Ford Ecoboost Full Test

[chevys]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/road-...v-6-part-1.html

[truckofwinandawesome]

Alright People, Let's keep the Flame War to a MINIMUM this time, Because When I posted that Video of the In Depth Tour of an Egoboost, I warned you there, but you guys DID NOT Listen!

[MikeNH]

Alright People, Let's keep the Flame War to a MINIMUM this time, Because When I posted that Video of the In Depth Tour of an Egoboost, I warned you there, but you guys DID NOT Listen!

 

How on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you pull childish shit like calling it an "Egoboost"? You're no better than the rest of the bashers who do the stupid little misspellings to try and knock the truck.

 

As for the article, it is great to actually see a useful article and not some toolbag at a dealer with a camera. The tow numbers are pretty damn low but there still isn't much to compare it to since their test of a 5.0 equipped truck was much shorter. The biggest thing I don't get is using the 26 gallon tank on the engine that ought to be their best towing option. Toss in that 36 gallon tank the other F-150s get and you'd have a great tow rig.

[Superperv23]

That is almost exact to the one I test drove except it was fx4 and in Canada the call it race red.

[chevys]

Alright People, Let's keep the Flame War to a MINIMUM this time, Because When I posted that Video of the In Depth Tour of an Egoboost, I warned you there, but you guys DID NOT Listen!

 

How on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you pull childish shit like calling it an "Egoboost"? You're no better than the rest of the bashers who do the stupid little misspellings to try and knock the truck.

 

As for the article, it is great to actually see a useful article and not some toolbag at a dealer with a camera. The tow numbers are pretty damn low but there still isn't much to compare it to since their test of a 5.0 equipped truck was much shorter. The biggest thing I don't get is using the 26 gallon tank on the engine that ought to be their best towing option. Toss in that 36 gallon tank the other F-150s get and you'd have a great tow rig.

 

 

I agree with you on the 26 gallon tank. I dont know what they were thinking. According to some who are familiar with the test route they said it was brutal. I dont know but I expect Mike Levine will use it again to get some accurate comparisons. I consider him as unbiased and fair as they come.

[old-chevy-dude]

The raptor also has a 26 gallon tank which is kind of stupid for a trail truck.

[P71_CrownVic]

Wow...the results are not surprising at all. The high strung V6 still drinks fuel like a V8....although I thought it would do better than SINGLE DIGITS when towing. Shame on you Ford.

 

I'll take a proper V8 please.

[Frank S]

Ok before this goes on any longer and deteriorates, I'm going to clarify this one more time. Yes, this is a GM oriented board, there will likely be some bias towards GM products here for that reason alone. We welcome discussions with regards to other products because it doesn't matter who makes improvements on their brands/models, in the end it helps everyone out by pushing the other brands to do the same or go ever farther. That only helps everyone out.

 

With that said, comments such as this don't help:

 

 

Alright People, Let's keep the Flame War to a MINIMUM this time, Because When I posted that Video of the In Depth Tour of an Egoboost, I warned you there, but you guys DID NOT Listen!

 

 

And comments such as the following don't help matters:

 

How on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you pull childish shit like calling it an "Egoboost"? You're no better than the rest of the bashers who do the stupid little misspellings to try and knock the truck.

 

Now, we've asked and threatened people to behave and discuss in a civil manner. There will be no more asking, no threats, nothing. First offense from here is a 1 week suspension, second offense and you're gone. I don't want to hear that someone else started this or that another said that, you all know better by now. We have enough in the way of issues lately chasing spammers around the board, most of which are nailed before they even post. We don't need people who know the rules to make our lives any more difficult than they already are. We're not paid baby sitters, in fact we're not paid at all. We do this to try and provide a nice discussion area for everyone and the vast majority of the members don't create any issues. From here on you don't want to be one of the ones who does because I know for a fact that I'm not the only staff member who happens to be fed up with it.

 

If you see a post you don't like or disagree with, bring up a counter argument with facts or just take the simple way out and click away from the thread.

[becker87]

So at 70 mph the unloaded truck only got 18? Not very impressive, but at 60 mph and almost 25, thats pretty impressive. Wonder how the milage would have differed if they were four wheel drive?

[MikeNH]

So at 70 mph the unloaded truck only got 18? Not very impressive, but at 60 mph and almost 25, thats pretty impressive. Wonder how the milage would have differed if they were four wheel drive?

 

 

That is at high altitude though, the engine was most likely having to work harder to keep speed than the lower altitudes where the MPG jumped up. I doubt any of us would see 18 mpg driving at those heights. But the working/towing numbers are pretty dismal looking. Again though there isn't anything to compare it to directly right now.

[tonygxp]

So at 70 mph the unloaded truck only got 18? Not very impressive, but at 60 mph and almost 25, thats pretty impressive. Wonder how the milage would have differed if they were four wheel drive?

 

 

that's not that impressive. the f150 4.6 3v 4x4 crewcab i'm driving right now can get 23mpg at 60mph. i expected more at this low of a cruising speed from the 3.5eb. i am a fan of that engine, in the taurus SHO that is.

[chevys]

Over 2K miles it averaged 20.8 unloaded and 8.3 pulling the trailer. Discount the acceleration tests these numbers will go up ever so slightly. Im not sure the laws of physics can be overcome pulling this much weight. There is no question it has the power to get it done. These were under a variety of conditions. Its stronger than the 5 liter Ford no doubt.

[P71_CrownVic]

i am a fan of that engine, in the taurus SHO that is.

 

And even there it drastically trails the heavier Audi A8...with a 4.2L V8:

 

Audi MPG:

 

17 City

27 Highway

21 Combined

 

Taurus SHOW:

 

17 City

25 Highway

20 Combined

 

And the Audi weighs A LOT more.

[P71_CrownVic]

That is at high altitude though, the engine was most likely having to work harder to keep speed than the lower altitudes where the MPG jumped up. I doubt any of us would see 18 mpg driving at those heights. But the working/towing numbers are pretty dismal looking. Again though there isn't anything to compare it to directly right now.

 

We can compare it to the 5.0 that they tested. That particular truck has a lower rear gear and a few hundred more pounds of curb weight. And the trailer weighed the same...9K pounds. It's towing mileage?

 

9.42 MPG.

[ShimanoFisherman]

i am a fan of that engine, in the taurus SHO that is.

 

And even there it drastically trails the heavier Audi A8...with a 4.2L V8:

 

Audi MPG:

 

17 City

27 Highway

21 Combined

 

Taurus SHO:

 

17 City

25 Highway

20 Combined

 

And the Audi weighs A LOT more.

 

 

And you're comparing an $80k Audi to a Ford Taurus because....they're both made by humans??