Gm's Rebutall For The Eco-boost

blairlee · October 4, 2011

In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

What kind of mpg difference? I've read on a few boards that the EB isn't doing any better than the 5.3 w/ mpg, and folks here speak of the 6.2 being within ~2 mpg of the 5.3. Curious...

I'm getting 14.5-15 mpg or so on my relatively young 6.2, mixed city/hwy driving. After sifting through the myriad ratios and driving combos, I'm reading that people are getting around 18 mpg on the Ecoboost under similar conditions.

Of course, if you think about it, numbers like these only make so much of a difference when it comes to new truck buyers. Very few of them will obsessively go thru forums like I/we do. If they see published EPA figures that show a 365 hp truck that tows 11,000 lbs and gets 22 mpg on the highway, they're going to stop by a Ford dealer.

MikeNH · October 4, 2011

Last I checked, the EB option was more than the L9H option. There throws reasonable price, right out the window.

EB costs $750 in most configurations. 6.2 costs a couple grand.

becker87 · October 5, 2011

In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

What kind of mpg difference? I've read on a few boards that the EB isn't doing any better than the 5.3 w/ mpg, and folks here speak of the 6.2 being within ~2 mpg of the 5.3. Curious...

I'm getting 14.5-15 mpg or so on my relatively young 6.2, mixed city/hwy driving. After sifting through the myriad ratios and driving combos, I'm reading that people are getting around 18 mpg on the Ecoboost under similar conditions.

Of course, if you think about it, numbers like these only make so much of a difference when it comes to new truck buyers. Very few of them will obsessively go thru forums like I/we do. If they see published EPA figures that show a 365 hp truck that tows 11,000 lbs and gets 22 mpg on the highway, they're going to stop by a Ford dealer.

If i remember correctly the only way to get the max towing with the EB is to get the 3.73, The EPA tests truck with theo lowest gears, i believe 3.15 in the EB(?) which with those you will not get the max towing rating. I will try to look up some facts to back this up.

EDIT. sorry it's 3.55s not 3.73s and with the 3.15s towing goes down to 8600 according to the Ford website, im still looking for how the EPA tests

EDIT EDIT: Can't find exactly what im looking for, but i think this show that any company would choose the lowest(numerically) gears to test-"Manufacturers do not test every new vehicle offered for sale. They are only required to test one representative vehicle" that was from fueleconomy.gov

ChevyTech77 · October 5, 2011

EB costs $750 in most configurations. 6.2 costs a couple grand.

Might want to look again. I did, just a few days ago and it showed $2050 for the EB. My L9H did cost $2020 but if you want to play the "most" configurations game, a L9H only cost $1010 in an LTZ so......

sic lsx · October 5, 2011

Just built my truck with all my options on the ford site with EB was $43,000 I paid $33,000 out the door.

1.My truck looks much better,

2.My truck gets 1 mpg less and 30 less hp.

3.My truck sounds like a V8

4.My truck is better off road

5.My truck is $10,000 cheaper!!!!!!

all in all i could rebuild my short block forged and add a turbo kit on my 5.3 and make 500+whp easy and still get 22mpg

sic lsx · October 5, 2011

Hell my 99 500hp z28 gets 25mpg with 4.30 gears and 26" rear tires. With the old 3.42s I got 28mpg. If I put turbo on my truck with a Hood tune I bet I could get 25mpg.

What does suck about turbo is yes u can get good MPG staying out of boost for most driving styles, but once u get in boost bye bye MPG.

Carder09 · October 5, 2011

Well read the car and drive for this month, they did a comparo of all the new ford engines, turns out the ecoboost isn't really anything special, and when used for towing, its gas mileage will drop dramatically since them two silly turbos have to keep up with what's asking to be towed so I don't see the need to get a twin turboed v 6 when my truck can get as good or better gas mileage while towing.

wavery · October 5, 2011

Take it from an old-timer Service Manager...... the best and most economical way to get HP is through cubic inches. Take a small engine and add a turbo and you are asking for trouble.

