My local ford dealership had 3 eco-boost f-150's in today for test driving. They were preproduction trucks. I was allowed to drive one with a ford rep for about 15 minutes. I was able to run it down the highway for about a mile then a few back roads. I am now driving a 2001 F150 Supercrew 5.4l 4x4 3.55 gears and oversized tires. This truck was similar 4x4 FX4 3.73 gears. So in comparison (or lack thereof), the power was unbelievable. The acceleration was crazy. It was a lot more faster then my old Audi TT. The ford rep said driving 75+ down the highway he gets about 19-20 mpg but keeping your foot out of the gas you could probably do much better. But with this truck I think that may be hard to do. It was awesome and I hope to be ordering mine in the next few months. One feature I really liked was the backup camera in the tailgate to hook up the boat, when you put it in reverse a screen appears for about the left 1/3 of the rear view mirror on the windsheild. I could go on all night but I won't.
It does have the 2 lines, they start out green far away then yellow then red, so when an object is in the red your are real close, I think that is real helpful for depth perception.
No doubt that engine took some abuse, but I'm not convinced on the 150K miles (equivelent of) on the dyno. The truck I have now shows about 65K miles and about 1990 engine hours. The ecoboost engine was ran hard, but I can't see an engine with ~400 hours having 150K miles on it. Due to the issues I've had with my current truck I'm really looking at the ecoboost hard. I would still like to see some fuel economy numbers on an ecoboost with 3.73 gears. The tourque curve on the ecoboost was very impressive.
The torque curve of the V6 ecoboost would be perfect for a wake boat! How hard would it be to rig a turbo (versus a supercharger) in a water cooled exhaust environment?
There are plenty of turbocharged hot boats running around. As long as your turbo is in front of the water stream introduced into the exhaust you are good to go. This would be a very good platform as long as full boost could be achieved at the prop stall speed.
Greg, they won't release gear specifiic numbers so you'll just have to hope for someones real world experience. Hopefully, I'll be able to spend some time in one and post my results but as it is now my next truck will be the 5.0.
The 150K is an equivelant as far as abuse goes obvioulsy it doesn't translate like your truck. They'd have to have it running at 375MPH non stop. The engines are hammered on in those dyno's and they can replicate real world and beyond but obviously its a little different than actual real world.
I was all excited about this truck and then I took a look at the window sticker and it showed 15mpg in the city and 22mpg on the highway. I have a copy of my 2001 Silverado 5.3 and it shows 15mpg and 19mpg highway. I can't believe that after 10 years of new technolgy trucks are getting only one more mpg. Maybe it has more torque and speed than my 1500. Gonna go test drive one.
I was all excited about this truck and then I took a look at the window sticker and it showed 15mpg in the city and 22mpg on the highway. I have a copy of my 2001 Silverado 5.3 and it shows 15mpg and 19mpg highway. I can't believe that after 10 years of new technolgy trucks are getting only one more mpg. Maybe it has more torque and speed than my 1500. Gonna go test drive one.
The way cars are rated has changed and lowered the MPG on average 2 miles per. Not to mention is also has roughly 80 more HP and 100 more lb/ft of torque it also much larger.
that's what I was kinda thinking because it seems like i get less than 15mpg in the 1500. What do you think the mileage on the ecoboost would be towing a vxl on a flat road going 65mpg. Do you think there is anyway to get more than 16mpg out of the ecoboost with city driving. With the price of gas the way it is I'm looking to get a new truck with the best mileage possible and I do primarily city driving if I'm not towing the boat.
Is the Ecoboost selectable? I thought I saw on one of Ford's car commercial that there was a button allowing the turbo to either function or not function? If this is the case, could you get your truck up to speed while towing using the turbo mode, then switch to non-turbo for maintaining cruising speed with less gas usage? Or does the ECM do this automatically based on load?
I'd be real interested to see what kind of fuel mileage you see from the 5.0 and the ecoboost w/3.73s in it. I realize this may be a while, but keep us posted.
on fords f150 build site, the ecoboost is available. $750 over the 5.0L. Good job ford, that is what, 70lbft over the 5.0 for $750? Cant wait to finish school and get me an ecoboost. America, F#$@ Yeah
Is the Ecoboost selectable? I thought I saw on one of Ford's car commercial that there was a button allowing the turbo to either function or not function? If this is the case, could you get your truck up to speed while towing using the turbo mode, then switch to non-turbo for maintaining cruising speed with less gas usage? Or does the ECM do this automatically based on load?
Sure it wasn't the commercial for the NIssan Juke?
Sounds like a plan.Since I live in California could you have one shipped to a local dealer near me or would I need to go to WA to pick it up? May see if I can get another year out of my Silverado but it has close to 200K miles and the tranny is starting to slip. I loved the Chevy but won't buy another GM product since the goverment bailed them out.
