ecoboost
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,313
Likes: 0
From: Sunny, Snowy, CO
That MKS is a LOT more car than a Fusion, whose equivalent Lincoln is the MKZ. That MKS is Crown Victoria sized. 24mpg in a Crown Vic is pretty good. I might actually buy one of those MKS's. That thing looks sweet.
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Sorry, I thought I saw where someone said the HID's were part of a mandatory upgrade package with the ecoboost (along with wheels, etc.) My bad. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what kind of price tag this engine carries in the F-150.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,003
Likes: 1,516
From: Maine, Virginia
Ford hyped the 3.5L EB to be the answer. Perhaps as I creep towards my 48th birthday, I'm getting more conservative.
Tim
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,313
Likes: 0
From: Sunny, Snowy, CO
Yes, but again, the 3.5EB has gobs more power, and basically the same if not better mileage. The mag said they only did 5 miles in it to get the mileage rating they wrote. I bet the 4-banger EB would be comparable to the 4.6 at 35-40mpg. It might even move that heavy-@ss car respectably. Notice how the mag DIDN'T say there was a lack of power?
Junior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
24 sounds about right to me. Remember, your power (and therefore fuel) requirement is mainly dicated by vehicle mass and aerodynamics, and little by the engine size.
The only way to improve mpg by engine is through higher combustion efficiency: diesel cycle, or smaller size (+ turbos) for less thermal waste.
Junior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Remember guys, the EB is an immensely powerful engine. Back in the 90's it would've embarrased everything from Cobras to Camaro SSs, and give Vetts a run for their money with a simple chip.
Super Moderator
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 24,308
Likes: 42
From: SW Virginia
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
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
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,003
Likes: 1,516
From: Maine, Virginia
Adreed, however, much of the previous discussions have been revolved around the EB in a truck. Now, we're asking a very mighty six cylinder to do the heavy grunt work of a much larger and proven V-8 and last for 200k miles too.
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Adreed, however, much of the previous discussions have been revolved around the EB in a truck. Now, we're asking a very mighty six cylinder to do the heavy grunt work of a much larger and proven V-8 and last for 200k miles too.
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
True, true, true.....
In regards to the turbo lifespan rating, here is something to think about. Back when Ford was still using the 7.3 psd, if you looked really well at some of the fine print in some of Ford's literature, it said that on average they recommended a rebuild after 150k or 200k....I can't remember the exact number. I remember on the Cummins website, they would advertise how much better their engine was partly because their rebuild interval was longer...something like 200k or 250k.
Anyway, the point is that these numbers for the Cummins and 7.3 are some the most rediculous and childish estimates that have ever been published. If Ford used the same lawyer that pulled that out of thin air to rate the lifespan of the turbo on the ecoboost, we should be sitting pretty good. However, like Tim said, only time will tell. And who knows....Ford may have hired an engineer for that position this time around.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
Adreed, however, much of the previous discussions have been revolved around the EB in a truck. Now, we're asking a very mighty six cylinder to do the heavy grunt work of a much larger and proven V-8 and last for 200k miles too.
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
It's been posted here that Ford is giving the Turbo a 150K mile lifespan. If you trade out every 4-5 years that may never be an issue. But, for those who buy used need to use caution and do some research. Only time and real consumer miles will prove / disprove this engine's worth.
Tim
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,003
Likes: 1,516
From: Maine, Virginia
Tim
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
So a non-turbo 3.5 (less hp), in a lighter car, gets 27 mpg, and you expect a set of turbos (at 80+ more hp), in a larger car, to get 30+???
24 sounds about right to me. Remember, your power (and therefore fuel) requirement is mainly dicated by vehicle mass and aerodynamics, and little by the engine size.
The only way to improve mpg by engine is through higher combustion efficiency: diesel cycle, or smaller size (+ turbos) for less thermal waste.
24 sounds about right to me. Remember, your power (and therefore fuel) requirement is mainly dicated by vehicle mass and aerodynamics, and little by the engine size.
The only way to improve mpg by engine is through higher combustion efficiency: diesel cycle, or smaller size (+ turbos) for less thermal waste.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
Ohhh i see. Thats not to bad then. Not great but how muc can it be to replace a turbo or 2?
Post Fiend
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 4
From: Neenah, Wisconsin
Good example...my fiance's 2001 grand am has a v6 with 176 hp....it gets mid to upper 20's on the highway...
Her parents new rav4 has 270 hp...and gets mid to upper 20's on the highway....
Now if we stuck with 200 hp i'd bet we'd be mid 30's by now.....but no ones ever satisfied with the power levels...