- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: My F-150 Ecoboost mileage.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 11:39 am to AUCE05
Posted on 10/5/12 at 11:39 am to AUCE05
quote:
That's pretty good, but the V8 gets around the same, doesn't it?
Relatively. I averaged 21 in my 2011 Ram with the 5.7 V8, 20" rims, and 3.55 gears from Baton Rouge to Santa Ross Beach this Summer.
1
Posted on 10/5/12 at 11:48 am to jordan21210
My '06 Ridgeline (I know, not a real truck) gets 20 to and from work everyday. From Memphis to Delhi, through the Delta, I get 24mpg.
Oh and it's got 211,000 miles on it, and is 4 wheel drive.
Oh and it's got 211,000 miles on it, and is 4 wheel drive.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 12:17 pm to MSWebfoot
Around town I get 13MPG and running 75MPH I get 17. 2011 F150 6.2 V8 4x4 with 305/55/20 BFG ATs
Good milage with newer trucks is not isolated to the ecoboost. Plus those turbos will be expensive to replace in 100k miles. That is if you do not wreck your truck due to condensation in the intercooler causing it to fall flat on its face at high RPMs.
Eta: the last problem I mentioned is not my opinion. It is becoming more and more common with ecoboost engines and very well documented on many truck forums. Ford has not acknowledged this problem yet but we will see how they handle it.
Good milage with newer trucks is not isolated to the ecoboost. Plus those turbos will be expensive to replace in 100k miles. That is if you do not wreck your truck due to condensation in the intercooler causing it to fall flat on its face at high RPMs.
Eta: the last problem I mentioned is not my opinion. It is becoming more and more common with ecoboost engines and very well documented on many truck forums. Ford has not acknowledged this problem yet but we will see how they handle it.
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 12:23 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:lulz wut?
Plus those turbos will be expensive to replace in 100k miles
Posted on 10/5/12 at 12:28 pm to meauxjeaux2
Lulz the turbos Lulz.
Lots of them burning up on F150 forums.
Herp a derp.
Or are you suggesting that they aren't expensive?
Lots of them burning up on F150 forums.
Herp a derp.
Or are you suggesting that they aren't expensive?
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 12:28 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
Avg 17.8 mpg. 2010 FX4
Posted on 10/5/12 at 12:58 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
by lots,what do you mean.
Is it impossible to burn up a turbocharger,No. Care has to be taken to change oil regularly because contaminated oil can affect the center bearings in turbos.
edit: F150 FORUMS,ERRMERGERDD,,,ERMERGERD,,,ERR
Is it impossible to burn up a turbocharger,No. Care has to be taken to change oil regularly because contaminated oil can affect the center bearings in turbos.
quote:I know they're expensive. How long have vehicle manufacturers been putting turbochargers on vehicles now? What makes you think these are any different? shite they're not even made by Ford. They're Garrett Air Research turbochargers.
Or are you suggesting that they aren't expensive?
edit: F150 FORUMS,ERRMERGERDD,,,ERMERGERD,,,ERR
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:06 pm to meauxjeaux2
The owners of the 6.0 powerstroke said the same thing,
It's bulletproof, it's old technology, ect.
How'd that turn out? Was it the end of the world? No. Was it a problem? Yes.
Deny and defend all you want.
It's bulletproof, it's old technology, ect.
How'd that turn out? Was it the end of the world? No. Was it a problem? Yes.
Deny and defend all you want.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:17 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:
Deny and defend all you want.
So,let's see. You drive a 5.0l?
I don't have a dog in this fight.I do however work on all Fords and know what the deal is. Your 5.0 is a great engine.
Has anyone knocked your choice of engine? No.
Quit hating on a great powerplant just because you feel the need to inflate your ego about what fricking motor you have in your truck. Weak sauce man.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:22 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
2011 fx4 with 5.0 and I get ~15-16 city and 19-20 hwy. that's with 33/12.5 tires.
Ecoboost is a cool idea, but I think they're going to have a higher maintenance cost than I'd want to deal with.
Ecoboost is a cool idea, but I think they're going to have a higher maintenance cost than I'd want to deal with.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:38 pm to meauxjeaux2
The 5.0 is a great engine. I preferred it over the ecoboost in almost every aspect. However, I went with the 6.2. Nice detective work, chief.
Weak sauce? Grow up.
Weak sauce? Grow up.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:43 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:
I preferred it over the ecoboost in almost every aspect
guess you like your torque to kick in at ohh,say 5000 rpm's vs. 2500 for the ecoboost right? Also love the isea that a v6 has more torque than your big ole v8,and at a much more useable rpm than yours to boot.
quote:didn't bother to read up on your previous posts. Just though tit was pretty redneckish of you to come in dudes post and belittle a great engine even though you only know what random people on the internet have told you.
I went with the 6.2. Nice detective work, chief.
quote:Hey,I'm not the one who came into the thread with biased opinions,and false facts.
Weak sauce? Grow up.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:46 pm to MSWebfoot
quote:
My '06 Ridgeline (I know, not a real truck)
At least you know...
While those two bros enjoy their pissing match...
I didn't realize it has that much torque at such a low RPM. That is the main thing I figured people wouldn't like with a turbocharged truck. They want low end torque for towing. But I guess this thing does it well.
Impressive...
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:50 pm to bapple
it's because they're small and the intake manifold has adjustable runners to make the low torque and switch to higher rpm driving for more horsepower.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:51 pm to bapple
It's a friendly OB pissing match. At least we both are arguing for Ford. Just one opinion of new technology in a truck and old raw power.
The ecoboost does make impressive numbers. However, the engine is not proven in the F150 and Ford does not have a good track number with new turbo engines.
PS, calling someone on the OB a redneck or calling their post redneckish is silly.
And out of curiosity, are you saying that the GM 6.2 and the Ford 6.2 are the same? It'll just be easier to discredit all your post after you say yes.
The ecoboost does make impressive numbers. However, the engine is not proven in the F150 and Ford does not have a good track number with new turbo engines.
PS, calling someone on the OB a redneck or calling their post redneckish is silly.
And out of curiosity, are you saying that the GM 6.2 and the Ford 6.2 are the same? It'll just be easier to discredit all your post after you say yes.
This post was edited on 10/5/12 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:57 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:not at all,but just watch that little 3.5l pull away from that chevy 6.2 in that video.
are you saying that the GM 6.2 and the Ford 6.2 are the same?
Couldn't find any good video of F150's racing.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 1:58 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:
It'll just be easier to discredit all your post after you say yes.
You can just go right ahead and do that now. Won't hurt my feelings one damn bit.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 2:04 pm to Ice Cream Sammich
quote:
The ecoboost does make impressive numbers. However, the engine is not proven in the F150 and Ford does not have a good track number with new turbo engines.
...Track record is the word you're looking for and they put them in everything. Turbos aren't really new technology and this isn't the 80's anymore. I think the 6.2 is probably a fantastic engine but if I was paying the gas bill I'd buy the eco-boost and be happy all day long.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 2:08 pm to meauxjeaux2
quote:
Couldn't find any good video of F150's racing.
6.2 comes in first, followed by Eco, followed by 5.0. All within a car length. No video but that's how it happened for me.
IMO they're all close enough that it's really just a matter of what you personally like better.
Posted on 10/5/12 at 2:13 pm to CP3
quote:
6.2 comes in first, followed by Eco, followed by 5.0
Yeah,you really can't judge too well from these youtube videos.Each driver is different as well as each trucks temperaments.
Ecoboost needs to have the turbo's spooled up before takeoff whereas the big 6.2 would probably need a bit of a lighter launch and ease into the throttle to prevent rear wheel spin.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News