But it's all good... Cheers 
is the Ecoboost misnamed ????
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 4
is the Ecoboost misnamed ????
just thinking out loud here.....if the v8 gets as good a gas mpgs and perhaps better is the v6 Ecoboost appropriately named??? power aside, its clear that it is a torque monster not called baby diesel for nothing, should the motor really be marketed as a fuel miser??? which leads to my thinking all along that Ford should really focus on the v8 and tweak it more for HP,torque and fuel economy......imagine a 400 hp plus truck getting 30 mpg 
.....again just thinking out loud (after a few Coronas 
) 
.....again just thinking out loud (after a few Coronas )
Cargo Master
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 4
From: Iowa
just thinking out loud here.....if the v8 gets as good a gas mpgs and perhaps better is the v6 Ecoboost appropriately named??? power aside, its clear that it is a torque monster not called baby diesel for nothing, should the motor really be marketed as a fuel miser??? which leads to my thinking all along that Ford should really focus on the v8 and tweak it more for HP,torque and fuel economy......imagine a 400 hp plus truck getting 30 mpg .....again just thinking out loud (after a few Coronas )
.....again just thinking out loud (after a few Coronas ) 
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,024
Likes: 1,519
From: Maine, Virginia
An F-150 ecoboost 4x2 with the standard 3.15 axle is the platform that's used to establish fuel economy for these trucks. A 4x4 like mine with the 3.31 axles is rated at 1 MPG less. While my truck easily and consistently exceeds the baseline average, many here do not.
I do believe that Ford mis-named this engine. I'm at a loss for a more appropriate name but I do know this, marketing this engine as a fuel sipper knowing that most buyers will buy what they think they want / need rather than taking a more sensible approach of actual wants and needs will only breed contempt, and it clearly has.
I never owned a 5.4L truck, I refused to have one because of all the issues early on and through it's mid life. I believe the ecoboost was marketed to achieve 20% better MPG's than the outgoing 5.4L. I'm confident that it's done that and it certainly tows better.
What I do find most interesting is that GM is so threatened by the ecoboost that they can't stop advertising it for Ford.
I also think Ford should follow suit with GM and market a direct injection 5.0L.
I do believe that Ford mis-named this engine. I'm at a loss for a more appropriate name but I do know this, marketing this engine as a fuel sipper knowing that most buyers will buy what they think they want / need rather than taking a more sensible approach of actual wants and needs will only breed contempt, and it clearly has.
I never owned a 5.4L truck, I refused to have one because of all the issues early on and through it's mid life. I believe the ecoboost was marketed to achieve 20% better MPG's than the outgoing 5.4L. I'm confident that it's done that and it certainly tows better.
What I do find most interesting is that GM is so threatened by the ecoboost that they can't stop advertising it for Ford.
I also think Ford should follow suit with GM and market a direct injection 5.0L.
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 560
Likes: 1
I think it's an appropriate name. You just have to realize what it is. It is a towing engine that gets great gas mileage for what it does. It was said earlier that the ratings are for the set up with the 3:15 and 3:31 rear ends.
Too many people get 3:73 set ups and bash the engine for not getting the mileage it's rated at.
Too many people get 3:73 set ups and bash the engine for not getting the mileage it's rated at.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 1
I liked the development name TwinForce, but I can see how they decided on Ecoboost to capitalize on the MPG rating that it can achieve.
I understand the argument that the Ecoboost doesn't do any better than the 5.0 in fuel economy, but overall I'm impressed that my '13 SCrew with 3.55 rear end which weighs around 6,000 lbs can match the ~400 lb/ft of torque that my 6,000 lb, 460 powered '95 with 3.55 rear end puts down but the Ecoboost can do it while doubling the (unloaded) fuel economy.
I understand the argument that the Ecoboost doesn't do any better than the 5.0 in fuel economy, but overall I'm impressed that my '13 SCrew with 3.55 rear end which weighs around 6,000 lbs can match the ~400 lb/ft of torque that my 6,000 lb, 460 powered '95 with 3.55 rear end puts down but the Ecoboost can do it while doubling the (unloaded) fuel economy.
Trending Topics
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
I'm fine with mileage when I'm not towing, but am quite stunned at how poor the mileage is when I do have a trailer hooked up. Towing the same trailer I used to tow with my 6.2l F250, I get about the same mileage as I did with the 250...that is really quite terrible.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 1
I think it makes sense that the fuel mileage is comparable while towing. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull the trailer, and it takes a specific amount of fuel to put out the BTUs needed to make that power. The fact that the Ecoboost can make the power, or sip fuel for maximum economy is what sets the Ecoboost apart from the other options.
