|
|
Posts: 242
Location: Madison | Anyone using the ecoboost to tow their boat? I was looking for gas mileage and and do they have enough power to tow a glaas boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | I get around 12 mpg towing my Ranger 619. I think the EcoBoost V6 tows better than any of the V8 half tons I've had...when the turbos kick in you've got all the torque you want, 6 spd sure helps as well. Awesome motor in an awesome truck(and I've always been a Chevy guy...not anymore). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| "EcoBoost V6 tows better than any of the V8 half tons I've had.."
X2. I get 13 to 15 mpg towing my ranger 1860 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
Location: Green Bay, Titletown, WI | The ecoboost is the motor that gets the highest towing capacity in the F150. It has more torque than the 6.2l V8, and a way better power band. The 5.0 is still the better choice though. The Ecoboost does not get better gas mileage (even though it's advertised better) , but it does have a lot more power. The 5.0 is no slouch. It still has more horsepower and TQ than the 5.4l. The ecoboost is an $1100 option, and you loose $500-750 in rebates also. So even if you get the advertised 21mpg from the ecoboost, it's only 2mpg better than the 5.0. It would take 6-7 years to make up the cost.
PM me if you want more details. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | I have a Chevy Silverado 5.3L...Last summer my buddy towed my Trophy 195 with his Ford Eco boost....I'm sorry guys, that thing was a dog on the hills near my home....Doesn't campare to my V8 Chevy towing my boat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 349
| ShutUpNFish - 4/3/2014 1:21 PM
I have a Chevy Silverado 5.3L...Last summer my buddy towed my Trophy 195 with his Ford Eco boost....I'm sorry guys, that thing was a dog on the hills near my home....Doesn't campare to my V8 Chevy towing my boat.
Man, that's a pretty bold statement. I have the 5.3 and am a Chevy guy through and through but I wouldn't want to go comparing it to an Ecoboost... they're in a different class. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | I have Ecoboost guys tell me they have to pull over once a day and syphon gas out of their tank because they worry the local service station will close down if they don't  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
Location: Green Bay, Titletown, WI | ShutUpNFish - 4/3/2014 1:21 PM
I have a Chevy Silverado 5.3L...Last summer my buddy towed my Trophy 195 with his Ford Eco boost....I'm sorry guys, that thing was a dog on the hills near my home....Doesn't campare to my V8 Chevy towing my boat.
I have a really hard time believing that. The Ecoboost is incredibly more powerful than a 5.3l. Even with the 3.31 rear end it tows 7000lb campers no problem. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | black_dawg - 3/30/2014 5:24 PM
The ecoboost is the motor that gets the highest towing capacity in the F150. It has more torque than the 6.2l V8, and a way better power band. .
I call BS on that one.
Ford F150 Ecoboost: 365HP, 420 Ft-Lbs. Torque
Silverado 6.2L: 420HP, 460 Ft-Lbs. Torque
And there is NO comparision. The Chevy 6.2L is BY FAR superior for a big gas boat hauler. Nothing worse than turbo-lag when pulling a big boat. Plus, I don't want the trouble/hassle/maintenance of twin turbo's. You know how many uninformed guys run these Eco-boosts with suspect conventional oils, who following their OLM's and change their oil when their truck tells them to, and who will end up with coked up turbo bearing and clogged oil passages? A LOT!!!!
Besides, it's really not that big of a deal anyhow. I mean, come on guys. I pull my big and heavy 18' Starcraft 200 miles on the highway with a 25 year old Chevy truck with the 350TBI engine and can get 13 MPG's. Big deal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | SteveHulbert - 4/4/2014 10:23 AM
black_dawg - 3/30/2014 5:24 PM
The ecoboost is the motor that gets the highest towing capacity in the F150. It has more torque than the 6.2l V8, and a way better power band. .
I call BS on that one.
Ford F150 Ecoboost: 365HP, 420 Ft-Lbs. Torque
Silverado 6.2L: 420HP, 460 Ft-Lbs. Torque
And there is NO comparision. The Chevy 6.2L is BY FAR superior for a big gas boat hauler. Nothing worse than turbo-lag when pulling a big boat. Plus, I don't want the trouble/hassle/maintenance of twin turbo's. You know how many uninformed guys run these Eco-boosts with suspect conventional oils, who following their OLM's and change their oil when their truck tells them to, and who will end up with coked up turbo bearing and clogged oil passages? A LOT!!!!
Besides, it's really not that big of a deal anyhow. I mean, come on guys. I pull my big and heavy 18' Starcraft 200 miles on the highway with a 25 year old Chevy truck with the 350TBI engine and can get 13 MPG's. Big deal.
I beg to differ. Turbos create a plateau of trq when under load. Numbers are much more than peak numbers or number on a piece of paper... with turbos of that size there is very minimal lag. Watch this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq05bNUaBnU
Edited by lennyg3 4/4/2014 9:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Illinois | Eco boost is more economical then the 6.2. It gets better gas mileage for what it puts out on paper. Not to mention that 420lb of torque is at a measly 2500rpm. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | Obviously lennyg3 and muskyhunter07 are current Ford owners who have Ecoboost engines. Please, don't be so defensive.
I was just pointing out a few things like the following:
The Ecoboost MAY get 2-3 mpg's better than the 6.2L GM. However, you get the added benefits of lower gas mileage...
1.) Muskyhunter 07 pointed out 420 ft-lbs torque for Ecoboost at 2500 RPM's....if you're going 2500 RPM's in the GM 6.2L....you're going 90+ MPH. The GM engine has to work a lot less harder, which means it will last a lot longer.
2.) Most Americans are not real concerned or experienced about what it takes to properly maintain a turbo, let alone, a twin-turbo engine. Do either of you guys know what specific oil spec Ford requires for this engine? Do either of you know the benefits of running a Group V oil vs. a Group III in a turbo? Can any of you name a Group V oil and tell me how much more expensive it is? My point being.....most of you guys will have MAJOR engine trouble at 100-150k miles. Major. Why? Because they ran their oil change intervals WAY too long and they didn't want to spend $80 for an oil change that they had to do in their own driveway.
Any knowledgeable guy who really understand trucks, how they are built, and what it will take to maintain them....would run for the Ecoboost Ford. Unless of course, you're rich enough to pay $50k for a new truck, and keep getting a new one every few years because you have no interest in keeping anything you drive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | thanks lenny!!! what a time suck that was I ended up watching all kinds of videos on the ecoboost... I just picked up a left over brand spanky new fully loaded 13 fx4 eco boost 4 door w/ max tow package 6.5 ft bed... all the videos it seems the ecoboost is the best for towing which is about all i will be doing with mine
cant wait to hook the 620 to it I think I will be happy. My worn out 03 f 150 with the 5.4 feels gutless compared to this new truck |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | SteveHulbert - 4/4/2014 12:34 PM
Obviously lennyg3 and muskyhunter07 are current Ford owners who have Ecoboost engines. Please, don't be so defensive.
