EcoBOOST

[Raspy]

Any vehicle can run 87 octane. But if the performance is significantly reduced by retarding the timing, etc, such that 91 octane is actually required to do the job, or get the mileage, then that additional cost of the 91 should be factored in.

John points out that the eco mileage drops more when towing than it does with the the 5.0. And then it needs premium fuel to work hard. And then the gearing is probably wrong. And the eco costs more to begin with.

I seriously question a turbocharged small gas engine for hard work. It may hold up, but there is more to the story. There may not be a bit of real world savings over the 5.0. It seems more like a marketing ploy.

If the truck is simply a commuter car and occasional grocery getter, fine, the eco is probably a good choice. Plus the owner can proudly say he has a turbo.

 

[ironnut]

The Ford EcoBoost engine has an impressive number of hat tricks inside to get that performance. The use of variable valve timing, turbo charging, direct injection of the fuel (gasoline directly into the cylinder), plus a staged fuel injection phase, all under guidance of a computer allows Ford to minimize the turbo lag, control engine knock, and have a small engine get good fuel economy yet perform like a much larger engine. This link to wikipedia does a much better job of explaining it then I can. Ford EcoBoost engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently the twin turbos are oversized so even at low rpms there is a significant amount of air is being pushed into the engine. By leaving the exhaust valves open longer (possible because of direct injection) some of the excess air is simply blown out the exhaust system. Close the valves, inject a little gas, spark and things work like a small engine lightly loaded. When the driver stomps on it the exhaust valve timing changes to close earlier and now the excess air is trapped and used to pressurize the cylinder. Add the appropriate amount (more) of gasoline (directly injected into the cylinder after all the valves are closed) plus some spark and the small engine performs like a much larger normally aspirated engine.

Durability is a very large question in this high tech mix of tricks. Ford has been building various sizes and versions of this engine for number of years at least as far back as 2007. When we were looking at purchasing a new SUV like the Ford Escape, one of the things that gave me pause was the longevity of the EcoBoost engines (only type of engines available). The fuel pressures used in a direct injection gasoline engine is over 2000 psi. Rather low compared to what current diesels are using but familiar to your father's diesel tractor. Given the low lubricity of gasoline, one has to wonder what kind of metallurgical magic is in play in those injector pumps. The rather high cylinder BMEP values suggest the engine has to be built more like a diesel than a old style gasoline engine. Assuming the durability is there, the engine should be able to deliver good fuel economy (if the driver doesn't have a lead foot) and power when it is needed for towing. Given that most auto and truck manufactures has some version of a direct injected gasoline engine (turbos, variable cams, etc) in the works we will be seeing alot more of these trick filled engines.

gordon

 

[Diamondpilot]

One of the biggest issues with the Eco Boost is the exhaust. I have been doing some looking around and there is 30HP and 50 FT TQ left on the table by Ford in just the exhaust system shown by test from the aftermarket. It seems like this may be planned because I am hearing a power upgrade in the next year or so.

As for gear ratios in the Eco Boost it must be the dealers. In my area all them I see are either 3.55 or 3.73 gears. This is farm country and guys who know trucks, not just what they see on commercials. GM seems to be the bad one. I see lots of trucks with 3.42 or 3.08. Dodge seems to like the old standards.

Chris

 

[jejeosborne]

Any vehicle can run 87 octane. But if the performance is significantly reduced by retarding the timing, etc, such that 91 octane is actually required to do the job, or get the mileage, then that additional cost of the 91 should be factored in.

John points out that the eco mileage drops more when towing than it does with the the 5.0. And then it needs premium fuel to work hard. And then the gearing is probably wrong. And the eco costs more to begin with.

I seriously question a turbocharged small gas engine for hard work. It may hold up, but there is more to the story. There may not be a bit of real world savings over the 5.0. It seems more like a marketing ploy.

If the truck is simply a commuter car and occasional grocery getter, fine, the eco is probably a good choice. Plus the owner can proudly say he has a turbo.

For me, I compared the ecoboost to the 6.2 v8. I feel it is a closer comparison for towing capacity. I agree, if the extra power is not needed, the 5.0 is probably a better choice. I sure don't use my truck as a grocery getter and believe the 3.7 liter engine is best suited for that task. Any towing over 7000 lbs, ecoboost or 6.2 are the best options.

 

[jcmseven]

I also live in farm country, and folks here also know trucks pretty well. My intent is not to say that the better gear ratios cannot be had with an ecoboost engine, just they are hard to find a somewhat scarce around here. In many cases they have to be traded out with a dealer that has one. My dad, when he went to get his ecoboost looked on the lot with my at his dealership, a large one near Charlotte. Of over 100 f150 trucks in stock, exactly two had either the 3.55 or the 3.73 ratio. The rear had mostly 3.31 open rear. We must be careful in identifying thoese because the ecoboost is a good engine and deserves to be paired with a rear axle ratio that can take advantage of its power.

