+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By SteveLevin

Thread: Ford V6 EcoBoost - How Stout are They?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rolling Hills Estates
    Posts
    3,003
    Liked
    887 times

    Default Ford V6 EcoBoost - How Stout are They?

    Just one data point, but it does seem encouraging:

    Here's How A Ford F-150 EcoBoost Held Up After 200,000 Miles


  2. #2
    Senior Member fatbillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    by the beach
    Posts
    2,087
    Liked
    1720 times

    Default

    There is a joint Ford/Gm 10 speed autobox to be used in the corvette and F150 coming for the 2018 model year. Why not the mustang 1st is beyond me. Anyway the 10 speed is supposed to shift faster than the porsche pdk without all the headaches of those types of F1, PDK, DCT, CVT trannies. The 10 speed is supposed to be hot stuff.

  3. #3
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,639
    Liked
    2356 times

    Default

    There's a guy in NASA Mid-Atlantic that runs an Ecoboost in American Iron.

  4. #4
    Master of Disaster SteveLevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    2,216
    Liked
    609 times

    Default

    When we lived in Wyoming we saw a lot of EcoBoost trucks being used as, well, trucks. And with an altitude of over 6000', I suspect the turbos are working most of the time(and the cooling systems aren't as efficient). No one seemed to have issues.

    The downside was, there was precious little Eco; my boss' EcoBoost got the same mileage (within the margin of error) as my 5.3 Chevy.

    Steve

  5. #5
    Senior Member fatbillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    by the beach
    Posts
    2,087
    Liked
    1720 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveLevin View Post
    When we lived in Wyoming we saw a lot of EcoBoost trucks being used as, well, trucks. And with an altitude of over 6000', I suspect the turbos are working most of the time(and the cooling systems aren't as efficient). No one seemed to have issues.

    The downside was, there was precious little Eco; my boss' EcoBoost got the same mileage (within the margin of error) as my 5.3 Chevy.

    Steve

    But Eboost has higher tow can payload capacity.

  6. #6
    Master of Disaster SteveLevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    2,216
    Liked
    609 times

    Default

    The Marlboro Man was from Riverton, just a couple of hours from Cheyenne... I don't think they use manuals for anything but emergency kindling in Wyoming.

  7. #7
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,639
    Liked
    2356 times

    Default

    Displacement has become somewhat irrelevant to fuel mileage. The horsepower an engine can produce vis a vis duty cycle over time and the BTU of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline are what determine fuel economy. The Ecoboost makes roughly the same power as the 5.3, which at 125,000 BTU per gallon will net you largely similar mileage depending on duty cycle.

    I would argue the V8 is the better bet because of its torque at lower rpm, which is better for fuel economy.

  8. #8
    The Real Captain Slow Red_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    4,334
    Liked
    765 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ucfbrett View Post

    I would argue the V8 is the better bet because of its torque at lower rpm, which is better for fuel economy.
    The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost torque is rated at 420 ft lbs at 2500rpms which is knocking on the doors of similar sized turbo diesels. I would argue that the GM 6.2 is a better engine to compare to the Ecoboost. Yes the 6.2 has more hp and torque but the Ecoboost peak torque is at lower RPMs. I haven't been able to find a dyno graph for the Gam 6.2 to see how much power and torque it makes at various RPMs.
    99 Mazda Miata SuperMiata #515 - AKA Sparky SOLD
    '91 Mariner Blue Miata project AKA Napoleon

  9. #9
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,639
    Liked
    2356 times

    Default

    Another way to put it is that the longer your engine has to spend at or near peak power to make the truck go, pull the trailer, etc., the worse the fuel economy will be.

    An engine that creates peak horsepower up high, say 6,000 rpm with an early, broad and flat torque curve will get better mileage than one with "peaky" curves for horsepower and torque. The peaky engine would have to be spooled up to higher rpm with greater frequency to pull a load.

  10. #10
    Master of Disaster SteveLevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    2,216
    Liked
    609 times

    Default

    Don't get me wrong, I think the EcoBoost is a good engine. Neither it nor the 5.3 would keep me from buying the truck I liked more. (Nominally, I am a Ford man, but oh my God...Sync? It's like the car infotainment system right out of The Onion)

    My general feeling is that if you are looking at capacities, you're not buying enough truck. That doesn't mean we didn't do what would be considered crazy back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth (I've mentioned some of the old Datsun 1300 stories),but these days that kind of stuff seems to be frowned upon more.

    And for a Raptor, I might live with Sync...

    Steve
    Red_5 and bawareca like this.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts