User Panel
Posted: 7/22/2014 3:33:11 PM EDT
Story Link
The base 3.5-liter V6 will deliver 283hp and 255 lb-ft of torque, which is good enough for a payload capacity of 1,910 lbs and a towing capacity of 7,600 pounds. However, the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 ups the ante with 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. That gives the optional engine a payload capacity of 2,250 pounds and a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds. Ford has yet to give us fuel economy numbers for any of the ’15 F-150 trim levels, but we’re expecting big gains with the more fuel-efficient engines and lower curb weight. It should also be noted that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will come standard with an Auto Start-Stop system, which should help to boost fuel efficiency in the city. <Continued in link> |
|
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more.
|
|
Quoted:
Story Link The base 3.5-liter V6 will deliver 283hp and 255 lb-ft of torque, which is good enough for a payload capacity of 1,910 lbs and a towing capacity of 7,600 pounds. However, the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 ups the ante with 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. That gives the optional engine a payload capacity of 2,250 pounds and a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds. Ford has yet to give us fuel economy numbers for any of the ’15 F-150 trim levels, but we’re expecting big gains with the more fuel-efficient engines and lower curb weight. It should also be noted that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will come standard with an Auto Start-Stop system, which should help to boost fuel efficiency in the city. <Continued in link> View Quote The linked story gets confusing at the very end - it states for more power there will be a 3.5 liter V-6 Eco Boost but in the article the 2.7 liter specs are better for HP/Torque than the 3.5... I like the hood styling on the '15 model... Is it just me or are the auto companies going back to boxier front-ends versus the sloped/angled front-ends of 10-15 years ago? |
|
Going to venture out with another Eco Bust ??? The Eco Boost did not go well in our are most blew up on the side of the road...
|
|
So, they can drop about 800lbs off of an F150, yet the Mustang continues to be fat as fuck.
|
|
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. View Quote Just finished ~2000 miles for vacation in my 2011 5.0L, average for the trip was 19.8, which included a trip up each way of the mountains between Michigan and South Carolina. |
|
Quoted:
Going to venture out with another Eco Bust ??? The Eco Boost did not go well in our are most blew up on the side of the road... View Quote We have 12x 2011 F150s in our fleet with the Ecoboost - so far no problems with an average mileage of 100,000km, with -25degC cold starts from December to March. |
|
The 2.7 is proof that Ford has fully embraced Obama's Department of Energy agenda.
I don't want an engine that turns off without me telling it to. |
|
Quoted:
The linked story gets confusing at the very end - it states for more power there will be a 3.5 liter V-6 Eco Boost but in the article the 2.7 liter specs are better for HP/Torque than the 3.5... I like the hood styling on the '15 model... Is it just me or are the auto companies going back to boxier front-ends versus the sloped/angled front-ends of 10-15 years ago? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Story Link The base 3.5-liter V6 will deliver 283hp and 255 lb-ft of torque, which is good enough for a payload capacity of 1,910 lbs and a towing capacity of 7,600 pounds. However, the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 ups the ante with 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. That gives the optional engine a payload capacity of 2,250 pounds and a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds. Ford has yet to give us fuel economy numbers for any of the ’15 F-150 trim levels, but we’re expecting big gains with the more fuel-efficient engines and lower curb weight. It should also be noted that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will come standard with an Auto Start-Stop system, which should help to boost fuel efficiency in the city. <Continued in link> The linked story gets confusing at the very end - it states for more power there will be a 3.5 liter V-6 Eco Boost but in the article the 2.7 liter specs are better for HP/Torque than the 3.5... I like the hood styling on the '15 model... Is it just me or are the auto companies going back to boxier front-ends versus the sloped/angled front-ends of 10-15 years ago? The base 3.5 is just a NA V6. The 3.5 Ecoboost is an upgrade engine. |
|
Still ugly as fuck. Prefer the older models. And what's the price on it, 60k for a "utility" vehicle? Spend your money how you like I guess. Seems to me.
