Eco-Boost opinions

[jejeosborne]

Jeffsw, yes the torque curve is very important for any truck. The ecoboost make 90% of its peak torque at 1900 rpms. Hard to find another gas engine with that claim. This truck took a little time to get used to the lack of downshifting. I ascend the same hill on my way home from work and the tachometer will read 1100 rpms at the base of the hill. When i apply quite a bit of pressure on the pedal, rpms stay put and it powers up without a downshift. My butt had to recalibrate from my past driving experience.

Bama67, thanks! It is the blue flame metallic. I choose that color hoping to make it easier to find in the Parking lot. Exact opposite of your needs.

 

[Dmace]

The ecoboost make 90% of its peak torque at 1900 rpms. Hard to find another gas engine with that claim.

No it doesn't! http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201538e200572970b-800wi
And yes it is tough to find another gas engine with that claim, because other manufacturers usually claim something TRUTHFUL unlike Ford's marketing hype...

Ecoboost 78% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2500 rpms)
Ford V8 5.0l 81% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2200 rpms)
HEMI 80% of max torque at 2,000 rpms. (90% at about 2500 rpms)

I'm not bashing, just posting facts to disprove all the marketing hype you guys are buying into. Also, take a close look at those Ford dyno graphs and you'll see the Ecoboost power is peaky just like any small displacement turbo engine and NOT flat like the V8 5.0l...
The ecoboost makes great power but not "diesel-like" as Ford wants you to think and it will cost you more at the dealer, more at the pump (unless it's a grocery getter), and more at the repair shop...

 

[Egon]

For example, by that same flawed logic when your beloved Dodge put the Cummins 5.9 in the Ram in 89' it was a totally new, unproven engine?


Think it's a proven engine now!:thumbsup:

 

[jejeosborne]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/0...ter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

I agree don't trust any marketing hype. That is why I waited and ordered mine after reading many unbiased tests proving the engine would do as advertised. It out tows fords own 6.2 liter with a loaded trailer, faster 0-60 times too. Oh yeah it also beat the hemi. You can dispute dyno numbers all you want but how do you dispute real world testing at the track, campground, highway, stop light, mountain, gas pump, ect. ?

I am not brand loyal to anyone. I buy what I feel is the best bang for the buck at my time of purchase. I would never have bought a ford in 2010. I might have bought another Dodge if they made a 6 speed transmission and their Eco mode variable displacement worked above 40 mph without a 20 mph tailwind. I did test drive the ram and the Toyota too. No other truck offers this towing capacity in a 1/2 ton and still gets respectable mileage.

The purpose of this thread is to help someone torn between two Ford engines. For roughly $700 invoice I would recommend the ecoboost over the 5.0 liter for most applications. The 5.0 liter engine is also very complex with variable valve timing and the like. One needs a computer to work on either engine.

Btw, if you are afraid of new improved technology, you can get a carbureted, distributor engine along with a can of starting fluid that definitely won't get to 200,000 miles.

I still enjoy my dodges everyday.....the many gas stations. :0

 

[Patches]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. How We Dyno Tested Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 Engines - PickupTrucks.com News
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

I did test drive the ram and the Toyota too. No other truck offers this towing capacity in a 1/2 ton and still gets respectable mileage.

The purpose of this thread is to help someone torn between two Ford engines. For roughly $700 invoice I would recommend the ecoboost over the 5.0 liter for most applications. The 5.0 liter engine is also very complex with variable valve timing and the like. One needs a computer to work on either engine.

