Last post on Apr 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM
You are in the Ford F-Series
What is this discussion about?
Ford F-150, Truck
#18 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [explorerx4]
Jan 22, 2011 (7:00 pm)
I'm objective, not a ford nuthugger, I like the f150, I like the 5.0, I don't like the price, Chevy has the Ford on Price BIG time, 5.3 is a good motor and for me, its enough, dealer coming over 8500 off sticker, ford 3500 on the 5.0 and actually talking about sticker price on the 3.5, no way, all the 3.5's are 40k plus, the all star chevy is about 27k, 5.3, extended cab, 4wd, which has an auto option, best in the class, set it forget it, skid plates, heavy duty trailer/tow/cooling pack. So hmm, lets see 40k for the ford and 27k for the chevy and they are rated same mileage?? 50hp, I don't need it, chip/k&n I got it or close for about 500 bucks and even better mileage.
The only reason I would get the ecorooster is to chip it and run it even harder, but Ford has such a short warranty, why bother.
Anyone that knows about turbos just look at bmw, the 335 first two years, ran SUPER hot, the turbos glowed, I'll pass, explorer tell us about your superbooster when it arrives, I am sure its a great truck, just not worth the bucks, the superduty or gm hd are better bets, even dodge with cummins.
#19 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [explorerx4]
Jan 23, 2011 (10:32 am)
Sorry, but my main point is that the very same V6 with a DFI "standard" compression ratio of 12:1 would easily have a HP rating of ~300 and a rather dramatic FE improvement.
Ask yourself why the new 2011 Ford Explorer is available with a V6 but without DFI, 12:1 CR, and the cognizant FE improvement. What is Ford hiding behind the curtain..?
Why does Ford think a turbo must be bolted to a DFI engine in order to get more reasonable, by today's "standards" FE...??
Why not provide the public with the option, DFI V6 with 12:1 CR and decent FE, or the Gas-guzzling EcoBoost/TwinForce version with substandard CR in order to accommodate, RARELY accommodate, BOOST.
Why run a DFI engine in detuned/derated mode, relatively POOR FE, 98-99% of the time...?
How many of us, given the choice, would choose 300HP and stellar FE over 350HP and relatively horrid FE...?
Why is the 2011 Ford Explorer with the EcoBoost/Twinforce Gas-Guzzling engine to be available only as FWD..?? Only way to compensate for the Gas-Guzzling effect and get relatively decent FE...?
Ford Explorer, 2011, CASTRATED version.
#20 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [curt1234]
Jan 23, 2011 (10:45 am)
"..Anyone that knows about turbos just look at BMW..."
Even worse, look at Mazda's HORRID track record with the CX-7 turbo.
Mazda, Ford's platform sharing partner, engineering know-how expertise sharing, cross-licensing, etc, etc.
They are, or course, sharing in the extraordinarily HIGH driveline component failures of the F/awd Escape/Mariner/Tribute. Maybe Ford just wants to share in the turbo failure rate Mazda is experiencing with the CX-7..?
Ford says they want the EcoBoost engine design to be used across their product line, 90%, within just a few years. Like that's gonna happen with their current marketing and pricing structure. EcoBoost available ONLY on the pricier/upscale product models, and even then only with a $3,000-6,000 option pricing.
Yeah, now THAT's going to get the attention of 90% of Ford buyers, just not the type of attention Ford says they want.
Like listening to X-VP Cheney speaking with "forked" tongue and twisted smile.
#21 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [wwest]
Jan 23, 2011 (3:02 pm)
I would have to agree with (wwest), if i'm ordering a truck I would expect to be pretty damn close to invoice plus whatever rebates are available at delivery,I don't care which brand i'm purchasing. And the reality is f-150 has a terrible trade in allowance. I was looking to purchase a new 2010 f-150 with msrp at 44,500. But when I checked with kbb for trade-in allowance of that exact same vehicle with zero miles it came in at a mere 27,400. at the excellent end.
#22 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [curt1234]
Jan 29, 2011 (6:41 pm)
50hp for 10,000 na, I'll pass, Ford Finally has powerful engines, I can buy a 2000 Chevy that still has a strong motor...