ETA: Pics 1-8 are good to go. 9 and beyond are But that's just my crappy opinion anyways |
|
Quoted:
The base 3.5 is just a NA V6. The 3.5 Ecoboost is an upgrade engine. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Story Link The base 3.5-liter V6 will deliver 283hp and 255 lb-ft of torque, which is good enough for a payload capacity of 1,910 lbs and a towing capacity of 7,600 pounds. However, the new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 ups the ante with 325hp and 375 lb-ft of torque. That gives the optional engine a payload capacity of 2,250 pounds and a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds. Ford has yet to give us fuel economy numbers for any of the ’15 F-150 trim levels, but we’re expecting big gains with the more fuel-efficient engines and lower curb weight. It should also be noted that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will come standard with an Auto Start-Stop system, which should help to boost fuel efficiency in the city. <Continued in link> The linked story gets confusing at the very end - it states for more power there will be a 3.5 liter V-6 Eco Boost but in the article the 2.7 liter specs are better for HP/Torque than the 3.5... I like the hood styling on the '15 model... Is it just me or are the auto companies going back to boxier front-ends versus the sloped/angled front-ends of 10-15 years ago? The base 3.5 is just a NA V6. The 3.5 Ecoboost is an upgrade engine. You're right... Gotta learn to read again... |
|
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. View Quote that's pretty fucking pathetic, my wife's '07 Avalanche with 5.3 gets 18.1 in combined driving averaged over the last year or so. I was hoping to replace my Ranger with an F150, guess not |
|
Quoted:
We have 12x 2011 F150s in our fleet with the Ecoboost - so far no problems with an average mileage of 100,000km, with -25degC cold starts from December to March. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to venture out with another Eco Bust ??? The Eco Boost did not go well in our are most blew up on the side of the road... We have 12x 2011 F150s in our fleet with the Ecoboost - so far no problems with an average mileage of 100,000km, with -25degC cold starts from December to March. put a load behind it in 98 deg heat with 98% humidity and the flats of Georgia. |
|
Ask me, a former 6.0L PowerStroke owner, about smaller engines overstressed to compensate for displacement loss....
|
|
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. View Quote I average just over 18 mpg in mine. All interstate trips net over 20 mpg. 4wd supercrew 4wd with 3.31 rear end. That said, my transmission is starting to go out with only 14k miles on it, but ford says they cNt replicate the problems I'm having. And it's a well known problem. I have zero faith in Ford customer service. |
|
Eco-BOOM !
Just a fancy moniker for a power plant that has no business doing truck duty stuff. Plus you better be running Premium gasoline if you are hauling a load.. From owners manual: " 3.5L V6 EcoBoostTM engine Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer. " I love offering sponges and crying towels to Eco Boost owners to sop up the Kool-Aid tears when they have had enough of over-inflated claims and huge repair bills because of such a short warranty period offered by Ford. The Eco Boost has been one of my best selling tools when it comes to putting somebody into a real truck. LOL |
|
Quoted:
that's pretty fucking pathetic, my wife's '07 Avalanche with 5.3 gets 18.1 in combined driving averaged over the last year or so. I was hoping to replace my Ranger with an F150, guess not View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. that's pretty fucking pathetic, my wife's '07 Avalanche with 5.3 gets 18.1 in combined driving averaged over the last year or so. I was hoping to replace my Ranger with an F150, guess not My 4.6 2wd Screw xlt on 33's with a SCT tuner gets 17mpg on average... |
|
Quoted:
