F-150: Selling more V6s' than V8s'

[RichardJensen]

Let me guess, where you were driving was completely flat and it was a 2 wheel drive truck....

YMMV

[esevans]

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

 

 

 

 

 

This just really bothers me.

 

Go ahead and let manufacturer's tell you what to think.

[fordmantpw]

So basically EPA ratings should be changed to indicated that the milage is ONLY achieved if you live in a completely flat area....

 

I guess in your eyes that makes it far more reliable.....

 

AT least my Anecdotal evidence is taken from four similar trucks driven in the exact same area and geogerphy, but in your eyes it is far less valid that EPA testing......

 

Again, the EPA ratings are there as an ESTIMATE in order to make it easy to compare one vehicle to another. They are tested under the same, very strict, conditions. Doesn't matter if it is flat or hilly, the point is that the test for all vehicles are under the same controlled conditions. Have you every done a science experiment? If everyone does the experiment EXACTLY the same, the results will be the same. But, if one person poors the water into the acid instead of the acid into the water, all hell can break loose!

 

Your conditions are not identical, they are not repeatable, they do not have the exact same speed and acceleration, they do not have the exact same conditions, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

For instance, maybe one person uses the cruise control. Another person doesn't, and allows his vehicle to slow down a couple MPH going up hills. Maybe one drives 2 MPH slower. Maybe one accelerates slightly quicker. Maybe one person's mileage computer reads slightly higher. All of that makes a difference, and is why the EPA ratings are what is important when comparing the average fuel consumption for vehicles.

[akirby]

So basically EPA ratings should be changed to indicated that the milage is ONLY achieved if you live in a completely flat area....

 

I guess in your eyes that makes it far more reliable.....

 

AT least my Anecdotal evidence is taken from four similar trucks driven in the exact same area and geogerphy, but in your eyes it is far less valid that EPA testing......

 

Yes, it is FAR less valid than EPA testing because there are far too many uncontrolled variables.

 

More importantly the EPA test controls things like acceleration rate which is hard to control in the real world.

 

In the real world the same vehicle driven on the same route on the same day around the same time but with different drivers can yield a difference of 3-4 mpg. That doesn't happen on a EPA test.

[sranger]

Yes, it is FAR less valid than EPA testing because there are far too many uncontrolled variables.

 

More importantly the EPA test controls things like acceleration rate which is hard to control in the real world.

 

In the real world the same vehicle driven on the same route on the same day around the same time but with different drivers can yield a difference of 3-4 mpg. That doesn't happen on a EPA test.

 

It still does not change the fact that if you drive in any condition less than IDEAL the Ecoboost cannot get any where near its rated highway value. However, I have seen first hand that the 6.2L can exceed its EPA ratings when drive in the same less than ideal conditions. That makes me believe that the EPA ratings are rigged to favor the Ecoboost and DO NOT reflect what most owners will experience as at least 1/2 of the country does not have completely flat roads....

[sranger]

Again, the EPA ratings are there as an ESTIMATE in order to make it easy to compare one vehicle to another. They are tested under the same, very strict, conditions. Doesn't matter if it is flat or hilly, the point is that the test for all vehicles are under the same controlled conditions. Have you every done a science experiment? If everyone does the experiment EXACTLY the same, the results will be the same. But, if one person poors the water into the acid instead of the acid into the water, all hell can break loose!

 

Your conditions are not identical, they are not repeatable, they do not have the exact same speed and acceleration, they do not have the exact same conditions, etc., etc. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

For instance, maybe one person uses the cruise control. Another person doesn't, and allows his vehicle to slow down a couple MPH going up hills. Maybe one drives 2 MPH slower. Maybe one accelerates slightly quicker. Maybe one person's mileage computer reads slightly higher. All of that makes a difference, and is why the EPA ratings are what is important when comparing the average fuel consumption for vehicles.

 

 

I guess we might as well forget about test because NONE of them can be accurate. In ordered to be 100% certain you would have to test the same truck (not similar) with different engine with the same driver at the same time so it was exactly the same conditions. Since this is impossible we will never know for the sure.

 

At some point you are going to have to take the available data and make the best educated guess that you can.... That is exactly what I did....

 

I know that the EPA ratings for the Ecoboost are completely unrealistic in most real world conditions because I own one and drive it every day in all kind of conditions....

 

Like I said this is the ONLY vehicle that I have not been able to exceed the MPG rating on and I have seen first hand that the 6.2L trucks can be made to exceed the ratings driven in the same area....

