Ford 3.5 Econoboost

[Robert F.]

Anybody familiar with the Ford 3.5 Econoboost engine. Have been new truck shopping and they are really pushing this engine. I have been driving a GM 5.3 and would like better economy but am not sure about the performance on the 3.5. I tow, although very rarely, a Hudson 18' tandem with a JD 2305 with loader and backhoe. Sometimes, front snow blower with weight box (800lbs). I am not really buying for towing since I so rarely do but want it to be able to do it the few times that I do. Am looking at the Lariat series since it is what we use all the time and looking for comfort primarily with the ability to do the rare towing. Currently driving GMC SLT with 5.3 and want at least as much truck.
Thanks

 

[v8only]

in my opinion that ford eco-boost is great in numbers but what happens when your out of warranty and need to start rebuilding turbos, that is going to be one high maintenance truck.

 

[Diamondpilot]

My father has one. It will stomp over your 5.3. His is a 2011 with 3.73 gears and the largest 7,700# GVWR. It did 20% better than my Nissan Titan pulling the same load over the same course of over 200 miles. Its rated to tow 11,300# and is no slouch. I have seen about 23 mpg at 60 mph and for its life, 13,500 miles or so, its gotten better than 18 mpg average.

Chris

 

[wsp617]

It's true that the new EcoBoost Ford will stomp the GM 5.3. But, I've talked to a number of guys that bought the new Ford engine and feel they've been duped as they don't get anywhere close to the 22-23 MPG they advertise. A couple guys I talked to were fighting with the Ford dealer beause they're getting 16-17 MPG when they're not towing and the dealer can't tell them why the MPG is so poor. One of the guys has an oil leak and they can't find that either. I've heard many guys like the power of the new EcoBoost and the ride is supposed to be great as well but look at the big picture when buying. I think the EcoBoost option is pretty expensive too.

 

[WilliamBos]

The 5.3L is a 350,000 mile engine. Time will tell uf the Ecoboost will equal that. If you trade when warranty expires, then go for it. I see a lot of folks up here taking the Ford 5.0 over the Ecoboost, as they drive their trucks until they fall apart.

 

[jesseb3@att.net]

Anybody familiar with the Ford 3.5 Econoboost engine. Have been new truck shopping and they are really pushing this engine. I have been driving a GM 5.3 and would like better economy but am not sure about the performance on the 3.5. I tow, although very rarely, a Hudson 18' tandem with a JD 2305 with loader and backhoe. Sometimes, front snow blower with weight box (800lbs). I am not really buying for towing since I so rarely do but want it to be able to do it the few times that I do. Am looking at the Lariat series since it is what we use all the time and looking for comfort primarily with the ability to do the rare towing. Currently driving GMC SLT with 5.3 and want at least as much truck.
Thanks

It's actually "Ecoboost", as in "Ecology", not Econoboost. A year ago, I traded an Avalanche with the 5.3 in on an F-150 with the 3.5 Eco engine, and I've been very impressed with it. The Chevy used to struggle to tow heavy loads in my opinion, including a sailboat that I tow every year for a friend. This Spring, the little twin-turbo six actually accelerated up hills that the Chevy couldn't gain any speed on. It's rated at 365 HP, but more importantly, 420 ft/lbs of torque. Compare that to the 5.3L at 315 HP and 335 ft/lbs. (Granted, my older Chevy was rated at 285 HP.)

My Ecoboost doesn't get the fuel mileage they advertise it at, but I drive fairly aggressive. On the highway, when I'm stuck in traffic doing 65-70 mph, it does indeed average over 21 MPG. At 85 MPH, it's around 17 MPG.

There are many that are freaked out by a truck with less than an 8-cylinder under the hood, but I like it - tons of power, and so quiet (relatively speaking) you think you're driving an electric car.

