F-150: Selling more V6s' than V8s'

[fordmantpw]

No it's not. How could Ford compare the EB to GM's 6.2 when Ford themselves have a 6.2? It's not a marketing ploy so much as Ford is caught between a rock and a hard place. If you want to be blunt about it, you can't really compare the EB to ANYTHING as it uses forced induction/DI. It's in a class by itself....that it created.

 

As for mileage, the 5.3 is capable of 15/22 c18 and the EB is rated at 16/22 c18. The yearly fuel cost is the same. I have to tip my hat to GM that they were able to get that kind of mileage out of an engine that was developed in the 90s. Imagine what they can do now?

 

I would love GMs new engines to be 5.0L (like Ford) and 5.7L. How cool would that be for the Ford/GM riverly...with both bringing back iconic engines. Screw the silly retro styling fad, give us modern engines that harken back to the good 'ol days

 

 

 

Ford would be wise to drop the 6.2 from the F-150 lineup. Then they most certainly could compare the EB to the GM 6.2 as "top engines" and then it would shine even more.

 

You don't compare truck engines based on size or whether they are FI/NA. You compare them on capabilities. Bottom line is, the 5.3 can't hold a candle to the 3.5L EB when it comes to capabilitiy. Period!

[TomServo92]

No it's not. How could Ford compare the EB to GM's 6.2 when Ford themselves have a 6.2? It's not a marketing ploy so much as Ford is caught between a rock and a hard place. If you want to be blunt about it, you can't really compare the EB to ANYTHING as it uses forced induction/DI. It's in a class by itself....that it created.

 

As for mileage, the 5.3 is capable of 15/22 c18 and the EB is rated at 16/22 c18. The yearly fuel cost is the same. I have to tip my hat to GM that they were able to get that kind of mileage out of an engine that was developed in the 90s. Imagine what they can do now?

 

I would love GMs new engines to be 5.0L (like Ford) and 5.7L. How cool would that be for the Ford/GM riverly...with both bringing back iconic engines. Screw the silly retro styling fad, give us modern engines that harken back to the good 'ol days

 

 

 

Ford would be wise to drop the 6.2 from the F-150 lineup. Then they most certainly could compare the EB to the GM 6.2 as "top engines" and then it would shine even more.

 

Just forget it. You're missing th point and I really don't feel like trying to explain it any more.

[Extreme4x4]

The 6.2L is not long for this world.

 

You are impressed that a 315hp, 335lb ft V8 can get the same mileage, in a truck that weighs hundreds of pounds less, than a 365hp 420lb ft engined truck.

 

Ok.

 

EB mileage is all over the place, because it should be. There is a reason that there are disclaimers on the EPA mileage ratings. It is because everyone drives different, every place is different, and fuel is different everywhere. This causes HUGE differences. Yes, the F150 gets better mileage if you keep it below 65mph. Gee, what a shock. Any truck will do the same. Some say the 6.2L would only be 1-2mpg less than the EB in similar lower highway speeds..................... yet, we know that is incorrect, because the EPA highway test is at lower highway speeds, and the EB is 3-4mpg better. The EPA test is always done on the same course, using the same criteria, and the same fuel. Yet, what Joe Shmoe gets in Denver CO, running oxygenated fuel, being compared to what Fred Somebody gets in flat OK with real gas, is somehow more valid.

 

Ok.

 

I have an amazing realization for folks....................... use all 365hp and 420lb ft, and the engine will use more gas. I know................... amazing stuff, huh?? Also, 2 identical trucks, towing 2 identical loads, at the same time, at the same place.................. one with the EB and one with the 6.2, and the 6.2 will still get 1-2mpg less.

 

It is what it is.

 

What I think we have, more than anything, is unrealistic expectations. We have dealers making ridiculous claims on this engine, and people reading into what Ford has said, and running with it. The EB gets the same or close to the same mileage as their own 3.7L equipped truck, in the same configuration. It gets better mileage than the competitors V6 trucks. It has V8 horsepower...................... not only that, it has BIG V8 hp and tq. Thus, it does exactly what it is said to do. If some come into buying one, thinking they can floor it off the line all the time, run it up to 90+ because it is fun, and do 84 in a 75......................... and still get the EPA rating, then they need to sit down with themselves and have a chat about reality.