Is the Ecoboost selectable? I thought I saw on one of Ford's car commercial that there was a button allowing the turbo to either function or not function? If this is the case, could you get your truck up to speed while towing using the turbo mode, then switch to non-turbo for maintaining cruising speed with less gas usage? Or does the ECM do this automatically based on load?
wait, why would you not want the turbo to function? Wouldnt that just put a strain on the motor making it less efficient hurting milage? any boost at all is helping, when cruising my truck maintains 6-9lbs of boost if i remember correctly, i know its diesel, but the idea of the turbo doesnt change....
@Joey C: You might be correct. I was thinking that in non-turbo mode the engine has significantly less ability to generate force because it is unable able to combust as much fuel due to the air not being compressed. Under less demanding loads such as already at speed, switching to a lower power mode might safe fuel. I am probably way off base.
@Timmy!: You may correct. It may have been the Juke. I was thinking it was for a Ford sedan.
@Joey C: You might be correct. I was thinking that in non-turbo mode the engine has significantly less ability to generate force because it is unable able to combust as much fuel due to the air not being compressed. Under less demanding loads such as already at speed, switching to a lower power mode might safe fuel. I am probably way off base.
@Timmy!: You may correct. It may have been the Juke. I was thinking it was for a Ford sedan.
I think the only way to "turn off" the turbo would be if it was variable geometry...and even then it would be causing a strain on the system, simply obstructing air flow. I guess what most people dont realize is that for the most part, more power is more efficient and will allow for better milage if you can keep your foot out of it! This doesnt go for heavily modded vehicles with huge injectors though!
The more air into the motor, the more complete of a burn you can get, im pretty confident in my saying that "turning off" the turbo wouldnt help anyone with milage. Colder air is more dense, hence "cold air" intake, and why many people will include a temperature when talking about quarter/eighth mile times.
The eco-boost thing has my attention. I'm in the market for a truck.
But I just checked out some fords online and found the msrp to be 50K on a new F-150 Lariat. 50 GRAND!!!! Yikes.
I don't see how people can spend that kind of money to drive. I guess I'll be waiting a few years until the used market gets some Eco-boosts in inventory.
Lionel, having driven and owned a lot of late model turbo's I predict there wont be any lag. The days of turbo lag are effectively over. Between fueling strategies, variable vane turbo's and much more sophisticated technology they've effectively found great ways to keep port velocities and turbo efficiency way up. Turbos are the way of the future for gasoline motors (they've already taken over for diesel's).
Great explinatino Guido. There are two smaller turbos that spin up much faster than a single large one virtually eliminating turbo lag. In the F150 90% of your torque is available at 1750 RPM's.
I saw this on youtube its a 2011 Eco-boost racing a 2011 chevy 5.3 off the line and it really not a race.
I have been think about getting a new truck in the next year and the 150 is really giving my second thoughts
about buying a diesal.
Also I saw another video were they took a ford taurus Eco-boost only reprogramed the engine and got like 70 more hp.
I think that truck could be slightly modded and really turn some heads.
Last edited by jonblarc7; 01-22-2011 at 7:21 AM.
Reason: needed to add a link
It'll definitely be the modder's choice. I probably wouldn't mess with it, but, just like a diesel there will be plenty of performace to be had if you want to go that route.
Go 1:05 in and watch it off the line towing 9k against the Ram with a 5.7 liter motor and 3.92 gears that boasts 390hp 407tq.
Interesting that at some point the Ram made up a huge deficit and only lost by 3.6 seconds in the 3.5 mile stretch whereas the Chevy just lost ground the whole way. I think the Ecoboost is going to be a hot seller!
If it's the same as the article I read the Chevy was fitted with tall freeway (something like 3.56 gears) while the Ford and Dodge had towing rear ends with 4.11 or so gears. So the initial off the line performance really had more to do with the Ford having a low first gear in addition to the low towing gears. This is really a better demonstration of what advantages can be had via gears than it is a demonstration of the Ford's power. Everything said I would say that the Dodge was the clear winner since it was gaining on the Ford once things got rolling. Still the eco-boost is an amazing motor when you consider the fuel economy it achieves while providing this much power.
actually just watched the video, it lists the axle ratios:
Ford rear axle 3.73
Chevy rear axle 3.42
Dodge rear axle 3.92
From a 10mph rolling start the Dodge would have been ahead the whole distance. Would be interesting to see what a Chevy with a 3.73 rear axle would do maybe a 6.0L motor too.
Chevy changed their first gear ratio when they went to the 6 speed trans and that's why they come with a 3.42 now and I believe that the 3.42 is supposed to be the equivalent of the 3.73 with the 4 speed when you are in the lower gears and then the 5th and 6th have nice over drive to try and get fuel mileage.
Dodge was the clear winner since it was gaining on the Ford once things got rolling. Still the eco-boost is an amazing motor when you consider the fuel economy it achieves while providing this much power
It had 3.5 miles to catch the Ford and didn't...I don't see it the same way, except the part about the eco-boost being an amazing motor . The reason for this test wasn't necessarily to win but rather to show that the V6 can hang with V8's in an effort to change buyer perception as well as show the durability of the motor.