I keep hearing how they have better "perfected" the new turbos over the old ones..... I say BS....... Everything that you add to a vehicle will eventually break. That's just a fact of life. Cubic inches are merely a measure of volume. That volume (in and of itself) never breaks down.

I would take a 6.2 over a V6 turbo any day of the week. Now....... if a person is just one that likes toys to show-off...... the turbo is kinda cool. I just want a truck that works and has less chance of breaking down somewhere, where it will cost thousands to get it fixed.

Carder09 · October 5, 2011

Take it from an old-timer Service Manager...... the best and most economical way to get HP is through cubic inches. Take a small engine and add a turbo and you are asking for trouble.

I keep hearing how they have better "perfected" the new turbos over the old ones..... I say BS....... Everything that you add to a vehicle will eventually break. That's just a fact of life. Cubic inches are merely a measure of volume. That volume (in and of itself) never breaks down.

I would take a 6.2 over a V6 turbo any day of the week. Now....... if a person is just one that likes toys to show-off...... the turbo is kinda cool. I just want a truck that works and has less chance of breaking down somewhere, where it will cost thousands to get it fixed.

I def agree with you there, also I don't see the tt ford holding much value when time to sell or trade. Compared to if it had a non turbo.

uh6tdrvr · October 6, 2011

In comparison, my truck makes a good deal more HP, a little more torque, and far worse fuel effieciency.

What kind of mpg difference? I've read on a few boards that the EB isn't doing any better than the 5.3 w/ mpg, and folks here speak of the 6.2 being within ~2 mpg of the 5.3. Curious...

I'm getting 14.5-15 mpg or so on my relatively young 6.2, mixed city/hwy driving. After sifting through the myriad ratios and driving combos, I'm reading that people are getting around 18 mpg on the Ecoboost under similar conditions.

Of course, if you think about it, numbers like these only make so much of a difference when it comes to new truck buyers. Very few of them will obsessively go thru forums like I/we do. If they see published EPA figures that show a 365 hp truck that tows 11,000 lbs and gets 22 mpg on the highway, they're going to stop by a Ford dealer.

What the commercial doesnt say is that you cant get all of that with one truck, you can tow 11K but only with the 2wd 3.73's and you wont get the advertised 22. TO get the 22 you have to use the ec 2wd with the 3.15 or something like that. So they are telling you the truth, just not the whole truth.

Now the 5.0 guys are doing pretty well (most averaging between 18-20) I think the 5.0 is going to be the best to evenly compare the 5.3 to. And it does it with all 8 cylinders running....

sic lsx · October 6, 2011

Ford did great with the new 5.0 that's for sure. So that's the way to go. This is from a Guy that hard to give Ford a good comment

kdixer · October 6, 2011

Until a new fuel is developed, no engine will be more efficient than another with comparable horse power. It takes a specific amount of fuel at the ideal AFR to prduce "X" amount of pressure to force the piston down during its powerstroke. It does not matter what is doing the pumping. If a v-6 rated at 300hp is put up against a v-8 rated at 300hp, they will be very close when it comes to fuel useage. Cylinder volume is of no importance in the comparison as long as they produce nearly the same hp.

Now there are technologies that help internal combustion engines perform more efficiently such as the development of fuel injection many years ago and most recently direct fuel injection. Other things like vvt contribute as well. But turbo charged v-6's are no more efficient than naturally aspirated v-8's considering they have comparable fueling technologies and similar hp ratings.

The only area to gain efficiency is drivetrain configurations considering todays powertrain technologies. Better gearing and "tighter" more effecient transmissions help fuel consumption more than engine configurations.

MikeNH · October 6, 2011

EB costs $750 in most configurations. 6.2 costs a couple grand.

Might want to look again. I did, just a few days ago and it showed $2050 for the EB. My L9H did cost $2020 but if you want to play the "most" configurations game, a L9H only cost $1010 in an LTZ so......

