Ordering 2011 EcoBoost
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Ordering 2011 EcoBoost
Just went to order 2011 / F150 EcoBoost / King Ranch. The 36 gallon fuel tank is not available with ANY Ecoboost, regardless of trim. This baffles my mind. 36 Gallon is available with all other powertrains. Can someone please explain this flawed logic to me?
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 10
From: RVA
Without knowing any better, I'm guessing they did this due to the EB's higher economy ratings. Plus it'll save a touch of weight, but that's likely not the reason. The effective range of the smaller tank with the EB is probably equal to the range of the V8s with the larger tank.
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
The effective range to equal the V8 is as good of guess as any. Or maybe its a space issue with exhaust ? How awesome would it be to have the range of an ecoboost w/ 36 gallons? At least have it as an option? I wonder if you could put a 36 gallon aftermarket?
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 10
From: RVA
Lets say you'll get 22mpg on the hwy in the EB. @ 36 gallons that's just shy of 800 miles to the tank. I'd take that.
I'm sure it's a marketing ploy of some sort though. Saying to everyone else that they can still manage nearly 600 mile range with less than 30 gallons.
I'm sure it's a marketing ploy of some sort though. Saying to everyone else that they can still manage nearly 600 mile range with less than 30 gallons.
Cargo Master
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 183
What did the dealer have to say about it? I think it's stupid myself. If you tow you need the larger tank
Thread Starter
|
New User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Dealer just said , well the computer says "not available" so I guess it's not available. Going to do more homework before ordering
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Thats as stupid as not allowing TT mirrors on a max tow FX4 with the lux pkg.
Very frustrating!
Still easier to add mirrors than a larger tank, but still a PITA.
Very frustrating!
Still easier to add mirrors than a larger tank, but still a PITA.
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
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 2
Anyone who tows with EB will need the 36 gallon tank because the EB won't get the mileage towing that a 6.2 will. Ford is doing their best to drive loyal customers to the competition. It's just little things like that that p&#* me off.
Freshman User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: just north of louisville
The Ecoboost is designed to operate much like a diesel but on gasoline. (high compression, direct injection, etc) I think your styatement about the EB not getting the mileage of the 6.2 towing is probably way off the mark. From what I understand the EB is designed for economical operation throughout the range.
Postmaster
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 3
From: Kzoo
"While its 365 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque may look a bit down on paper when compared to the 6.2-liter V8, real-life scenarios prove that the EcoBoost has got the brawn where it counts most: right in the meat of the power band. Ninety percent of the boosted mill's torque is available from 1,700 rpm through 5,000 rpm, allowing it to match the bigger engine's 11,300-pound tow and 3,060-pound payload ratings."
If that isn't a postive enough and you still feel that going to the competition would be the better route here is a little bit of it compared to the competition-
"We took the opportunity to compare a 2011 EcoBoost-powered F-150 back-to-back-to-back with competitors from GM and Dodge. We'll be blunt: Chevy's 5.3-liter is completely outclassed in this company. Dodge's Hemi engine, however, felt as if it had plenty of guts to get the job done (390 hp, 407 lb-ft), but part-throttle conditions, such as when maintaining a steady speed up a slight grade or changing lanes to pass slower traffic, caused the Ram's five-speed automatic to drop down a gear (and sometimes even two) when the EcoBoost and its six-speed would resolutely remain in its current ratio and pick up the called-upon speed. That's the result of abundant torque. When we pressed further (not that it was necessarily needed), Ford's tranny would indeed downshift and summon plenty of reserve turbo-fed horses. Impressive power, and also a boon for fuel mileage. Toyota's 5.7-liter V8 (381 hp, 401 lb-ft) also fails to match the barrel-chested feeling of steady-stream torque experienced with the EcoBoost when towing."
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 10
From: RVA
Matthew I'm with you on your comments. Nice post!!
I think that the EB is going to turn out to be a powerhouse of an engine, but time will tell about it's reliability. I still think you're talking about a 200K+ mile engine here, but like many others have said, it does have a lot of moving parts and that makes me hesitant, but extremely excited at the same time.
But back to the OP's question about the tank size. I'm confident it's directly related to the economy ratings of the EB being higher than the mighty 6.2
I think that the EB is going to turn out to be a powerhouse of an engine, but time will tell about it's reliability. I still think you're talking about a 200K+ mile engine here, but like many others have said, it does have a lot of moving parts and that makes me hesitant, but extremely excited at the same time.
But back to the OP's question about the tank size. I'm confident it's directly related to the economy ratings of the EB being higher than the mighty 6.2
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,565
Likes: 2
As I posted earlier, I'm not against technology and new stuff, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Ford's "latest and greatest 6.0L diesel" as it was proclaimed back in 03. That engine was touted to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and everyone knows how that turned out. While it would run circles around the 7.3, too many of them had reliability issues too numerous to mention individually. I certainly hope that's not the case with the EB engines. But until they are on the road for 3 or 4 years with a sufficient track record, I'll stay with the tried and true NA engines. And for that there's no replacement for displacement.
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
As I posted earlier, I'm not against technology and new stuff, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Ford's "latest and greatest 6.0L diesel" as it was proclaimed back in 03. That engine was touted to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and everyone knows how that turned out. While it would run circles around the 7.3, too many of them had reliability issues too numerous to mention individually. I certainly hope that's not the case with the EB engines. But until they are on the road for 3 or 4 years with a sufficient track record, I'll stay with the tried and true NA engines. And for that there's no replacement for displacement.
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 7
From: Plano TX and Brentwood TN
As I posted earlier, I'm not against technology and new stuff, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Ford's "latest and greatest 6.0L diesel" as it was proclaimed back in 03. That engine was touted to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and everyone knows how that turned out. While it would run circles around the 7.3, too many of them had reliability issues too numerous to mention individually. I certainly hope that's not the case with the EB engines. But until they are on the road for 3 or 4 years with a sufficient track record, I'll stay with the tried and true NA engines. And for that there's no replacement for displacement.
They don't know as much about it as they like to think. Also it is amazing how many of those reliability issues I could pinpoint to owner not knowing what was going on with these newer diesels.
I can go on and on about it. Knowledge(or the lack thereof actually) was the killer of the 6.0, not the engine in of itself.