Apparently you didn't test drive the 5.7 Tundra;go back to the 0 to 60/quarter mile time site posted earlier mentioned. The 3.5 EB's 0to60 time listed as 6.1sec and quarter at 14.6. The normally aspirated Tundra is at 0to60 at 6.0 sec and the quarter at 14.7 . Now the supercharged(more on par with a twin turboed engine) is0to60 at 4.6 sec and the quarter at 13.3 sec., and remember the Ford is a regular cab and the Toyota is a double cab.I've already listed my empty mileage which is about the same as an EB with 3.73's . The tow rating is 10,300 and I can assure you it will readily tow loads north of 12,000. Let's see what the EB's rating is when Ford must comply with the new Federal guidelines

 

[jejeosborne]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally to me too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

I wouldn't say that a supercharged 5.7 liter that is a $6000 option compares to a 3.5 liter $700 option but you may. One would think that that aftermarket supercharger would have produced more than 504 HP with 5.7 liters. In todays world 100hp/liter should be easy.

 

[JasG]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

For me that is what it comes doen to for me also Ford or Toyota. The tow rating isn't that much different for me, I would like te higher mileage when not hauling.

Ford has also been working on an improved ethanol version of the ecoboost. I was hoping someone would use a turbo to take advantage of the ethanol acting like a higher octane and therefore you would be able to hive higher cylinder pressure and greater mileage. From what I have read though they are working on a 2 tank system with 2 injection systems. I don't think that would be cost effective way to go. If they could make a system that could tell what fuel was in the tank and allow it to change boost according to the ethanol content, it might make ethanol more worth while.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2008/fuels/merit08_aagarwal.pdf

Ethanol Producer Magazine | EthanolProducer.com

 

[Patches]

Fords tow ratings are rated using the new guidelines. The Toyota was my second choice behind the Ford. I liked the feature comforts and look of the ford better than the Toyota. The tundra used to be built locally to me too. The gas mileage and twisty frame on the toyota was a turn off for me. The reclining rear seats in the Toyota is nice though.

I wouldn't say that a supercharged 5.7 liter that is a $6000 option compares to a 3.5 liter $700 option but you may. One would think that that aftermarket supercharger would have produced more than 504 HP with 5.7 liters. In todays world 100hp/liter should be easy.

Just sayin'. No question a 3.5 producing those # is impressive. As I stated earlier, small displacement/high HP/torque engines are not noted for their longevity. The jury is out; check back in 2014. As long as I can get very similar mileage with a non-assisted fueled engine with argueably the same tow rating, you know where I'm going. I was, and am not yet aware that Ford is yet using the newer Federal towing guidelines which are not yet in effect. You're concerned with a $6,000 surcharge when you're spending $35/40,000 on a V-6 Ford:helloooooo

 

[jejeosborne]

Just sayin'. No question a 3.5 producing those # is impressive. As I stated earlier, small displacement/high HP/torque engines are not noted for their longevity. The jury is out; check back in 2014. As long as I can get very similar mileage with a non-assisted fueled engine with argueably the same tow rating, you know where I'm going. I was, and am not yet aware that Ford is yet using the newer Federal towing guidelines which are not yet in effect. You're concerned with a $6,000 surcharge when you're spending $35/40,000 on a V-6 Ford:helloooooo

You are correct, I am concerned with the $6000 surcharge which is on top of the higher priced less equipted tundra I looked at(Toyota never has good rebates). I didn't finance my truck and had to give up 4wd (approx $3000) to get the options I really wanted like ecoboost, rear camera, sync, max tow package, etc. I also was concerned with the additional 15% I would have had to pay for fuel with the Tundra. I know 15% doesn't sound like much, but if you look at it like $4.00/gallon vs $4.60/gallon, that equates to $15 per fill up.

You are right and I stand corrected on the new agreed upon towing limits. I saw where Tundras went down 400-1100 lbs depending on model. It will be interesting to see what the new ratings for the fords are.

Like I said, It was a tough decision between the tundra and f150. I think both have their unique advantages. My brother in law has a 5.7 tundra that he likes and I don't dog him. Both trucks deserve respect. I feel they are currently in a league of their own. Next year may be a different story.

 

[Dmace]

Dmace, show the whole story so that people can decide for themselves. http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html
You will notice they had trouble testing this engine on the dyno at the rear wheels.

Read the story, they re-tested the truck with Ford engineers on site and got the same results...
The link I posted is from the retest.