RichardJensen Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Dude, it's Motor Trend. You can't trust anything they print. Had some other company ponied up enough dough to buy a TOTY award, they've got a readymade excuse to dump on Ford: "EB mileage was worse than we expected." I wouldn't even trust the stuff they put in the masthead without independent verification. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Did you read the original discussion point? The EB gets within 0.1 MPG while towing the heavier load. That's the point being made...it towed/hauled more, and get essentially the same fuel economy. Yeah. Everyone was quick to mention that EB was 4x2 and 5.0 was 4x4 with about the same economy. But there was no mention of the different cabs and the different trailer weights. To be fair this should have been disclosed in the original discussion point. Also, now the loaded acceleration and braking numbers are thrown off with different weights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Big issue with your conclusion here. MT only listed "overall mpg". That includes all tests, with and without a load. So something isn't adding up hear. Either the EB got really bad mpgs towing to offset its better unloaded mpgs. Or simply the EB doesn't get as good of mpgs as advertised unloaded, so the towing area is where it did better and brought the EB back up in line. Wish MT would have provided an mpg breakdown in unloaded and towing conditions. Look at these numbers. The EB was rated 16/22 and the 5.0 at 14/19. How do you conclude the 5.0L exceeded it's city average by 2mpgs (with and without towing a load) where as the EB could barely match (slightly exceeded) it's base cit mpg average? Yes the EB provides more power and is a great motor. But the mpg's were being told this truck should bring home just don't jive with real world results. Maybe Ford is sand bagging the 5.0L power and mpg numbers to make the EB look better. I'm not sure. Again, not knocking the EB, it's a great motor. But something just doesn't appear right on these figures. I have no idea what exactly their tests entailed, what % was doing what. For all we know, they have have towed 25% of the time with the EB and 10% of the time with the 5.0, or vice versa. Hell, maybe the tested one in the morning and one at mid-day, which also has an effect. Maybe they drove the EB harder to see what she could do? Maybe they drove the 5.0 harder because they had to so they could keep up with the EB? I have no idea! I can get 1+ MPG difference in my truck while towing a load over the same road just by turning cruise control off. I think it is well-known that the EB can get worse fuel economy than the 5.0 while towing heavy...that has been shown, and it makes perfect sense. You have to pay the piper...you have an extra 5 HP and 40 lb-ft on tap with the EB, and you have to feed those horses and torque monsters somehow...that is normally done with gasoline in a gasoline-powered engine. In other words, if you have more HP and torque available, and you choose to use ALL that each motor has, you are going to have to feed more fuel to the EB engine to get all of that power out. The only conclusion we can make from this is that we can't draw a conclusion based on the information we have...either way. But to make a claim that the EB "did not get 20MPG while doing all of this like some of the crap you see all over the internet" (by sranger) is ridiculous. Bottom line is that the only TRUE applies to apples comparison we have for the EB vs. 5.0 fuel economy debate is the EPA sticker. YMMV! Yeah. Everyone was quick to mention that EB was 4x2 and 5.0 was 4x4 with about the same economy. But there was no mention of the different cabs and the different trailer weights. To be fair this should have been disclosed in the original discussion point. Also, now the loaded acceleration and braking numbers are thrown off with different weights. Yep. We can't make any conclusion with apples-to-oranges comparisons. Edited December 13, 2011 by fordmantpw 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Also, now the loaded acceleration and braking numbers are thrown off with different weights. Not really. Each truck was tested with 75% of it's max capacity. Should we now knock the EB because it's 75% wasn't as heavy as the RAM Cummins (3248lb payload & 12K trailer)? Or the Tacoma cause it's max (906lb payload & 4875lbg trailer) didn't compare to even the 5.0L figures? No, it was as apples to apples comparison when talking about the load each vehicle had to carry when compared to it's max capability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 So is Ferrari a better truck since it can stop it's rated tow-weight faster than Ram Cummins? The numbers comparison like that show you how each one acts with it's rated load, but it doesn't do anything at all to compare one truck to another in absolute terms. It all depends on what you want to measure, and it is all relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It all depends on what you want to measure argue about incessantly. Fixed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Nobody is arguing against what they did with the other trucks. The original point made here was that the 5.0 4x4 and EcoBoost 4x2 got such and such. It was pointed out that this wasn't an apples to apples comparison because of the different cabs, trims, payloads and trailer weights used. I hope someday we see a real apples to apples comparison between the two engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Fixed. That is definitely more accurate! It was pointed out that this