Jesse

 

[WilliamBos]

It's actually "Ecoboost", as in "Ecology", not Econoboost. A year ago, I traded an Avalanche with the 5.3 in on an F-150 with the 3.5 Eco engine, and I've been very impressed with it. The Chevy used to struggle to tow heavy loads in my opinion, including a sailboat that I tow every year for a friend. This Spring, the little twin-turbo six actually accelerated up hills that the Chevy couldn't gain any speed on. It's rated at 365 HP, but more importantly, 420 ft/lbs of torque. Compare that to the 5.3L at 315 HP and 335 ft/lbs. (Granted, my older Chevy was rated at 285 HP.)

My Ecoboost doesn't get the fuel mileage they advertise it at, but I drive fairly aggressive. On the highway, when I'm stuck in traffic doing 65-70 mph, it does indeed average over 21 MPG. At 85 MPH, it's around 17 MPG.

There are many that are freaked out by a truck with less than an 8-cylinder under the hood, but I like it - tons of power, and so quiet (relatively speaking) you think you're driving an electric car.

Jesse

Can you hear the turbo's whistle?

 

[KennyG]

My Ecoboost doesn't get the fuel mileage they advertise it at, but I drive fairly aggressive. On the highway, when I'm stuck in traffic doing 65-70 mph, it does indeed average over 21 MPG. At 85 MPH, it's around 17 MPG.

Jesse[/QUOTE]

Looks like you're doing OK to me. EPA ratings are done with "real" gasoline, not 10% ethanol. They claim the ethanol only hits the mpg for a few percent, but I think it's more like 5%+.

 

[WilliamBos]

Looks like you're doing OK to me. EPA ratings are done with "real" gasoline, not 10% ethanol. They claim the ethanol only hits the mpg for a few percent, but I think it's more like 5%+.

So they are misleading us (epa) Some places are hard to find ethanol free gas. So getting the claimed mileage will be difficult.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I think the eco is like a diesel. You have so much power and torque on tap its hard not to hit the fun pedal. This leads to low mpg. If I drive my diesel like a little old lady I average 17 but stay on the fun pedal and its 14.

Chris

 

[WilliamBos]

I think the eco is like a diesel. You have so much power and torque on tap its hard not to hit the fun pedal. This leads to low mpg. If I drive my diesel like a little old lady I average 17 but stay on the fun pedal and its 14.

Chris

The lower speed limits up here would help get better mileage too.

 

[Robert F.]

Thanks for all the replies. I hold on to cars/trucks for a long time. My GMC is a 2003 with 135,000 miles and runs very nice. I did not buy it new and while it runs impressively well, it has not been a cheap truck to maintain. My wife and I call it a very high maintenance truck. I am not familiar with turbos and sure don't want to get into something that ends up being high maintenance. I'll have to do some more reading about turbos to learn more about them.
Thanks

 

[Diamondpilot]

A turbo would not scare me. All diesels are turbo. Now a turbo from the 80s, yes, but today, no.

What has made your GM such a high cost to maintain and run truck?

Chris

 

[greasemonkeyok]

Turbos built today are not a problem if you can resist the temptation to open'r up on a regular basis. That said, you need good oil in it.

 

[s219]

Reliability of turbos is not a problem. I have had many turbo vehicles over the last few years, and all have been very reliable. To me the problem is that the performance/efficiency tradeoff is very bi-polar -- you can have power or you can have fuel economy, but you will never get both and there is no happy medium like a normally-aspirated engine. If you drive like a granny most of the time, you should get excellent mileage out of an Eco-boost. If you need the power or drive at high highway speeds (where the engine will boost all the time) then expect lousy mpg. It's the way turbos have always been, and the Eco-boost is no different. I'd wager that the Eco-boost might be a little worse at high speeds than normal turbo cars just because pickup trucks are like a brick with a parachute attached in terms of aerodynamic drag.

For what it's worth, I shopped F-150s pretty heavily last December, and I very quickly gravitated towards the 5.0 V8. I just liked the overall feel of the engine throughout the performance envelope more than the other engine choices. It's a very relaxed easygoing engine.

