F-150 Eco Boost Towing Vs Nissan Titan

[Diamondpilot]

So how many of those Ford and GM trucks getting 15-18mpg were 3/4 ton 4x4's like the Dodge you supposedly owned?
Just trying to keep your data honest...

Not a single one. But look at the weights of a 2003 Dodge 2500 gasser versus say a newer 1/2 ton and there is very little difference. And this newest model of the GM trucks will be built just as heavy.

I have been preaching this for years. The newer 1/2 tons are on par with the 3/4 ton gassers of 10 years ago if ordered properly and the weight shows it.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have no problem admitting the Ecoboost has slightly better unloaded fuel mileage than todays competition. I also stand-by the fact that I'm not impressed by it either, it's a waste of technology and engineering when it's hardly any better than it's aging competition...

Do you listen to yourself talk?:confused2: This Eco Boost is in its first version and is already very impressive. The 5.3 GM, the weakest of the 5 1/2 liter range engines, has come a long long way from its introduction about 15 years ago to get to where it is today. Same thing with the Hemi. Same thing with the now shelved Ford 5.4L. It took all these engines some time to mature and some are still getting better.

I feel confident that the Eco Boost will be able to compete with the others stuff for 20 years and will probably be right on par with the little 1/2 ton diesels that are in the works.

Give it a chance instead of instantly writing it off.:confused2:

Chris

 

[Bird]

Thanks for your post.
I can only add that I drove a '06 Titan crew cab, with big tow package, just over 5000miles hauling a 7500lb enclosed cargo trailer and had a trip mileage of about 11.5-12mpg. This was from Maine to Alaska.

My last 4,000 mile trip to Alaska from Dallas (March, 1991) was in a 1989 Chevrolet dually with a 454 engine, 4.10 gearing, Gear Vendors overdrive, and about 10,000# of 32' fifth-wheel trailer, and I averaged about 5.5 mpg on that trip.:laughing: The first day, in the Texas panhandle, we had such a strong headwind that I couldn't exceed 50 mph in second over and wide open throttle.:laughing:

 

[jejeosborne]

Did that once. Ended up with a tank full of water!

Now I see why you hate saving money. I think that I would probably quit trying to save as well after that. You must have bad luck but it could've been worse.......that tank of water could have been a penny more than the one across the street.

 

[Diamondpilot]

My last 4,000 mile trip to Alaska from Dallas (March, 1991) was in a 1989 Chevrolet dually with a 454 engine, 4.10 gearing, Gear Vendors overdrive, and about 10,000# of 32' fifth-wheel trailer, and I averaged about 5.5 mpg on that trip.:laughing: The first day, in the Texas panhandle, we had such a strong headwind that I couldn't exceed 50 mph in second over and wide open throttle.:laughing:

Those old big block motors were pigs. I had a 454 3500 Dually GMC and it was about equal to today's 5L gas motors. I also had one in a boat and it drank gas but was better than the other motor available for that boat, a 5.7L 2 barrel.

Both mine were throttle body injected.

Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

Regarding all this mileage talk, one needs to consider the OTD price of the vehicles in question, no one brought that up. Just this year as previously mentioned I did buy a new truck, and I looked hard at Ford. I was not convinced their eco was for me, but that is another issue.

The eco window stickered as a $995 option when I was looking. I was interested in the 5.0 so that is where I spent most of my comparison time, but in the end I bought a Ram with a couple more options than the Ford for right about $4,000 less out the door. Throw in the eco option and tack on another $1,000 with tax.

So let's say $5,000 for round numbers.

Let's say that the eco gives 25% better over all economy than the Hemi. Doing the math for say 150,000 miles @ $4.00 per gallon means I still have about $500 left in my pocket. That does not take into account the 3.5% interest that I get on that account. Say it takes me 10 years to do that 150,000 miles and factor in that 3.5% interest and I should net another $500.

So in 150,000 miles of ownership using my real world numbers I am still $1000 ahead of the game with the Ram. Remeber you need to look at all aspects of buying and ownership, not just the difference in fuel mileage when considering cost of ownership.

