Fuel Economy/EcoBaloney

[SILVERADOSC540]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74292315/

Interesting. This is why you put a three hundred plus horsepower, naturally aspirated V6 in your new trucks(GM 2014) and skip the turbo bandwagon.

 

"Ford Motor Co. comes in for particularly harsh grading. The newly released tests revealing that two turbo versions of its bread-and-butter Fusion midsize sedan fail to deliver either the power or the efficiency of non-turbo competitors such as the Honda Accord. The magazine found similar results for turbocharged versions of Ford’s Escape small SUV and Ford F-150 pickup truck."

[kstruckcountry]

Ah, they agree with me on the 5.0. I don't really trust consumer reports on cars, but everything from this article seems to add up. Granted, domestic bashing is something they always do, but I know people with 5.0 and EB engines, and the people with the 5.0 are happier. If I had to pick I'd get the 5.0. And what car doesn't get worse mileage than it should???

[SILVERADOSC540]

+1 on the 5.0. That engine has always been one of Ford's mainstays, revamped or not. Similar to the small block V8 for GM. Why would you add the strain of turbo on a maxed out V6 when you can get a small block V8 with the same fuel mileage and more power for less money? Maybe Ford was thinking back to the eighties when the Buick Grand National kept spanking the Mustang GT and decided that the eco boost was the way to go...

[diggerdan11]

If Honda and Toyota had turbo engines, this report would be about how amazing turbo charges engines are. Consumer Reports is so import bias it is not even funny.

 

Consumer Reports also never talk about how your MPG's can change drastically depending on how you drive.

[MikeNH]

I've always called them consumer distorts. Great place to see what washing machine they think is best, but not where I'd go for vehicle info, especially since I don't really care about fuel efficiency. Fun costs money, plain and simple.

[Z71_Silvy2]

Ah, they agree with me on the 5.0. I don't really trust consumer reports on cars, but everything from this article seems to add up. Granted, domestic bashing is something they always do, but I know people with 5.0 and EB engines, and the people with the 5.0 are happier. If I had to pick I'd get the 5.0. And what car doesn't get worse mileage than it should???

 

 

The whole notion of adding a turbo to any engine will increase economy is laughable. A turbo adds more air to the engine. More air equals more fuel. Kinda counterproductive if you ask me. Sure the engine becomes more efficient, but efficiency does not equal economy.

 

Plus, the EPA only requires one rear end gear to be tested per powertrain. So, in Ford's case, while you can get the EB 3.5 with a 3.15, 3.31, 3.55, and 3.73 gears, the only one tested is the 3.15 as that gives the best numbers. Another interesting fact is that to get the unsafe 11,300 towing rating on the F-150, you need 3.73 gears, which significantly lowers your fuel economy numbers. So it's not all bunnies and kittens like Ford portrays when it comes to capability and economy. It's interesting to note that the EB 3.5 can be had with a fuel sipping 3.15 gear ratio. The tallest one the 5.0 can be purchased with, is a 3.31. Also, another interesting fact is that the 5.0 CANNOT pull the same, unsafe 11,300 pounds as the boat anchor 5.4 could...despite being more powerful. Frankly, I think Ford doesn't offer a shorter ratio with the 5.0, or the same tow rating as the less powerful 5.4 because they're purposely making the 5.0 look worse so that people purchase the more expensive and more complicated 3.5. It wuld be great to see what kind of mileage the 5.0 would get with the 3.15 gear that's only offered in the 3.5

 

Motor Trend did a test of two, identical F-150s. They had the same rear gear ratio (3.73) and were within a couple hundred pounds of each other (the EB truck was the lighter one though). One had the 5.0, the other the 3.5. The result? The V8 had the better mileage.

 

Ford would have been much better off marketing the EB 3.5 in the F-150 as an alternative to a light duty diesel. A lot less people would be unhappy with it's real world fuel economy because frankly, the fuel economy numbers are just thin air. Consumer Reports are 100% right here...just like they were with the fake fuel economy numbers of the Fusion and CMAX.