 

I'm sorry, but I am not impressed with a gutless wonder V8 that gets decent mileage, and I never will be.

[Boss444]

You don't compare truck engines based on size or whether they are FI/NA. You compare them on capabilities. Bottom line is, the 5.3 can't hold a candle to the 3.5L EB when it comes to capability. Period!

 

No...you compare them to what the manufacturer compares them to. EB = 5.3.

 

Bottom line is, the 5.3 can't hold a candle to the 3.5L EB when it comes to capability. Period!

 

A fact I never disputed. Not sure where that even came from.

 

But strictly from mileage standpoint, the EB is nothing to write home about. It averages 1 MPG over the elderly 5.3.

 

I think you are getting the terms "economy" and efficiency" mixed up. I'm talking about fuel economy...NOT fuel efficiency. For the vast majority of people...it's the fuel economy that is going to have a bigger impact on their day to day lives (and wallet). I do a lot of driving for a living...and you can pick out an EB F-150 from a mile away. And 99% of the ones I have seen were not hauling or towing anything (which is where fuel efficiency would come into play).

 

I view fuel efficiency as the amount of work you can do on a drop of fuel and fuel economy as how far you can go on a drop of fuel.

[fordmantpw]

The 6.2L is not long for this world.

 

You are impressed that a 315hp, 335lb ft V8 can get the same mileage, in a truck that weighs hundreds of pounds less, than a 365hp 420lb ft engined truck.

 

Ok.

 

EB mileage is all over the place, because it should be. There is a reason that there are disclaimers on the EPA mileage ratings. It is because everyone drives different, every place is different, and fuel is different everywhere. This causes HUGE differences. Yes, the F150 gets better mileage if you keep it below 65mph. Gee, what a shock. Any truck will do the same. Some say the 6.2L would only be 1-2mpg less than the EB in similar lower highway speeds..................... yet, we know that is incorrect, because the EPA highway test is at lower highway speeds, and the EB is 3-4mpg better. The EPA test is always done on the same course, using the same criteria, and the same fuel. Yet, what Joe Shmoe gets in Denver CO, running oxygenated fuel, being compared to what Fred Somebody gets in flat OK with real gas, is somehow more valid.

 

Ok.

 

I have an amazing realization for folks....................... use all 365hp and 420lb ft, and the engine will use more gas. I know................... amazing stuff, huh?? Also, 2 identical trucks, towing 2 identical loads, at the same time, at the same place.................. one with the EB and one with the 6.2, and the 6.2 will still get 1-2mpg less.

 

It is what it is.

 

What I think we have, more than anything, is unrealistic expectations. We have dealers making ridiculous claims on this engine, and people reading into what Ford has said, and running with it. The EB gets the same or close to the same mileage as their own 3.7L equipped truck, in the same configuration. It gets better mileage than the competitors V6 trucks. It has V8 horsepower...................... not only that, it has BIG V8 hp and tq. Thus, it does exactly what it is said to do. If some come into buying one, thinking they can floor it off the line all the time, run it up to 90+ because it is fun, and do 84 in a 75......................... and still get the EPA rating, then they need to sit down with themselves and have a chat about reality.

 

I'm sorry, but I am not impressed with a gutless wonder V8 that gets decent mileage, and I never will be.

 

I agree with you on everything except the bolded part. Due to the need to dump fuel to cool the turbos, it is possible the EB may get slightly less while towing heavy loads in extreme conditions. This can be mitigated some by using premium fuel, but that increases the cost.

Edited November 29, 2011 by fordmantpw

[fordmantpw]

No...you compare them to what the manufacturer compares them to. EB = 5.3.

 

Seriously? Did you just say that? So now we know you obviously aren't a truck buyer. Move along to a non-truck discussion, because you obviously don't have a clue here.

 

 

A fact I never disputed. Not sure where that even came from.

 

But strictly from mileage standpoint, the EB is nothing to write home about. It averages 1 MPG over the elderly 5.3.

