Eco-Boost opinions

[jejeosborne]

Jeffsw, yes the torque curve is very important for any truck. The ecoboost make 90% of its peak torque at 1900 rpms. Hard to find another gas engine with that claim. This truck took a little time to get used to the lack of downshifting. I ascend the same hill on my way home from work and the tachometer will read 1100 rpms at the base of the hill. When i apply quite a bit of pressure on the pedal, rpms stay put and it powers up without a downshift. My butt had to recalibrate from my past driving experience.

Bama67, thanks! It is the blue flame metallic. I choose that color hoping to make it easier to find in the Parking lot. Exact opposite of your needs.

 

[Dmace]

The ecoboost make 90% of its peak torque at 1900 rpms. Hard to find another gas engine with that claim.

No it doesn't! http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201538e200572970b-800wi
And yes it is tough to find another gas engine with that claim, because other manufacturers usually claim something TRUTHFUL unlike Ford's marketing hype...

Ecoboost 78% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2500 rpms)
Ford V8 5.0l 81% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2200 rpms)
HEMI 80% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2500 rpms)

I'm not bashing, just posting facts to disprove all the marketing hype you guys are buying into. Also, take a close look at those Ford dyno graphs and you'll see the Ecoboost power is peaky just like any small displacement turbo engine and NOT flat like the V8 5.0l...
The ecoboost makes great power but not "diesel-like" as Ford wants you to think and it will cost you more at the dealer, more at the pump (unless it's a grocery getter), and more at the repair shop...

 

[Egon]

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?


Think it's a proven engine now!:thumbsup:

 

[jejeosborne]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/0...ter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

I agree don't trust any marketing hype. That is why I waited and ordered mine after reading many unbiased tests proving the engine would do as advertised. It out tows fords own 6.2 liter with a loaded trailer, faster 0-60 times too. Oh yeah it also beat the hemi. You can dispute dyno numbers all you want but how do you dispute real world testing at the track, campground, highway, stop light, mountain, gas pump, ect. ?

I am not brand loyal to anyone. I buy what I feel is the best bang for the buck at my time of purchase. I would never have bought a ford in 2010. I might have bought another Dodge if they made a 6 speed transmission and their Eco mode variable displacement worked above 40 mph without a 20 mph tailwind. I did test drive the ram and the Toyota too. No other truck offers this towing capacity in a 1/2 ton and still gets respectable mileage.

The purpose of this thread is to help someone torn between two Ford engines. For roughly $700 invoice I would recommend the ecoboost over the 5.0 liter for most applications. The 5.0 liter engine is also very complex with variable valve timing and the like. One needs a computer to work on either engine.

Btw, if you are afraid of new improved technology, you can get a carbureted, distributor engine along with a can of starting fluid that definitely won't get to 200,000 miles.

I still enjoy my dodges everyday.....the many gas stations. :0

 

[Patches]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. How We Dyno Tested Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 Engines - PickupTrucks.com News
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

I did test drive the ram and the Toyota too. No other truck offers this towing capacity in a 1/2 ton and still gets respectable mileage.

The purpose of this thread is to help someone torn between two Ford engines. For roughly $700 invoice I would recommend the ecoboost over the 5.0 liter for most applications. The 5.0 liter engine is also very complex with variable valve timing and the like. One needs a computer to work on either engine.

Apparently you didn't test drive the 5.7 Tundra;go back to the 0 to 60/quarter mile time site posted earlier mentioned. The 3.5 EB's 0to60 time listed as 6.1sec and quarter at 14.6. The normally aspirated Tundra is at 0to60 at 6.0 sec and the quarter at 14.7 . Now the supercharged(more on par with a twin turboed engine) is0to60 at 4.6 sec and the quarter at 13.3 sec., and remember the Ford is a regular cab and the Toyota is a double cab.I've already listed my empty mileage which is about the same as an EB with 3.73's . The tow rating is 10,300 and I can assure you it will readily tow loads north of 12,000. Let's see what the EB's rating is when Ford must comply with the new Federal guidelines

 

[jejeosborne]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally to me too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

I wouldn't say that a supercharged 5.7 liter that is a $6000 option compares to a 3.5 liter $700 option but you may. One would think that that aftermarket supercharger would have produced more than 504 HP with 5.7 liters. In todays world 100hp/liter should be easy.

