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.

 

From what I have read the Eco-boost is not going to be the base engine but an upgrade, based on the assumptions on the engines to come, that would leave the 5.0 as the base engine.

 

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.

 

Yes, but the CV is now getting 25 mpg with a 4.6L 3.V and no premium price and it's RWD. And th e 4.6L family has been a reliable mule for 20 years.

Ford hyped the 3.5L EB to be the answer. Perhaps as I creep towards my 48th birthday, I'm getting more conservative.

Tim

 

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?

 

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.

 

Exactly. Imagine if the CV made 3.5EB levels of power - not even the 460 back in the day could do it. And I bet a CV + 460 would get 12 mpg under magazine test conditions.

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.

 

I bet back in the day, it wouldn't have even needed a chip to outrun some Vettes.

 

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

 

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.

 

Even then if you do own a truck for only 5 years who would be silly enough to buy a truck with 75k+ miles on it knowing that the engine is half way through it's life span so soon. I know i wouldnt.

 

75K + miles isn't the anticipated 1/2 life of the engine, it's the anticipated 1/2 life of the turbo.

Tim

 

YEA, They said V8 power in v6 with V6 milage, V6 mileage should be over30 now days with all technology?

 

Ohhh i see. Thats not to bad then. Not great but how muc can it be to replace a turbo or 2?

 

and it would be if we maintained the power levels of just ten years ago.....

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...