wasn't an apples to apples comparison because of the different cabs, trims, payloads and trailer weights used. I hope someday we see a real apples to apples comparison between the two engines. The closest we will ever come to that is if pickuptrucks.com does it. I know they were looking too, but I don't think they ever got the set of trucks they were looking for. Edited December 13, 2011 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Nobody is arguing against what they did with the other trucks. The original point made here was that the 5.0 4x4 and EcoBoost 4x2 got such and such. It was pointed out that this wasn't an apples to apples comparison because of the different cabs, trims, payloads and trailer weights used. I hope someday we see a real apples to apples comparison between the two engines. All it really implies is that in real world conditions that the trucks are likely to encounter the economy is about the same. The Eco has the edge in power.... The 5.0L in sound quality... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 All it really implies is that in real world conditions that the trucks are likely to encounter the economy is about the same. The Eco has the edge in power.... The 5.0L in sound quality... If your real world is potentially different for the 5.0 than it is for the EB, and the trucks are loaded up differently, and driven at different times, with different loads, by different drivers, for who nows how long towing different amounts. Then yes, you are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If your real world is potentially different for the 5.0 than it is for the EB, and the trucks are loaded up differently, and driven at different times, with different loads, by different drivers, for who nows how long towing different amounts. Then yes, you are correct. The real world is rarely well defined so yes I stand by my statement..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 WOT does not reflect real world driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKNSLS Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 With the decades old 5.3 in the 2011 Crew Cab 1500 Silverado with six speed and AFM- REAL WORLD observed - city (mostly very short trips) 13 to 14 Hwy - 20mpg at 70ish no more or gas mpg takes a dive Towing -9 to 9.5 Sticker is 15/21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Um, by 30lbs? I wouldn't call that significant. 5649lbs for the Screw Ecoboost and 5619lbs for the Scab 5.0L Heck, the 5.0L had the 36 gallon tank while the EB had only a 26 gallon tank. If they filled them both up, I'm sure that 30lbs would be offset by the added weight of the extra 10 gallons of fuel. Could have been offset by different drivers. Did anyone watch the video? They tested these vehicles at 75% of the payload/towing capacity. So duh, the 5.0 would haul less because Ford rates it lower (1830lbs & 9400lbs). All in all, bother trucks are awesome. But simply shows the 5.0L is nipping at the heals of the EB all the way. Both great motors. That's suspicious too... WOT does not reflect real world driving. Neither does EPA ratings when only ONE of the available rear gears is tested. Edited December 14, 2011 by Boss444 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 WOT does not reflect real world driving. All depends. It might if you drive a Yugo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 With the decades old 5.3 in the 2011 Crew Cab 1500 Silverado with six speed and AFM- REAL WORLD observed - city (mostly very short trips) 13 to 14 Hwy - 20mpg at 70ish no more or gas mpg takes a dive Towing -9 to 9.5 Sticker is 15/21 Decades? I guess you're technically right since the 5.3 came out in 1999 but still... Get ready for the excessive oil consumption and noisy valve train. New cam and lifters for everyone! Fuel mileage dives after 70mph because the AFM stops around then. Same with the Hemi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Guys, I guess we are going to simply have to agree to disagree... Unless you own a ecoboost powered truck, you have zero idea of how the thing behaves. It is quite different from any V8 truck I have drove. There are Several things it does the most V8's do not... 1) This thing sux fuel like vampire until it warms up. I reset the gauge before leaving the hose ths mourning. (40 degrees). I never got over 45 mph for the first 10 miles and encountered little traffic. 11.3 mpg for the first 10 miles. My trip was about 32 miles. After it warmed up I hit a realitively flat stretch where I crushed about 50mph for about 20 miles and a few stops. It read 15.8mpg at the end if the trip. 2) It really drinks gas while towing a load. My little 2500lb boat and trailer drops mpg to 14mpg mostly highway 55-65mph. Towing a car carrier wit about 3000lb car and the milage drops to 8-10mpg.... 3) When the turbo builds any boost it drinks fuel like a vampire. The funny part is that low or med acceleration has little if any effect on mpg.....unlike a V8, babying the accel has little affect n mpg. In some cases it will hold a low gear too long and actually hurt mpg. This is what surprised me the most.... For it's power the ecoboost gets ok gas mileage. However, I do not believe it is much better than most V8 driven the same way. Until you drive one for a while you simply cannot understand what I am talking about. However, most of the high mpg claimed you see on the Internet forums are complete BS..... Especially the guys that claim high teens and even 20+ at 75-80mph. Even on a flat highway they will NOT get these results..... In my opinion, Ford has over stated what this engine will really