the 1st or 2nd model year of the Raptor anyways. But my wife is up next for a new ride, which we’ll be looking this coming fall. Now she wants the EcoBoost Flex AWD, which she’s been eyeing since they debuted. So it will have the EB 3.5L you discuss in this article, only with a car tune and the hp/lb-ft limited to 365hp/350lb-ft. From what I hear, the Taurus SHO and Flex have the EB 3.5L power limited since the drivetrain can’t withstand much more power. So I wonder how reliable these vehicles may be if someone adds a tuner or ups the boost. The EB 3.5L in the F150 are rumored to have roughly 400hp/400lb-ft since the drivetrain can withstand much more punishment.
Justin – Aww come on man!! 🙂 If you put a TundraHQ sticker on it, I’ll buy you a tank of gas! LOL
##
I don’t blame you for waiting – I couldn’t imagine buying a brand new anything. The depreciation is too great. Leasing one, however, makes sense to me since I can call it a biz expense.
Jason: Well, I did buy my 2006 brand new. Of course it was the 3rd model year after the redesign in ’04. And I got a smoking deal, since I purchased in March ’07. My dealer still had 5-7 2006 F150s on the lot and they wanted to move them to make room for the 2007s. So if/when I look into replacing the 2006, I will look at the current model Raptor to determine if it fits my needs. Of course I don’t expect them to offer a smoking deal on such a specialty vehicle.
*****
Then again, I have been contemplating keeping the 2006 and when the time is right, purchasing one of the new Stangs, either with the new 5.0L Coyote or EB 3.5L V6, instead of another new truck. Decisions, decisions. Of course all my options take a back seat to the wife right now. So we’ll see what is on the market when the time comes.
Justin – Mustang or F150? It sounds like an easy decision to me…MUSTANG.
Jason: Yeah, I’m thinking the Stang route, especially since the truck is paid for and does everything I need it to. Would simply need to have a vehicle cruising.
Justin – If I had the cash and the time I’d find a cool early 00’s GT coupe and go crazy with a S/C, suspension parts, and really make something fast.
Jason: Here is a look at Fords new powertrains in the 2011 F-150.
3.7L V6 = 305hp/275lb-ft
5.0L V8 = 360hp/380lb-ft
3.5L EB V6 = est. 400hp/400lb-ft
6.2L V8 = 411hp/434lb-ft (only available in Lariat and up models with the Trailer Towing pkg)
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....rucks.html
Justin – That’s a pretty well thought out plan that Ford has come up with.
On a side note, it’s a little suspect that the 5.0 maxes out at 9,800 towing even though it’s slightly more powerful than the 5.4 that had a max rating of 11,300. My guess? Ford’s new towing numbers meet the new SAE standard, which would mean that Ford’s old towing numbers were inflated by 1k to 1500 lbs…
But that’s only a guess. In any case, when are you getting a new F150 and what motor will it have?
I too was curious about those tow ratings on the 5.0L. Think a little had to deal with the new SAE ratings. Also think the 5.4L had it’s peak power further down the RPM range and was a tried/true motor that could withstand some of the pounding. This may just be a jumping off point for the 5.0L until they can confirm it’s reliability long-term before upping the rating a littler higher. Then again you also could be right that these figures were inflated to try and keep up with the Joneses.
Well, the F150 will be paid off this year (after 4yrs). But I can’t see jumping into a new F150 right away. The wife wants an EcoBoost Flex first, and by the time that is paid off, the first few model years of these newer powertrains will be broken in and thoroughly tested. Remember, I won’t by any vehicle 1st or 2nd model year after a major overhaul. Then again, they already have the 5.0L/302cid Boss crate motors available. But I’d say another 2-4yrs before I really look into upgrading.
Justin – I don’t begrudge Ford for shining us on with the tow ratings considering that EVERYONE was doing it. Still, it’s a little frustrating that Ford got away with such an obviously false claim (at least in my eyes).
