acadianbob wrote: Tow: Mostly 60 to 62 mph except for 2-lane 55 mph roads.Four of those days were into nasty headwinds and crosswinds. One day with some assist from the wind. Significant and numerous grades in NW Arkansas. Lots of big “rollers” through Missouri and Iowa. Easy flat tows in Louisiana
Most of the trip was in 6th at 1,600 RPM. It was amazing the hills it would take at this low RPM; staying in 6th with lockup. 5th was 2,000 RPM when needed. Saw 4th gear maybe 3 or 4 times. Overall fuel mileage for the trip was 11.5 mpg. A high of 12.2 and a low of 10.3. I was impressed given the wind we had to contend wit
oved the 36 gallon gas tank.
Ecoboost provides only modest amounts of compression braking. I’ll be taking extra note of this when we do our trip to the Rockies in July.
Might be more enlightening with some counter-point, even though I'm calling you out on one point.
I've towed a 4500# camper trailer from Smithfield, UT to Jackson Hole, WY, and back, with a 46K-mile '06 GMC WT1500 4.3L V6 / 4-speed-automatic / 3.23:1 axle. It was okay to cruise at 65 MPH in OD 4th gear at 1600 RPM with the trailer, provided no wind and no hills or grades, but it wasn't far from lugging. So for yours to do the same, despite lacking 0.8L, you must have been using turbo boost at 1600 RPM, right?
My trip wasn't so windy, but was at much higher elevation, with more grades and hills. Most were second gear pulls, and not much use of 4th OD after the initial attempt, just across the state line into Idaho.
The return trip was more shifting into second, it wouldn't quite maintain 55 in Drive. Maybe a 3.42:1 gear would have been better? Anyway, for the whole round trip, 2 top-offs of the 35-gallon-tank, averaged 12.26 MPG.
I didn't have any useful compression braking in Drive, but second wasn't bad.
All that other, about the integration, cruise, tow / haul, and shifting, you couldn't honestly say any worse about mine. And none of that Sync nonsense to stress with.
I've since changed the axle to 4.10:1, so I could tow in OD, and my non-towing MPG improved by 10%, from 20 up to 22, because of less automatic down-shifting out of OD.
Nothing against your Ford, but without the turbo, it's no better than my GMC.
ib516 wrote: What? People don't like the EcoBoost "Angry Blender" exhaust note? I agree, that 5.0L sounds sweet in comparison, but I'd still choose the EcoBoost if I was shopping for an F150.
I don't know how, but in the recent "Truck Trend" magazine, they tested the F150 EcoBoost against the F150 5.0L and their mpg tests came out like this:
F150 EcoBoost - 17.8 mpg hwy, 14.1 mpg city
F150 5.0L - 17.9 mpg hwy, 14.0 mpg city
I've got a hint for ya. The sound of the turbo spooling up is VERY addicting. I'm guilty of heavy throttle syndrome when I drive my wife's turbocharged Volvo, strangely I don't suffer from it at all when I drive my Explorer.
02 Ford Explorer 4.6 V8 4x4, prodigy and equalizer
07 Crossroads Sunset Trail ST19CK
and no payments
"Nothing against your Ford, but without the turbo, it's no better than my GMC."
And therein (the turbo) lies the difference! Plus direct injection, dual overhead cams, variable cam timing, etc.
Also, not sure about what you intend to be "calling out". Of course it was using boost. That's what it is designed to do and is partially the source of the HP and torque; along with other technologies.
Bob & Wendy; Spanky & Piper the Fox Terriers
2012 Race Red FX4 Ecoboost, Max Tow, Luxury Pkg
Surveyor 235RKS
Reese Dual Cam
ib516 wrote: I don't know how, but in the recent "Truck Trend" magazine, they tested the F150 EcoBoost against the F150 5.0L and their mpg tests came out like this:
F150 EcoBoost - 17.8 mpg hwy, 14.1 mpg city
F150 5.0L - 17.9 mpg hwy, 14.0 mpg city
I think it depends on how you drive them. Punch the Ecoboost and it uses fuel. Go easy on it and it gets great mileage. It's a Jekyl and Hyde kind of motor.
acadianbob wrote: "Nothing against your Ford, but without the turbo, it's no better than my GMC."
And therein (the turbo) lies the difference! Plus direct injection, dual overhead cams, variable cam timing, etc.
Also, not sure about what you intend to be "calling out". Of course it was using boost. That's what it is designed to do and is partially the source of the HP and torque; along with other technologies.
Boost isn't to be used at such low RPM on gasoline engines. For diesel, it seems ideal, but gas engines just need RPM to make good use of boost. And using boost is no way to help MPG, that comes from keeping it out of boost. Learn advanced engine theory before typing about it.
'06 GMC C2500HD RCLB gasser 4.10:1, 4L80E, custom camshaft
'84 Trans Am 6.2 diesel, 700R-4, custom Class-3 receiver
'69 F350 dually. GM 6.2 diesel, turbo, 700R-4, NP208 all pending.
whisperide wrote: Boost isn't to be used at such low RPM on gasoline engines. For diesel, it seems ideal, but gas engines just need RPM to make good use of boost. And using boost is no way to help MPG, that comes from keeping it out of boost. Learn advanced engine theory before typing about it.
It depends on the turbo's design. In a dual setup you can have one spool up early in the RPM band and the other later. Boost increases torque and helps the truck pull the weight. A struggling engine will drink far more fuel. Same principle goes with swapping diff gearing to a higher ratio. Fuel economy will be hit unloaded but improves with a load.
Boost isn't to be used at such low RPM on gasoline engines. For diesel, it seems ideal, but gas engines just need RPM to make good use of boost. And using boost is no way to help MPG, that comes from keeping it out of boost. Learn advanced engine theory before typing about it.
Well I'm not sure who needs to go to school. But I can tell you that it would produce as much as 9 to 10 pounds of boost at 1,600 rpm before it decided to downshift from 6th to 5th. This motor is specifically designed to put out big torque at low rpm.
Boost isn't to be used at such low RPM on gasoline engines. For diesel, it seems ideal, but gas engines just need RPM to make good use of boost. And using boost is no way to help MPG, that comes from keeping it out of boost. Learn advanced engine theory before typing about it.
I suggest you inform the engineers that designed the engine of your superior intelligence. Why did they design it to have it's torque curve the way they did if it isn't to be used?
D. Steiner
The sooner I fall behind, the more time I have to catch up.
Offline
People don't like the EcoBoost "Angry Blender" exhaust note? 
I agree, that 5.0L sounds sweet in comparison, but I'd still choose the EcoBoost if I was shopping for an F150.
But I can tell you that it would produce as much as 9 to 10 pounds of boost at 1,600 rpm before it decided to downshift from 6th to 5th. This motor is specifically designed to put out big torque at low rpm.