 

I think you are getting the terms "economy" and efficiency" mixed up. I'm talking about fuel economy...NOT fuel efficiency. For the vast majority of people...it's the fuel economy that is going to have a bigger impact on their day to day lives (and wallet). I do a lot of driving for a living...and you can pick out an EB F-150 from a mile away. And 99% of the ones I have seen were not hauling or towing anything (which is where fuel efficiency would come into play).

 

I view fuel efficiency as the amount of work you can do on a drop of fuel and fuel economy as how far you can go on a drop of fuel.

 

OK, tell me this. You want a truck that can tow 10k lbs on the weekend. But, you only use it for that a couple times a month, and your commute is 100 miles per day, so you want something with better fuel economy the rest of the week. Which truck do you buy (just pretend you know something about comparing trucks for this question)?

 

5.3? nope, won't tow 10k

6.2 (Ford or GM)? nope, tows the load, but doesn't get good fuel economy for the commute

3.5EB? Yep! Fits all the criteria

 

Now, pretend you want a truck just to have a truck for the occasional trip to Lowe's, and drive 100 miles per day, but never tow. You want good fuel economy, and you want good power to play. Which truck do you buy?

 

3.7L Ford? Maybe, but may not have the power to play

5.3? Maybe, but may not have the power to play - comparable to the 3.7L, but not as good fuel economy

6.2 (Ford or GM)? nope, the power to play, but doesn't get good fuel economy for the commute

3.5EB? Yep! Fits all the criteria

 

Why would you only compare the 3.5 to the 5.3 for any of the above scenarios? Just because that's what Ford shows on TV? Seriously? Wow!

[sranger]

OK, we are comparing 3.5L to 6.2L, essentially comparable trucks with comparable abilities.

 

11+2/11 = 13/11 = 1.18

 

This means that your truck with the 3.5L gets 18% BETTER fuel economy than the 6.2L. That isn't significant?

 

OK, let's do it this way. Gas is $3.09/gallon here in central MO. So, if you are paying $3.09/gallon, your buddy is paying $3.65/gallon. Is that significant for the same performance and capability? I think so!

 

Or, to do it a different way, let's say you each drive 15,000 miles per year. At $3.09/gallon, it costs you $3565/year in fuel at 13 MPG. It costs your buddy $4213/year. That is a difference of $650/year. If you keep your vehicles for 6-7 years as I do, that is over $4000 in savings at the pump...every 6-7 years! While that may not make or break someone who can afford a new truck, add it all up and that may make retirement just a tad easier when the time comes, or allow one to retire a year earlier.

 

Or, since that is insignificant to you, why don't you just send that money my way and I will use it to pay for my diesel fuel that currently sits at $3.89/gallon!

 

I am not sure how/why you figured your numbers the way you did so Lets just make this simple: We both drive about 25K miles a year. It looks like my average is going to be about 16.5 and his about 15.4 ( We both never reset the B trip meter )

 

Using these numbers and $4.00/gal I will spend $6,060.60 per year. I he will spend $6,493.5.

 

I will spend $432.9 less per year than he does.... Over 4 years I will save about $1,731.60....

 

However, if we both towed a heavy load a lot, (Which we do not) I bet it would be close to even on life time MPG....

 

I guess I would say that a $1,700 saving is significant, but I would NOT say that the Eco Kills the 6.2L in MPG. (To be honest the sound of the 6.2L V8 might be worth the difference to me...It really does sound great...!)

 

The Ecoboost is a good performer, but it is not really all that much more economical to own that the 6.2L and about the same as the 5.0L.

 

However, it does NOT have the smooth power delivery of the 5.0L or 6.2L V8. The eco has a tendency to surge and lag power at times. The lag when starting it the most annoying. Sometime you press the gas (specially when turning left) and it does nothing for a second (fly by wire issue) and then start to move but seems to have no power and then all of the sudden you are spinning the tires. I guess this is just turbo lag, but it is really hard to regulate the power some times.

 

Likewise, when making small speed adjustments on the highway it is a little hesitant to make power and then all of the sudden it feels like like it down shifts ( It actually does not) and you get a surge and you have to back off or over shoot your speed adjustment. I have noticed that the torque converter will unlock and lock sometimes when it does this. It does this with the cruse control as well. It is far more pronounced when towing a load. It is not a deal breaker, but it makes the engine/trans fell possessed at times...