I was just pointing out a few things like the following:
The Ecoboost MAY get 2-3 mpg's better than the 6.2L GM. However, you get the added benefits of lower gas mileage...
1.) Muskyhunter 07 pointed out 420 ft-lbs torque for Ecoboost at 2500 RPM's....if you're going 2500 RPM's in the GM 6.2L....you're going 90+ MPH. The GM engine has to work a lot less harder, which means it will last a lot longer.
2.) Most Americans are not real concerned or experienced about what it takes to properly maintain a turbo, let alone, a twin-turbo engine. Do either of you guys know what specific oil spec Ford requires for this engine? Do either of you know the benefits of running a Group V oil vs. a Group III in a turbo? Can any of you name a Group V oil and tell me how much more expensive it is? My point being.....most of you guys will have MAJOR engine trouble at 100-150k miles. Major. Why? Because they ran their oil change intervals WAY too long and they didn't want to spend $80 for an oil change that they had to do in their own driveway.
Any knowledgeable guy who really understand trucks, how they are built, and what it will take to maintain them....would run for the Ecoboost Ford. Unless of course, you're rich enough to pay $50k for a new truck, and keep getting a new one every few years because you have no interest in keeping anything you drive.
Steve, I like i said above I recently picked up a eco boost I fully intend on using mobil 1 in it for oil I have used this oil in my old built up mustang and have many friends using it in turbo/tt 6.0 chev motors is mobil 1 a group 4 oil? also the dealer said 7500 mile oil changes I cant wrap my head around why would I go that long I think I will do 5k and if it looks somewhat clean think about going longer |
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Illinois | Whatever you say Mr.Stevehulbert.
I would have to agree to disagree on your assumption that a turbo vehicle wont last as long as non turbo vehicle.. lets just say, look at my fathers cummins TURBO diesel still running strong with over 300k miles not an issue with the turbo. And not to mention. I seem to be able to pull plenty 8-10k loaded bobcats up hills w/ my work truck that is an ecoboost at 2500rpm while only going 20-25 mph not 90mph. All depends what gear your in. My ecoboost gets 24 all day long with out a trailer. All depends on how you drive it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Illinois | Mobil 1 primarily uses IV base stocks. It will run just fine in your ecoboost. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | crix,
To answer your question, Mobil 1 (Exxon) makes their own base stock called Visom, which is a highly refined Group III+.
Your Ecoboost turbo's are both oil and water cooled, so they aren't as hard on oil as other turbo's can be. Your truck specs for a 30 weight. Since you live in MN, I'd run Mobil 1 0w30. It will give you the 30 weight you need/require once up to temp, but its very thin when cold (compared to a 5w30 or a 10w30) so it gives you better start up oil flow (important).
Mobil's best oil is their Mobil 1 0w40. You can get it at any Walmart as well. $25 for 5.1 quarts. It's the factory fill for many exotic sport cars (domestic and foreign). It has multiple turbo-specific certifications that are hard to meet. It's really a thicker 30 weight oil than a 40 weight as well. You can run this oil in your truck without any problems. If it were my truck, this is the oil I'd run.
From all the UOA's (used oil analysis reports) I've seen, it appears that 5k mile oil change intervals return great reports. Some go to 7k miles, but around 7k and beyond, there tends to be spike in wear metals found in the oil. Not good. Stick with 5-6k miles between oil changes.
Another great oil to use in your truck is called "German Castrol". It's Castrol Edge 0w30 (black bottle). It's made in Germany and Germany is the only country that requires "synthetic" oil really be synthetic (Group IV and Group V). This oil is made for all kinds of cars, and is thoroughly tested in the US and Europe as be a VERY stout oil that can provide great protection for high performance and turbo/SC engines. It's a little harder to find though. Sometimes Autozone and Advanced Auto parts type stores carry it...but it's also more expensive than Mobil 1 0w30 or M1 0w40 found at EVERY Walmart.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | muskyhunter07 - 4/4/2014 2:36 PM
Whatever you say Mr.Stevehulbert.
I would have to agree to disagree on your assumption that a turbo vehicle wont last as long as non turbo vehicle.. lets just say, look at my fathers cummins TURBO diesel still running strong with over 300k miles not an issue with the turbo. And not to mention. I seem to be able to pull plenty 8-10k loaded bobcats up hills w/ my work truck that is an ecoboost at 2500rpm while only going 20-25 mph not 90mph. All depends what gear your in. My ecoboost gets 24 all day long with out a trailer. All depends on how you drive it.
Easy Tiger. A turbo-charged diesel is quite a bit different beast than a twin-turbo charged gasoline engine. Completely different animals. Lots of cars out there for sale with over 200k miles....good look finding one that runs with a turbo charger on it that hasn't already been completely rebuilt/repowered.
muskyhunter07 - 4/4/2014 2:42 PM
Mobil 1 primarily uses IV base stocks. It will run just fine in your ecoboost.
Wrong. Absolutely not right. It uses a basestock called Visom. Which is a highly refined Group III, or sometimes referred to as Group III+.
Edited by SteveHulbert 4/4/2014 2:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
Location: Green Bay, Titletown, WI | SteveHulbert - 4/4/2014 9:23 AM
black_dawg - 3/30/2014 5:24 PM
The ecoboost is the motor that gets the highest towing capacity in the F150. It has more torque than the 6.2l V8, and a way better power band. .
I call BS on that one.
Ford F150 Ecoboost: 365HP, 420 Ft-Lbs. Torque
Silverado 6.2L: 420HP, 460 Ft-Lbs. Torque
And there is NO comparision. The Chevy 6.2L is BY FAR superior for a big gas boat hauler. Nothing worse than turbo-lag when pulling a big boat. Plus, I don't want the trouble/hassle/maintenance of twin turbo's. You know how many uninformed guys run these Eco-boosts with suspect conventional oils, who following their OLM's and change their oil when their truck tells them to, and who will end up with coked up turbo bearing and clogged oil passages? A LOT!!!!
Besides, it's really not that big of a deal anyhow. I mean, come on guys. I pull my big and heavy 18' Starcraft 200 miles on the highway with a 25 year old Chevy truck with the 350TBI engine and can get 13 MPG's. Big deal.
I was talking about the Ford 6.2L. Chevy's were not brought up until later in the thread.