The Flex is an interesting ride. I have mixed feelings about them, but I’m not really the target market. I think they’re a hell of a lot cooler than a minivan and probably just as useful, so I can see why your wife would want one.
As always, your opinions are careful and considerate. When you get that new F150, let me know. It deserves a feature!
Jason: I hear ya on the upping the figures to keep up with the Joneses. But I think all manufacturers do this to some extent in certain areas.
My wife loves the Flex design, it’s so different than anything else on the road, except maybe the Scion xB and Honda Element. She wants a bigger car to do the soccer mom treatment for the kids. BGut the Flex is like her current ride (2004 Altima). Nothing else on the market looked like it when it debuted in 2002. And of course she wants the EB motor for the power. She doesn’t like the 2011 Explorer they just debuted, as it looks too much like everything else on the road. Has too many similar characteristics of the FJ and Acadia/Exquinox.
If/when I can get into a new F150, I’ll let you get the scoop and compare to the current model Tundra. I’m sure like today’s trucks, each with have its own benefits and drawbacks.
Justin – Makes sense – the Flex is definitely different and I think it looks good too.
I probably need to do another series of truck comparisons…they’re just so time consuming. Maybe early next year once the 2011’s are on the ground and I have some time.
Jason: Sounds good! Can’t wait to read that 2011 F150/Tundra review. Will have to see how you compare these big boys and whether you opt for the 5.7L to 6.2L, or if you pull in either the 5.0L or 3.5L EB motor. Got a lot of options to choose from. If there is time, maybe do a 5.0L vs 4.6L (or is it a 4.7L) comparison, and a 6.2L vs 5.7L comparison. Not sure where the 3.5L EB would fit into the mix.
Then before you know it, you’ll be doing another review in 2014 (I believe) when the all new Tundra is dropped on consumers.
Anyone questioning the durability of this EB 3.5L motor will have their answer after these tests are performed. And of course Ford
http://www.ford.com/about-ford.....ghlight%3D
Also, looking for power, how about 365hp/420ft-lbs, with 90% of the torque available from 1700rpms all the way to 5000rpms.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/0.....b-ft-of-t/
These ratings (365/420) are on 87 octane, Ford has yet to finish certifying it on 91 octane. My guess is that 20-25hp more could be squeezed out with 91 octane, even more could be squeezed out with a 93 octane tune.
And WOW, check out that torque curve picture.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....tails.html
A properly sized water cooled center section turbo does not reduce reliabilty.
Cummins turbos, Powerstroke turbos, Volvo turbos, Mercedes turbos ect. are
known for reliabilty. With the advances in hybrid technology we’ll probably see
ecoboost hybrids in trucks eventually. Turbodiesel/hybrids are hitting the streets in
europe this year expecting close to 60mpg on city and highway modes in sedans and wagons the size of the ford fusion. In adjustments for trucks this would be capeable of the future cafe standards if the USA could adopt a world emission standard equal to europe instead of the one that was crated to protect the previous big three from competition. We need to return to the front of the competition instead of playing catchup.
refocus – I’m 100% in agreement with you on the stupidity of US emissions rules. The EPA is too strict when it comes to diesel emissions.
As for turbos being reliable, that’s true. As for two turbos being added to a truck that performed just fine prior to some arbitrary legislation…I’m not sure that resulted in an increase in reliability. I’m not saying Ford can’t build a good truck – they definitely can – I’m just saying I’d rather have fewer parts that can break.
Put a 4L diesel in the 1/2 ton and you will get 25% increased economy and good reliability.
Scott: Agree, but also disagree. I believe with a 4L diesel, yes you could see improved mpg, especially while towing. But without a load I’m not sure you would see too much mpg gain. Look how all the other diesels on the market (Duramax, Cummins & PSD) have dropped in mpg performance over the last decade with all the new EPA restrictions that have been forced onto diesels. If we didn’t have all this added equipment, the diesels would surely get better mpgs.