 

[JasG]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

For me that is what it comes doen to for me also Ford or Toyota. The tow rating isn't that much different for me, I would like te higher mileage when not hauling.

Ford has also been working on an improved ethanol version of the ecoboost. I was hoping someone would use a turbo to take advantage of the ethanol acting like a higher octane and therefore you would be able to hive higher cylinder pressure and greater mileage. From what I have read though they are working on a 2 tank system with 2 injection systems. I don't think that would be cost effective way to go. If they could make a system that could tell what fuel was in the tank and allow it to change boost according to the ethanol content, it might make ethanol more worth while.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2008/fuels/merit08_aagarwal.pdf

Ethanol Producer Magazine | EthanolProducer.com

 

[Patches]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally to me too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

I wouldn't say that a supercharged 5.7 liter that is a $6000 option compares to a 3.5 liter $700 option but you may. One would think that that aftermarket supercharger would have produced more than 504 HP with 5.7 liters. In todays world 100hp/liter should be easy.

Just sayin'. No question a 3.5 producing those # is impressive. As I stated earlier, small displacement/high HP/torque engines are not noted for their longevity. The jury is out; check back in 2014. As long as I can get very similar mileage with a non-assisted fueled engine with argueably the same tow rating, you know where I'm going. I was, and am not yet aware that Ford is yet using the newer Federal towing guidelines which are not yet in effect. You're concerned with a $6,000 surcharge when you're spending $35/40,000 on a V-6 Ford:helloooooo

 

[jejeosborne]

Just sayin'. No question a 3.5 producing those # is impressive. As I stated earlier, small displacement/high HP/torque engines are not noted for their longevity. The jury is out; check back in 2014. As long as I can get very similar mileage with a non-assisted fueled engine with argueably the same tow rating, you know where I'm going. I was, and am not yet aware that Ford is yet using the newer Federal towing guidelines which are not yet in effect. You're concerned with a $6,000 surcharge when you're spending $35/40,000 on a V-6 Ford:helloooooo

You are correct, I am concerned with the $6000 surcharge which is on top of the higher priced less equipted tundra I looked at(Toyota never has good rebates). I didn't finance my truck and had to give up 4wd (approx $3000) to get the options I really wanted like ecoboost, rear camera, sync, max tow package, etc. I also was concerned with the additional 15% I would have had to pay for fuel with the Tundra. I know 15% doesn't sound like much, but if you look at it like $4.00/gallon vs $4.60/gallon, that equates to $15 per fill up.

You are right and I stand corrected on the new agreed upon towing limits. I saw where Tundras went down 400-1100 lbs depending on model. It will be interesting to see what the new ratings for the fords are.

Like I said, It was a tough decision between the tundra and f150. I think both have their unique advantages. My brother in law has a 5.7 tundra that he likes and I don't dog him. Both trucks deserve respect. I feel they are currently in a league of their own. Next year may be a different story.

 

[Dmace]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

Read the story, they re-tested the truck with Ford engineers on site and got the same results...
The link I posted is from the retest.

 

[jejeosborne]

Read the story, they re-tested the truck with Ford engineers on site and got the same results...
The link I posted is from the retest.

Yes, But there are more graphs showing the difference at the rear wheels vs on an engine stand. There is a lot of torque management that all manufactures use to protect the driveline that is used by all manufactures.

When comparing just the 5.0 and the 3.5, notice peak torque on the 3.5 of 360.7 takes place at 2900 rpms. Peak torque for the 5.0 takes place at 4290 rpms. The scales on the graphs are different not making a clear comparison. That is a 27% higher torque at a muck lower rpm. As a matter of fact it is showing over 300ft/lbs between 2100-5300 rpms. That is what I consider a flat torque curve. The 5.0 never even reaches 300 ft/lbs. I consider the 6.2 and 5.0 engines to be more peaky torque. Look at the area between the curves on the graph showing all engines. I consider that impressive for the mpg I am getting with this engine.