You obviously have yet to drive an ecoboost. Turbo lag? Not on that motor. Look at power bands. Not just hp and tq numbers. Look where PEAK hp and tq start and finish. And Ford designed the ecoboost and it's turbo set-ups to be low maintenance. No special requirements for oil, gas or additives. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | SteveHulbert - 4/4/2014 1:34 PM
Obviously lennyg3 and muskyhunter07 are current Ford owners who have Ecoboost engines. Please, don't be so defensive.
I was just pointing out a few things like the following:
The Ecoboost MAY get 2-3 mpg's better than the 6.2L GM. However, you get the added benefits of lower gas mileage...
1.) Muskyhunter 07 pointed out 420 ft-lbs torque for Ecoboost at 2500 RPM's....if you're going 2500 RPM's in the GM 6.2L....you're going 90+ MPH. The GM engine has to work a lot less harder, which means it will last a lot longer.
2.) Most Americans are not real concerned or experienced about what it takes to properly maintain a turbo, let alone, a twin-turbo engine. Do either of you guys know what specific oil spec Ford requires for this engine? Do either of you know the benefits of running a Group V oil vs. a Group III in a turbo? Can any of you name a Group V oil and tell me how much more expensive it is? My point being.....most of you guys will have MAJOR engine trouble at 100-150k miles. Major. Why? Because they ran their oil change intervals WAY too long and they didn't want to spend $80 for an oil change that they had to do in their own driveway.
Any knowledgeable guy who really understand trucks, how they are built, and what it will take to maintain them....would run for the Ecoboost Ford. Unless of course, you're rich enough to pay $50k for a new truck, and keep getting a new one every few years because you have no interest in keeping anything you drive.
Has nothing to do with brand loyalty, and I was not being defensive. Simply stating an opposing viewpoint with documentation to back it up. This is after all a discussion board. I have built several turbo cars and love the way they perform.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/ljinx23/trackduty002.jpg
The beauty of a turbo car is that their boost is not rpm dependent and therefor would not need to downshift to accelerate the truck because of the broad trq band, where as a naturally aspirated engine needs to raise rpm much higher (almost 5k rpms to see 460ft. lbs in the chevy 6.2 IIRC) to get in the trq band.
And as far as the question of oil requirements, you are overthinking it. While Amsoil does seem to be the best in tests, A mobil 1 full synthetic or equivalent will work just fine. Just change oil and filter at regular 5k mile intervals and earlier if you take a long trip hauling the boat/car/camper...ect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | crix - 4/4/2014 3:21 PM
thanks lenny!!! what a time suck that was I ended up watching all kinds of videos on the ecoboost... I just picked up a left over brand spanky new fully loaded 13 fx4 eco boost 4 door w/ max tow package 6.5 ft bed... all the videos it seems the ecoboost is the best for towing which is about all i will be doing with mine
cant wait to hook the 620 to it I think I will be happy. My worn out 03 f 150 with the 5.4 feels gutless compared to this new truck
I've been in a few and am really impressed with how good the truck feels. The power delivery was great, and they respond very well to a tuner. 50hp/100+tq at the wheels IIRC. That's diesel power gains! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | lennyg3 - 4/5/2014 12:07 AM
crix - 4/4/2014 3:21 PM
thanks lenny!!! what a time suck that was I ended up watching all kinds of videos on the ecoboost... I just picked up a left over brand spanky new fully loaded 13 fx4 eco boost 4 door w/ max tow package 6.5 ft bed... all the videos it seems the ecoboost is the best for towing which is about all i will be doing with mine
cant wait to hook the 620 to it I think I will be happy. My worn out 03 f 150 with the 5.4 feels gutless compared to this new truck
I've been in a few and am really impressed with how good the truck feels. The power delivery was great, and they respond very well to a tuner. 50hp/100+tq at the wheels IIRC. That's diesel power gains!
I have been very impressed with the eco boost my uncle has a 12 eco and we took it out to wyoming on 3 sled trips this year also had a diesel ford and chev on different trips pulling a enclosed trailer in the mtns the eco avg was 11-12 mpg for the complete trip but guess what the diesels got 11-12 too! that alone sold me I never felt the eco boost to be lacking power up the steep grades in elevation honestly forget sometimes your pulling in a 1/2 ton truck
the last trip we took a week and a half ago at the jackson hole hill climbs I talked to the bully dog guys about their tuner Im just not sure i want to run a tune in it while its under full bumper to bumper warranty but the 50hp and 100tq would make this truck a BEAST
by the way lenny that sn95 is awesome!!! makes me wish I still had my old 88 fox body coupe 408 stroker
Edited by crix 4/5/2014 7:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | crix - 4/5/2014 8:23 PM
lennyg3 - 4/5/2014 12:07 AM
crix - 4/4/2014 3:21 PM
thanks lenny!!! what a time suck that was I ended up watching all kinds of videos on the ecoboost... I just picked up a left over brand spanky new fully loaded 13 fx4 eco boost 4 door w/ max tow package 6.5 ft bed... all the videos it seems the ecoboost is the best for towing which is about all i will be doing with mine
cant wait to hook the 620 to it I think I will be happy. My worn out 03 f 150 with the 5.4 feels gutless compared to this new truck
I've been in a few and am really impressed with how good the truck feels. The power delivery was great, and they respond very well to a tuner. 50hp/100+tq at the wheels IIRC. That's diesel power gains!
I have been very impressed with the eco boost my uncle has a 12 eco and we took it out to wyoming on 3 sled trips this year also had a diesel ford and chev on different trips pulling a enclosed trailer in the mtns the eco avg was 11-12 mpg for the complete trip but guess what the diesels got 11-12 too! that alone sold me I never felt the eco boost to be lacking power up the steep grades in elevation honestly forget sometimes your pulling in a 1/2 ton truck
the last trip we took a week and a half ago at the jackson hole hill climbs I talked to the bully dog guys about their tuner Im just not sure i want to run a tune in it while its under full bumper to bumper warranty but the 50hp and 100tq would make this truck a BEAST
by the way lenny that sn95 is awesome!!! makes me wish I still had my old 88 fox body coupe 408 stroker
I like a lot about the tt v6 but I will say that I do not care for the exhaust note of the eco very much
I think as long as you stick to the 5-6k lb range the truck is in its comfort zone. 12 isn't bad towing a boat. I'm not sure that I could leave well enough alone with that kind of potential on the table.
love the sound of a cammed Windsor!
Edited by lennyg3 4/6/2014 12:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
| lol...there's opinion and then there's evidence.
Consumer Reports tested both the F150 V8 and F150 V6 ecoBoost in crew cab XLT versions:
- they both get the exact same gas mileage in real-world testing: 10 city, 22 highway, 15 mpg overall.