I average just over 18 mpg in mine. All interstate trips net over 20 mpg. 4wd supercrew 4wd with 3.31 rear end. That said, my transmission is starting to go out with only 14k miles on it, but ford says they cNt replicate the problems I'm having. And it's a well known problem. I have zero faith in Ford customer service. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. I average just over 18 mpg in mine. All interstate trips net over 20 mpg. 4wd supercrew 4wd with 3.31 rear end. That said, my transmission is starting to go out with only 14k miles on it, but ford says they cNt replicate the problems I'm having. And it's a well known problem. I have zero faith in Ford customer service. The 6r80 transmission SUCKS ! |
|
Quoted:
Eco-BOOM ! Just a fancy moniker for a power plant that has no business doing truck duty stuff. Plus you better be running Premium gasoline if you are hauling a load.. From owners manual: " 3.5L V6 EcoBoostTM engine Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer. " I love offering sponges and crying towels to Eco Boost owners to sop up the Kool-Aid tears when they have had enough of over-inflated claims and huge repair bills because of such a short warranty period offered by Ford. The Eco Boost has been one of my best selling tools when it comes to putting somebody into a real truck. LOL View Quote I agree if yoiu want a real truck with a turbo get a Duramax Diesel. |
|
Quoted:
My 4.6 2wd Screw xlt on 33's with a SCT tuner gets 17mpg on average... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. that's pretty fucking pathetic, my wife's '07 Avalanche with 5.3 gets 18.1 in combined driving averaged over the last year or so. I was hoping to replace my Ranger with an F150, guess not My 4.6 2wd Screw xlt on 33's with a SCT tuner gets 17mpg on average... Yep, I was looking at them real hard when they came out because we were in the market for a new truck. I ended up getting a 'used' 2011 Silverado with the 5.3 and am glad we did. Driving in town back and forth to work I get 17-18mpg and on the interstate 20-21 if the wind isn't blowing. Her EcoBoost lost both turbos at about 40,000 miles and was in the shop for about a week. No transmission problems yet though...The rest of the EB's in our fleet average 14-15 mpg. The one F150 with the 5.0 gets around 18. |
|
I have a 2011 f150 crew max lariat 4x4 w/ ecoboost, its fucking heavy and i get 15.5mpg around town and 19 highway.....what are you guys doing?
|
|
Quoted:
I average just over 18 mpg in mine. All interstate trips net over 20 mpg. 4wd supercrew 4wd with 3.31 rear end. That said, my transmission is starting to go out with only 14k miles on it, but ford says they cNt replicate the problems I'm having. And it's a well known problem. I have zero faith in Ford customer service. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. I average just over 18 mpg in mine. All interstate trips net over 20 mpg. 4wd supercrew 4wd with 3.31 rear end. That said, my transmission is starting to go out with only 14k miles on it, but ford says they cNt replicate the problems I'm having. And it's a well known problem. I have zero faith in Ford customer service. Sounds like you just need to go to a different dealer. |
|
Is it me or are all the new front ends looking like what Dodge was doing a few years ago? First the Tundra now this?
Anyway, I'd love to drive one |
|
Quoted:
I have a 2011 f150 crew max lariat 4x4 w/ ecoboost, its fucking heavy and i get 15.5mpg around town and 19 highway.....what are you guys doing? View Quote And my '12 Hemi 4x4 Ram gets exactly the same MPG. Shouldn't the Ecoboost be getting better than the well known, fuel guzzling, hemi? |
|
Quoted: And my '12 Hemi 4x4 Ram gets exactly the same MPG. Shouldn't the Ecoboost be getting better than the well known, fuel guzzling, hemi? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I have a 2011 f150 crew max lariat 4x4 w/ ecoboost, its fucking heavy and i get 15.5mpg around town and 19 highway.....what are you guys doing? And my '12 Hemi 4x4 Ram gets exactly the same MPG. Shouldn't the Ecoboost be getting better than the well known, fuel guzzling, hemi? |
|
You guys sound like a bunch geezers holding onto the past.
