Buying a new Truck

[Dmace]

Have fun replacing your 16 spark plugs.

I enjoyed easily removing and replacing those 16 spark plugs in just 3 hours which is a lot more than I can say about the weekends spent drilling broken plugs out of multiple Ford 5.4l's with that horrible head design...

Your eyes must be going, look at the dyno sheet you posted again. The ecoboost makes approximately 375 of its 420 lbft of torque at 1500 rpms. That is 89 % on my calculator. Peak torque takes place at 2500 rpms. **** good enough to call it diesel like to me. Your Hemi peaks at 4000 rpms. Why are you touting about how great the 5.0 liter is after this comparison? Talk about a peaky torque curve...the ecoboost keeps over 90% between 1700-5000 rpms. Lets see a diesel do that!

Now lets look at the 2000 rpm range.

Hemi 84%
Ecoboost 98%

I'm not suprised your trying to compare the bloated Ford dyno chart even though the actual dyno runs by pickuptrucks.com in that link clearly shows the Ecoboost doesn't make the low end power Ford claims.
Here's the dyno chart again:

The Ecoboost made 225 lb.ft. @ 1500 rpms = 62.5% of its peak of 320 lb.ft.
At 2000 rpms it made 290 lb.ft which is 81% of it's max not 98%.
Also, the Ecoboost makes 90% of it's torque from 2300-4500 rpms not 1700-5000 like Ford wants you to believe...
Again, these numbers are good for a 6 or even 8 cylinder engine but in my eyes it's not yet a good replacement for the simpler NA V8's available today.

I only need it about 10% of the time.

Now I understand why you like the Ecoboost so much, you need a daily driver not a work truck...
For the everyday work and towing setup many truck buyers look for, I still feel the 5.0l is a better choice for mixed loaded and unloaded fuel mileage and reliability.

 

[foreman Etexas]

I have 2011 ford ,crew cab ,4x4,with the 5.0(12,000miles) drive it 140miles daily check gas wells it averages 12mpg.

 

[jejeosborne]

I enjoyed easily removing and replacing those 16 spark plugs in just 3 hours which is a lot more than I can say about the weekends spent drilling broken plugs out of multiple Ford 5.4l's with that horrible head design...

I'm not suprised your trying to compare the bloated Ford dyno chart even though the actual dyno runs by pickuptrucks.com in that link clearly shows the Ecoboost doesn't make the low end power Ford claims.

OMG, you are posting and using Chrysler published dyno numbers from a test stand comparing to the Ford numbers at the rear wheels on the dyno. Does that sound fair? I was comparing apples to apples. Did you even read the article?

Here is a similar test done by insideline.com

And here is the link to the test that I quote:

"It appears the Ecoboost is the real deal. Despite the sub-optimal test conditions for the Ford, it out-torques the Dodge by 14 lb-ft, and the Dodge out-powers the Ford by just 9 hp. Furthermore, although the Ram's downshift-happy transmission means no data below ~3700 rpm, there's little chance it can touch the Ecoboost at revs below this point -- torque curve breadth is a specialty of turbo gas engines.

It's worth noting, too, that the normally aspirated V8 in the Ram recommends 89 octane, while the Ecoboost did its stuff on 87 octane. A whole new world, indeed."

Dyno-Tested: 2011 Ford F-150 Ecoboost

I agree, I didn't and don't want to buy a 5.4 liter. I didn't realize we were talking about that engine.

Yes, I need a truck for my construction company and only tow a trailer about once a week. Daily driver is correct hauling people and supplies although I drive my motorcycle or Jeep when the weather is good.

Are you telling me that the 5.7 liter hemi makes more torque than the ecoboost? WOW! The Hemi doesn't even make more HP until over 5300 RPMs and needed 89 octane fuel. Bummer.

 

[RollingsFarms]

I have 2011 ford ,crew cab ,4x4,with the 5.0(12,000miles) drive it 140miles daily check gas wells it averages 12mpg.

Thays crazy! My GMC 6.2 has only seen that kind of mileage when I ran E85 and towed 8500 lbs. every other day it gets 17 mixed driving running 87,89, or 93. The computer confirms it and I've hand calculated it many times because I thought it seemed high from what I've heard these engines get. I don't drive like Miss Daisy either.

 

[Groo]

I'm not suprised your trying to compare the bloated Ford dyno chart even though the actual dyno runs by pickuptrucks.com in that link clearly shows the Ecoboost doesn't make the low end power Ford claims.
Here's the dyno chart again:

I believe I did mention pages ago in this thread that the eccoboost was real hard to get to run correctly on a chassis dyno. It is probably throttling back to some extent.

 

[jejeosborne]

I believe I did mention pages ago in this thread that the eccoboost was real hard to get to run correctly on a chassis dyno. It is probably throttling back to some extent.

It has been mentioned to him multiple times in multiple threads. He just can't admit that the Hemi can lose the torque game to a 6 cylinder. It really hurts his feelings. He is sensitive in that way. LOL

Plus he isn't comparing apples to apples like I mentioned above during your post.

 

[foreman Etexas]

Thays crazy! My GMC 6.2 has only seen that kind of mileage when I ran E85 and towed 8500 lbs. every other day it gets 17 mixed driving running 87,89, or 93. The computer confirms it and I've hand calculated it many times because I thought it seemed high from what I've heard these engines get. I don't drive like Miss Daisy either.

No the computer says 11.4 but this is white rock roads,highway,country roads,mudlots of stop and go driving.

 

[timswi]

Thays crazy! My GMC 6.2 has only seen that kind of mileage when I ran E85 and towed 8500 lbs. every other day it gets 17 mixed driving running 87,89, or 93. The computer confirms it and I've hand calculated it many times because I thought it seemed high from what I've heard these engines get. I don't drive like Miss Daisy either.

I have exactly the same experience...I got 21 driving on the interstate (like an adult, once )..I run mine on non E-85 87 octane all the time...Premium doesn't do anything for me. It will pin me in the seat at will and tow like crazy..Great all-around motor in my opinion.

 

[Diamondpilot]

OMG, you are posting and using Chrysler published dyno numbers from a test stand comparing to the Ford numbers at the rear wheels on the dyno. Does that sound fair? I was comparing apples to apples. Did you even read the article?

Here is a similar test done by insideline.com

And here is the link to the test that I quote:

"It appears the Ecoboost is the real deal. Despite the sub-optimal test conditions for the Ford, it out-torques the Dodge by 14 lb-ft, and the Dodge out-powers the Ford by just 9 hp. Furthermore, although the Ram's downshift-happy transmission means no data below ~3700 rpm, there's little chance it can touch the Ecoboost at revs below this point -- torque curve breadth is a specialty of turbo gas engines.

It's worth noting, too, that the normally aspirated V8 in the Ram recommends 89 octane, while the Ecoboost did its stuff on 87 octane. A whole new world, indeed."

Dyno-Tested: 2011 Ford F-150 Ecoboost

I agree, I didn't and don't want to buy a 5.4 liter. I didn't realize we were talking about that engine.

Yes, I need a truck for my construction company and only tow a trailer about once a week. Daily driver is correct hauling people and supplies although I drive my motorcycle or Jeep when the weather is good.

Are you telling me that the 5.7 liter hemi makes more torque than the ecoboost? WOW! The Hemi doesn't even make more HP until over 5300 RPMs and needed 89 octane fuel. Bummer.

This is the reason I dumped my Hemi. Screaming to make power and eating trannys was the only thing my Dodge was good at.

Chris

 

[toppop52]

Why is the Eco boost hard to run on a dyno? Why would it throttle back? I don't understand.