- the V8 had 9300lbs towing capacity, the ecoBoost 11,200...both way above boat towing needs.
- the ecoBoost was quicker to 30mph, the V8 quicker to 60mph and also quicker from 45mph to 60mph.
- the V8 has average reliability and the ecoBoost has below average reliability.
- the purchase price of the ecoBoost is quite a bit more expensive than the V8.
just wait for the arguing over the RAM V6 eco-diesel once it becomes more widely available...
Edited by M Winther 4/6/2014 9:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
| All I can is add is that when my brother told me he bought a V6 F150 last year I laughed at him... but having now driven and ridden in it around town and pulling trailers up north- I would never guess that motor is not a V8 without knowing it. At the end of the day, its very comparable in power and mpg... But is it worth paying more for? I don't know. Will it have turbo issues past 100k miles as someone else here said? I don't know. It's a nice truck and with the government making fuel regulations more and more strict, we should get used to turbo V6's and the like. I believe that automakers have done all they can with a V8, and turbo V6's or even hybrid technology are going to be where automakers focus to meet these regulations. The old V8 engine is going to be phased out in my opinion, like it or not... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | M Winther - 4/6/2014 10:23 AM
lol...there's opinion and then there's evidence.
Consumer Reports tested both the F150 V8 and F150 V6 ecoBoost in crew cab XLT versions:
- they both get the exact same gas mileage in real-world testing: 10 city, 22 highway, 15 mpg overall.
- the V8 had 9300lbs towing capacity, the ecoBoost 11,200...both way above boat towing needs.
- the ecoBoost was quicker to 30mph, the V8 quicker to 60mph and also quicker from 45mph to 60mph.
- the V8 has average reliability and the ecoBoost has below average reliability.
- the purchase price of the ecoBoost is quite a bit more expensive than the V8.
just wait for the arguing over the RAM V6 eco-diesel once it becomes more widely available...
I was with you until you got to the reliability line. where did that "evidence" come from?
The purchase price of an ecoboost over the 5.0 is $1400 which equates to roughly 25-30 more per month over the course of a 60mo term.
The ram eco diesel is similar to the ecoboost in it's trq band, but gives up 120hp and has a fuel cost that is nearly $1 more per gallon. I don't believe they have released fuel economy estimates for the ram, but I would expect it to be very close to 30 highway mpg which would be very nice. I think that either of the aforementioned trucks would be a good choice, and much of the final decision will come down to price and personal preference. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | I have heard rumors flying of a 29 mpg on the new ram I am interested to see what comes of it and how people like them for towing I know that jeep has that motor in there line up already I saw that show lenny posted above do a 0-60 pulling that boat with the jeep and it was ok i guess
I still get employee pricing from ford for my 7 years donated on the line when I sat down with employee pricing the eco boost option was 800 dollars they had some very good incentives on random things like pay for navigation get the sunroof on 2013 only though trying to get them gone I guess
Lenny I will never put exhaust on this v6 they sound horrible!!!
In my mind there will never be anything that replaces that sound of the huge cam idling almost dying just chugging away then you just tap the throttle it wakes up sounding just nasty !!!
I will always miss that car but then again I got a ranger 620 now!
Edited by crix 4/6/2014 2:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | when comparing gas vs. diesel consider the cost of diesel and after the past winter consider the cost of not being able to use your truck due to cold weather (doesn't happen all that much, but did in spades this past winter). give me all your plug it in stories and all the i ran mine all all winter without a problem stories cuz that's what they would be = stories. i've had a diesel since '97, at around 2008 it started to really cost more to run a diesel and for some reason it's never returned to pre-08 gaps in cost vs. gas.
there are benefits to owning a diesel, but not what they used to be … if you run it forever then it's a good thing but most don't enjoy running vehicles when the body rusting off of them and the motor is still good.
the one guy i know who owns a jeep with the eco-diesel got stranded on his 1000 mile trip with a turbo that puked … sounds like it's a good idea but not built to do the work. |
|
| |
|
| lol...see what i mean? just mention diesel and the fish start snapping. anyone know the moonphase?  i'll be sticking with Godzilla and my HEMI.
just pointing out that most people form strong self-serving opinions in favor of whatever it is they own, and "i know this guy.." or "one time when i had a..." stories are just single stories in a sea of thousands. Ford has done a banner job of convincing the world that their V6 turbo is fuel efficient, mostly by calling it "eco" and making the claims. the bottom line is that testing shows it's not more fuel efficient than the V8 and it costs more to own. how is that a good thing? if you want real data, try to find as many objective sources as possible.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i drove the eco-boost in a ford taurus sho … impressive there.
interested in the eco-boost in the F150 but the truck i'd drive is $44k so can't see where that would be a "smart" buy. truck pricing is pretty ridiculous these days.
appreciated your experience on the eco-diesel dodge … tell us more about them, i'm curious … so-far they aren't getting very good reports.
nicest trucks i've seen are the mid-sized diesels (ford, toyota) but you can't buy them in the U.S.. we have a company truck in Honduras that is a mid-sized super crew diesel. wish i could have one here ... |
|
| |
|
| I don't see anyone here saying they have experience with an ecodiesel...I'm waiting for the 1/2 ton Tesla myself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you have experience with an ecoboost? |
|
| |
|
| Nope...and that's actually an advantage. I just pointed out that neutral testing showed it's nothing like what the anecdote-machine claims.
Google "confirmation bias," consider its impact on "I love my truck" stories, and report back on your findings.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | M Winther - 4/6/2014 5:08 PM
just pointing out that most people form strong self-serving opinions in favor of whatever it is they own
ahhh …
i drove an eco-boost 80k miles
i see you like your Godzilla and HEMI …
you reflect your opinion and i suppose that makes sense
|
|
| |
|
| If I was buying a Ford the V8 is cheaper and more reliable for the same performance. It even accelerates better at passing speeds. Aside from extreme towing capacities that are well beyond our fishing applications, where's the upside to the turbo? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was just pointing out that people form strong self-serving opinions in-favor of whatever it is they own ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | M Winther - 4/6/2014 9:23 AM
lol...there's opinion and then there's evidence.
- the ecoBoost was quicker to 30mph, the V8 quicker to 60mph and also quicker from 45mph to 60mph.
indeed … you either misquoted your source, never driven an eco-boost or likely both. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| I have there years in an ecoboost and love it. It pulls like crazy. I figure the extra money you pay outweighs any cost advantage, but we're talking about a relatively small amount of money when you compare the gas consumption between a 5.0 and the EB. Between the two, I'd bet the way you drive will have a larger cost impact than which engine is in the truck. In any case, the EB is a joy to drive. Seriously, it has a ton of torque and it puts a smile on my face regularly. Even if it uses 10% more gas than the 5.0 (I don't think it does, but for the sake of argument) on top of the $1,500 or whatever it cost to upgrade in the first place, it's totally worth it.
Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh |
|
| |
|
| you either misquoted your source, never driven an eco-boost or likely both.
You're right, I misread. The turbo is actually 0.1 seconds faster to 60mph and 0.1 seconds faster in the quarter mile. My brother has one, my neighbor has one, a couple friends do too. They've seemed like other trucks to me: press pedal, move out. They're nice, I just haven't seen anything compelling about the performance and fuel to say it's worth the extra upfront and maintenance costs. Everyone believes they're both stronger and more fuel efficient, but they're neither. More expensive for the same outcome...where's the upside? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | in the auto version the proof is out there and many are used as police cars now … it's a rocket. proof is yet to be determined in the trucks i suppose, but the world's #1 selling truck with ecoboost orders at 60% of total suggests it's popular. providing both a V-8 option allows ford to support the concerns you express.
when the all aluminum body comes out, it might be even more interesting for weight to HP …
Ford has it going on … best selling car and best selling truck isn't bad, my concern is with all truck brands … are they really worth high 30's to mid 40's $$. the Ford eco-boost i priced out is $44k.
in my experience with the eco-boost it was press pedal, grin … move out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
| jonnysled - 4/6/2014 6:14 PM
nicest trucks i've seen are the mid-sized diesels (ford, toyota) but you can't buy them in the U.S.. we have a company truck in Honduras that is a mid-sized super crew diesel. wish i could have one here ...
not yet but apparently the diesel will be offered in the new Chevy Colorados and Cummins is putting one in the Nissan frontier in the near future |
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | Imobley - 4/7/2014 10:24 AM
jonnysled - 4/6/2014 6:14 PM
nicest trucks i've seen are the mid-sized diesels (ford, toyota) but you can't buy them in the U.S.. we have a company truck in Honduras that is a mid-sized super crew diesel. wish i could have one here ...
not yet but apparently the diesel will be offered in the new Chevy Colorados and Cummins is putting one in the Nissan frontier in the near future
I read about the new diesel colorado coming out and it sounds promising. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Best part about those trucks is that they aren't really "new" per se. I spend a lot of time out of the country and they are the workhorses for the rest of the world. Ford, Toyota, Nissan and VW (yes, VW through a joint-venture i believe) are all over the roads (if you can call them that) but just not sold in the U.S.. They are built beefy and not what we would consider "mid-size" from what we get here. i drool over them every time i ride in em and see em down in Central America. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| You guys want objective, some will like this and some won't. Between my company and our sister company we run a fleet of varying trucks ranging in age with the oldest being 15-years old with brand new trucks purchased every year. These trucks get used by varying people and are on construction sites nearly daily. In fewer words than none, they are used hard! We have a multitude of suburban's, Yukon's, F150's, F250's, Silverado's, Expeditions, and a few odd balls including a Jeep, an Escape, and a grand prix. Engine's in the mix are 5.3L GMs of nearly every age, 6.0 and 6.2 GMs, 5.4 fords of varying age including a 2014 in and Expedition, 2 5.0's and 5 Ecoboost's (basically one each year since they debuted in the trucks).
Since this discussion is about Ecoboost's and towing, outside of our F250 Diesels, the little Twin turbo Ecoboost bar non tows the best with the GM 6.2 not terribly far behind. Anybody that thinks a 5.3 GM is in the same class as the Ecoboost is clueless. The big difference between the little 3.5 and the 6.2 is the 6.2 simply needs more RPM. That low RPM torque on the 3.5 is undeniable when towing and makes for a fantastic driving experience. 2nd thing is mileage, the Ecoboost varies greatly. All of our Ecoboost trucks are 3.73:1 geared and mileage ranges from a low of 9-10 towing heavy to 25 mpg at 55 mph with no adverse weather. On average the guys see 17-20mpg on the highway, 13-17mpg around town, 10-13mpg towing. Some expected better and complain a little about the mileage but none of the other trucks in the fleet are any better, everyone just expects better due to the advertising. The 6.0 GM and a the 5.4s seem to be the worst for Fuel milage without at doubt. Only 1 of the 5 ecoboost trucks have been in for service, neither of the 5.0 trucks have had any issues, we have Both a 6.2 and few 5.3s that have been in for various items. At this point I can't say one is any more reliable than the other. What I do know is put a truck in the fleet and you'd be amaze at what they manage to break! and that's on all of them. Our guys have open options to buy what they want and what works best for them so long as it's a full size SUV or Crew Cab truck. From 2000-2009 I would say we purchased 1 ford for every 3 GMs. In 09' we picked up a new F150 which became a turning table for our fleet. Since that 09' F150 (which we still have), the tables have turned easily to a 4:1 ratio of Fords to GMs. At the end of the day they guys like the fords better for a multitude of reasons, one being the Eco-boost.
Take it for what it's worth, but to watch some of they die hard GM guys make the switch to Ford has been somewhat comical. 10-years ago I would have heard rhetoric like "I'd rather push a Chevy than drive a ford". All I can say is it's been awfully quite the last few years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | I am a GM guy who just bought a new F150 with the 5.0. I drove both that and the ecoboost. A couple of factors went into my engine choice, first being the upcharge I believe of $1400 above the 5.0 to the eco. Second I know there has been a ton of testing but I am a believer in cubic inches. I own five vehicles, four are V8's and my wives Impala has the lone V6. I don't think you will go wrong with either of the Ford motors. 360 HP vs 365HP Torque is 380 ft lb vs 420 ft lb. Eco is stronger in both categories.
Edited by Jeff78 4/10/2014 8:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Crickets ... |
|
| |
|
| Crickets ...
forgive me for checking this less often than you do, Sled...
yes, those are interesting observations.
- far upper end towing capacity is greater for the turbo V6 than the V8
- fuel economy is the same (in spite of what is advertised and widely believed)
- up-front costs are higher for the turbo V6 (and other data says reliablity is worse)
i'm pretty sure if you look at what i've said earlier, i mentioned every one of those same points. his experience is consistent with what CR found.
from where i view it, for towing a 4000lb boat/trailer that's less than half of either versions towing capacity you're paying more than you need for same fuel economy and same acceleration (within 0.1 seconds). for industrial towing applications that require the extra capacity you can make a good case for the turbos.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you got on that one pretty quick …
pulling uphill in duluth or on the 501 is a good application for having low rpm, torque and acceleration capability and put it to use. people have "paid more" for that application (diesel) for years. so, now you get a gas engine that gives diesel performance at a cost less than diesel. a paradigm that is common. folks who don't like the huge additional cost of diesel and the cost of fuel difference are looking at the eco-boost with interest. not everyone is viewing this thread through the eyes of a HEMI.
i get that you are against the eco-boost and an expert on the subject. some good information from informed sources here to answer the OP's questions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | M Winther - 4/11/2014 10:00 AM
Crickets ...
forgive me for checking this less often than you do, Sled...
yes, those are interesting observations.