 

I am not saying that the Eco is a bad engine, but it is still a little rough around he edges....

[akirby]

Why would you only compare the 3.5 to the 5.3 for any of the above scenarios?

 

Because he's a negatard that just wants to complain about something?

[fordmantpw]

I am not sure how/why you figured your numbers the way you did so Lets just make this simple:

 

Ummm, had you read my post, I had quotes from you where I pulled the numbers.

 

You can't compare trucks from two different drivers on fuel economy numbers. You have to be the same person, with the same driving style, in the same conditions, in the same weather. That's what the EPA does, and their numbers show that. YMMV, based on driving style, and the conditions I mentioned earlier.

[sranger]

Ummm, had you read my post, I had quotes from you where I pulled the numbers.

 

You can't compare trucks from two different drivers on fuel economy numbers. You have to be the same person, with the same driving style, in the same conditions, in the same weather. That's what the EPA does, and their numbers show that. YMMV, based on driving style, and the conditions I mentioned earlier.

 

 

I base my opinion on what I can see and direct evaluate. I am know that in most real world conditions, the Eco gets about 1-2mpg better than the 6.2L and the 6.2L gets a little better when towing heavy loads. I can only base my opinion on real world numbers that I can actually see....

 

I'll use my real world numbers and you can use the EPA lab condition numbers....

[fordmantpw]

I base my opinion on what I can see and direct evaluate. I am know that in most real world conditions, the Eco gets about 1-2mpg better than the 6.2L and the 6.2L gets a little better when towing heavy loads. I can only base my opinion on real world numbers that I can actually see....

 

I'll use my real world numbers and you can use the EPA lab condition numbers....

 

Again, your numbers aren't apples to apples, when you combine different drivers in different conditions. It just isn't.

 

And 1-2 MPG better...I'll take that advantage for comparable towing ability.

[akirby]

Again, your numbers aren't apples to apples, when you combine different drivers in different conditions. It just isn't.

 

And 1-2 MPG better...I'll take that advantage for comparable towing ability.

 

It's like when my wife asks me why we're going this route when we could be going this other route. I say because I have actually timed each route and this one is faster. Then she says "but the other route FEELS faster to me"..........

 

To hell with measured, reliable, repeatable test results.........

[White99GT]

Ive yet to see ANY in service whether it be an SHO, Flex eco or F-150...ZIPPO.....color me impressed....

 

My Ford tech buddies have seen a handful of EB F150s in for misfires that are not ignition/coil related.

They've only seen 5.0 F150s in for transmission pump leaks, and from what they've told me they've only seen the trans leaks with the 5.0s so far. Pretty strange, IMO.

[sranger]

It's like when my wife asks me why we're going this route when we could be going this other route. I say because I have actually timed each route and this one is faster. Then she says "but the other route FEELS faster to me"..........

 

To hell with measured, reliable, repeatable test results.........

 

 

Look I know this guy, we are about the same age and drive more or less the same way. We both drive all over the 50 mile radius of Atlanta at all different times. After a several thousand miles there is enough random conditions that we have to drive in to cause the over all average to level out over time. I also find it interesting that four drivers with similar trucks and different engine get within 1-2mpg of each other doing more or less the same job and driving in the same traffic mix. The next time we get a chance to drive the exact same rout at the same time. I will follow him and let you guys know the result. I cannot think of a better test than that. In fact i did a similar test against a 5.0L truck. We were both pulling boats. Mine weighs 2500lb and his is 3500lb. Both are supercrew 4x4. ( Not sure of his axle ) We reset the eco meter and drove to the lake. I followed him. Even though his boat is 1000lb heaver, he got 1 more mpg than me and we drove exactly the same course at the same time at the same speed....

 

My Point is, the EPA test are done is a controlled condition and the manufactures try to game the number to best suit those conditions. In the real world the variable conditions tend to average out a more realistic picture over time of the true MPG the vehicle will get...

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I know that the three top engines in the F150 in similar conditions will get within 1-2mpg of each other.... You are welcome to believe what ever else makes you happy....