Scott – I keep hearing that from people and reading it all over the place, but no manufacturers are offering light-duty diesels. I’m not saying you’re wrong – I’m just wondering what the heck is going on. I’ve been told emissions rules make diesels too expensive, and that the latest version of emissions regs make diesels impossible (the grams of CO2 per liter reg is supposedly very anti-diesel).
Still, I agree that a small diesel would be a nice tower and probably give better mileage than a gas engine of similar capability. Whether or not that would be 25%, I’m not sure.
Justin – Great point. The emissions equipment has taken a toll on diesel’s inherent efficiency advantage. Diesels are supposed to be about 30% more efficient in the simplest terms, but all the big diesel trucks are getting less efficient…maybe it’s chasing horsepower and torque numbers, or maybe it’s emissions.
My 2003 GMC w/Duramax diesel gets 22-23 mpg on the highway now. I regularily pull a loaded 3 horse gooseneck trailer, and still get 18. Why would I buy a V6? Ridiculous.
S. Thompson – A lot of other people are wondering that as well. 🙂
S Thompson: That’s an 8yr old diesel that doesn’t have the EPA requirements that the new diesels have been handicapped with. The old 7.3L PSD and 5.9L Cummins typically brought home very similar mpg numbers as well. So your Duramax isn’t anything special when compared to similar 2002/2003 turbo diesels. Also, you’re talking about a 3/4-ton or 1-ton truck compared to a 1/2-ton truck. Big difference. And sure, why would you buy a V6 if you’re in the market for a 3/4-ton or 1-ton truck, when a V6 isn’t even offered in that class truck? This motor is for comparison to other 1/2-ton trucks with large displacement V8’s. Seems like you are trying to prove a point, but didn’t do so well in proving it. Since the problem with your point is you are trying to compare different classes of trucks, gas versus diesel motors and 2003 requirements to 2011 requirements.
Jason: A lot of people are wondering what exactly? Come on, I know you have better common sense and judgement than that last pst showed. The F150 EB 3.5L is for comparison to 1/2-ton, large displacement V8’s. Not to compare against 3/4 or 1 ton trucks with turbo diesels. Why wouldn’t a person purchase an EB 3.5L if it gets better mpgs, tows more, and has the best torque curve of any 1/2 ton on the market?
Justin – A lot of people are wondering why they would buy a V6 in a truck. I wasn’t commenting on fuel economy (should have made that clearer).
Did you see this? https://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/02/17/eco-boost-cash-back/
Jason: I guess there are people wondering this, at least until they have taken it for a test drive that is. A lot of the people I speak to who have taken it for a spin will tell you, you can’t tell it’s a V6 in any way other than the exhaust note and a very slight turbo spooling sound. And I was even impressed by its performance when I took the EB 3.5L for a spin last week (short 4 mile trip when at the dealer O’Meara last week getting an engine flush). They have a nice gold Screw XLT EB3.5L on the lot. The power is noticed immediately and throughout the RPM range and surely would give any of the Big V8’s on the market a run for their money in the fun and power dept. And there are plenty of 4.2L F150 work trucks out there already, so a V6 isn’t as rare as you’d think, only in towing applications is it frowned upon, but this motor will surely change some minds.
Justin – I’ve got nothing bad to say about the EcoBoost, and the idea of buying a turbo pickup is completely palatable to me. However, there are some people who resist new technology. I completely understand the argument that “V8’s weren’t broken, so why fix them?” I see the fuel economy benefits of course, but personally don’t care about that.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that I like the EcoBoost just fine, but I understand why other people don’t.
IMO with the performance of the 3.5l ecoboost there is absolutely no need for V8s. I’ve allways been a more power the better kinda guy and with the 3.5l ecoboost you have all that plus some. And I belive there is nothing that the V8s can do that are in any way better then the ecoboost.
john – I can definitely understand your perspective. Thanks for commenting.
It’s that you do not see the simple facts that Ford was the first actual car maker and still going way strong and reliability is out of the question because they are made to last and when they do need repairs they all have qualified technicians to do the job quick and great.