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 705
Likes: 1
From: Clay Country, GA, NE MS
Heheheeee, yep, CuN, ye might've had one too many Coronas, but ye still had a decent thought. I like the name. After all, to get a solid 20 mpg or so in a truck?!? I like it! My '02 5.4 gets 18 highway, so I use that as my comparison. I don't care about city mpg - my system for city - drive around town until low gas, fill'er up, Ethyl (if y'all know what that means, well, ye're as old as me!).
Now, lay off them Coronas a while...
Now, lay off them Coronas a while...
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 57
IMHO people are comparing the wrong engines....
Easy to understand why... The 3.5 and the 5.0 are the popular choices.
The reality is the 3.5 should be compared to the 6.2.... that is what it is replacing.
Check the HP and TQ numbers under 4k rpm and see which one performs better.
Easy to understand why... The 3.5 and the 5.0 are the popular choices.
The reality is the 3.5 should be compared to the 6.2.... that is what it is replacing.
Check the HP and TQ numbers under 4k rpm and see which one performs better.
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 730
Likes: 9
From: plymouth mi
My max tow fx4 replaced a 2006 fx4 with 3.55 gears and 5.4, the 06 when loaded in vacation trim would get about 15.7 on highway at 70 mph, this truck loaded the same way will do 18, this trucks lifetime average is at 16.9 mpg, with a lot of suburban stop and go mixed in, I think this truck does at least 20 percent better than the old truck and will run circles around if I wanted it to, 24,000 miles and no complaints. All that being said, I think the 5.4 gets a bad rap, very smooth and strong feeling with a trailer hanging off the back, I think the down fall of this engine was the 4 speed trans and some issues with spark plugs and cam phasers. Enoy the Coronas!
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,024
Likes: 1,519
From: Maine, Virginia
The main radio personality on the local classic rock station has a really cool relationship with GM or the local dealer network. Anyway, when a new "ground-up" model hits the streets, they give him a truck to drive around for a quite a long period of time. His payback is he has to spend his saturdays at local Chevy dealers and talk about the truck on the radio. This dude is really starting to make me sick. 
When he first got the truck a few months ago, he was calling the ecoboost an "ecotech which is GM's word for their little fuel efficient 4 bangers. Someone must have taken dude to school so now he's referring to the ecoboost a tiny little 6 cylinder in a big truck while he's comparing the GM 5.3L to the ecoboost.
What he doesn't admit is that the ecoboost weighs as much as a 5.3L, a 5.0L and most any small V-8 on the road. To me, two less cylinders but the same weight means it's pretty stout. The haters can call what they want.
When he first got the truck a few months ago, he was calling the ecoboost an "ecotech which is GM's word for their little fuel efficient 4 bangers. Someone must have taken dude to school so now he's referring to the ecoboost a tiny little 6 cylinder in a big truck while he's comparing the GM 5.3L to the ecoboost.
What he doesn't admit is that the ecoboost weighs as much as a 5.3L, a 5.0L and most any small V-8 on the road. To me, two less cylinders but the same weight means it's pretty stout. The haters can call what they want.
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Sadly I won't have a truck for it this year, but I plan on being there.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,735
Likes: 1
From: Hattiesburg, Ms.
The main radio personality on the local classic rock station has a really cool relationship with GM or the local dealer network. Anyway, when a new "ground-up" model hits the streets, they give him a truck to drive around for a quite a long period of time. His payback is he has to spend his saturdays at local Chevy dealers and talk about the truck on the radio. This dude is really starting to make me sick.
When he first got the truck a few months ago, he was calling the ecoboost an "ecotech which is GM's word for their little fuel efficient 4 bangers. Someone must have taken dude to school so now he's referring to the ecoboost a tiny little 6 cylinder in a big truck while he's comparing the GM 5.3L to the ecoboost.
What he doesn't admit is that the ecoboost weighs as much as a 5.3L, a 5.0L and most any small V-8 on the road. To me, two less cylinders but the same weight means it's pretty stout. The haters can call what they want.
When he first got the truck a few months ago, he was calling the ecoboost an "ecotech which is GM's word for their little fuel efficient 4 bangers. Someone must have taken dude to school so now he's referring to the ecoboost a tiny little 6 cylinder in a big truck while he's comparing the GM 5.3L to the ecoboost.
What he doesn't admit is that the ecoboost weighs as much as a 5.3L, a 5.0L and most any small V-8 on the road. To me, two less cylinders but the same weight means it's pretty stout. The haters can call what they want.