Fords Gen 1 ecoboost attempt may not be perfect but because they took the risk they will always be on top of the engine game going forward for quite some time vs the other American manufacturers. You geezers would flip your fucking lid if you knew the potential of a DI/FI engine. I'm willing to bet just chipped a Gen 1 ecoboost would put out more overall power and better gas mileage over the 6.2. Comparing the 3.5 to the 5.0 makes me laugh. Overstressed? How so? I REALLY hope you're not basing that off of engine size. Its shows your ignorance in spades. |
|
Quoted:
Ask me, a former 6.0L PowerStroke owner, about smaller engines overstressed to compensate for displacement loss.... View Quote Ding Ding, I'll pick up the 3.5 or wait a couple years until they realize that a couple months on the dyno and test mules does not equate to full production. The 6.0 was promised to be the be all compared to the 7.3 but a quick search will show which is truly better based on resale. I keep wanting to pull the trigger on an ecoboost, but my neighbors gets crap for mileage, while my dad pulls down 18.5 while running 75 down the road with a box full of tools. |
|
I'm more interested in the diesel tundra I keep hearing about than an aluminum f150
|
|
2.7L [don't care if it's a turbo or not] engine in a full size P-up truck? I just don't see them going a couple hundred thousand miles without MAJOR engine work. I think turbos are great in many applications but tiny displacement and lots of boost for something heavy is asking for costly repairs down the road.
Of course EVERYONE will be trying to get their light truck CAFE standards up in a couple more years so don't expect the other truck manufacturers to not end up going down a path that is similar because they are going to have no choice. We are in the late stages of the modern muscle car/trucks era, about where we were in the late 60s/early 70s and what is coming is 1972 all over again. We'll still have power [or most of it anyways] but engine life is going to be sacrificed for more MPG. I am really watching the DI scene to see who can figure out the intake valve build up issues without a lot of added complexity. |
|
Quoted:
You guys sound like a bunch geezers holding onto the past. Fords Gen 1 ecoboost attempt may not be perfect but because they took the risk they will always be on top of the engine game going forward for quite some time vs the other American manufacturers. View Quote LOL. What risk? The Ecoboost project was bankrolled by the Department of Energy. |
|
|
Quoted:
2.7L [don't care if it's a turbo or not] engine in a full size P-up truck? I just don't see them going a couple hundred thousand miles without MAJOR engine work. I think turbos are great in many applications but tiny displacement and lots of boost for something heavy is asking for costly repairs down the road. Of course EVERYONE will be trying to get their light truck CAFE standards up in a couple more years so don't expect the other truck manufacturers to not end up going down a path that is similar because they are going to have no choice. We are in the late stages of the modern muscle car/trucks era, about where we were in the late 60s/early 70s and what is coming is 1972 all over again. We'll still have power [or most of it anyways] but engine life is going to be sacrificed for more MPG. I am really watching the DI scene to see who can figure out the intake valve build up issues without a lot of added complexity. View Quote I hear you on the carbon build up engine valves. Otherwise I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the advancements that have always been taking place in engines. In fact I could see someone saying the same thing you said every decade about the up coming engines. Sure a turbo car will have a higher running cost over an NA during its life but one would have to gloss over all the pros of a FI setup. |
|
Quoted: Going to venture out with another Eco Bust ??? The Eco Boost did not go well in our are most blew up on the side of the road... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I hear you on the carbon build up engine valves. Otherwise I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the advancements that have always been taking place in engines. In fact I could see someone saying the same thing you said every decade about the up coming engines. Sure a turbo car will have a higher running cost over an NA during its life but one would have to gloss over all the pros of a FI setup. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
2.7L [don't care if it's a turbo or not] engine in a full size P-up truck? I just don't see them going a couple hundred thousand miles without MAJOR engine work. I think turbos are great in many applications but tiny displacement and lots of boost for something heavy is asking for costly repairs down the road. Of course EVERYONE will be trying to get their light truck CAFE standards up in a couple more years so don't expect the other truck manufacturers to not end up going down a path that is similar because they are going to have no choice. We are in the late stages of the modern muscle car/trucks era, about where we were in the late 60s/early 70s and what is coming is 1972 all over again. We'll still have power [or most of it anyways] but engine life is going to be sacrificed for more MPG. I am really watching the DI scene to see who can figure out the intake valve build up issues without a lot of added complexity. I hear you on the carbon build up engine valves. Otherwise I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the advancements that have always been taking place in engines. In fact I could see someone saying the same thing you said every decade about the up coming engines. Sure a turbo car will have a higher running cost over an NA during its life but one would have to gloss over all the pros of a FI setup. This isn't a turbo car, this is a vehicle designed to carry loads and haul trailers weighing thousands and thousands of pounds and under high boost level much of the time while doing so. I just don't think a tiny gas engine and high boost is the way to go for this application. Time will tell who is right. As for me, I'm going to stay away from DI for at least several years until the bugs are worked out and there is a history of which vehicles/engines are good to go and which one's are lemons. |
|
I dunno.. little turbo motor being made to put out that much power just seems like a grenade
|
|
With only 2.7l are you going to have to drive it like you stole it?