I have only had one cup of coffee this morning so maybe my math is fuzzy. Using your 25% assumption, that would be like comparing 20 mpg vs 16 mpg. 150,000 miles at 20 mpg would burn 7500 gallons vs 9375 gallons at 16 mpg. A difference of -1875 gallons times $4.00 gas is $7500.

Your assumption also assumed gas would stay $4.00 for the next 10 years. If gas averaged $5.00, your extra fuel cost would rise to $9375. $6.00 the fuel cost saving would be $11250.

Again, one cup of coffee so please check my math.

 

[Groo]

I'm surprised the Ecoboost still did that well towing. I figured the numbers would get a whole lot closer than that with a good load.

I moved about 500 miles a couple years back. I did 2 trips towing the big trailer with a 1/2 ton 05 Avelanche, and the last (and heaviest) trip with the then fresh off the lot 09 V10 F-350 SWR. Unloaded and no trailer, there was about 5 MPG difference between these 2 (until I added a flatbed with headache rack). With an empty huge enclosed trailer, the Avalanche was 1-2 MPG better. loaded it was just under 1 MPG better, and that includes the heavier load (more than 3,000lbs heavier load including the snowmobile in the bed of the truck) and faster uphill interstate speeds and acceleration of the V-10. Heck, I even average 8mpg moving a mobile with that V-10. Usually once you get a big load on a truck, most engines average about the same fuel efficiency. I am truly impressed the Ecoboost is keeping its edge with a big trailer.

 

[Storm56]

I have only had one cup of coffee this morning so maybe my math is fuzzy. Using your 25% assumption, that would be like comparing 20 mpg vs 16 mpg. 150,000 miles at 20 mpg would burn 7500 gallons vs 9375 gallons at 16 mpg. A difference of -1875 gallons times $4.00 gas is $7500.

Your assumption also assumed gas would stay $4.00 for the next 10 years. If gas averaged $5.00, your extra fuel cost would rise to $9375. $6.00 the fuel cost saving would be $11250.

Again, one cup of coffee so please check my math.

Your correct - I meant 2.5 MPG not 25%! So at the figures I quoted using the 2.5 MPG it all adds up!

Thanks for catching my typo!

 

[rockshaft]

My last 4,000 mile trip to Alaska from Dallas (March, 1991) was in a 1989 Chevrolet dually with a 454 engine, 4.10 gearing, Gear Vendors overdrive, and about 10,000# of 32' fifth-wheel trailer, and I averaged about 5.5 mpg on that trip.:laughing: The first day, in the Texas panhandle, we had such a strong headwind that I couldn't exceed 50 mph in second over and wide open throttle.:laughing:

I'm sure that was a fun rig going down some of the steep grades on this route as well

Best unloaded mileage I can get out of my Titan is about 16mpg, if I nurse it super easy. I leave it parked under the carport as much as possible! I *do* appreciate it when I need to haul loads though. I haven't experienced any of the newer Ford/Chevy/Dodge, but when I looked at them in '06 I found the Titan had the kindest ride and a very comfortable cabin for me.

 

[jejeosborne]

Your correct - I meant 2.5 MPG not 25%! So at the figures I quoted using the 2.5 MPG it all adds up!

Thanks for catching my typo!

I will redo the math again then using 18 mpg and 15.5 mpg.
I come up with a savings of $5376 using $4.00 gas and $6720 using $5.00 gas.

Using 19 mpg and 16.5 mpg.
Savings of $4785 using $4.00 gas and $5981 using $5.00 gas.

Sounds like a wash to me in the end. Pick the one you like best because the ownership cost are roughly the same. I know someone will now jump in and say that the direct injection and turbos will go out before it reaches 150,000 miles which is speculative. I think the maintenance cost will be about the same.

 

[Storm56]

I will redo the math again then using 18 mpg and 15.5 mpg.
I come up with a savings of $5376 using $4.00 gas and $6720 using $5.00 gas.

Using 19 mpg and 16.5 mpg.
Savings of $4785 using $4.00 gas and $5981 using $5.00 gas.