get. The ONLY way mine will see 21 mph on the highway is to drive 55-60mph on a completely flat highway wit no traffic. With any traffic or hills that same speed will yield 17-18 at best..... Bump it up to 70-75mph and 16-17mpg is all it will do.... Again not bad for a big 4x4 truck, but nothing all that special either...... The ecoboost is mostly about boost and a little about Eco..... That is a fact and no amount of speculation based on EPA or some weird MPG stunt is going to change that..... Edited December 14, 2011 by sranger 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Sounds to me like you just got a bad one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMoon Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I think you may have gotten a vehicle/engine on the low end of the bell curve for performance/fuel economy. Yours is a single data point. Anecdotal at best. I've offered mine several times as well, with an almost identical truck - 2011 4X4 Lariat EcoBoost with Max Tow Package, so the gas-guzzling 3.73 rear gears. We now have 27K miles and a lifetime average of 18.9mpg. We've seen 21mpg at 74mph cruise control on flat highways, and 19.5mpg at 74mph cruise control on hilly (western PA) highways. You keep making statements that "all EcoBoosts are overrated," and state that "everyone" on the internet is lying about their numbers, but hold up your single example as incontrovertible proof. I think reality lies somewhere in between, don't you? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKNSLS Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) I think you may have gotten a vehicle/engine on the low end of the bell curve for performance/fuel economy. Yours is a single data point. Anecdotal at best. I've offered mine several times as well, with an almost identical truck - 2011 4X4 Lariat EcoBoost with Max Tow Package, so the gas-guzzling 3.73 rear gears. We now have 27K miles and a lifetime average of 18.9mpg. We've seen 21mpg at 74mph cruise control on flat highways, and 19.5mpg at 74mph cruise control on hilly (western PA) highways. You keep making statements that "all EcoBoosts are overrated," and state that "everyone" on the internet is lying about their numbers, but hold up your single example as incontrovertible proof. I think reality lies somewhere in between, don't you? Sounds like the conversations where some are in denial on the powershift transmissions. Then, Ford comes out with a "fix". If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it still make a noise? Edited December 14, 2011 by CKNSLS 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Maybe the best way to describe the EB35 is that is has big block power with small block fuel economy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Sounds like the conversations where some are in denial on the powershift transmissions. Then, Ford comes out with a "fix". If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it still make a noise? What? - Most of those who are 'in denial' about the PowerShift are saying only that the problem is not as bad as the Cassandras are trying to make it appear. - No, it doesn't make a noise. Sound/noise is a function of perception. Read up on your phenomenology. This question is only interesting for Cartesians, the philosophical equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Sounds like the conversations where some are in denial on the powershift transmissions. Then, Ford comes out with a "fix". This. Of course, maybe these same people run around their house saying things like, "Honey, it ain't broke...but I'm going to fix it anyway". If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it still make a noise? Of course it does. You know, I've never understood that question as a provocation of deep thought. Anyone with a 3rd grade education would know that just because a 'hearing enabled' creature isn't there to hear it does not then remove the physics of sound. If the opposite were true, then, as an experiment, one could set up a camera to record a tree falling and then play the footage back. You will still hear a sound...on the tape...even though you didn't hear it when the tree fell. Maybe the best way to describe the EB35 is that is has big block power with small block fuel economy. Or remove the fuel economy argument all together because it's invalid. Sell it instead as the answer to the light duty diesel issue without all of the light duty diesel problems (cost, maintenance, all of that pointless emissions garbage the government mandates, cheaper fuel, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Or remove the fuel economy argument all together because it's invalid. Really? So the 3.5L EB does not, in fact, get better fuel economy than the 6.2L (which is the only other truck engine Ford offers that will tow 10k+ lbs with an F150)? Seems the EPA seems to disagree with you. Damn, you should be certifying vehicles for the fuel economy standards instead of the EPA since you apparently know a helluva lot more than they do. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Really? So the 3.5L EB does not, in fact, get better fuel economy than the 6.2L (which is the only other truck engine Ford offers that will tow 10k+ lbs with an F150)? Seems the EPA seems to disagree with you. Damn, you should be certifying vehicles for the fuel economy standards instead of the EPA since you apparently know a helluva lot more than they do. I don't understand why people continue to compare the 3.5EB to the 5.0 when it's clearly more powerful and closer to the 6.2 in capability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.