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
This chart of future of MPG requirements paints a pretty bleak picture. http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/non-make/fueleconomy/fueleconomy_11212_600.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So is the bigger Eco boost going away? This chart of future of MPG requirements paints a pretty bleak picture. http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/non-make/fueleconomy/fueleconomy_11212_600.jpg They'll just wish their car future into existence by making regulations that cannot be physically complied with. People asking what Obama has done need only look at the course set for automobiles in this country. |
|
Quoted:
I was a big fan of the Eco boost until we got a half dozen of them at work. the one that my wife drives roughly 900 miles/wk has never hit over 16mpg. it's a 2013 with 51,000 miles, 90% of them are interstate. hopefully the new ones are better but I definitely don't trust their mileage numbers any more. View Quote Thats exactly what the window sticker said it would get I believe. |
|
Quoted:
This isn't a turbo car, this is a vehicle designed to carry loads and haul trailers weighing thousands and thousands of pounds and under high boost level much of the time while doing so. I just don't think a tiny gas engine and high boost is the way to go for this application. Time will tell who is right. As for me, I'm going to stay away from DI for at least several years until the bugs are worked out and there is a history of which vehicles/engines are good to go and which one's are lemons. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2.7L [don't care if it's a turbo or not] engine in a full size P-up truck? I just don't see them going a couple hundred thousand miles without MAJOR engine work. I think turbos are great in many applications but tiny displacement and lots of boost for something heavy is asking for costly repairs down the road. Of course EVERYONE will be trying to get their light truck CAFE standards up in a couple more years so don't expect the other truck manufacturers to not end up going down a path that is similar because they are going to have no choice. We are in the late stages of the modern muscle car/trucks era, about where we were in the late 60s/early 70s and what is coming is 1972 all over again. We'll still have power [or most of it anyways] but engine life is going to be sacrificed for more MPG. I am really watching the DI scene to see who can figure out the intake valve build up issues without a lot of added complexity. I hear you on the carbon build up engine valves. Otherwise I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to the advancements that have always been taking place in engines. In fact I could see someone saying the same thing you said every decade about the up coming engines. Sure a turbo car will have a higher running cost over an NA during its life but one would have to gloss over all the pros of a FI setup. This isn't a turbo car, this is a vehicle designed to carry loads and haul trailers weighing thousands and thousands of pounds and under high boost level much of the time while doing so. I just don't think a tiny gas engine and high boost is the way to go for this application. Time will tell who is right. As for me, I'm going to stay away from DI for at least several years until the bugs are worked out and there is a history of which vehicles/engines are good to go and which one's are lemons. I don't think towing a boat or camper trailer is that much work. Anything more is usually reserved for the diesel line of trucks. Also, nothing wrong with being a Gen 2 or 3 guy, a company like ford doesn't have that luxury though. |
|
Quoted:
This chart of future of MPG requirements paints a pretty bleak picture. http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/non-make/fueleconomy/fueleconomy_11212_600.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So is the bigger Eco boost going away? This chart of future of MPG requirements paints a pretty bleak picture. http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/non-make/fueleconomy/fueleconomy_11212_600.jpg You wanted beefy axles, a 2 speed x fer case, and a strong drive train................... yeah, you will see the light pick ups turn into Honda Ridgelines because they are going to HAVE to to make cafe standards. The traditional body on frame SUV, yeah, it'll be gone for good, I doubt even the Jeep is going to survive in it's configuration of today. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.