Sounds like a wash to me in the end. Pick the one you like best because the ownership cost are roughly the same. I know someone will now jump in and say that the direct injection and turbos will go out before it reaches 150,000 miles which is speculative. I think the maintenance cost will be about the same.

You are a stickler for details, throw in the 3.5% interest amortised over 10 years that I get in the account I mention, (and assuming that I pulled out all of my fuel expenditures from the account), and at the $4.00 gallon I quoted, I will be very close to that $1000 figure if not slightly over.

I did not mention the maintenance items that you did, but you are correct that if those turbos give out, or it would break an exhaust manifold bolt like Fords have been prone to, then I come out way ahead.

 

[jejeosborne]

You are a stickler for details, throw in the 3.5% interest amortised over 10 years that I get in the account I mention, (and assuming that I pulled out all of my fuel expenditures from the account), and at the $4.00 gallon I quoted, I will be very close to that $1000 figure if not slightly over.

I did not mention the maintenance items that you did, but you are correct that if those turbos give out, or it would break an exhaust manifold bolt like Fords have been prone to, then I come out way ahead.

I do like to debate the details. Just making a point that the overall price difference is negligible. I haven't heard of the exhaust manifold issue with the ecoboost, could you please explain? Is there something I should be watching for? As far as maintenance, again I would consider the reliability edge to be maybe slightly better for the ford but time will tell. I still think chevy has both beat on reliability. I know JD Powers hits the Ram pretty hard for reliability numbers.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I'm sure that was a fun rig going down some of the steep grades on this route as well

Best unloaded mileage I can get out of my Titan is about 16mpg, if I nurse it super easy. I leave it parked under the carport as much as possible! I *do* appreciate it when I need to haul loads though. I haven't experienced any of the newer Ford/Chevy/Dodge, but when I looked at them in '06 I found the Titan had the kindest ride and a very comfortable cabin for me.

Its funny you say the Titan has a kind ride. Maybe its my dealer installed 2" lift but compared to the 6 F150's I have owned my Titan is more like a 3/4 ton.

Chris

 

[rockshaft]

Its funny you say the Titan has a kind ride. Maybe its my dealer installed 2" lift but compared to the 6 F150's I have owned my Titan is more like a 3/4 ton.

Chris

Definitely the nicest ride of a truck I've owned. A little less so now that I've added air bags on the rear axle, but still pretty darn good. IME, lifts can have a deleterious impact on ride.

 

[JJZ 109]

I am currently a "phord phan", whatever that means?

When the cutesie pie spelling comes out it means that you had the audacity to not have the same opinion as dmace.
Mention the government bailout of Chrysler if you really want to make him mad. :confused2:
And now, I'm off to sunny Florida for a spell!

 

[Storm56]

I do like to debate the details. Just making a point that the overall price difference is negligible. I haven't heard of the exhaust manifold issue with the ecoboost, could you please explain? Is there something I should be watching for? As far as maintenance, again I would consider the reliability edge to be maybe slightly better for the ford but time will tell. I still think chevy has both beat on reliability. I know JD Powers hits the Ram pretty hard for reliability numbers.

I cannot argue that the overall cost of ownership is negligible, depends on each situation. If not for the fact that I was able to get significant savings on the Ram vs the Ford, the picture could look different.

Ford has had exhaust stud and spark plug issues with about every variation of engines in the Triton group for years, I do not know if they have addressed those issues on current engines, but if history is any indicator....

You are also correct in that Ram had quality control issues also in the past. But I gotta tell you I crawled under this truck from bottom to top and it appears as if they have done some serious upgrades. I was impressed enough to give one a try and so far I am still a happy guy.

A couple of things: The Eco cannot come close to matching the feel and sound of that Hemi. Ram has the best ride of any 1/2 ton out there by far with the coil setup, that is something I appreciate every time I drive it.

 

[Bird]

I've only driven one Titan and that was the first year they were out and a brother-in-law had bought one. It just happened that I had recently driven a new Ford F-150. Personally, I'd buy the Ford over Nissan, but as for just the "feel" of the two vehicles, acceleration, steering, seat comfort, sound level and such, there just really was not enough difference to tell it at that time.