Not a 2000 5.3. I had a '00 Suburban and it was a DOG when towing anything and that was with 3.73 gears. My current 07 Expedition pulls up hills in 4th gear at 3k going 65mph that the burb would have to be in 2nd spinning over 4k rpm and barely over 50mph (6speed would certainly help). Then all that thrashing about. The 5.3 sounded like a scalded dog after a 2 mile 6 degree grade. The 3v 5.4 is not the greatest v8 in the world, but it's not short on torque, and it doesn't have to rev a bunch to produce it.
It's about torque and gearing when it comes to trucks. That's why I find the Ecoboost interesting. I'd love to have a 1/2 ton diesel, but with EPA regs etc., it doesn't look like that's in the cards. Plus many I know with the latest HD diesels are having lots of problems (Ford, GM, and Dodge). I'm not an engineer, but it seems diesels don't take well to all the pollution controls.
None of them are perfect. When I've had Chevys, the engines were reliable, but the rest of the truck sucked and with Ford's I've had engine issues but the rest of the truck has held up. I can't win with either.
#23 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [curt1234]
Feb 24, 2011 (12:18 pm)
took delivery of my new f150 ecoboost... options: FX Luxury Premium Package, DVD, Leather, 3.73 limited slip, 4x4, 11300 tow weight, 6.5' bed, supercrew.... truck is bad a**... i have had it for 3 days.... all I want to do is drive... truck rides better than my 04 acura tl.... as far as power goes, i haven't trailered anything yet, hope too early spring... driving the truck to florida with my family... should be a great drive.... smooth on the highway...gas mileage is difficult to estimate since the remote start has been used several times since our weather has been cold and icy... guestimating i should get close to 20-24 mpg....
#24 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [bkelly9874]
Mar 08, 2011 (11:26 am)
I would love to hear what kind of mileage you are getting with the eco-boost. I have a 2010 FX4 and I am just under 16 combined. This new engine has the potential to be a game changer. While I have only seen a few out so it is hard to tell what kind of mileage it will get, it could be in my interest to swap a 2010 for a 2011 eco-boost. Sounds crazy but a combined 21 would be 30% increase. With gas more likely to be $4 a gallon for a while than $3, that's $600 per year on 10K miles.
#25 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [twweber]
Mar 08, 2011 (1:53 pm)
Unless you happen to have a lead foot, or your operations are often, more than say, 70%, high in the engine power band the combined 16 MPG you are now getting will be a keeper. The hwy/cruise mileage with the detuned/derated EcoBoost Gas-guzzling engine will undoubtedly be worse.
#26 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [wwest]
Mar 09, 2011 (7:18 am)
You may be correct. My hope is that Edmunds/CR/Car & Driver takes an eco boost and runs an extended road test on it. I want to see what it gets regularly for 5 - 10K or more in miles. My sticker was 14/18/15 and I am there at 9K in miles. The sticker on the new 5.0's is 14/19/16. In other words, no difference. The sticker on the eco boost (which is clearly a question mark due to the unknowns on the engine) is 15/21/17. No way I would swap for that.
Barring something unexpected, my horizon is probably Dec 2011 to Apr 2012 before I would do anything. By then, the performance of this engine should be much more clear.
I should mention that my employer has Ford as a client so I have access to the supplier discount. In the past, this has meant any F150 but the Raptor below invoice with rebates and offers on top of that. Those numbers make my math better, but not enough for 2 mpg.
#27 of 236 Re: 2011 Ford F150 Eco Boost [twweber]
Mar 09, 2011 (7:57 am)
15/21/17. No way I would swap for that.
Considering the EB has nearly as much torque output as the 6.2 which only has a 12/16 rating. I'd say it's at minimum worth looking into.
I'm open to the idea of an EB in my Expedition if it were to be offered. 80 ft-lbs more torque at 1k rpm lower, 60 more HP, and better FE vs. the 5.4. I'm definitely interested. The 5.0 is definitely sweet, but I don't know if it has enough torque at low rpm. It gets old having to rev an engine past 4k rpm all of the time for pulling power
Sure, I'd love a diesel, but considering I'd have to go 3/4 ton spend nearly $8k more just for the diesel to get marginally better fuel economy (much heavier truck) then pay 50 cents or more a gallon makes something like the Ecoboost a viable option for those of us that tow 5-8k lb trailers on the weekends.
For someone who tows all of the time, the diesel makes far more sense.