|
|
|
EcoBoost truck engine, whats the deal?
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Riceburner
Well-known member
Ford just got the name EcoBeast locked in for engine and vehicles. Might be doing an engine boost in the Raptor?
truer words were never spoken.
However, I'm in the market for a new full size van for our fleet, and Honda doesn't make one. Bought a 2014 Sprinter last year and its nice and everything but a little too big for my liking, so one of the other guys has it.
Which brings me to the 2015 Ford Transit, the question is, go for the 3.7 V6, or the 3.5L EcoBoost engine. Both engines "apparently" get identical fuel economy.....
(the diesel option is out of the question as it commands a $6g premium)
I will be following this thread as I am also considering getting a 2015 Transit with the Ecoboost. I'm waiting on delivery of a '15 4 cyl Sprinter to replace my '10 V6, but I am also looking at expanding the fleet. The new transit has some good options and is a little cheaper than the Sprinter. I expect my new Sprinter to get around 14L/100km so I wonder how the EB will stack up.
Unless they have changed the engine components drastically, I'd avoid that piece of ****.
I had the 2011 3.5 ecoboost and put over 100k on that engine.
Got rid of it and went back to the reliable 5.0
I had the 2011 3.5 ecoboost and put over 100k on that engine.
Got rid of it and went back to the reliable 5.0
Ecoboost normally tests well as the test cycle stays out of the boost, but in real world usage, expect much worse mileage.
F-150 from http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost
2.7L EcoBoost V-6:But there’s a big problem: The observed fuel economy is not that good. The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive and 23 mpg (10.2 L/100 km) on the highway with 4-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot.
Several editors drove the truck for 253 miles (407 km), and the trip computer displayed a low of 17.6 mpg (13.3 L/100 km) and a high of 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).
We checked consumption old-school (253 miles divided by 16.16 gallons [61 L] to refill the tank) and came up with an even more disappointing figure: 15.6 mpg (15 L/100 km).
Comment from the same article:
The simple fact of the EcoBoost engines being "turbo" doesn't mean that a turbocharged engine can't hit its EPA numbers in the real world. I took the same 500-mile road trip in 18 different kinds of cars (rentals, trip was for work) some turbo, some not, and cataloged the mileage I got:
http://www.jetteroheller.com/rental-car-review-gas-mileage-comparison/
I had 2 different Ford Fusion 2.0T EcoBoosts, neither of which (even when driven EXTREMELY gingerly) could come close to their advertised economy - my best tank was 26.2mpg, vs the 33mpg hwy I was meant to get.
4 other turbos I drove on the same route (Subaru WRX, Cadillac ATS 2.0T, Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T, Mercedes C250 1.8T) were able to meet or exceed their EPA numbers. So, something's fishy about how Ford is rating these, indicating they're calibrating their powertrains JUST to get nice EPA numbers.
http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/...2753-managing-3-5l-ecoboost-fuel-economy.html
According to Michael G. Ross, Program Manager for the Southwest Research Institute, dynamometer testing (with PERC funding) on a Ford 3.5L EcoBoost engine showed the potential for significant improvements in engine efficiency at medium to high loads when the engine is boosted. “Under boosted conditions, the engine is very knock-limited on gasoline, especially regular gasoline,” Ross explains. “To control knock when running on gasoline, the spark timing is retarded up to 20 degrees, which causes the exhaust temperature to increase significantly.”
Ross says under those high-load conditions, the engine dumps up to 30 percent in excess fuel to reduce the exhaust temperature in order to protect the turbocharger and catalytic converters. All that fuel is wasted. This is why the fuel economy for the EcoBoost suffers so much when towing."
Did a test drive on a 3.7 yesterday and the power won't cut it in the hills of Pennsyltucky. If an empty van is lackluster, shudder to think what a loaded one would be like.
F-150 from http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-engines/where-s-eco-ecoboost
2.7L EcoBoost V-6:But there’s a big problem: The observed fuel economy is not that good. The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive and 23 mpg (10.2 L/100 km) on the highway with 4-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot.
Several editors drove the truck for 253 miles (407 km), and the trip computer displayed a low of 17.6 mpg (13.3 L/100 km) and a high of 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).
We checked consumption old-school (253 miles divided by 16.16 gallons [61 L] to refill the tank) and came up with an even more disappointing figure: 15.6 mpg (15 L/100 km).