 

As far as I am concerned the MPG of the Ecoboost is false advertising unless they point out that it is impossible to meet in anything less than FLAT DESERTED ROADS....

[V8-X]

This just really bothers me.

 

Go ahead and let manufacturer's tell you what to think.

In that same sense though, people here are allowing the EPA to tell them what to think, instead of relying on real owners with real world experience. Personally, I'll use my experience in normal day to day conditions than that of someone doing something in a very controlled environment.

 

Again, the EPA ratings are there as an ESTIMATE in order to make it easy to compare one vehicle to another. They are tested under the same, very strict, conditions. Doesn't matter if it is flat or hilly, the point is that the test for all vehicles are under the same controlled conditions. Have you every done a science experiment? If everyone does the experiment EXACTLY the same, the results will be the same. But, if one person poors the water into the acid instead of the acid into the water, all hell can break loose!

And like you stated, the EPA rating is simply an ESTIMATE, nothing more. So for my piece of mind, I'll believe my real world experience, that is based on normal daily occurrences, than some test done only in ideal conditions, and still in their ideal conditions it's only an estimate, not a fact that those are the figures you'll bring home.

 

Yes, it is FAR less valid than EPA testing because there are far too many uncontrolled variables.

 

More importantly the EPA test controls things like acceleration rate which is hard to control in the real world.

 

In the real world the same vehicle driven on the same route on the same day around the same time but with different drivers can yield a difference of 3-4 mpg. That doesn't happen on a EPA test.

More valid? Sorry, an estimate based on controlled and ideal conditions does not hold more weight, at least in my view, than real world experience under various conditions (traffic, terrain, weather, etc). Sure the EPA provides a decent estimate to guesstimate what an owner may bring home. But it's not the holy grail and those will be exactly what you get.

Edited December 1, 2011 by V8-X

[fordmantpw]

In that same sense though, people here are allowing the EPA to tell them what to think, instead of relying on real owners with real world experience. Personally, I'll use my experience in normal day to day conditions than that of someone doing something in a very controlled environment.

 

 

And like you stated, the EPA rating is simply an ESTIMATE, nothing more. So for my piece of mind, I'll believe my real world experience, that is based on normal daily occurrences, than some test done only in ideal conditions, and still in their ideal conditions it's only an estimate, not a fact that those are the figures you'll bring home.

 

 

More valid? Sorry, an estimate based on controlled and ideal conditions does not hold more weight, at least in my view, than real world experience under various conditions (traffic, terrain, weather, etc). Sure the EPA provides a decent estimate to guesstimate what an owner may bring home. But it's not the holy grail and those will be exactly what you get.

 

Sigh...I give up. My attempt to explain the difference between EPA ratings and "real world experience" has been futile. No sense in continuing.

[TomServo92]

In that same sense though, people here are allowing the EPA to tell them what to think, instead of relying on real owners with real world experience.

More valid? Sorry, an estimate based on controlled and ideal conditions does not hold more weight, at least in my view, than real world experience under various conditions (traffic, terrain, weather, etc). Sure the EPA provides a decent estimate to guesstimate what an owner may bring home. But it's not the holy grail and those will be exactly what you get.

 

EPA ratings aren't intended to tell you what will get in the world (thus the disclaimer "your mileage may vary"). They are intended for comparisons between different configurations of the same vehicle or comparisons of different vehicles. Nothing more.

[V8-X]

EPA ratings aren't intended to tell you what will get in the world (thus the disclaimer "your mileage may vary"). They are intended for comparisons between different configurations of the same vehicle or comparisons of different vehicles. Nothing more.

Exactly, and I understand this. I've never disputed that.

 

But people here, from what I see, want to say no matter what, because the EB has a higher EPA mpg rating, it will always get better gas mileage than say the 5.0L or 6.2L. But when real world events/experience contradicts that belief, those same people want to discredit the results and attempt to say those results are invalid because they aren't in a controlled environment under ideal conditions and provided by a government agency.

 

So I'm not dogging the EB, or praising other motors. Simply trying to inform people, that's why the disclaimer is there, and that just because the EPA estimated a figure, that doesn't make it true and valid all the time.

Edited December 1, 2011 by V8-X

[TomServo92]

Exactly, and I understand this. I've never disputed that.