- far upper end towing capacity is greater for the turbo V6 than the V8
- fuel economy is the same (in spite of what is advertised and widely believed )
- up-front costs are higher for the turbo V6 (and other data says reliablity is worse )
i'm pretty sure if you look at what i've said earlier, i mentioned every one of those same points. his experience is consistent with what CR found.
from where i view it, for towing a 4000lb boat/trailer that's less than half of either versions towing capacity you're paying more than you need for same fuel economy and same acceleration (within 0.1 seconds ). for industrial towing applications that require the extra capacity you can make a good case for the turbos.
if a vehicle tows heavy loads better, one can assume it will pull a lighter load better as well esp because of the huge low end trq of the ecoboost. if you are concerned with towing performance per dollar you shouldn't be looking at new vehicles. they are a terrible investment. purchase an old 12v cummins or a 7.3 powerstroke with 200k on it.
as far as the reliability data goes, I would like to see it myself. could you provide a link to any of this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM
Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh
I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts:
1.) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer.
2.) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine.
3.) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future.
Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point.
Edited by SteveHulbert 4/11/2014 1:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | I'm not trying to start or a fight or a Ford vs. Chevy war...just giving my opinion if I were to go out and buy a new truck today.
Spending $35k-50k on a truck, I want something with a proven platform. I definitely don't want to buy a turbo-charged gasoline truck and hope it's the first successful one ever built.
Edited by SteveHulbert 4/11/2014 1:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Steve … that's interesting information on turbos interaction with gas engines. what is the science behind turbos and diesels as a comparison? |
|
| |
|
| as far as the reliability data goes, I would like to see it myself. could you provide a link to any of this.
it's from the 2014 Consumer Reports review of the Ford V8 and Ford V6 ecoboost. the V8 was rated with "Average" reliability and the V6 ecoboost was downgraded this year to "Below Average" reliability. you need a subscription (i have one) to view the full details of the review, but it's mentioned in the overview on the public page.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/ford/f-150.htm
pulling uphill in duluth or on the 501 is a good application for having low rpm, torque and acceleration capability and put it to use. people have "paid more" for that application (diesel) for years.
very true, and the Ford V8 offers more than enough for the boat/sled/atv towing applications most relevant here. the people who have paid more for a diesel have primarily done so because they're pulling much heavier loads such as an RV, horse trailer or for industrial applications.
not everyone is viewing this thread through the eyes of a HEMI.
i get that you are against the eco-boost and an expert on the subject.
actually, i'm actually quite interested in the Ford V8 vs Ford V6 ecoboost decision. i've been happy with my Ram HEMIs, but no more or less than i was with my previous Fords. if anything, the Rams' upkeep costs have been high.
so aside from snarky online jabs, serious question: what are the objectively tested advantages that would point to choosing the V6 ecoboost over the V8 in the F-150?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | I watched the video and recalled my 80k mile smile from pushing the pedal on my ecoboost-powered SHO, then considered how an all aluminum body truck would make that smile even bigger.
you really should stay snarky … it's entertaining.
Edited by jonnysled 4/12/2014 7:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 483
Location: NE PA | SteveHulbert - 4/11/2014 12:55 PM
John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM
Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh
I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts:
1. ) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos ) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer.
2. ) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions ). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine.
3. ) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids ). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals ) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs ) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future.
Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point.
here's a very well used ecoboost... 6 part torture test. in part 1 alone they do 150k miles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tEqwXrqzH4
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | another great video …
my brother paul has had the ford account for about 20 years and handles all of the specialty hauling from clay models, to show cars, elite collector delivery and they haul to all of the test sites including the ice roads of yellowknife NWT, Canada. when i lived in TX and TN he would use my garage as "a hiding spot" so on occasion they would drop a vehicle into my garage with body panels that hid it from what it was so that a guy could drop and another could load to help him with logistics depending on where they were moving things. he's tipped off to what's happening in the future at Ford and has been a great help to me to "wait" until a cool product might be coming out. i've known about the aluminum body testing program for quite awhile now and really interested in what it's going to be. he's the one who told me to wait for the ecoboost in the SHO … that car is incredible and makes an A6 feel like a below-average car. best part is that i qualify for the A-Plan and get his pin number to use. with it, i'm only allowed to use it every 2 years. i got my diesel for a song, same with the SHO and now considering waiting for the Aluminum Eco-Boost F150. really revolutionary for a half ton truck and well beyond anything anyone else is even dreaming of. Ford is the leader in trucks and the rest really do follow.
this latest video is great and it describes what paul has always told me … they handle all accounts, but Ford is at the pinnacle of testing and is not even in the same ballpark as what is done by their other clients (which include all the others).
great video and worth a watch! thanks for posting Lenny ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | SteveHulbert - 4/11/2014 11:55 AM
John23 - 4/6/2014 8:26 PM
Oh, and I can't help but add that if all the ecoboosts start breaking down at 150,000 miles Steve Hubert should win a medal. Or an engineering job. Heh heh
I don't deserve a metal, but here are the facts:
1. ) Name me one turbocharged gasoline engine that you've ever owned and driven past 150k miles. You've probably never even owned one before. Partially do the fact that the few that have been used over here in the States we not known for their stellar low maintenance or longevity. Japanese and Scandanavian car markers like Subaru and Volvo (both known for low maintenance and long-lasting autos ) have been putting turbocharged gasoline engines in cars for decades. It's hard to find a Subaru or Volvo Turbocharged car that's still running at 150k miles on the odometer.
2. ) Turbo's put a lot of stress on engine internals and they tend to really cook engine oil. Not only cook it, but also shear the snot out of it. As a result, you end up with even thinner oiler that today's truck demand due to GPM regulations (see CAFE restrictions ). US government demands thinner oil in today's car to squeeze out better gas mileage. Don't believe me? Your Honda Accord specs for 0w20 in the USA, but the owner's manual in Europe says a 30 or even a 40 weight is recommended. Same exact engine.