Comment from the same article:
The simple fact of the EcoBoost engines being "turbo" doesn't mean that a turbocharged engine can't hit its EPA numbers in the real world. I took the same 500-mile road trip in 18 different kinds of cars (rentals, trip was for work) some turbo, some not, and cataloged the mileage I got:
http://www.jetteroheller.com/rental-car-review-gas-mileage-comparison/
I had 2 different Ford Fusion 2.0T EcoBoosts, neither of which (even when driven EXTREMELY gingerly) could come close to their advertised economy - my best tank was 26.2mpg, vs the 33mpg hwy I was meant to get.
4 other turbos I drove on the same route (Subaru WRX, Cadillac ATS 2.0T, Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T, Mercedes C250 1.8T) were able to meet or exceed their EPA numbers. So, something's fishy about how Ford is rating these, indicating they're calibrating their powertrains JUST to get nice EPA numbers.
http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/...2753-managing-3-5l-ecoboost-fuel-economy.html
According to Michael G. Ross, Program Manager for the Southwest Research Institute, dynamometer testing (with PERC funding) on a Ford 3.5L EcoBoost engine showed the potential for significant improvements in engine efficiency at medium to high loads when the engine is boosted. “Under boosted conditions, the engine is very knock-limited on gasoline, especially regular gasoline,” Ross explains. “To control knock when running on gasoline, the spark timing is retarded up to 20 degrees, which causes the exhaust temperature to increase significantly.”
Ross says under those high-load conditions, the engine dumps up to 30 percent in excess fuel to reduce the exhaust temperature in order to protect the turbocharger and catalytic converters. All that fuel is wasted. This is why the fuel economy for the EcoBoost suffers so much when towing."
Did a test drive on a 3.7 yesterday and the power won't cut it in the hills of Pennsyltucky. If an empty van is lackluster, shudder to think what a loaded one would be like.
The MB is a stunning look truck, nicer then the Transit. and it will definitely get better mileage with its 4cyl - 7speed auto combo. No comparison.
The Transit is nicer "for me" because it has "low roof" option and its thousands cheaper than the M-B.
M-B has a smaller version of the Sprinter called the Metris (V Class in euro markets) coming to our shores next fall with the same engine/tranny as the 4 cyl sprinter, but might be a little too small for my liking.
We've had good success with our fleet of Econolines, they take a licking and keep on ticking, but man do they suck gas. hoping to have good results with the Transit as well.
Nice, thats what I'm looking for, upper 20s mileage. Currently getting 12-14mpg on my Econoline (5.4 V8 )
My low roof ProMaster (similar size van) will do 11-ish L/100 km in steady highway conditions in summer, 12-ish steady highway at this time of year, I don't really do much city driving with it, but it's likely 13-and-change based on what the display on the dash says, and goes up from there if conditions are brutal or if you drive like an idiot. This is with the 3.6 Pentastar and 6 speed automatic. Lifetime-thus-far average is at 11.3 L/100 km.
Transit with the base 3.7 ought to be similar, perhaps a bit worse, because their idea of "low roof" is combined with a higher floor, so it has more frontal area.
The Pentastar has enough power for how I use this van, and then some. No turbo needed. It's not a sports car.
High-20's mpg US with a gasoline engine (whether Ecoboost or not) in something this size and shape (lots more frontal area than a pickup truck) is not going to happen. The ProMaster diesel will do it ... someone on the forum managed 30 mpg US on one fillup by driving carefully, but mid-20's with that diesel engine is more the norm.
These newer vehicles are geared tall for better mileage ... it's gonna be downshifting on anything that looks like an uphill or pushing into a headwind. Mine is like that, the Transit with the 3.7 is unlikely to be much different. It's big, it's heavy, it's geared tall. I know why it's like that and it doesn't bother me, but some people don't like it. The diesel reportedly is much better for staying put in top gear.
Transit with the base 3.7 ought to be similar, perhaps a bit worse, because their idea of "low roof" is combined with a higher floor, so it has more frontal area.
The Pentastar has enough power for how I use this van, and then some. No turbo needed. It's not a sports car.
High-20's mpg US with a gasoline engine (whether Ecoboost or not) in something this size and shape (lots more frontal area than a pickup truck) is not going to happen. The ProMaster diesel will do it ... someone on the forum managed 30 mpg US on one fillup by driving carefully, but mid-20's with that diesel engine is more the norm.
These newer vehicles are geared tall for better mileage ... it's gonna be downshifting on anything that looks like an uphill or pushing into a headwind. Mine is like that, the Transit with the 3.7 is unlikely to be much different. It's big, it's heavy, it's geared tall. I know why it's like that and it doesn't bother me, but some people don't like it. The diesel reportedly is much better for staying put in top gear.