 

[RollingsFarms]

I recently bought a 2012 Toyota Tacoma double cab 4x4 with the v6. I downgraded after owning two z71's, one which had the 6.2 v8 in it. Awesome engine btw, just wish they'd come out with it four years ago when gas was affordable. Anyways I get asked a lot by friends why didn't I go buy an ecoboost. Honestly I probably should have at least gave one a hard look but I was deadset on a Tacoma. I personally don't know anyone that had that engine as most of my ford friends drive diesels, 5.4's and 5.0's. Does the ecoboost run on 87 octane? I would think the ideal gears for optimal towing performance ad fuel economy would be the 3:73's correct?

 

[jesseb3@att.net]

Can you hear the turbo's whistle?

No, unfortunately not! I would like to hear them!!

 

[Diamondpilot]

I recently bought a 2012 Toyota Tacoma double cab 4x4 with the v6. I downgraded after owning two z71's, one which had the 6.2 v8 in it. Awesome engine btw, just wish they'd come out with it four years ago when gas was affordable. Anyways I get asked a lot by friends why didn't I go buy an ecoboost. Honestly I probably should have at least gave one a hard look but I was deadset on a Tacoma. I personally don't know anyone that had that engine as most of my ford friends drive diesels, 5.4's and 5.0's. Does the ecoboost run on 87 octane? I would think the ideal gears for optimal towing performance ad fuel economy would be the 3:73's correct?

Yes, the Ecoboost uses 87 octane. As for the gears they offer a 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, & 3.73. The 3.73 like my father has makes it a stump puller but most I see on dealers lots have 3.31 & 3.55 gears. Personally I always get the lowest gear. I buy trucks to work. Whatever mpg it gets it gets. I have a car for 30 mpg if needed.

The six speed in the eco with the 3.73 gears really let it shine. I drove one with 3.31 gears and there was a major difference.

Chris

 

[jesseb3@att.net]

Thanks for all the replies. I hold on to cars/trucks for a long time. My GMC is a 2003 with 135,000 miles and runs very nice. I did not buy it new and while it runs impressively well, it has not been a cheap truck to maintain. My wife and I call it a very high maintenance truck. I am not familiar with turbos and sure don't want to get into something that ends up being high maintenance. I'll have to do some more reading about turbos to learn more about them.
Thanks

Same here. My Avalanche cost around $1500 per year in maintenance. Granted, I took it to the shop for everything, but that's still salty. Two failed window motor assemblies, brakes, rotors, pads, discs, rotors - did I mention the brakes? Daytime running lamps were always, always burned out. My father had a similar experience with his Suburban...brakes, idler arms, other steering components...GM just doesn't design those components well. However, the 5.3 and the tranny in it? Couldn't kill it. Had 140,000 miles on it when I traded it in, and ran like it was new. My father is still running his 'Burb.

The 3.5 Eco feels like a diesel as someone else stated. Not as smooth when not towing a load though... Sort of "skips" a bit. Under a little throttle, or any load, and she's smooth. I rarely run premium in mine though...maybe that's the reason.

 

[RollingsFarms]

Yes, the Ecoboost uses 87 octane. As for the gears they offer a 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, & 3.73. The 3.73 like my father has makes it a stump puller but most I see on dealers lots have 3.31 & 3.55 gears. Personally I always get the lowest gear. I buy trucks to work. Whatever mpg it gets it gets. I have a car for 30 mpg if needed.

The six speed in the eco with the 3.73 gears really let it shine. I drove one with 3.31 gears and there was a major difference.

Chris

Thanks for the info! So many dagblasted engines these days run on 93 seems like. That's one big thing I did not like about the 6.2 but knew going in. Just was not expecting gas to climb like it has and stay there. I would prefer the 3:73's myself I think. That's what my Tacoma has. My biggest problem with GM trucks is their minimal gear offerings. Hate the new trucks that come with 3:08 and 3:42. What crap. I'll be keeping my Tacoma for a long while but might pickup a bigger truck somewhere along the way to have around the farm.