3. ) In a turbocharged gasoline engine you end up with highly oxidized engine oil that has a high load of acid byproducts and a very low TBN very quickly (the ability of an oil to neutralize acids ). The end result is a sludgy mess. Sludge and particulate matter in a turbo engine = problems. Turbo lines get plugged, screens get plugged, bearing fail due to oil starvation, etc. etc. Couple all these oil facts to the fact that manufacturers are telling everyone to extend their OCI's (oil change intervals ) even further (in an effort to "lower overall ownership costs ) and you will end up with a ton of Ecoboost failure in the near future.
Does anyone on here know of an Ecoboost with 150k-200k miles on it yet? I'd be curious to hear about it and the maintenance that was required to get it to that point.
Yes I do know a guy that has a 11 eco boost with just shy of 200k on it he uses it for pulling his boat, fairly big camper and a beast of a steel frame 24ft ice house I would never think about pulling with my old 5.4
his does have quite a lot of hi way miles on it from work but, he has had very good luck with it just the minor maintenance stuff and general maintenance oil and fluid changes etc... no turbos no motor issues and no tranny problems on his!!!
he did tell me he does full synthetic and 5k oil changes religiously
Will I have mine for 200k like him??? no but I will have it for 10+ years |
|
| |
|
| johnnysled, GM is coming out with a Colorado/Canyon that are supposed to be available this fall.... With the ridiculous price of half-ton trucks these days, and the specs they've listed so far on these trucks- I expect them be a good buy for a lot of people, including myself! They are even coming out with a 2.8 Liter "duramax" diesel engine for it next year apparently... looks promising to me as long as they price it right.
EDIT: Sorry, did not see page two, apparently these have already been mentioned.
I've owned a 5.4 ford and a 5.7 Hemi. My brother has the new ecoboost. Between the fords, I really don't see much difference to be honest, other then a slightly different power band, a little different sounding tone, and a 1200 dollar price difference. The Hemi was a BLAST to drive, but mine sure drank a lot of fuel. (could be because it was so fun to drive?). At the end of the day, they are all good until they break down.
Edited by FishFinder87 4/12/2014 9:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| Until some of you take an Ecoboost for a drive you will not understand the drivability and enjoyable experience it provides, it's very hard to describe. Ill give it a try, Driving around all day keeping up with traffic and never breaking 3k rpm is a start, dragging a skid steer and trailer weighing at at 10k in 6th gear down the highway with never more than a drop to 5th no matter the hill or wind is another, same goes for towing my 20 ft boat down to the lake, driving 80 mph down the interstate into a stiff 30-40 mph head wind and again nary a shift from OD, standing on the go pedal from a dead stop and lighting em up 30 ft later as the turbos hit full spool, power brake it a bit to spool the turbos and you'll wonder if you lost 5k or 10k miles off the rear skins, and yet at the end of the day it'll provide mileage on par or better than its nearest competition. Never mind what a $350 tuner will do for it. FYI, this engine debuted as the twin force in 2008, ramped into mainstream production in 2011 and yet outside of the World Wide Web I've yet to hear of one blowing an engine or losing a turbo. With 5 running around our shop, and 20 or so clients and friends that have them, the only complaint I've heard has been those that expected better fuel efficiency. Im not afraid to throw stones when there deserved, if you want to get me going we can talk about the infamous 6.0l diesel, the GM instrument clusters, or the steering issues in the GM lambda chassis vehicles. You all go ahead and wait until you think they are proven, in the mean time mine will be headed to fleet duty next year when it hits a 100k on the clock and I'll be driving another Ecoboost next year, except this time it'll be made out of my recycled beer cans. I'll be enjoying the innovation while you stand by those engines from GM and Ram that are more than a decade old. Happy trails. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| FYI, I have nothing against the 5.0 however its just like the 5.3 GMs that shift all over the place. Drive into a headwind and listen to the motor scream, hook a trailer up and listen to it scream. Yes, there made to do that and no your not going to hurt them. It does however take some of the enjoyable driving experience away. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | no need to be so snarky SLE … LOL
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| Jonny, sorry for the snarkyness. I suppose I could've left out those last two or three sentences, lol. I drove the 6.2L GM today and will say it's got some snort when you put your foot into it and has a beautiful exhaust note! Almost music to ones ears. That's one thing I can't say about the Eco, the exhaust note is null, the turbos are audible but quite as is the blow off valve. I put to many miles on to have a loud exhaust however a quaint little V-8 burble has it's place. I suppose the V6 just doesn't have an attractive exhaust note so they chose to just snuff it out all together, oh well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | great info on the eco-boost … i'm now thinking even more seriously about waiting for the aluminum body and pulling the trigger. i'm driving a 6.0 diesel now … 259,000 trouble-free miles LOL, well maybe a little trouble in the early days. no, a lot of trouble. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN |
jonnysled - 4/14/2014 5:12 PM
great info on the eco-boost ...
Did you guys watch the whole video? I did last night and I finally got some time to respond to what I saw:
1.) They "simulated" 150k miles on a dyno. No way could this be even close to equivilent as being real road miles. They said they can "simulate" 150k miles in 200-300 hours!!!! REALLY? Even if you ran the motor at a "stimulated" 100 (beating the holy living snot out of it on a highway), in 300 hours, you'd only have gone 30,000 miles!!! 1/5th of the miles claimed (150,000). I don't buy their "simulated" model one bit.
2.) Did you see that engine when they tore apart in front of the live audience? You gotta be kidding me right? The entire internals of that engine were SPOTLESS. There wasn't even any varnish on the engine!! That's not real. That means two things: The Ford guys were changing the oil every 2500 miles with high end low NOACK oil (GTL stocks or Ester, Group V oil) or the engine NEVER really saw 160-180,000 claimed miles. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 202
Location: Angola, IN | crix - 4/12/2014 4:10 PM
Yes I do know a guy that has a 11 eco boost with just shy of 200k on it he uses it for pulling his boat, fairly big camper and a beast of a steel frame 24ft ice house I would never think about pulling with my old 5.4
his does have quite a lot of hi way miles on it from work but, he has had very good luck with it just the minor maintenance stuff and general maintenance oil and fluid changes etc... no turbos no motor issues and no tranny problems on his!!!
he did tell me he does full synthetic and 5k oil changes religiously
Will I have mine for 200k like him??? no but I will have it for 10+ years
That's averaging 70k miles a year!!! That's almost all highway use...has to be. And at highway cruising, the turbo's don't even spool. Driving your car/truck down the highway for long intervals (like this guys is doing) is easier on your engine than letting it sit in the garage.