$750 is correct. The higher price was options required to allow the EB engine. Some cab/bed/axle configurations are not "allowed" and the extra cost is from upgrading/changing those. If the truck is properly equipped, it will be a $750 option-

wavery · October 6, 2011

Until a new fuel is developed, no engine will be more efficient than another with comparable horse power. It takes a specific amount of fuel at the ideal AFR to prduce "X" amount of pressure to force the piston down during its powerstroke. It does not matter what is doing the pumping. If a v-6 rated at 300hp is put up against a v-8 rated at 300hp, they will be very close when it comes to fuel useage. Cylinder volume is of no importance in the comparison as long as they produce nearly the same hp.

Now there are technologies that help internal combustion engines perform more efficiently such as the development of fuel injection many years ago and most recently direct fuel injection. Other things like vvt contribute as well. But turbo charged v-6's are no more efficient than naturally aspirated v-8's considering they have comparable fueling technologies and similar hp ratings.

The only area to gain efficiency is drivetrain configurations considering todays powertrain technologies. Better gearing and "tighter" more effecient transmissions help fuel consumption more than engine configurations.

Your points are true and well taken. However, a larger displacement engine with the same HP as a smaller displacement TT engine will have a longer life span under heavy use, fewer parts to break and replace over the lifespan of the engine and will deliver better fuel economy during heavy use.

If we were talking sports cars, things may be slightly more equalized but we are talking trucks here.

When I made the statement, "the best and most economical way to get HP is through cubic inches", I was taking ALL costs into account over the life-span of the engine. Not just raw HP. Heck, I used to get 320HP (on the dyno) out of 4cyl VW, air cooled engines in my dune buggies and sand dragsters. They sure wouldn't last long in a truck though.

kdixer · October 6, 2011

Until a new fuel is developed, no engine will be more efficient than another with comparable horse power. It takes a specific amount of fuel at the ideal AFR to prduce "X" amount of pressure to force the piston down during its powerstroke. It does not matter what is doing the pumping. If a v-6 rated at 300hp is put up against a v-8 rated at 300hp, they will be very close when it comes to fuel useage. Cylinder volume is of no importance in the comparison as long as they produce nearly the same hp.

Now there are technologies that help internal combustion engines perform more efficiently such as the development of fuel injection many years ago and most recently direct fuel injection. Other things like vvt contribute as well. But turbo charged v-6's are no more efficient than naturally aspirated v-8's considering they have comparable fueling technologies and similar hp ratings.

The only area to gain efficiency is drivetrain configurations considering todays powertrain technologies. Better gearing and "tighter" more effecient transmissions help fuel consumption more than engine configurations.

Your points are true and well taken. However, a larger displacement engine with the same HP as a smaller displacement TT engine will have a longer life span under heavy use, fewer parts to break and replace over the lifespan of the engine and will deliver better fuel economy during heavy use.

If we were talking sports cars, things may be slightly more equalized but we are talking trucks here.

When I made the statement, "the best and most economical way to get HP is through cubic inches", I was taking ALL costs into account over the life-span of the engine. Not just raw HP. Heck, I used to get 320HP (on the dyno) out of 4cyl VW, air cooled engines in my dune buggies and sand dragsters. They sure wouldn't last long in a truck though.

I fully agree with you here. My reservations towards the eco boost has to do with more concentrated stress on the rotating parts during heavy towing. With a v-8 the stresses are spread out at more locations than the v-6. So common sense says that there are fewer material stresses involved in a NA v-8 than a TT v-6.

My point with my previous post was directed more towards Fords snake oil. They market the EB like it is the next best thing when in fact it relies on the same fuel as everything else out right now. And since the FI system is not leaps and bounds ahead of common technology already in place, it can not perform miracles with todays gasoline. Sure it is TT, but all that does it compensate for the smaller displacement of the v-6. It still consumes the same amount of gas to create a specific amount of heat used to generate comparable HP numbers as everything else that is out right now.