It sounds like you had a good time. The MPG's you saw in your economy driving mode are misleading. These trucks( all of them) will get nowhere near what you saw on the liometer.

The numbers are already out and the MPG's will be only 1 MPG better than the 2010's except for the Ecoboost.

New engines not much difference overall except for the Ecoboost.

 

I will say this, the friggin' prices of new trucks still blows my mind.

I'd love a Screw XLT with the 5.0L or EB but at $36K give or take...........yikes !!!!

 

I want to know why Ford is holding out on the EPA MPG numbers for the Ecoboost. That's what I really want to see.
I agree on the price of the new trucks, jeez, Score you an x plan pin and that'll probably knock off a good chunk.

 

I believe we are all looking for the EB MPG numbers as well.
Honestly, what I am looking for is a decent crew cab 4x4 rig that can consistently get and honest 22mpg+ highway in reasonable conditions and driving habits (ie. 70mph non-towing) etc. Even a crew cab Tacoma can't get that with the V6 and it isn't anywhere near a full size truck.
Like I said earlier I would love to see a Crew with the 3.7L and 4x4 int he XLT trim level. Unfortunately the closest thing I was able to piece together was an extended cab STX with some options and then it got to the $32K+ range and there ain't no way I'm paying north of $30K for an STX with a base engine...........I wonder what the pricing would be on an STX crew with EB 4x4 if they offer it.....

 

Ethanol evoperates faster than gasoline.If several days go by without filling up there is a difference between the computer and hand calulations.Some of it evaporated through the carbon canister.The more the ethanol the more the evaporation.
If you make a trip and fill up the same day the computer will be faily close.I noticed this on a 8000 mile trip I took out west.
Ethanol has a lower vapor point, as well as flash point, than regular petrol. that's why most oil companies consider it rather dangerous to use pure ethanol for cars - because all the vapor in the gas tank when it's half empty is easy to ignite.

 

The MPG read-out on these trucks is completely inaccurate when they are brand new. My FX4 showed 20+ MPG's all the way home from Dallas (where I bought it with 30 miles on it). After filling, I found that I actually got 14 mpg. I now have 4k miles and average 15 with mixed driving, which is pretty close to the reading on the dash... I have never seen anything close to the 20 mpg that my truck was showing when it was new. My truck also feels much more powerful now than it did new. It takes a while for everything to get 'loosened up'. Which version of the 5.4L did you own (comparison)?

edit: WV-150 - Ethanol has a much HIGHER flash point than gasoline. It is less volatile than gasoline, which is why E85 has a much higher octane rating...

Brandon

 

Wrong... ethanol flashes at 16.6C and autoignites at 363C... pure gasoline flashes at -43C and autoignites at 246C.

Furthermore, the gas tank is sealed - that's why they test the cap at your yearly inspection. Neither fuel is magically evaporating out of your tank, causing the numbers to be off.

There's nothing inherently dangerous about using pure ethanol to power a vehicle, assuming the motor and fuel system have been adapted to tolerate it. The main reason for E85 is cold-starting - without special cold-start systems or a gasoline reservoir, the lower evaporative pressure of ethanol makes cold-starting below 15C difficult.

 

Honestly if I can get 15-18MPG avarage out of a 5.0L FX4 extended cab I will be happy. I know that the Fuel Econ readouts can be innacurate sometimes in cars. I once drove a 6.0L Powered Subarban that showed me getting 26mpg!? I know that one was wayyy off.

As for the comparison, I haven't personally owned a 5.4L F-150 but I have a friend who Owns a 2009 XLT Crew Cab 4x4 with a 5.4L and 3:55 Rear end. I have gotton substantial wheel time in his truck and I used it as my general comparison to the 2011 trucks that I drove.

 

I'd bite at the 5.0 for best all around motor! I can guarantee that it will last longer than the Ecoboost & cheaper in the long run! That is how I look at things! The long run!

 

I drove an F-150 FX4 Ecoboost yesterday and I was very impressed. I did not notice any lag when I floored it but I drive a 7.3 Excursion. It was very quiet with plenty of power. The guy said in his driving around town he gets about 18 mpg. Not sure if that was had calculated or from the lie-o-meter. Either way if it includes test drives every one wants to see what it will do that could still be impressive.

 

I agree with the guys that think the 5.0 is the star of the show for the first couple years as far as sales and all around motor. I'm sure the EB is impressive and will have great performance figures etc. but I'll wait and see how the engineering is from a long term maintenance and "issues" standpoint. There is a lot more to go wrong with a twin turbo set-up than a traditional V-8. I'd be curious what it takes to get a EB to 150K miles or more vs. the 5.0L.

I'm also going to be very interested in what people are getting for real world mpg as they live with the new trucks and they are broken in.

But as I said earlier, I'm damn impressed with the direction Ford went.

 

Great review. I did the Ford drive a month ago at Fontana Speedway and felt the same about the Eco-boost and 5.0. The 6.2 I drove was in a Harley with 22" rims and plowed much more than the others in the slalom course. The added weight didn't help. The Eco towing a 6,000 lb. trailer was very impressive.
I'm glad I waited for the new motors, ordered a lariat 4X4 with a 5.0 2 weeks ago.

 

I think its funny so many people are skeptical of fords new ECO boost. Do you honestly think that you know more than the guys that build and test that engine? Do think ford would risk putting this engine in there truck if it couldnt do that job?

I have complete faith that the eco boost will deliver just as every engine before it. I cant think of any engine has ever had that has had major problems. People like to bash the plug spitting problem on the mod motors and the coolant leaking on the v6, but do you really realize how small of precentage there are that deal with that? Id like to see those actual numbers. People on forums get a skewed prespective due to the fact people go to forums because they have problems, so thats all you see. The actual number of problems to trucks is nothing.


All of fords new engine will deliver. They have to much at stake, and to many peoples eye on the new changes. If it where to flop they would be in bad shape.

Hell i havent seen an engine that wont go 200k in a vehicle today. How many people buy a vehicle and run them that long. Not many. Its all in the numbers guys.

Thats my .02.

 

I think the skepticism is very reasonable. I mean c'mon 6.oh-no? Sure it was an international engine, but Ford's engineers programmed the PCM for that motor to run in a ford chassis. Same arguments were hashed out back then as well, "Do you think Ford would take the risk of downsizing the 7.3 to a 6.0 without knowing what they're doing?". The engineers work with models and computer aided engineering. They can only take in so many variables when they build and test an engine. The ultimate test will time and time again always be time. But with today's engineering programs, I think the ecoboost will do very well. The concept has been proven in europe and by GM on smaller displacement motors already.

 

For the long run, I will stick with the 5.0 V8! I'm not knockin the Ecoboost Mill, however I tend to hold onto things for quite some time & feel that the 5.0 would be cheaper & less problematic for 200-300K miles!