There are other brands like Honda that are moving to smaller turbo engines in virtually every new vehicle they bring out, maybe with the exception of really small cars and hybrids.

Other brands like Chrysler and GM are using various cylinder shut-off schemes in V6 and V8 engines, and although they may not be as complex as turbos, still may be a reliability concern in the long run. And GM is also moving to turbo 4 cylinder engines.

The world is definitely changing. When Ford went to overhead cams in almost all of its engines (circa 1997 when the trucks got Tritons) there were people that said they refused to buy Fords any more. In the end, they worked out OK.

 

 

People have a tendency to look at the 2.3 EB and see 310hp or a 3.5 (plus or minus) normally aspirated V6 making 300+ horsepower and think they would probably prefer the V6. And they might.

It's important to consider the following:

The non-turbo V6 will probably achieve its torque peak at 4,000 rpm or more. For many of these engines, the peak is less than 300 ft-lb. That wonderful horsepower also doesn't show up until the engine is spinning pretty fast. For many, the peak hp is at somewhere over 6,000rpm.

The turbo 4, on the other hand, can be configured to produce a fat torque curve with a peak well over 300 ft-lb between 2,000 and 3,000 rpm. This means that, in this important range where you actually use the engine every day, the turbo 4 is producing more torque than the V6 does at its peak.

Power is torque that is actually moving something at a specific rate. In rotating engines (e.g., gas, diesel, electric), you can calculate horsepower for a specific rpm if the torque is known at that rpm. A little fooling around with the calculator on your phone will show you that the turbo 4 makes a whole bunch more power in that range between 2,000 and 3,000 rpm than the non-turbo V6.

Power counts. It's what pulls the trailer and makes the truck quicker. Put a trailer behind the non-turbo V6, and you will find you don't use top gear very much. The turbo engine is able to run more in the longest (highest) gear because it has the power where it counts. This means better fuel mileage and less engine wear.

An extreme example is something like GM's "baby Duramax" diesel. It lacks any top end, so you haven't got that 300hp at 5,000 or 6,000rpm to hustle it from 0-60 in a hurry. But it does have a fat torque curve from 2,000-3,000rpm, so fuel mileage doesn't take as much of a hit when it's pulling, and the engine feels plenty strong for daily driving. In fact, the torque from 2,000-3,000 is so strong, it produces more torque in that range (and more power) than many non-turbo V8 engines. The V8, of course, will walk away from it if you spin it a little. So will the V6. But is that the way you want to drive cross-country?

For many daily applications, my vote goes to a turbo 4 correctly sized and configured for the job.

 

I just rented a 2018 Chevy Colorado Crew Cab LT V6 4WD for 3 weeks. Allot of City and some Highway and a little Mountain. I received 19.5 to 21.0 mpg mixed driving over the 3 weeks. It was an absolutely brand new truck and the mileage improved each week...

Therefore, I can well imagine a lighter Ford Ranger w/ the 2.3 Eco and 10spd auto driven carefully on a long trip could see 25mpg.. maybe better. Imagine a 2WD Extended Cab would do even better.

 

"Light" as in "low weight" is the key for eco boost mileage. If you want high mpg's then the base engine before boost needs to be able to handle the truck most of the time. That is my biggest gripe with using a 2.3L eco in the Ranger as the only option. Sure, the low trim ex-cab version could be light enough (like a mustang) where a NA 2.3L I4 is plenty. Then boosting that when you need it makes sense to me. A heavier version "Lariat" with bigger tires, 4x4, dual cabs, ... will be more than a 2.3L I4 can handle daily without boost (I'm guessing).

There is a reason the 2.7eco only shows up in the lightest F150s. I think Ford is smart enough to know this so after the first year or two we should (I expect) to see more engine options.

 

 

2.7eco XLT 302A's come with the thinner frame and 8.8" rear end. If you push a 2.7eco to the payload package (heavier frame and 9.75" rear) then 302A is removed and you're limited to 300A. Ford plays games to keep the trucks light.

I think it is hard to argue with the fact that when you're into the boost your mpg's suffer.

 

More power is going to take more fuel, there's no getting around that. But efficiency isn't necessarily reduced with boost vs. achieving the same power with larger displacement.

I remember the Excursion forum guys telling me the same when I traded for an EcoBoost F150. But that little V6 was significantly more efficient towing my boat (GCW ~9,500 LBS) than the 7,000-lb Excursion ever was empty. Likewise the 2.0L EcoBoost in my Escape was the most efficient vehicle I've ever pulled with, pulling down a consistent 16-17 MPG towing the same boat loafing down the interstate at 1,800 RPMs @ 5-8 PSI of boost. It's more efficient than my current N/A V6-powered minivan pulling the same boat at the same speed.

I've had three EcoBoost vehicles over the years, and have pulled with all three, as well as various N/A V6es, V8s, and a V10. I have not seen this hypothetical decline in efficiency that everyone tells me I should have. I'm meticulous with fuel economy as well, tracking every tank on Fuelly.

tomb985's Profile | Fuelly