Last edited:
Dad's got a '14 with the V8 and 3 coworkers and one friend have identical '13-'14 optioned trucks, 3 with the ecoboost and one with V8. All get very similar mileage numbers (unloaded and not heavy-footed ~25mpg). None have had any mechanical failures and all 5 are happy with their purchase.
Wow!
My 3500 EXT wheelbase van must be great on fuel in comparisson....even with 4:10 final drive. Torque converter stays locked up over 78kmh, uphill, and sometimes even towing. I think that is a key to economy.
650 kms of mixed hwy and city takes about 90 L to re- fill. = 13.8 L/100 km
If I am on the highway only, it's more like 12L/100kms (@ 20 mpg).
Best ever was a trip to Tennessee, in June......2 motorcycles and 5 passengers in van, 3 more bikes towed behind van on an open trailer...I-75 @ 110 kmh......21 US gallons went 810 km....= 24 mpg.
Whenever I read threads like this, I think about just getting some bodywork done to my van and try to get another 350,000 kms out of it.
My 3500 EXT wheelbase van must be great on fuel in comparisson....even with 4:10 final drive. Torque converter stays locked up over 78kmh, uphill, and sometimes even towing. I think that is a key to economy.
650 kms of mixed hwy and city takes about 90 L to re- fill. = 13.8 L/100 km
If I am on the highway only, it's more like 12L/100kms (@ 20 mpg).
Best ever was a trip to Tennessee, in June......2 motorcycles and 5 passengers in van, 3 more bikes towed behind van on an open trailer...I-75 @ 110 kmh......21 US gallons went 810 km....= 24 mpg.
Whenever I read threads like this, I think about just getting some bodywork done to my van and try to get another 350,000 kms out of it.
Last edited:
According to truck computer, at fill up(130ltr tank). 999 till empty. When doing 90kms/hr heading to visit parents. Truck runs 9.8 per 100.
401&120 runs 12.5 per 100. For me I kill fuel mileage by idling. -20+ I wanna be in a warm truck. Lol
Sent from my imaginary friend
401&120 runs 12.5 per 100. For me I kill fuel mileage by idling. -20+ I wanna be in a warm truck. Lol
Sent from my imaginary friend
"28 mpg" - Imperial gallons??
I use L/100 km because it's not ambiguous. 28 mpg US works out to 8.4 L/100 km which is not a plausible number for that truck ("downhill with following wind"). 28 mpg Imperial works out to 10.1 L/100 km which might be possible in exceptional conditions (like 90 km/h steady!) but good luck doing that over a full tank.
When I did home -> jobsite in South Carolina -> hotel in North Carolina for Deals Gap trip -> back home with my ProMaster van (4000 km round trip), that trip averaged 10.8 L/100 km and that's with cruising at mostly 105 km/h (65 mph) as steadily as possible. Driving faster quickly starts sucking more gas (too much frontal area, bad for aerodynamics). I can get the display to show below 10 L/100 km by driving at speeds slower than I can tolerate for any length of time ...
I use L/100 km because it's not ambiguous. 28 mpg US works out to 8.4 L/100 km which is not a plausible number for that truck ("downhill with following wind"). 28 mpg Imperial works out to 10.1 L/100 km which might be possible in exceptional conditions (like 90 km/h steady!) but good luck doing that over a full tank.
When I did home -> jobsite in South Carolina -> hotel in North Carolina for Deals Gap trip -> back home with my ProMaster van (4000 km round trip), that trip averaged 10.8 L/100 km and that's with cruising at mostly 105 km/h (65 mph) as steadily as possible. Driving faster quickly starts sucking more gas (too much frontal area, bad for aerodynamics). I can get the display to show below 10 L/100 km by driving at speeds slower than I can tolerate for any length of time ...
I drive slow on the highway. Usually cruise set at 105kph.
I can get (with a calculator, not according to my trip computer) about 12L/100km in my 05 Sierra (4x4 and 5.3L V8... no fancy fuel saving gizmos or technology) and I paid a hell of a lot less for it than any fancy new truck. It'll take you guys a few million km to make up the cost difference with your fuel savings.
I can get (with a calculator, not according to my trip computer) about 12L/100km in my 05 Sierra (4x4 and 5.3L V8... no fancy fuel saving gizmos or technology) and I paid a hell of a lot less for it than any fancy new truck. It'll take you guys a few million km to make up the cost difference with your fuel savings.
|
|
|
|
|