 

[Dmace]

This Eco Boost is in its first version and is already very impressive.
Give it a chance instead of instantly writing it off.

What about this engine is "very impressive"?
It makes the same power and fuel mileage as its V8 competition only cost more and is a TON more complicated. Now if this engine were normally aspirated or made V8 power with much better fuel mileage then I would be impressed.

Not a single one. But look at the weights of a 2003 Dodge 2500 gasser versus say a newer 1/2 ton and there is very little difference. And this newest model of the GM trucks will be built just as heavy.

Do you actually believe an F150 and F250 will both get the same mileage with 5.4l's just because the weights are close?
It's not just about weight, it's also gearing and drivetrain setups. Your comparing 1/2 tons to a heavy duty 3/4 ton, I'm not surprised you left that out...

I'm still not impressed, if this had been a test between the Ecoboost and ANY other V8 half ton truck instead of one with the worse fuel mileage in it's class, the numbers would have been closer. So this Ecoboost does nothing more than any other decent V8. It's a start but still a long ways away from impressive...

 

[jejeosborne]

When comparing fuel mileage, the EPA is the only accurate measurement for comparison since all the vehicles go through the same exact test. Real world numbers aren't that accurate as one guy on the flat south driving like grandpa could get 20 mpg where another guy with the same vehicle could get 15 mpg in the same area.

What about this engine is "very impressive"?
It makes the same power and fuel mileage as its V8 competition only cost more and is a TON more complicated. Now if this engine were normally aspirated or made V8 power with much better fuel mileage then I would be impressed.

I'm still not impressed, if this had been a test between the Ecoboost and ANY other V8 half ton truck instead of one with the worse fuel mileage in it's class, the numbers would have been closer. So this Ecoboost does nothing more than any other decent V8. It's a start but still a long ways away from impressive...

Ok here are your EPA ratings that you requested. I will use 2wd to keep things simple.

Ford ecoboost: 16/22 365hp/420lbft

Ford 6.2 liter 13/18 advantage ecoboost 411 hp/434 lbft
Ram 5.7 liter 14/20 advantage ecoboost 390 hp/407 lbft
GMC 6.2 liter 13/18 advantage ecoboost 403 hp/417 lbft
Nissan 5.6 liter 13/18 advantage ecoboost 317 hp/385 lbft
Toyota 5.7 liter 14/18 advantage ecoboost 381 hp/401 lbft
Average all 13.4/18.4 380.4 hp/408.8 lbft

Now for the V6 engines

Ford 3.7 liter 17/23 disadvantage ecoboost 302 hp/278 lbft
Dodge 3.7 liter 14/20 advantage ecoboost 215 hp/235 lbft
GMC 4.3 liter 15/20 advantage ecoboost 195 hp/260 lbft
Toyota 4.0 liter 16/20 advantage ecoboost 270 hp/278 lbft
Average all 15.5/20.75 245 hp/262.75 lbft

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2011.pdf

So it gets 2.6/3.6 better than the average V8 and .5/1.25 better than the average V6. In fact, the only engine that bested the ecoboost was Fords 3.7 liter V6 so it actually gets better EPA ratings than a typical V6.
I know, still not impressed because it is a TON more complicated. I guess one needs to ask, what would impress you? 5mpg better? 10 mpg better?
Jeff

 

[Dmace]

Ok here are your EPA ratings that you requested. I will use 2wd to keep things simple.

Ford ecoboost: 16/22 365hp/420lbft

Ram 5.7 liter 14/20 390 hp/407 lbft

I know, still not impressed because it is a TON more complicated.

Yeah, still not impressed.
Although, that HEMI still looks great making more power with a tried and true simple engine running over 9 years now of proven reliability yet only given up 2 mpg average. Considering there's no turbos or direct injectors to worry about is the icing on the cake. With the new 8 speed auto, that HEMI will match or beat that 16/22 mpg, then I will be even more unimpressed. :laughing:

Also, you should show the Ford V8 5.0l to really make the Ecoboost look unimpressive...
Ford 5.0 liter 15/21 360 hp / 380 lb.ft.
Now that 5.0l from Ford DOES impress me.