Eco-Boost opinions

[deerefan]

Oh yeah, and those high dollar turbos on there only cost about $300 brand new.

That may be the case but dont forget the other items that may need to be replaced when a turbo fails and the labor to replace it and other parts.

 

[murphy1244]

Well I hope the EB last.. Cause I won't buy a truck until its 12 years old or so and 100,000 miles. Anything that cost more than 5 Gs your getting ripped off!!:laughing:

 

[s219]

I carefully compared the 5.0 and Eco engines in F-150s recently, and did my best to compare MPG between them -- I have a 70 mile round trip work commute on the highway, and MPG really matters to fuel costs over a year. What I found is that the Eco's highway MPG plummeted at higher speeds compared to the 5.0.

Around here the speed limit is 70mph, and you'll get run off the road going under 75mph. The Eco definitely did better at lower highway speeds, but once up above 70mph or so, it drank gas like crazy. I assume the turbos were boosting to maintain speed, which is the same issue I have seen on other turbo vehicles over the years. The 5.0 was loafing in comparison.

I didn't get an F-150 in the end, but I was leaning to the 5.0 for the slightly more stable "real world" MPG across the board for my typical driving.

As far as power/acceleration, the Eco definitely wins, but both engines are propelling a battleship so I didn't really see a difference in day to day driving to be honest (I've never viewed a pickup truck as much more than a utility work vehicle despite the great refinement in the modern F-150).

For towing, I think the Eco would be a better choice for sure, due to all the torque down low. It steps off the line with a lot more authority, though the 6-spd will nanny both engines into submission if you let it.

 

[Patches]

I have had an Ecoboost since October, and only have 3000 miles on it, but so far I LOVE it!


(And even in this big, lower geared 4x4, I can get 20mpg or more on trips no sweat. The average tank for me; half city, half highway gets me around 17-18mpg.)

I get 20MPG with the Tundra highway (empty), if I stay within the 65mph limit and I HAVE low gears



(To the Tundra with the 4.30 gears. With the 3.73's and the F-150s first gear at 4.17, I have a ratio of 15.55 to one in first. ):thumbsup:

(And I am pretty sure that even towing my 20ft equipment trailer, I could beat my 2005 F-150 5.4 in a drag race. :laughing

I had an '05 Lariat, Stupidcrew 5.4, 3.73's so that statement is meaningless. That 5.4 was the most anemic excuse for a truck engine I've EVER come across. I bought mine cash(no financing) and hated it so bad, I traded it for the Tundra 18 months later

 

[Dmace]

Oh yeah, and those high dollar turbos on there only cost about $300 brand new.

Bull$hit, prove it!

Try around $580 plus a $250 core charge EACH plus shipping (for the new part and for the core) and extra for installation if you can't do it yourself. While that's not bad for a water cooled turbo, it's still extra cost and seeing how these turbos are setup to spool VERY early for low end torque, they will certainly fail much sooner than a typical turbo on a car engine or diesel engine.

Secondly, ever priced out a fuel injector for a Direct Injected engine? $$$$

 

[Bama67]

(And I am pretty sure that even towing my 20ft equipment trailer, I could beat my 2005 F-150 5.4 in a drag race. :laughing

I had an '05 Lariat, Stupidcrew 5.4, 3.73's so that statement is meaningless. That 5.4 was the most anemic excuse for a truck engine I've EVER come across. I bought mine cash(no financing) and hated it so bad, I traded it for the Tundra 18 months later

Someone is lashing out. Stupidcrew? lol.

I merely stated that the Eco was faster towing a 3000lb load than the 5.4 was empty as a basis for comparison for someone that hasn't driven or towed with a Ecoboost.

Bull, prove it!

Try around $580 plus a $250 core charge EACH plus shipping (for the new part and for the core) and extra for installation if you can't do it yourself. While that's not bad for a water cooled turbo, it's still extra cost and seeing how these turbos are setup to spool VERY early for low end torque, they will certainly fail much sooner than a typical turbo on a car engine or diesel engine.

Secondly, ever priced out a fuel injector for a Direct Injected engine? $$$$

Huh, Dang. I read a thread a while back on one of the Ford forums and the turbos was posted for around $300. I don稚 remember the full story on them but they were new, and would work fine, and were OEM manufacturer (Garrett?)
Sorry, for the bad info.

Even so, turbos are a simple, reliable device, and the chance of one failing is actually exceedingly rare.

I, like you, would be much more concerned about replacing an injector. I have no idea what that would cost after the warranty ran out but being that the engine isn稚 covered by the body like a Super Duty or such, you wouldn稚 have to pull the body off the frame and all that jazz. Don稚 know what the parts cost is.