[CKNSLS]

"5.3? nope, won't tow 10k"

 

Chevrolet advertises it (5.3 w/ tow pkg - not MAX TOW just tow pkg) to tow 9,600 pounds.

 

In my observations, most trucks are used to tow the trailer on the weekends and as secondary vehicles during the week. Or, the wife who stays home drives it around the suburbs and puts very few miles on it during the week.

 

I just bought a 2011 Crew Cab w/the 5.3 and tow pkg. 6 months ago. The EB IMHO just wasn't worth the dollar difference to get slightly better mpg based on average miles driven.

 

The 5.3 IS ANCIENT and dead nuts reliable.

Edited November 29, 2011 by CKNSLS

[2005Explorer]

"5.3? nope, won't tow 10k"

 

Chevrolet advertises it (5.3 w/ tow pkg - not MAX TOW just tow pkg) to tow 9,600 pounds.

 

In my observations, most trucks are used to tow the trailer on the weekends and as secondary vehicles during the week. Or, the wife who stays home drives it around the suburbs and puts very few miles on it during the week.

 

I just bought a 2011 Crew Cab w/the 5.3 and tow pkg. 6 months ago. The EB IMHO just wasn't worth the dollar difference to get slightly better mpg based on average miles driven.

 

The 5.3 IS ANCIENT and dead nuts reliable.

 

If you didn't want to pay extra for the EB why didn't you look at the 5.0? I know the focus is on the V6's right now, but I tell you that 5.0 V8 is a jewel of an engine. Great power, good fuel economy and it sounds so nice when you stop on it. My Dad has really enjoyed the 5.0 in his 2011 SuperCrew 6'5". I know I have been very impressed with it when I have driven it.

[bondo007]

My 2009 F150 with the 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 and a six speed transmission gets 19 mpg combined and 24 to 25 mpg highway. I can go up to 650 miles on one 26 gallon tank of gas. Fact.

[GT-Keith]

No...you compare them to what the manufacturer compares them to. EB = 5.3.

 

 

 

 

 

No the market dictates, friend. The 5.3 is no competitor to the 3.5L... You simply fell prey to marketing.

 

If the manufacturer has so much credence then why does Ford slot the EB above the 5L by charging a $1000 premium? (Or is it $800 now?)

 

They're contradicting their own marketing, which is fine because PR doesn't set pricing and finance doesn't market.

 

Shouldn't the comparison then be 5.0 v. 5.3 which are similar in size yet one is significantly more powerful?

 

Ford created two premium engines with different availability without alienating the consumers.

 

If you want MPG without sacrificing capability then get the 3.5...

 

If you want a proven stalwart of an engine, get the 6.2...

 

 

Lol @ people trying to downplay the engine. 4MPG HWY is significant.

 

My 2009 F150 with the 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 and a six speed transmission gets 19 mpg combined and 24 to 25 mpg highway. I can go up to 650 miles on one 26 gallon tank of gas. Fact.

 

If you beat EPA in your truck, then it stands to reason that you will beat EPA numbers in a truck that's already rated higher than your own.

 

People's rationale with regards to EPA are laughable... You can beat EPA in your vehicle but others can't beat EPA... Laughable at best.

 

 

Also, I'm pretty sure your F-150 only has 3.15s. Only thing you're pulling are jetskis :P

 

And stop using personal anecdotes to debate. If your argument requires no evidence then it can be refuted with no evidence.

Edited November 30, 2011 by GT-Keith

[sranger]

If you didn't want to pay extra for the EB why didn't you look at the 5.0? I know the focus is on the V6's right now, but I tell you that 5.0 V8 is a jewel of an engine. Great power, good fuel economy and it sounds so nice when you stop on it. My Dad has really enjoyed the 5.0 in his 2011 SuperCrew 6'5". I know I have been very impressed with it when I have driven it.

 

 

Amen,

 

The 5.0L is, in my opinion, the best engine of the group. Less expensive, about the same gas milage, and has plenty of power for 99% of the situations and is one of the best sounding V8's I have had the pleasure of hearing.... If the Ecoboost and all of the hype surrounding it had not existed the 5.0L would have go down as one of the decades best truck engines. Put on a dual exhaust and tune and it will probably preform as well as the Ecoboost. I honestly think Ford detuned and sand bagged the 5.0L to make the Ecoboost look better. Keep in mind that this more or less same engine makes well over 400hp in the mustangs...