 

[deerefan]

I will keep my 5.3 in my Silverado for now. I am getting 17mpg (truck is 4wd) driving 65-75 mph and has a 9500lb tow capacity. This engine has also been around for roughly 14-15 years. Not the most powerful as the 6.2 in the denali takes that title, but overall very effecient, simple and strong enough for general use. I really like an engine I can work on. I spent some time pulling 10k lbs in a F150 reg cab 2wd with the 3.5tt. It was a gooseneck trailer hauling calves to the stockyard. It pulled the load fine and averaged about 8.8mpg over about 400 miles. The engine is still a little too green (new) in the F150. I will revisit it in a few years when I may be in the market for a new truck.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Update to the mpg questions. I drove my dads 2011 3.5 TT Eco Boost with 3.73 gears and 4x4 yesterday down to the Super Bowl festivities. His truck is a FX4 package with the highest GVWR package and 11,300# tow package. Its a Super Crew also.

We had 5 guys in the truck that ranged from 220# to 170# so 200# average weight is honest plus coats, cooler, ect. Plenty of room for the 70 mile each way trip. Running 73ish on the highway my average for the round trip, 146 miles, was 19.8mpg. This also included idling 2 times each way at a rest stop to take a quick bathroom brake. Coors light does that to these guys. The traffic downtown Indy was pretty heavy so we spent 30 minutes going 6 blocks in and out of the parking garage, so a hour total, in heavy stop and go traffic.

The truck was purchased new in May and now has 10,500 miles on it. The oil has been changed at the dealer at 7,500 miles once. No issues to date. The mpg for its life says 16.9 mpg and my dad says hand calculating it at first showed about 18 mpg. It assume it has went down in the winter some since his truck has the remote start and he uses it for a good 10 minutes before leaving he house, work, restaurants, ect. He has towed with it once, just a Uhaul trailer, maybe 3,500# but it was a short distance, 40 miles, and he did not keep a accurate tally on the mpg at that time.

I stomped it down a few times on the highway jumping up to about 90 mph. Let me say it takes a second for the turbos to kick in like my diesel truck but then it goes like its shot out of a barrel.

Chris

 

[aczlan]

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.

I know what you mean. My daily driver is a '97 Volvo V90 (station wagon with a straight 6 in it). It has been down since Thanksgiving (timing belt tensioner went out on the way to get the timing belt and headgasket changed and it has taken my buddy a while to get to it) and I have been driving a '97 Dodge 1500 4x4 (with the 318 V8 in it).
Lots of power, but very light in the back (even with 350# of sandbags in the bed) and nowhere near as comfortable as my V90.
The V90 also gets double the fuel mileage (18-21MPG vs 9-10MPG).

Aaron Z

 

[Ford850]

Lots of guys not believing in the new Ecoboost, or maybe just hoping it will fail. Replacing turbos? The Ecoboost engines have been in production for several years in cars and SUV's, and over a year in the trucks. Has anyone heard of a single failed turbo? With all the forums and threads dedicated to loving or hating this new technology, you'd think there would be at least a few failures, but I haven't come across a single one.
If you really want good reviews from a group of guys who you'd think would be the last to praise Ford, hang out on the Dodgetalk . com forum. There is post after post from Hemi owners giving examples of the Ecoboost besting them. Talking about how there is no way they can beat the new Fords. Several members admited they jumped ship and bought a new Ford and love it. There was a long thread that was hilarious to read the Hemi guys discussing how great the EcoBoost is, and then all of a sudden they realized someone posted a link to that thread on a Ford site for everyone to follow. I tried to get back to it today and see they locked it to non-members.

 

[dodge man]

I put my Challenger with the 5.7 hemi on the dyno last spring. Its not 100% stock, I'm maybe making 10% more power. My car pulled 372 horse power and a little over 400 ft-lbs of torque. The curves, especially the torque curve, look a lot flatter than the eco boost at the higher RPMs. I'm not saying the eco boost is or isn't a better engine, but I find it hard to believe they are that much better than a hemi in a drag race.