P.S. Before anyone says that Mercedes-Benz was the first it wasn’t do your homework.
P.S.S Do not think I am ill speaking of Mercedes because i heavely admire their cars.
Jose – The first ‘actual’ car maker? Ford was the first to make cars on an assembly line, and they were without question the most successful auto company in the world through the 1920’s. As far as the first person to build a car (defined as a self-propelled vehicle), historians generally accept that it was Cugnot in the late 1700’s.
The point is, what’s *your* point? 🙂
Jason,
i guess its like saying, the russians were first in outer space but the USA surpassed them. the point is, there is no point. also, i thought Bedrock Motors was the first auto manufacturer because i surely saw fred flintstone and barney rubble zipping around town in their cars. just my 2 rocks, i mean cents.
Danny – LOL – why is it that 95% of the domestic fans who comment here can’t form a cogent sentence? I know that the average Ford, GM, Ram-Fiat owner is smart enough to comment coherently…so maybe it’s just the dumb ones that troll this site. Weird! 🙂
Its about time. I drive a 2001 Audi A4 with a tiny turbo’ed 4 cyclinder and a 2007 Dodge 3500 with the 6.7 Cummins diesel. Both great at their jobs. Ever since buying the Audi so may years ago I have wondered why no one is turbo’ing smaller motors to get the best of both worlds on an average daily basis. Could there be a problem that you have to fix, sure. Been having to do that for years on normally aspirated simple v-8’s and nothing is cheap today. I’ve rebuilt my audi engine twice now. I bought it as a salvage with dropped valves at 16,00 miles (head on accident). I put a used short block in her at 100,000 miles when I threw the piston out the block. It was a daily driver, not a racer. I’m 52 years old. There are costs but I’ve made that much money on her from its fuel savings and the enjoyment of driving the peppy fuel efficient motor. Darn sure am not looking to pay for repairs to my Cummins diesel. So it all in how you look at what meets your needs. For ma, its way over due to be turbocharging small motors for daily use. There are no promises out there that the simple vehicle won’t cost you and arm and a leg and that the more complex vehicle will be more problematic. My wife drives over 30 miles one-way to work daily and has put on 120,00 of the 136,000 miles the audi has and I’m having a real hard time trading her in for a more efficient cross over that doesn’t have much more room, midly poor fuel mileage and a new bank loan. Hurray for the baby turbo motors !!
Ward – Very good point. No guarantees in life, with or without a turbo. Cummins reliability is awesome, no question, but I’m surprised to hear the Audi wasn’t better for you.
Great idea, great technology, and sales are outstanding! Reliability ratings have been excellent for the ecoboost. More complexity = more problems seems to be a Toyota math model but Ford seems to have a better equation for us.
Anon – Did you honestly just say that Ford has a better reliability record with more complex components than Toyota? Have you been living in a cave for the last 40 years?
I’ll agree 100% that Ford quality and reliability is as good as it’s ever been (maybe even the best ever), but Toyota has been building reliable vehicles since the 1960’s…if anyone has the formula, it’s Toyota.
“Ford’s new twin turbo V6 raises longetivity & reliability questions”
First of all – Jason – you’re dead wrong! Have you come back from the dead from the horse and buggy era? I got 33.6mpg on the flats today at 48mph and got 31.25mpg’s at 50mph!
No Hemi, no Chevy could follow me – my truck only has 400km’s on it(not even broken-in)..
You just don’t understand mechanics at all to say what you said…watch you tube torture tests…
It’s best mileage, best torque, best reliability and it’s proven now! It’s got the internals to match if you understand that! It’s not just a boosted flimsy motor “without the guts”
Ford has never done better, and has up-set, leep frogged every manufacturer and all without loans to boot!!! Well done Ford!
Latch-on to one – you’ll learn something! lol!