But prepare yourself, direct injection is the future, and I can imagine that soon everyone will be gravitating towards it.
.
.
.
But I know the real reason you are upset...... A V6 truck that sounds like a vacuum cleaner will smoke your beloved hemi dodges. :laughing:

 

[Dmace]

But I know the real reason you are upset...... A V6 truck that sounds like a vacuum cleaner will smoke your beloved hemi dodges. :laughing:

390hp/407lb.ft , plain simple design, 9 year proven record of reliability and 20 mpg highway
vs.
365hp/420lb.ft. , high tech expensive new technology with 0 years of proven reliability and from a manufacturer with a record of poor engine designs and 21 mpg highway.

We'll see which one's smoking after 200k miles, if those Eco-boost's can even make it to 200k. :laughing:
I'm sure the review of your truck and fuel mileage is as accurate as your information on turbo pricing too...

 

[Bama67]

390hp/407lb.ft , plain simple design, 9 year proven record of reliability and 20 mpg highway
vs.
365hp/420lb.ft. , high tech expensive new technology with 0 years of proven reliability and from a manufacturer with a record of poor engine designs and 21 mpg highway.

We'll see which one's smoking after 200k miles, if those Eco-boost's can even make it to 200k. :laughing:

0 years of reliability? The engine has been out for 5 years, and been in mass production at least 3 years now.

Yeah, to bad Ford can't make a truck as durable as a Dodge.

"Dodge Ram, the epitome of reliability!" Lol

Enjoy your American tax payer funded, made in Mexico; Italian Ram. Or should I say Carnero or maybe Montone.

But seriously, I hope we don't get the thread locked, as I enjoy arguing with you.

 

[Dmace]

0 years of reliability? The engine has been out for 5 years, and been in mass production at least 3 years now.

Yeah, to bad Ford can't make a truck as durable as a Dodge.

"Dodge Ram, the epitome of reliability!" Lol

Enjoy your American tax payer funded, made in Mexico; Italian Ram.

First off, 2011 is the first year of the F-150 ecoboost. 2012 - 2011 = 1 not 5.
Secondly, Ford is knee deep in "American taxpayer" funds only not paying them back like GM and Chrysler.
Lastly, I've enjoyed my "made in Mexico" RAM for 7 trouble-free years now which is a lot more than any Ford I've ever owned...

Either way, this thread is about opinions on the Ecoboost not RAM's. My opinion is they're not worth the risk over the 5.0l.

 

[Patches]

Someone is lashing out. Stupidcrew? lol.

I merely stated that the Eco was faster towing a 3000lb load than the 5.4 was empty as a basis for comparison for someone that hasn't driven or towed with a Ecoboost.

Appreciate your input, but you probably picked the absolute worst comparison you could. I'm sure there are folks out there who love their 5.4's, but I'm not one of them. The old saw "you can pay me now, or pay me later" comes to mind. Small displacement, high horsepower/torque engines have historically not shown longevity. As to the factory tow ratings; we'll have to wait untill the Federal regulations become effective(Toyota already adheres to the new federal guidlines)

 

[Bama67]

First off, 2011 is the first year of the F-150 ecoboost. 2012 - 2011 = 1 not 5.
Secondly, Ford is knee deep in "American taxpayer" funds only not paying them back like GM and Chrysler.
Lastly, I've enjoyed my "made in Mexico" RAM for 7 trouble-free years now which is a lot more than any Ford I've ever owned...

Either way, this thread is about opinions on the Ecoboost not RAM's. My opinion is they're not worth the risk over the 5.0l.

So putting the same engine in a new platform makes it a totally new engine huh?

For example, by that same flawed logic when your beloved Dodge put the Cummins 5.9 in the Ram in 89' it was a totally new, unproven engine?
Interesting.

Also, Ford did not take bail money like the partially Government owed GM and Chrysler. Sorry.


GM and Chrysler paying back the Gov is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

All GM did is pay back the Guvment loan with TARP money "out of one pocket, back in the other" type thing.

Chrysler just took out another private equity loan to pay the Gov loan. So they haven't payed off anything.
And I guess it doesn't bother you that your tax dollars went to build up a foreign automaker.

But all of that is neither here nor there.

And you are right, the thread is about the Ecoboost. If you go back to the original post he asked for opinions of OWNERS of F-150s that have Ecoboost. Not some dude that has a hard on for bashing anything that isn't Dodge and doesn't know anything about the Ecoboost F-150 except what he reads on the internet. I will leave it at that, and bow out of the thread as I don't want it to get locked. Have a nice day!

 

[Dmace]

So putting the same engine in a new platform makes it a totally new engine huh?

I'm assuming your referring to the Lincoln's version of the V6 Ecoboost as the first in production even though it's mildy different than the F-150 version. If so then even the Lincoln has only been available since 2010, once again no where near 5 years but keep trying...