As a side note, the link for the dyno pulls was interesting. Its very tough to get low RPM pulls on a rear wheel dyno with an automatic. My pulls really only started at 3000 rpms. I just wouldn't trust the accuracy of the lower rpm torque and horsepower curves. It takes a stick shift to get the lower rpm numbers correct. Just looking at the curves, I'd say Fords numbers for the power at the back of the engine seem pretty reasonable.

As far as durability, its tough to say what the ecoboast will do. I wouldn't let the new technology scare me away. Direct injection and turbos have been around for awhile. Its more a matter of how well Ford executed it than anything to do with the technology.

 

[Red Horse]

This is by far one of the more "spirited" threads on TBN-Play nice boys.

I don't have an EB 150 but I do have a 2010 Taurus SHO that just turned 34,000 miles. No problems knock on wood since the day I picked it up. I have to say I'm a firm believer in "KISS"(keep it simple stupid!) and the idea of twin turbos sounded a bit complex. But given the fact that a very high percentage of the largest selling vehicle in the US (F-150) are now EB's and given the fact that the new Police Interceptor will offer this engine as its max offering, I would say Ford has a ton of confidence in the longevity of the EB concept.

Again, I'm not saying my experience with an SHO is the same as a 150 but I get great mileage-never below say 22.6 in mixed driving and typical hiway driving is in the 24+ range-Best I ever got was 27.1 on a 300 mile road trip-including the leg of the Garden State Parkway from the Jersey Tpk to the NY Thruway during rush hour-65 mph one minute then 15 mph the next.

Torque- this thing will drive around town in 5th at around 1250RPM.

Oh- and to whoever took a shot at Ford's engine history, I must have missed something? Just what engine were you talking about? 6.0's excluded and I know guys who never had a bit of trouble with those either.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Again, I'm not saying my experience with an SHO is the same as a 150 but I get great mileage-never below say 22.6 in mixed driving and typical hiway driving is in the 24+ range-Best I ever got was 27.1 on a 300 mile road trip-including the leg of the Garden State Parkway from the Jersey Tpk to the NY Thruway during rush hour-65 mph one minute then 15 mph the next.

Torque- this thing will drive around town in 5th at around 1250RPM.

While I do not have a Eco-Boost, my father does as I noted before, I have something very similar in my garage, a 2008 BMW 335I. Its powered by a Twin Turbo 3.0L inline 6 cylinder. Yes, a inline. Just like any inline it has tons of torque. Its now got about 45,000 miles and averages 24.5ish mpg each and every tank of mixed driving. Its been 100% reliable other than 3 flat tires.:confused2: 2 were the factory tires then I put new ones on it the day after Thanksgiving, about 2,000 miles ago, and we had another flat last Thursday. Large chunk of steel about the size of a Oreo Cookie in it. Just a run of bad luck. Funny thing is I have not had a single flat on any of my trucks since 1989 when I had 2 in a months time on my brand new S-10 Blazzer. I always seem to get them on cars and trailers, probably 2-3 a year.

Chris

 

[Johnp33]

I am waiting for the Results of the 3.5, good for Ford for doing the build. It sounds impressive, time will tell. I am a mechanic and Ford has the only engine that you will normally have to remove the cylinder heads, to change the plugs. But who is counting, the 5.4 three valve.
The 6.7 is an impressive engine, on paper, as is the transmission, they just do not work very well, also Ford does not seem able to make a filter that blocks water so the bill is not covered under warranty, but $12,500 to $8,500 is a small price to pay for having a Ford.
I wonder what that will do to the resale value?
As a mechanic I love Ford, keep them coming!

 

[jejeosborne]

I am waiting for the Results of the 3.5, good for Ford for doing the build. It sounds impressive, time will tell. I am a mechanic and Ford has the only engine that you will normally have to remove the cylinder heads, to change the plugs. But who is counting, the 5.4 three valve.
The 6.7 is an impressive engine, on paper, as is the transmission, they just do not work very well, also Ford does not seem able to make a filter that blocks water so the bill is not covered under warranty, but $12,500 to $8,500 is a small price to pay for having a Ford.
I wonder what that will do to the resale value?
As a mechanic I love Ford, keep them coming!

Any opinion on the 3.5 ecoboost?