Edited by SteveHulbert 4/24/2014 4:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 627
Location: Madison, WI | We get it Steve, your not a fan of the Eco-boost. Others are. Don't buy one |
|
| |
|
Posts: 165
Location: tHe LaKe Of PrIoR, mN | finally pulled the ranger home with my eco boost and well I am very impressed the few hills that my old 5.4 would have been screaming rape losing speed this thing didn't even drop a gear or a mile an hour |
|
| |
|
Posts: 38
| buy a tundra u wont be sorry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 122
| To those who have been running a Tundra for a while, how have they performed? I'm particularly interested in reliability. I currently have a Silverado but am considering a Tundra next. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| A friend of mine pulled a tandem axle V-front covered trailer to North Dakota full of waterfowl gear with his Ecoboost. He got 6 mpg. Not good!
Course he was fighting a 50 mph headwind. Not sure what he got on the way home. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| Dave8121 - 4/28/2014 6:06 PM
To those who have been running a Tundra for a while, how have they performed? I'm particularly interested in reliability. I currently have a Silverado but am considering a Tundra next.
I was in the same situation as you, I ended up buying the new Ram with the 8 speed tranny. It plays with the boat and empty I am gettin 22-23 mpg. I test drove the ecoboost first but I kept getting different reviews on them and My wife wouldn't even let me look at a Toyota, she said city boys drive them and country boys drive Chevy, Ford and Dodge
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Saw a PT Cruiser towing a ranger with a double axel trailer today. He laughs at you truck owners. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 38
| thats funny that u would let ur wife tell u what kind of truck to buy u supposedly being a country boy and all |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| she didn't, she just told anything but a foreign truck which I felt the same way
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What's a foreign truck? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | sworrall - 4/30/2014 7:44 PM
What's a foreign truck?
That is an oxymoron, just like jumbo shrimp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Didn't answer the question. Although funny, I was looking for a definition, not an opinion...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 117
| sworrall - 4/30/2014 8:44 PM
What's a foreign truck?
You know...owned by a foreign company. Like Dodge.
(Toyota is made in the US)
I had a dandy photo of the manufacturers sticker inside the door of my truck that clearly says "toyota....Made in the USA", but I cant seem to post the image.
Edited by Macintosh 5/1/2014 7:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Clint … what reels does your wife tell you to buy to throw double 10's |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Dave8121 - 4/28/2014 6:06 PM
To those who have been running a Tundra for a while, how have they performed? I'm particularly interested in reliability. I currently have a Silverado but am considering a Tundra next.
I have a 2008 Tundra with the 5.7. My previous 3 vehicles were 1994 gmc sierra single cab 5.7, 2001 gmc sierra single cab 5.3, 2004 gmc ext cab 5.3. I loved the 1994... My dad runs Suburbans, couple buddies run 2006-2008 F150's. My pickup is noticeably the more powerful of the towing rigs above that I drive/drove on a regular basis. I haven't driven the new line-up in any make. At the time I wanted something faster, quieter in cab(with rear doors that open) and more powerful than my GMC 5.3 and didn't want to get into the 6+litre or a diesel. The Tundra was totalled in a flood incident when it was a year old but I kept and repaired it. Other than a small exhaust leak that Toyota took care on in 2010, it's been very solid at 83k miles. Fuel mileage is a bit less than sticker no matter how I drive, but I get better mileage while towing than any of my 3 previous vehicles. I plan to keep it to see just how many miles I can put on the thing without breaking the bank.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/1/2014 8:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was looking for a definition of 'foreign vehicle', and the 'oxymoron' quote was funny, but not what I was asking the OP of that comment to define. Hey, if asking a question and looking for the actual answer is hard on you, please....use your mouse.
We drive three brands in the Worrall/OFM household. I have 2 older Fords that have treated me extremely well, and there are quite a few foreign made parts in them. Keith has a brand new Dodge 1500 with the 5.7 Bighorn package.
OFM has two 2007 Toyota Tundra we have put up to 160K on with very few issues, and the mileage is acceptable and better by a measure than the older Fords. The new Dodge does quite a bit better without a trailer, we'll see what it does when a boat is hooked up the the hitch in a week or so.
By the definition as I understand it, none of the above are 'foreign' brands, so what's your definition?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | By my thinking a foreign truck is one that is not built by GM, Ford, or Dodge. Old fashioned I realize in this world of global economies but that is my opinion. I currently drive a 2013 F150 with the 5.0 engine. Great truck at a very fair price. Prior to this I drove a 1997 Suburban for 15 years. Great luck with that vehicle also. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 117
| Heres one measure that could answer the question.
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&sto... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Macintosh, that's the answers I was looking for. Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
| I drive a 2010 tundra for work. I have 68k on it and so far it has been a very good truck. Fuel economy seems a little low (15 mpg), but I do spend most of my time driving on field roads with a lot of that in 4wd. I recently bought a 2012 suburban, but if I was in the market for a new truck for my personal use I would give the tundra a serious look. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 29
| I see a lot of previous discussion talking about trucks anywhere from 2000' to 2010' models. Comparing a 2010 model to a 2014 or 2015 really isn't a comparison. I don't' have any strong feelings about the tundra other than the truck, chassis, and drivetrain are largely the same as when they debuted more than a 1/2 dozen years ago. This years refresh only freshened up the interior and added some gadgetry that the other makers had already incorporated and Toyota was lacking. Their V8 is a strong runner even today however it's fallen behind in terms of fuel economy and there trans simply doesn't compare to those of the new trucks from the other makers. I believe they are very reliable and they should be as they haven't pushed any envelopes and are essentially running 2006 technology. To me, if I'm paying for new, give me something new, Give me something innovative, not something that's already long in the tooth. This is also my problem with the GM redesign. It was a very conservative approach that only got them close to what Dodge and Ford are already doing. This puts them in constant catch up mode. The real question is do you want to be a leader or a follower. The sales numbers are telling that story and what current buyers are looking for. The GM twins have struggled since their debut, the Tundra has never really became a contender, Ram is seeing sales increases every month in leaps an bounds, and ford continues to march on with solid sales and monthly increases for the most part. Frankly, I look for Fords numbers to go a little stagnate until the 2015s hit the lots unless the start laying a boat load of cash on the hoods. with that said I expect dodge will continue to march forward increasing sales, the GM will continue to struggle with out additional incentive packages, and the Tundra will continue as many of there buyers are not cross shopping and know what there buying before they head to the lot. I could be totally off, however this has been my observation of the truck market which I've watched pretty close over the past few years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 180
Location: Elgin, IL | I'm keeping this short. My new Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost pulled my 18' Tracker Tundra and my partners Ranger 620. Was worried on how it would handle the towing but once I was on the road I was impressed. Gas mileage read 13.3mpg.
Felt smooth to me. I'm satisfied with it so far. |
|
| |
ecoboost towing