[akirby]

Amen,

 

The 5.0L is, in my opinion, the best engine of the group. Less expensive, about the same gas milage, and has plenty of power for 99% of the situations and is one of the best sounding V8's I have had the pleasure of hearing.... If the Ecoboost and all of the hype surrounding it had not existed the 5.0L would have go down as one of the decades best truck engines. Put on a dual exhaust and tune and it will probably preform as well as the Ecoboost. I honestly think Ford detuned and sand bagged the 5.0L to make the Ecoboost look better. Keep in mind that this more or less same engine makes well over 400hp in the mustangs...

 

The torque is virtually the same but they tuned the torque curve for more low rpm power in the F150 so it doesn't make as much high rpm hp. No sand bagging.

[jpd80]

Amen,

 

The 5.0L is, in my opinion, the best engine of the group. Less expensive, about the same gas milage, and has plenty of power for 99% of the situations and is one of the best sounding V8's I have had the pleasure of hearing.... If the Ecoboost and all of the hype surrounding it had not existed the 5.0L would have go down as one of the decades best truck engines. Put on a dual exhaust and tune and it will probably preform as well as the Ecoboost. I honestly think Ford detuned and sand bagged the 5.0L to make the Ecoboost look better. Keep in mind that this more or less same engine makes well over 400hp in the mustangs...

Ford actually detuned the Ecoboost V6, it should be producing over 420 hp and closer to 465 lb ft.

When Gen 2 EB arrives, don't be surprised to see a 2.7 V6 EB that produces around 350 hp/350 lb ft..

 

Having said that, the 5.0 V8 is certainly a fine engine and if the poor selling 6.2 V8 is to go away,

I it is replaced by a NA version of the GT500's 5.8 complete with coyote DIVCT

Edited November 30, 2011 by jpd80

[atomcat68]

For those comparing fuel economy to the old 5.4, remember you are getting a lot more HP (40) from a much smaller engine and getting the same fuel economy. Before, to get the extra HP, you got a larger engine and lower fuel economy.

[CKNSLS]

If you didn't want to pay extra for the EB why didn't you look at the 5.0? I know the focus is on the V6's right now, but I tell you that 5.0 V8 is a jewel of an engine. Great power, good fuel economy and it sounds so nice when you stop on it. My Dad has really enjoyed the 5.0 in his 2011 SuperCrew 6'5". I know I have been very impressed with it when I have driven it.

 

I did. The 5.0 is a great motor. At the time, the Chevrolet (due to incentives) was an easy $3,000 less than the Ford. I don't believe at present the difference is as much.

[White99GT]

The torque is virtually the same but they tuned the torque curve for more low rpm power in the F150 so it doesn't make as much high rpm hp. No sand bagging.

 

When a truck rated at 360 HP is making ~315 to the tires through the 6R80 and the rest of that long/heavy drivetrain, it's being sandbagged by a little. But then again so is the EcoBoost.

 

The 5.0 is putting down as much to the ground as the Tundra 5.7.

Edited November 30, 2011 by White99GT

[MY93SHO]

"5.3? nope, won't tow 10k"

 

Chevrolet advertises it (5.3 w/ tow pkg - not MAX TOW just tow pkg) to tow 9,600 pounds.

 

In my observations, most trucks are used to tow the trailer on the weekends and as secondary vehicles during the week. Or, the wife who stays home drives it around the suburbs and puts very few miles on it during the week.

 

I just bought a 2011 Crew Cab w/the 5.3 and tow pkg. 6 months ago. The EB IMHO just wasn't worth the dollar difference to get slightly better mpg based on average miles driven.

 

The 5.3 IS ANCIENT and dead nuts reliable.

 

"dead nuts"?

 

BS. I've scrapped out enough warranty pistons, cams, lifters, etc lately to know that statement is nonsense. GM's latest and greatest small block has a lot of oil consumption problems.

 

It's not an epidemic but it's not "dead nuts reliable" either.