If Ford wanted to put our best against their best for raw power we'd have the 6.2 going against them.
I'd like to see the 6.2 vs the Eco Boost. My guess is that it's a close matchup and the only reason Ford is making the 6.2 is because there are uneducated people that think the V8 is the only way to go. This obviously wasn't a test of best vs best. At least Ford has the lockdown on the gas engines because they get their azz handed to them in the diesel uphill challenge
Timmy is right on about the Chevy with the 6 speed. They've shortened first gear and put a taller ratio in the rear end to achieve better economy numbers and maintain hauling capacity. The Chevy with the 6.2 is a monster. The real race would be between that and the new Ford 6.2.
This is a solid comparison though of the fuel economy minded trucks in the real world. Pretty impressive.
Coming from someone who hates new technology, fuel injection, and all these failure-prone electronic gadgets... I just read a few articles and saw pictures of the "torture test" breakdown, and I'm impressed. I still doubt I'd ever buy a new truck as it would have to get insanely good MPG to pay for itself and I require certain things, solid axle, bare bones no AC, no power windows, no gadgets, etc., just a bare bones truck with a lot of power, manual trans and transfer case, and solid axles.
Not my cup of tea but I'm sure it fits the bill for a lot of folks. This honestly is some impressive stuff Ford is doing. This is why they're the last red blooded American auto manufacturer. They innovate, try to deliver what the market is asking for. Not put their hand out and beg for money. Good job Ford!
I'd like to see the 6.2 vs the Eco Boost. My guess is that it's a close matchup and the only reason Ford is making the 6.2 is because there are uneducated people that think the V8 is the only way to go. This obviously wasn't a test of best vs best. At least Ford has the lockdown on the gas engines because they get their azz handed to them in the diesel uphill challenge
By the way, match up and lock down are two words - next time you should make sure you spell those two correctly when making a reference to "uneducated"
According to Dictionary.com,matchup is a word as islockdown. For the record, I was using them as slang. As far as uneducated goes, I was referring to people being educated on the actual engines of the trucks and not in general. You could have figured all of this out if you had used your context clues.
I'm a Chevy guy, but I have been very disappointed with my Trailblazer EXT with 5.3. It doesn't tow too bad with 3.42's and it did a pretty good job towing my friends 23' Malibu, but the gas mileage sucks! It stickered at 16/19 and it gets 13/17 (17 at best). I wonder if folks who use the DIC to monitor fuel usage aren't being lied to.
Anyway, this is not about my TB, but it is about how I started looking at Eboost. The vids are amazing! The driver reactions are surprising. Even reading the OP's drive, comparing it to a Audi TT, made my jaw drop! I want one but doubt I'll be able to convince myself to spend the jack on it. At any rate, maybe HnP you can make me a deal in Cali that I cannot turn down when I pick up my surf board blanks!
Here's another one that I saw last week before the one above was posted. There is literally no wear on this motor. I wonder if this is due to the quality of oil or the quality of engineering or both.
i read that toyota forum thread where that guy bashed the eco boost and someone else on there was stating that having the torque at 2500 rpm does nothing for him when pulling his boat out of the water. you really dont need that much power to pull boats out of the water people, just traction.
example, before i got my dodge hemi (wish i could have afforded the ford) i had a 2003 3.0l v6 ranger. 156 hp 180 torque. this truck pulled my moomba mobius lsv out of the water up the ramp without a problem and im guessing my rig is 5,000 lbs with all the gear loaded up. now if i were trying to cruise down the freeway in the ranger with the boat it was impossible to get any faster than about 50 mph. but pulling a boat out of the water is VERY easy for these trucks considering you have tons or torque reduction in 1st gear.
We've been towing our Vlx with the Ecoboost for a couple of months now. I'm very impressed with the truck, and that comes from a GM guy. I did a small write-up on this thread in the malibucrew: http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/...t/page__st__80
Sorry, I guess you have to be a member to access the Off-topic threads. There was some good discussion there. Here is what I posted:
Well, I towed the boat home today with the wife's new ride. It was about 120-mile trip, mostly highway, with no major hills and almost no wind (strange for Idaho). The truck towed very well. It pulled at 75 mph comfortably, occassionally hitting 80 also with no effort. Steady cruising at about 2300 rpm at 75 in 5th gear (electronic shifter). Occassionally, I'd put it in 6th and the rpm would drop to 1800, but it wouldn't maintain speed well there. The transmission oil temperature stayed at 195 the entire time. Mileage was right around 9 mpg. I saw as low as 8.5 and as high as 9.4 mpg. I don't know how it does around town or the hiway when not towing. I don't drive it in town often, and when I do I always hot rod it. It's a really fun truck to drive. And I know it's not good for the trailer tires to go at 75-80, but it was only 120 miles and I couldn't help myself
Overall, I'm very impressed with the F-150 and I'm a GM guy. Towing mileage is not as good as diesel, but no big surprise there. Here is a pic with the Vlx in tow:
Linear Mode