 

But people here, from what I see, want to say no matter what, because the EB has a higher EPA mpg rating, it will always get better gas mileage than say the 5.0L or 6.2L. But when real world events/experience contradicts that belief,those same people want to discredit the results and attempt to say those results are invalid because they aren't in a controlled environment under ideal conditions and provided by a government agency.

 

So I'm not dogging the EB, or praising other motors. Simply trying to inform people, that's why the disclaimer is there, and that just because the EPA estimated a figure, that doesn't make it true and valid all the time.

 

The highlighted part is a valid argument against anecdotal evidence.

 

Here's a good read on the EPA rating system.

 

How EPA Fuel-Economy Testing Works

[sranger]

I promis that this will be my last post on the subject....

 

The mpg of the Ecoboost is ok considering it's power and capability. However the EPA ratings are not matching up to the real world unless the Terrance is completely flat and there is little traffic. Using good drive habits, you can make a big V8 get very similar numbers under the same conditions. However, the reverse is not true. When you drive the ecoboost in less than ideal situations, you CANNOT make it get milage close to the EPA ratings. On the other hand, you can drive the big V8s in less than ideal situations and meet or mostly likely exceed EPA ratings using good driving habits.

 

Like I have said several times. This is the ONLY vehicle that I could not meet or exceed the EPA ratings.... THat surprised me....

[V8-X]

The highlighted part is a valid argument against anecdotal evidence.

 

Here's a good read on the EPA rating system.

 

How EPA Fuel-Economy Testing Works

Good read, but at it states:

 

While the EPA's fuel-economy estimates may not be a completely accurate prediction of the kind of mileage you'll register during your daily commute...

 

And

 

The E.PA. is currently developing new, more accurate ways of testing vehicle fuel economy. The organization's new testing methods will take into account real-world driving factors like aggressive acceleration, hot- and cold-weather driving conditions, and the use of air conditioning while driving, for example.

 

So even the EPA is admitting their estimates aren't as completely accurate as they can be. So while I agree the EPA figures can be a great guesstimate for consumers, they shouldn't rely on it solely as the end all/be all of what type of mileage they will actually bring home.

Edited December 1, 2011 by V8-X

[TomServo92]

Good read, but at it states:

 

 

 

And

 

 

 

So even the EPA is admitting their estimates aren't as completely accurate as they can be. So while I agree the EPA figures can be a great guesstimate for consumers, they shouldn't rely on it solely as the end all/be all of what type of mileage they will actually bring home.

 

No argument here regarding accuracy. I've never considered the numbers on the window stickers as gospel. Over the years I've gotten worse and better mileage. However, what the EPA does have right is repeatability and consistency (which is where anecdotal evidence fails).

[Boss444]

I believe he means engine efficiency which how much of the potential energy in fuel is converted into work.

 

Ford uses the terminology "fuel efficiency" and "fuel economy".

 

I interpreted Ford's use of the term "fuel efficiency" as engine efficiency. I am wrong in using the terms interchangeably because if the engine makes better use of a drop of fuel, then it (the engine) is more efficient.

 

Realistically though, my point still stands.

 

This just really bothers me.

 

Go ahead and let manufacturer's tell you what to think.

 

They know better than I do. Plus, what could Ford do? Look at the GM vs. Ford lineup:

 

3.7 V6 = 4.3 V6 (base engine)

5.0 V8 = 4.8 V8 (entry level V8)

---

6.2 V8 = 6.2 V8 (premium V8)

 

Where does that leave the 3.5 and 5.3?

 

It would be in Ford's best interest to DROP the 6.2 from the F-150 lineup (Raptor too) as that would allow them to position the 3.5 as the premium engine and compare it against the manufactures premium engines which would make the fuel economy advantages go from slight to drastic.

 

In that same sense though, people here are allowing the EPA to tell them what to think, instead of relying on real owners with real world experience. Personally, I'll use my experience in normal day to day conditions than that of someone doing something in a very controlled environment.

 

Yes, for your own use, that is completely understandable. But when comparing different models, you want to ensure that the testing methods are the exact same. It really wouldn't matter if the EPA tests were block to block city driving for the city number and completely flat highway driving at 55MPH...as long as the models were tested in the same conditions, the test is valid (at least for compairson sake). It's about testing vehicles to the same standard under the same conditions. The fact they come close to the mileage a majority of owners will see is an added bonus (and quite a feat if you ask me).

[92merc]

I wouldn't exactly call the 5.0 V8 an "entry" V8. It trounces both of GM's "non-premium" V8's.