I have a Ford 2011 echoboost 4×4. What a piece of shit. It gets 14.7 MPG. And 9.1 MPG Towing. Do not buy one. Dont even look at one. In fact dont buy a ford. I contacted Ford Motor Company and they blew me off, stating it was the dealerships fault. The dealership say’s its fords fault. And neither is willing to help you. So if you got an F150 echoboost, with bad GMP. Call and attorney.
Shawn: If you do own an EB F150 (which I highly doubt), you must have a lead foot and keep the boost going with the turbo’s spooling at all times. Which of course will adversely impact your mpgs. From what I’ve seen from various Ford forums and owners of EB F150’s, I have yet to really see such poor mileage, unless the owner has admitted to getting into the gas a little too much. Also, your experience with Ford and dealers sounds very similar to what many Chevy, Toyota, and various other manufacturer owners have experienced as well. So while I really don’t believe your story, your experience with Ford/dealers is just as common with most major manufacturers from mine, friends and families experience.
Here’s a thread and some images of MPG’s one owner is getting in his EB F150.
Thread:
http://www.blueovalforums.com/.....t-mileage/
Images:
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....CT0068.jpg
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....CT0069.jpg
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....241013.jpg
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....CT0103.jpg
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....CT0097.jpg
http://i689.photobucket.com/al.....071253.jpg
Gerry – You lost me when you claimed 33mpg.
Shawn – Sorry to hear you’re not getting the mileage you’re expecting. Honestly, 14.7mpg sounds like a pretty realistic number (albeit on the low end). The fact is that the numbers on the window sticker are NEVER right. Ever. Unfortunately.
Justin – You follow the Ford forums, but I will tell you that a couple of old Ford dealer friends have said that the EB is basically the same as the V8 in terms of real-world MPG.
“There’s also the fact that naturally aspirated engines have traditionally lasted longer than turbo-charged or super-charged engines.”
I have to disagree with this. Volkswagen has been making a TDI engine for quite a few years now. The ONLY major issues they have had with longevity is the fact that many ignorant US dealership were dumping the wrong engine oil into them. Average maintenance on these cars will translate into hundreds of thousands of miles of use. The trucking industry has also been using turbo’s for years on engines that see mileage into the millions before any major rebuilds.
Now, for the local powerstore aftermarket turbo jobs, yes, life expectancy is shortened significantly. That is because the manufacturer of those engines never intended for those engines to be turbocharged in the first place. The engineers didn’t design the engine to have the added stress of a turbo. This is where we get into trouble of durability. As a rule, any aftermarket power modification will decrease engine life expectancy.
I’ve never seen any turbocharged gas engine meet the claimed MPG estimates. Direct injection is the best feature to hit the auto industry since electronic fuel injection became common (’76 Cadillac Seville’s Olds 350 had it). Turbos force feed the engine with added air AND fuel. Coupled with the fact that folks can’t keep their foot off the pedal, loving to feel the torque of acceleration. For trucks I see smaller V8 powerplants with fuel saving features being the norm. Chevrolet dropped from 5.7 liter to the 5.3 liter and increased horsepower. I recall two words paired with undesirable used cars, Diesel and Turbo. Having had one I know that a sick turbo is a miserable thing come repair time.
Mike – I should have qualified my statement and restricted it to gasoline engines.
Comparing the long-term durability of gasoline to diesel is always a losing proposition for gasoline. Diesel technology is inherently more durable.
Still, in the strictest sense, gasoline engines with turbos (be they factory or after-market) haven’t lasted as well as non-turbo models IN THE PAST. Today? Who’s to say. Perhaps that particular nut has been cracked. All I can speak to is the past.
I own a 11 ecoboost f-150 4×4 with 163in wheel base with the heavy duty payload pkg. it now has 14,500 miles on it this it by far the best 1/2 ton out there i get as much as 25mpg on the hwy and tank to tank fill ups are at 19mpg all the time.
the truck runs 14.6@ 95mph in the qt mile and @6000lbs it makes the pwr it is advertised to make. I have had more than 2800lbs in the bed on many ocations and it has no problem get the job done.