Also, Ford did not take bail money like the partially Government owed GM and Chrysler. Sorry.

Feel free to start a new thread if you need people to explain to you that there's NO difference between "bailout" money and "government grants" given to a company in dire need of money. Either company would have failed without that taxpayer money. Even if Chrysler is taking out loans to pay back the "bailout" money, that means the taxpayers are getting their money back which CAN NOT be said for the $5.9 billion given to Ford.

And I guess it doesn't bother you that your tax dollars went to build up a foreign automaker.

Not at all because that "foreign automaker" is creating more American jobs...

And you are right, the thread is about the Ecoboost. If you go back to the original post he asked for opinions of OWNERS of F-150s that have Ecoboost. Not some dude that has a hard on for bashing anything that isn't Dodge and doesn't know anything about the Ecoboost F-150 except what he reads on the internet.

Your right, all I know is what I read on the internet which apparently is more than one of the owners like yourself who doesn't even know when the engine was put into mass production or how much a replacement part is. :laughing:

 

[dstig1]

Someone is lashing out. Stupidcrew? lol.

I merely stated that the Eco was faster towing a 3000lb load than the 5.4 was empty as a basis for comparison for someone that hasn't driven or towed with a Ecoboost.

Appreciate your input, but you probably picked the absolute worst comparison you could. I'm sure there are folks out there who love their 5.4's, but I'm not one of them. The old saw "you can pay me now, or pay me later" comes to mind. Small displacement, high horsepower/torque engines have historically not shown longevity. As to the factory tow ratings; we'll have to wait untill the Federal regulations become effective(Toyota already adheres to the new federal guidlines)

I read this often enough. I have NO issue with my F250/5.4. Is it the highest powered engine? Obvisouly not. Does it matter? Depends on your use. If you are one of those juveniles that needs pipes (lets all say it: "pii-yips") to think their truck is cool, then probably not. If you need to tow over 10k on a daily basis, then probably not. If you are like me and use it for towing the tractor a dozen or two times a year (~8-9k), hauling whatever you need in the bed and trailer, and general PU use, then yeah, it is perfectly fine. On those occasions I want to merge with freeway traffic, I actually look and plan and merge just fine. Unlike the rest of the Upper Midwest Drivers, of course, but it can be done. And I didn't spend an extra 5-8k on the diesel plus all the additional maintenance costs they require.

Since when is 5.4l SMALL displacement? Sheesh people. Grow up.

 

[jejeosborne]

I ordered a new ecoboost screw 3.73 rear end this fall and now have about 3000 miles accumulated. I too had to decide between the 5.0 and the 3.5 liter engines. I tow three different trailers totaling about 2000 miles per year and choose the ecoboost because of its flat torque curve. I average 16.5 mpg around town and 18.5 on the highway at 70 mph. I have an app on my phone that I have used for years and am happy getting right at 3 mpg better than my 4.7 liter 3.92 rear end dodge dakota it replaced.

Really one needs to understand not to compare this engine with any less than other engines producing similar HP and torque. Of course the 4.6, 5.4 and Chevy 5.3 liters can achieve the same mileage numbers but are not even in the same ball park when it comes to performance.

Oh yeah, I agree with the smile factor when you step on the gas. A 5000+ pound huge truck getting to 60 in 6.1 seconds wipes the smile off some "sports car" drivers face every now and then.

Picture to keep it tractor site friendly.

 

[jeffsw6]

I read this often enough. I have NO issue with my F250/5.4. Is it the highest powered engine? Obvisouly not. Does it matter? Depends on your use. If you are one of those juveniles that needs pipes (lets all say it: "pii-yips") to think their truck is cool, then probably not. If you need to tow over 10k on a daily basis, then probably not.

I live in that medium area that you are overlooking. I get by with the truck I have, but would I like to have a more powerful one? Absolutely. With a few exceptions, I probably tow more than most guys here, and perhaps I am making your point for you by saying so, but I do not like being in 2nd gear to climb hills at highway speed. My truck gets the job done but if you towed at the limits of your truck's abilities several times a week like me, you would be saving up for a bigger truck too!

... flat torque curve.

Really one needs to understand not to compare this engine with any less than other engines producing similar HP and torque.

I bet it looks a lot better on paper than most of the powerplants you listed, if the person is looking at a HP/torque graph instead of the peak numbers the mfrs print in the brochures. Sure, I have 300 lb-ft at 4600 RPM or something idiotic, but whatever torque my engine produces at 2000 RPM where it would like to be at highway speed in 4th gear, is not enough to climb a hill with a decent sized trailer. Torque curve, like you said, is a smarter comparison.

