Eco-Boost opinions

[deerefan]

Oh yeah, and those high dollar turbos on there only cost about $300 brand new.

That may be the case but dont forget the other items that may need to be replaced when a turbo fails and the labor to replace it and other parts.

 

[murphy1244]

Well I hope the EB last.. Cause I won't buy a truck until its 12 years old or so and 100,000 miles. Anything that cost more than 5 Gs your getting ripped off!!:laughing:

 

[s219]

I carefully compared the 5.0 and Eco engines in F-150s recently, and did my best to compare MPG between them -- I have a 70 mile round trip work commute on the highway, and MPG really matters to fuel costs over a year. What I found is that the Eco's highway MPG plummeted at higher speeds compared to the 5.0.

Around here the speed limit is 70mph, and you'll get run off the road going under 75mph. The Eco definitely did better at lower highway speeds, but once up above 70mph or so, it drank gas like crazy. I assume the turbos were boosting to maintain speed, which is the same issue I have seen on other turbo vehicles over the years. The 5.0 was loafing in comparison.

I didn't get an F-150 in the end, but I was leaning to the 5.0 for the slightly more stable "real world" MPG across the board for my typical driving.

As far as power/acceleration, the Eco definitely wins, but both engines are propelling a battleship so I didn't really see a difference in day to day driving to be honest (I've never viewed a pickup truck as much more than a utility work vehicle despite the great refinement in the modern F-150).

For towing, I think the Eco would be a better choice for sure, due to all the torque down low. It steps off the line with a lot more authority, though the 6-spd will nanny both engines into submission if you let it.

 

[Patches]

I have had an Ecoboost since October, and only have 3000 miles on it, but so far I LOVE it!


(And even in this big, lower geared 4x4, I can get 20mpg or more on trips no sweat. The average tank for me; half city, half highway gets me around 17-18mpg.)

I get 20MPG with the Tundra highway (empty), if I stay within the 65mph limit and I HAVE low gears



(To the Tundra with the 4.30 gears. With the 3.73's and the F-150s first gear at 4.17, I have a ratio of 15.55 to one in first. ):thumbsup:

(And I am pretty sure that even towing my 20ft equipment trailer, I could beat my 2005 F-150 5.4 in a drag race. :laughing

I had an '05 Lariat, Stupidcrew 5.4, 3.73's so that statement is meaningless. That 5.4 was the most anemic excuse for a truck engine I've EVER come across. I bought mine cash(no financing) and hated it so bad, I traded it for the Tundra 18 months later

 

[Dmace]

Oh yeah, and those high dollar turbos on there only cost about $300 brand new.

Bull$hit, prove it!

Try around $580 plus a $250 core charge EACH plus shipping (for the new part and for the core) and extra for installation if you can't do it yourself. While that's not bad for a water cooled turbo, it's still extra cost and seeing how these turbos are setup to spool VERY early for low end torque, they will certainly fail much sooner than a typical turbo on a car engine or diesel engine.

Secondly, ever priced out a fuel injector for a Direct Injected engine? $$$$

 

[Bama67]

(And I am pretty sure that even towing my 20ft equipment trailer, I could beat my 2005 F-150 5.4 in a drag race. :laughing

I had an '05 Lariat, Stupidcrew 5.4, 3.73's so that statement is meaningless. That 5.4 was the most anemic excuse for a truck engine I've EVER come across. I bought mine cash(no financing) and hated it so bad, I traded it for the Tundra 18 months later

Someone is lashing out. Stupidcrew? lol.

I merely stated that the Eco was faster towing a 3000lb load than the 5.4 was empty as a basis for comparison for someone that hasn't driven or towed with a Ecoboost.

Bull, prove it!

Try around $580 plus a $250 core charge EACH plus shipping (for the new part and for the core) and extra for installation if you can't do it yourself. While that's not bad for a water cooled turbo, it's still extra cost and seeing how these turbos are setup to spool VERY early for low end torque, they will certainly fail much sooner than a typical turbo on a car engine or diesel engine.

Secondly, ever priced out a fuel injector for a Direct Injected engine? $$$$

Huh, Dang. I read a thread a while back on one of the Ford forums and the turbos was posted for around $300. I don稚 remember the full story on them but they were new, and would work fine, and were OEM manufacturer (Garrett?)
Sorry, for the bad info.

Even so, turbos are a simple, reliable device, and the chance of one failing is actually exceedingly rare.

I, like you, would be much more concerned about replacing an injector. I have no idea what that would cost after the warranty ran out but being that the engine isn稚 covered by the body like a Super Duty or such, you wouldn稚 have to pull the body off the frame and all that jazz. Don稚 know what the parts cost is.

But prepare yourself, direct injection is the future, and I can imagine that soon everyone will be gravitating towards it.
.
.
.
But I know the real reason you are upset...... A V6 truck that sounds like a vacuum cleaner will smoke your beloved hemi dodges. :laughing:

 

[Dmace]

But I know the real reason you are upset...... A V6 truck that sounds like a vacuum cleaner will smoke your beloved hemi dodges. :laughing:

390hp/407lb.ft , plain simple design, 9 year proven record of reliability and 20 mpg highway
vs.
365hp/420lb.ft. , high tech expensive new technology with 0 years of proven reliability and from a manufacturer with a record of poor engine designs and 21 mpg highway.

We'll see which one's smoking after 200k miles, if those Eco-boost's can even make it to 200k. :laughing:
I'm sure the review of your truck and fuel mileage is as accurate as your information on turbo pricing too...

 

[Bama67]

390hp/407lb.ft , plain simple design, 9 year proven record of reliability and 20 mpg highway
vs.
365hp/420lb.ft. , high tech expensive new technology with 0 years of proven reliability and from a manufacturer with a record of poor engine designs and 21 mpg highway.

We'll see which one's smoking after 200k miles, if those Eco-boost's can even make it to 200k. :laughing:

0 years of reliability? The engine has been out for 5 years, and been in mass production at least 3 years now.

Yeah, to bad Ford can't make a truck as durable as a Dodge.

"Dodge Ram, the epitome of reliability!" Lol

Enjoy your American tax payer funded, made in Mexico; Italian Ram. Or should I say Carnero or maybe Montone.

But seriously, I hope we don't get the thread locked, as I enjoy arguing with you.

 

[Dmace]

0 years of reliability? The engine has been out for 5 years, and been in mass production at least 3 years now.

Yeah, to bad Ford can't make a truck as durable as a Dodge.

"Dodge Ram, the epitome of reliability!" Lol

Enjoy your American tax payer funded, made in Mexico; Italian Ram.

First off, 2011 is the first year of the F-150 ecoboost. 2012 - 2011 = 1 not 5.
Secondly, Ford is knee deep in "American taxpayer" funds only not paying them back like GM and Chrysler.
Lastly, I've enjoyed my "made in Mexico" RAM for 7 trouble-free years now which is a lot more than any Ford I've ever owned...

Either way, this thread is about opinions on the Ecoboost not RAM's. My opinion is they're not worth the risk over the 5.0l.

 

[Patches]

Someone is lashing out. Stupidcrew? lol.

I merely stated that the Eco was faster towing a 3000lb load than the 5.4 was empty as a basis for comparison for someone that hasn't driven or towed with a Ecoboost.

Appreciate your input, but you probably picked the absolute worst comparison you could. I'm sure there are folks out there who love their 5.4's, but I'm not one of them. The old saw "you can pay me now, or pay me later" comes to mind. Small displacement, high horsepower/torque engines have historically not shown longevity. As to the factory tow ratings; we'll have to wait untill the Federal regulations become effective(Toyota already adheres to the new federal guidlines)