Ford did not create the MPG numbers for any of there vehicles. THE EPA takes care of that.

So apparently the EPA (who does not care about ford making a damn dollar) listed the trucks as capeable of those mileages.

Just FYI for ya

 

very true.

i'm wondering if we're seeing a byproduct of the automakers pandering to the EPA testing procedure.

I guess i'm not saying they are, and i'm not saying they aren't, it just seems likely that they know how to make their engines perform the best on a known set of testing procedures. Perhaps at the expense of real world information.

all the makers are working very hard to meet EPA fleet averages, so you have to figure they are using every trick in the book, including building for the testing procedure specificially.

 

I think the main thing we are seeing is the negative affects of instant everything. We never used to have images of our MPG in front of us on the dash, in several formats. These newer engines have a wider range of mpg, starting around the same low point as past engines when they are worked hard, but topping out higher than previous engines if finessed. You can tell by reading these posts that many don't know how to interpret the data and never read their manuals to find out the criteria used to report the data. Read the posts and see how many complain about driving around town for x minutes/miles and they have that low mpg number burned in their brain. But when they report their overall mpg it is usually dead on the projected EPA mpg (16 - 17mpg average). The same holds true for either engine. And if you read how the EPA tests for mpg, you would see that they don't use 70-80mph for highway tests. The average speed they use to obtain highway mpg is 45mph.
I'm an impartial observer at this point, still shopping. I can see from the hundreds of reports I've read that both engines get "as advertised" mpg with the 3.5 slightly edging out the 5.0. Both good engines with an improvement in MPG over past engines. And both with more power, but with the 3.5 having an advantage down low with power to spare when under a load.

 

Yes, plenty of people saying "I reset the trip and drove 1/2 mile and the stupid truck only got 12MPG". Of course, that 1/2 mile was an onramp. My Escape gets 2MPG if I reset the meter while sitting at a traffic light lol.

 

Perhaps someone can shed some light on this: As Ford does not recommend alcohol-blended fuel for the EcoBoost, does that mean the EPA would have tested the truck with regular gas (as in, no ethanol)? If that's the case, that right there could explain why people see low fuel mileage, as most of the country is running E10 at this point. E10 vs. regular dino will almost always result in lower fuel mileage by about 10%.

 

I would say its the drivers that are making the difference. As i have stated in other threads. Some people claim to drive nice, but honestly they dont know how to. They still accerlarate hard, and workt he throttle while on the highway.

70mph let off 62mph get on it, 70mph get off, 62mph get on it.... i have rode with lots of people that are incapeable of maintaining speed. Anytime you make the 3.5 build boost, aka accelerate from 62-70mph 3 times per mile, your mpg are going to drop.

This is just an example, but a very legitimate one.

 

Speaking of driving down the highway () and a general lack of skill of others, I want to say right now that THE LEFT LANE IS FOR PASSING.
Thank You

 

That settles it: I am keeping my '02 5.4! Heheheheheheh, one day, I will trade it for someting else, but I think with any decent REAL truck, you are not going to get Escort type gas mileage... I'm happy with 14 - 18 with my 5.4. And, my annual license (tag) fee is only $25.00 now that it is officially 10 years old! That was a great surprise when I renewed my tag this year! Oh well, 5.0 or Ecoboost - hmmm, I have to drive these new ones. I would probably go with the 5.0.

 

I want the 6.2. The best power plant in the whole lineup. Cubic inches is still king. There is no replacement for displacement!

 

I think the EcoBoost and 5.0 are the best of all of the engines. Which makes me assume that an EcoBoost 5.0 V8 would be absolutely incredible. Ford should get rid of the 6.2 and replace it with a EB 5.0!

 

Will their transmissions hold up to it? An Ecoboost 5.0L will likely be putting out diesel numbers, they'll need to overcome the heat problems created from the larger turbos and they'll likely need a much larger transmission.

 

i still have to laugh every time i hear someone say that.

yet the eco boost is a what... 3.5L making 365HP compared to the 6.2L at 411... well lets just throw some more random thoughts as well.... ford 6.2L 411hp, yet a 6.8L (more cubic inches correct) weighs in at 365HP.... now grasp this one, the 5.0L is rated at a crazy 360HP.... that FIVE less than the 6.8L.... the 6.2L is a direct replacement for the 6.8L (smaller CID more power) mainly for the Super Duty class that dribbled down to the F150's, the Ecoboost is the new 5.4L, and the 5.0L is the in-between similar to the 4.6L....


seems to me you're theory is disproved right there. the 6.2L is making 46HP more.... yet there's almost 2.7L more.....

here is a thread with some video clips, yes i'll admit the 6.2 takes the races by a majority, BUT in your theory that 6.2 should have beet him probably by 1/2 a track length....?

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...ace-clips.html

people just have to face it, engine CID doesn't mean the biggest and baddest any more! but you can always go back to a bone stock 460 with 285ish HP/385 TQ if you're dead serious about cubic inches.... just sayin.

 

Yeah with that old theory, there would be no point me selling my 5.4 because it is automatically better than both the 5.0 and EcoBoost, and it almost as good as a 6.2 there would be no point upgrading to that.


I think a beefed-up version of the 8R70 would be nice. Close-ratio with flappy paddles please! Same powertrain in the Mustang too!

 

Last weekend when I test drove the Ecoboost I had to ask the salesperson that went with me how I would know with the turbos kick in. She told me I really needed to punch it, so I did. I must admit it was fun. That being said, I was able to get on the highway up to 70 mph without the turbos ever doing thier thing. I very rarely accelerate hard when getting on the highway unless traffic is heavy and I see a space where I can get in and messing around is not gonna work. So, I am excited to see how my 4x4 Ecoboost with the 3:73 rear end does with my driving style. I will report in 6-12 weeks.

 

which is why they still offer the 460 ... oh wait ..

i mean v10 ... oh wait ...

the 6.2 is the proverbial dinosaur of the current engine lineup in the half ton market, and has the worst overall efficiency of the bunch.

i'm not saying it doesn't have it's place .... i'm just saying it ain't all that.