I would like to know if it has much turbo lag?

 

[Bama67]

I ordered a new ecoboost screw 3.73 rear end this fall and now have about 3000 miles accumulated. I too had to decide between the 5.0 and the 3.5 liter engines. I tow three different trailers totaling about 2000 miles per year and choose the ecoboost because of its flat torque curve. I average 16.5 mpg around town and 18.5 on the highway at 70 mph. I have an app on my phone that I have used for years and am happy getting right at 3 mpg better than my 4.7 liter 3.92 rear end dodge dakota it replaced.

Really one needs to understand not to compare this engine with any less than other engines producing similar HP and torque. Of course the 4.6, 5.4 and Chevy 5.3 liters can achieve the same mileage numbers but are not even in the same ball park when it comes to performance.

Oh yeah, I agree with the smile factor when you step on the gas. A 5000+ pound huge truck getting to 60 in 6.1 seconds wipes the smile off some "sports car" drivers face every now and then.

Picture to keep it tractor site friendly.

Isn't that the blue flame metallic color? I am not normally big on blue, but that is a beautiful color on these trucks to me. And yours looks really good with the chrome package. I wish mine had that package, I love those chrome wheels. Nice.

I wanted white because I drive thru the woods alot and it doesn't show up, and mine came with the 17" alloy wheels which I don't like the look of. But the Michelins that came on offroad package are a true all terrain and work very good. With the traction control and rear locker it climbs reallllly good. (I have some steep trails on the place I go hunting)

 

[JasG]

First off, 2011 is the first year of the F-150 ecoboost. 2012 - 2011 = 1 not 5.
Secondly, Ford is knee deep in "American taxpayer" funds only not paying them back like GM and Chrysler.
Lastly, I've enjoyed my "made in Mexico" RAM for 7 trouble-free years now which is a lot more than any Ford I've ever owned...

Either way, this thread is about opinions on the Ecoboost not RAM's. My opinion is they're not worth the risk over the 5.0l.

The engine has been in develpment for over 5 years and it has been in production for very close to 3. It was in the Ford Flex and others before the F-150. I don't remember anyone saying the engine was in the F-150 for 3 or 5.

Ford starts EcoBoost production in Cleveland

 

[s219]

Oh yeah, I agree with the smile factor when you step on the gas. A 5000+ pound huge truck getting to 60 in 6.1 seconds wipes the smile off some "sports car" drivers face every now and then.

Spoken like someone who only drives a pickup truck . Even the fastest trucks I have driven/owned still make me appreciate a sports car. When I was test driving F-150s last month, I was real impressed with the power and ride/handling until I hit a highway on-ramp. Talk about wiping a smile off my face -- I felt like I needed to call down to the engine room and ask someone to turn a rudder or something. There's really no way to get around the size/weight physics of a big truck like that.

 

[jejeosborne]

Spoken like someone who only drives a pickup truck . Even the fastest trucks I have driven/owned still make me appreciate a sports car. When I was test driving F-150s last month, I was real impressed with the power and ride/handling until I hit a highway on-ramp. Talk about wiping a smile off my face -- I felt like I needed to call down to the engine room and ask someone to turn a rudder or something. There's really no way to get around the size/weight physics of a big truck like that.

I put sports cars in quotes for a reason. True, it is no corvette, and it doesn't handle like one, but it will out accelerate many that claim to be. You need to go back to the dealership and test drive an ecoboost on your merge test again. Go to http://www.zeroto60times.com/Ford-0-60-mph-Times.html and compare the results with many vehicles. My point is that most wouldn't expect a full sized truck to be so quick including some high school kids trying to impress their girlfriends in their "sports car". Big smilie that day.

 

[s219]

I put sports cars in quotes for a reason. True, it is no corvette, and it doesn't handle like one, but it will out accelerate many that claim to be. You need to go back to the dealership and test drive an ecoboost on your merge test again. Go to Ford 0-60 Times & Ford Quarter Mile Times | Ford Cobra 5.0 Mustang, Focus, Fiesta, F250, Ford GT 0-60, 2011 Taurus SHO, GT500 0-60, GT350 and Classic Ford 0 to 60 stats! and compare the results with many vehicles. My point is that most wouldn't expect a full sized truck to be so quick including some high school kids trying to impress their girlfriends in their "sports car". Big smilie that day.

In my case, it's the handling that is lacking, not the power -- there's no question the Eco F-150 is fast and fun in a straight line. But take it on a curved onramp or offramp, and it gives me that same "slow the $#!* down now" feeling as all the F-150s because of body lean, mass, and tires. I think it still feels like driving a battleship. That's one of the reasons I haven't been able to come to terms with a pickup as a daily driver, though I give it a try every few years.