 

I think the 6.2 should stay. Ford knows that some people just want a big V8. But most won't buy it because they either want better fuel economy. It think one of Ford's recent strengths has been giving the buying the option of choosing what they want. In the F150, that means lots of engines and lots of trim levels.

[jpd80]

I wouldn't exactly call the 5.0 V8 an "entry" V8. It trounces both of GM's "non-premium" V8's.

Wouldn't exactly call GM's V8s state of art either....

 

I think the 6.2 should stay. Ford knows that some people just want a big V8. But most won't buy it because they either want better fuel economy. It think one of Ford's recent strengths has been giving the buying the option of choosing what they want. In the F150, that means lots of engines and lots of trim levels.

 

I'm wondering if Ford could possibly use a version of the GT500's new 5.8 to create a tall deck Coyote for truck work,

perhaps the original plan when the Hurricane engine was originally canned or could buyers be making the decision for Ford?

 

The 6.2 hasn't completely killed off the 6.8 either as Ford has kept that engine in larger F series vehicles...

Edited December 1, 2011 by jpd80

[vision street wear 2]

6.2L will soldier on in the Superduty. F150 probably not.

[Boss444]

I wouldn't exactly call the 5.0 V8 an "entry" V8. It trounces both of GM's "non-premium" V8's.

 

Ford's terminology...not mine.

[Extreme4x4]

I can't believe this is still going on.

 

Yes, there are many people who are beating the EPA estimates in their Ecoboosts. Just read on some of the F-series websites. They have hundreds of thousands of members. But heck, I am sure that the few that are disappointed that their 6000lb brick cannot repeat or best the EPA mileage rating, which is done at 55mph on flat ground................... while they are running 65/75+ in hilly country are much more correct than all of those who are getting the EPA ratings with their trucks.

 

One thing to consider, when trying to figure out why it can be easier to see better mileage with a regular V8, is this........................ torque curve. A V8's torque curve does not come on like a freight train at 2000 rpm. It builds gradually over the rpm range. Thus, small input changes to the throttle do not bring as much power on........................... right now. The EB does. Thus, it is harder to stay out of the powerband........................ because the powerband is so broad.

 

Funny, but this is the first time that I have seen so many complaints because the powerband of their trucks engine is too broad.

 

Now please, everyone go back to arguing semantics.

[jpd80]

I can't believe this is still going on.

 

Yes, there are many people who are beating the EPA estimates in their Ecoboosts. Just read on some of the F-series websites. They have hundreds of thousands of members. But heck, I am sure that the few that are disappointed that their 6000lb brick cannot repeat or best the EPA mileage rating, which is done at 55mph on flat ground................... while they are running 65/75+ in hilly country are much more correct than all of those who are getting the EPA ratings with their trucks.

 

One thing to consider, when trying to figure out why it can be easier to see better mileage with a regular V8, is this........................ torque curve. A V8's torque curve does not come on like a freight train at 2000 rpm. It builds gradually over the rpm range. Thus, small input changes to the throttle do not bring as much power on........................... right now. The EB does. Thus, it is harder to stay out of the powerband........................ because the powerband is so broad.

 

Funny, but this is the first time that I have seen so many complaints because the powerband of their trucks engine is too broad.

 

Now please, everyone go back to arguing semantics.

 

Or you could put one of these babies under the hood.

I went for a run in a S/c 5.0 Falcon the other day, they are scarey fast, the acceleration from 2,000 is just jaw dropping...

 

[Boss444]

Or you could put one of these babies under the hood.

I went for a run in a S/c 5.0 Falcon the other day, they are scarey fast, the acceleration from 2,000 is just jaw dropping...

 

 

Now THAT is an engine. Enough with the V6s Ford...bring on the V8s! I'm sure the Aussies would love a FWD Taurus in exchange for the Falcon (with that engine of course!).

Edited December 3, 2011 by Boss444

[papilgee4evaeva]

Or you could put one of these babies under the hood.

I went for a run in a S/c 5.0 Falcon the other day, they are scarey fast, the acceleration from 2,000 is just jaw dropping...

 

LOVE the packaging.

 

Betcha never heard that comment about a supercharged V8 before... :shades:

[jpd80]

LOVE the packaging.

 

Betcha never heard that comment about a supercharged V8 before... :shades:

It's a very near installation and pleasing to know the S/C engine is lighter than the previous iron block 5.4 Boss..

The problem is that as soon as you put a tune in the car, you need to go buy 10" tires for the rear ......