John M

 

[timswi]

I also live in farm country...However, many of the new trucks have horsepower and trannies that can easily overcome the 3:42's....My 6.2 tows and hauls multiple times better than my 3:73 equipped 5.3 did...And the 5.3 did a fine job as far as I'm concerned. Most around here are running big V8's and diesels...I really haven't seen any Eco's around here.

Given the mileage ratings I've seen on the Eco Ford...My 404 hp GMC is pretty close...The turbo'd six is a great idea but I think it needs to season for a while before I'll be sold on that idea of paying extra for it.

Not bashing the idea by any means...Just my observation at this point in history.

 

[jejeosborne]

I also live in farm country...However, many of the new trucks have horsepower and trannies that can easily overcome the 3:42's....My 6.2 tows and hauls multiple times better than my 3:73 equipped 5.3 did...And the 5.3 did a fine job as far as I'm concerned. Most around here are running big V8's and diesels...I really haven't seen any Eco's around here.

Given the mileage ratings I've seen on the Eco Ford...My 404 hp GMC is pretty close...The turbo'd six is a great idea but I think it needs to season for a while before I'll be sold on that idea of paying extra for it.

Not bashing the idea by any means...Just my observation at this point in history.

What mileage are you getting with your 6.2 liter? EPA rates it at 30% less fuel efficient than the ecoboost. Are you running 87 octane or the recommended 91 octane? Just wondering what you consider pretty close.

 

[jcmseven]

I cannot speak for Tim but my neighbor has a Denali Yukon with 6.2L and 3.42 gears. His wife drives it "like she stole it" and we live where it is hilly and they live almost at the top of our mountain (5400 feet at their house) meaning to get home it is a drive from the base of our road at 2450' to there within three miles. My neighbor says in combination driving they get right at 16 mpg on regular unleaded confirmed by hand calculation, on trips they get around 19 with three children, their gear and a travel box on top, and pulling their pontoon boat they get around 11 mpg. That's really not that bad for that powerful an engine, and it will really move and I like the way they sound. My neighbor is at just over 80K on the vehicle with no service issues save frequent brake services over the trucks life.

John

 

[Diamondpilot]

I also live in farm country...However, many of the new trucks have horsepower and trannies that can easily overcome the 3:42's....My 6.2 tows and hauls multiple times better than my 3:73 equipped 5.3 did...And the 5.3 did a fine job as far as I'm concerned. Most around here are running big V8's and diesels...I really haven't seen any Eco's around here.

Given the mileage ratings I've seen on the Eco Ford...My 404 hp GMC is pretty close...The turbo'd six is a great idea but I think it needs to season for a while before I'll be sold on that idea of paying extra for it.

Not bashing the idea by any means...Just my observation at this point in history.

Not bashing you but its the Red Neck mentality that does not want a V6. Trust me, I had it also. I was always more is better till I got smoked by a 5.9L 6 cylinder Cummis versus my 7.3L V8 Powerstroke. Same was true with the Buick Grand National and many imports. I currently have a BMW 335I with a inline 3.0L 6 cylinder with twin turbos. All factory. It will do zero to 60 in 4 seconds and 1/4 mile in 12 seconds from the factory and will flat blow the doors of most V8 US built "muscle cars" like Chargers, Mustangs, and Camaro's.

What I am saying here is the mentality that you need a V8 is just that, in your mind. These new motors like the one in my BMW or the Eco Boost are where its at.

The same mentality was true in my area with import trucks. Not the little ones of the 80's and 90's. I am talking the new ones like the Titan and Tundra. Right now I would say the working men in my area like Farmers, Builders, Landscapers, ect drive primarily Toyota Tundras and Ford trucks. Trust me, its weird to see a Toyota pulling 3 hay wagons or a bean head off a Combine but the sales are strong in this area and have bumped out GM and Dodge from the number two spot behind Ford.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

I cannot speak for Tim but my neighbor has a Denali Yukon with 6.2L and 3.42 gears. His wife drives it "like she stole it" and we live where it is hilly and they live almost at the top of our mountain (5400 feet at their house) meaning to get home it is a drive from the base of our road at 2450' to there within three miles. My neighbor says in combination driving they get right at 16 mpg on regular unleaded confirmed by hand calculation, on trips they get around 19 with three children, their gear and a travel box on top, and pulling their pontoon boat they get around 11 mpg. That's really not that bad for that powerful an engine, and it will really move and I like the way they sound. My neighbor is at just over 80K on the vehicle with no service issues save frequent brake services over the trucks life.

John

A big torque engine will gain more going down hill than it will lose going up hill. I would have never believed it but have seen it numerous times in my Diesel Trucks and my wifes EX is a trucker and I was talking to him about this and he said the same is true for them also. He said in his Semi he can see as much as 1mpg better in hilly terrain versus flat ground.

Chris