I took a test drive of an Ecoboost F-150 today. I will probably be purchasing one soon as I love the truck and it's fittings.

But I was struck while watching the instantaneous MPG display, how little has changed despite the many engine advances.

My context is as the owner of a 1998 small-block 8, Expedition. The Expy has been a great truck and averaged ~17-18 mpg over it's 200K miles, often exceeding 20 mpg on the highway.

The Ecoboost I drove today is about the same...

 

The Ecoboost has a whole lot more power than the 4.6 and 5.4 and can achieve similar or better fuel economy. Not to mention the F150's are shaped pretty much like a brick for general aerodynamics. It's a step in the right direction, IMO. If we all weren't so power hungry, maybe our engines would get better fuel economy, then we would all complain about engine power being down. As technology advances and possibly with some weight reduction, we my see better fuel numbers.

 

I was told by a dealer that we shouldn't expect good milage from the eco-boost engines until 3000 miles are knocked back at which time the truck's ECU thinks the engine is broken in and changes the fuel, valve timing, and ignition maps.

Hearsay until confirmed.

Moreover, demo trucks do a lot of idling and WOT because people are fiddling around asking how to sync their bluetooth phone and whacking open the throttle on test drives.

Notwithstanding, I ordered an EB today.

 

I agree


I'm planning on ordering one sometime next week.

 

As I said, I'll probably be ordering too.

My test drive wasn't influenced by others. I was using the instantaneous mpg display the whole time, which shows the averages over the prior 5 minutes.

 

What is the weight of the F150 compared to the old Expy? I believe a big problem with gas mileage of full size pickups is that they keep getting taller and heavier.

My '78 F100 short bed flareside weighed 3600 lbs, I believe the payload was 1600 lbs (more than most current F150's) and got 22 mpg on the road with a 300 inch six and 4 speed manual OD. It would have never pulled a trailer, but over 20 mpg back then was excellent out of any full size pickup. I ordered it new because I had a 60 mile roundtrip commute and was pretty young and broke back then. It was my first brand new vehicle.

I wonder what kind of gas mileage the Ecoboost or even the base 3.7 would get in a mid size pickup (Dakota sized, maybe) that came in well under 4000 lbs (I'm thinking mid-high 20's) and with a bit of streamlining on the front end...or even in my old '78 flareside. You have to know that performance would also be great.

George

 

A shortbed XL with a 3.7 gets better gas milage than your old '78 and can carry more and tow more.

My prior generation F150 could carry more and tow more than my old 1980 F250.

 

Absolutely agreed on the shortbed 3.7 XL, and it still outweighs my '78 by 1000 lbs. Now imagine if they could get 1000 lbs off the truck and reduce the frontal area. (And with my bad back, I don't like the 8 foot lift height on the new beds either.)

There are so many different specs involved with your 1980 F250 and your recent F150 that I'll believe you, but I bet the old F250 was lighter and smaller as well.

The next "gas crisis" is upon us, and these gas spike cycles will not let up in the future. I have praised Ford for offering the 3.7 in the F150; they are well poised for pretty darn good fuel economy in a big truck. (Fleets should do very well with these.)

I'd actually like something like a modernized Ranger (or like the first gen Dakota) with a modern normally aspirated 3.5 or 3.7 in it if I were looking for a pickup. Target would be 30 mpg highway, which the Mustang can exceed with the 3.7. And they'd still run really well. I remember being impressed at the '86 Ranger with the 2.9 V6 (was it the STX model, maybe?) in it as a nice little hotrod pickup.

George

 

If Ford lost the extra weight, as the state of the art rests today, the truck couldn't pass the crash tests or emissions requirements and we wouldn't have ABS.

 

This is such an important thing to remember as we have our much varied gas mileage discussions.

The ecoboost that I test drove had a max payload of 1610 lbs and a max tow of 11,200 lbs. It was a 157" wheel base truck with 4x4 and 3.73 axles.

The truck had 17,000 miles on it and the Ford rep reported to me that his mpg's from Detroit to Virginia doing 80 were 17-19.

I'm just not seeing how any of this is a bad thing.

 

I am offen puzzled by the MPG threads even the ones I have started. It seems we all want to have a towing/hauling/racing machine but want the MPGs of hybrid sorry guys and gals it ain't happening. My truck gets 16 MPGs on average but my MBZ sedan gets 30 MPGs so guess which is for commuting and which is for farming/fun. I drive about 30K a year so the more I drive the MBZ the more dollars I have to feed the F-150. Just my two cents, Chris.

 

The point I was trying to make was that over the course of 12 years, we should have made more dramatic advances in engine technology than we have.

Yes, there are advances. More power and torque. Better acceleration. Etc.

But a net no-change in efficiency? I would have hoped for better.

 

Sir, if you could imagine these engines and transmissions in a 4000 lb truck VS a 6000 lbs truck, the difference in mpg's would be dynamic.

In many cases, these trucks are a ton heavier yet still carry higher payload and tow ratings than their fore bearers and still achieve the same or better mpg's.

It sounds to me t hat we've made huge strides in the truck world. Not a koolaide sipper here, just how I see it.

 

I had to jump in on this one...

Comparing your 4.6 to the Ecoboost

215 hp vs 365hp
290 ft*lb vs 420 ft*lb
4.6L vs 3.5L
AND using your figures, the same mileage

With all due respect, what don't you see regarding advances? Years ago if someone told me they could get that much power out of a small V6 I would have laughed. If that same person said you could get it in a pickup rated to tow 11,300 pounds I would have really thought they fell off their rocker.

The valve train and the turbo system on these motors is far from being simple. If it was that simple the competition would have strapped a turbo on their venerable 3.8 and called it a day. I think what Ford has done is remarkable with the Ecoboost.

This whole argument harkens back to when Ford's 6.0 came out - all of the 7.3 drivers came out and said the exact same things people are saying about the Ecoboost (maintenance issues aside )forgetting the fact that these motors are smaller and much more efficient.

I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid either. I ordered a Platinum F150 Ecoboost after owning an Ecoboost powered Flex - these motors are amazing!

Eric

 

Great first post Eric! Welcome to FTE BTW.