Jump to content

Custom Search





2019 Lincoln Aviator Introduced Here !


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Wards calls out Ecoboost


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 02:05 AM

I loved the hesitation after mentioning the 19MPG, "which is................ not great" followed by "If you took this truck on a long highway cruise you would probably push 28MPG which is the highway rating on this truck. So, you know, that's achievable. I'm very confident you could get that mileage if you really tried, and that is phenomenal for a large full size pickup."

 

Take a long second look at this sentence:

 

"I'm very confident you could get that mileage if you really tried, and that is phenomenal for a large full size pickup."

 

In other words, they consider this to be a 'phenomenal' engine on the basis of a mileage figure that they did not achieve and which their tester thinks you would have some difficulty achieving.

 

YAY PHENOMENAL ECODIESEL WITH SAME MILEAGE AS 4x4 FORD!!!!!!!!


photo-thumb-15254.jpg








Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#42 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 02:06 AM

And that's a good one for aneekr:

 

Which of these two engines fell furthest from its EPA rating in "real world" testing by Wards?

 

The EcoDiesel (19/23) or the "Nano" Ecoboost (19/20)?


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#43 OFFLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,591 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 10 January 2015 - 06:54 AM

Wards are so far down the track with Ecodiesel that they simply cannot recant without looking like fools.

Reviewers should have known better with lavish praise, it paints your into a corner....


Edited by jpd80, 10 January 2015 - 06:56 AM.


#44 OFFLINE   blksn8k2

blksn8k2

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined 22-March 06

Posted 10 January 2015 - 11:57 AM

"Real world" driving to me is difficult to define. It depends what the circumstances are. For example, if I drive my 4.6L Sport Trac at a steady 60 mph on a flat highway with just me in the truck and no load or trailer dragging me down I can average 21 mpg. Add two adults and a 6000 lb trailer over hilly terrain and I would be lucky to get 10 mpg. I suspect that it doesn't really matter what gas engine in whatever vehicle you want to compare you are going to see similar differences under extreme circumstances. In the case of the EcoBoost engines it's a matter of unrealistic expectations and Ford's advertising is just as much at fault as are the journalists for harping on it. BTW, does the EPA test vehicle fuel mileage under loaded or unloaded conditions?


My current rides:
07 Sport Trac Limited 4x4 V8
99 Mustang Cobra (Roush Body Kit)
75 Bronco (393 Windsor, NV3550 5-speed)
70 Mustang Mach 1 (428 CJ, 4-speed)
68 Cougar (390 GT, C6)
67 Ranchero (460, C6, Pro Street)


"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

- Ronald Reagan

#45 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 01:45 PM

Every vehicle tested under the EPA protocols is tested the same way. There is no trailer/payload test for trucks in the same way that all cars are only tested with the weight of the driver and fuel.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#46 ONLINE   akirby

akirby

    fordmantpw's alter ego

  • Moderator
  • 29,369 posts
  • Joined 18-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Canton, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2018 F150 Supercab XLT Magnetic Grey 3.5LEB

Posted 10 January 2015 - 02:34 PM

Ford tests their vehicles per strict EPA requirements. They are required by law to post those results. How can Ford be at fault for following federal law? What choice do they have? They don't get to choose the numbers they advertise.

2018 F150 Supercab XLT Sport (Magnetic) - 3.5LEB
2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve (Luxe/Cappucino)


#47 OFFLINE   Hugh

Hugh

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Joined 24-April 06
  • Region:Canada British Columbia
  • Location:Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  • Current Vehicle:2005 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab

Posted 10 January 2015 - 07:39 PM

In the case of the EcoBoost engines it's a matter of unrealistic expectations and Ford's advertising is just as much at fault as are the journalists for harping on it.

With respect I disagree. Ford sold better power and better economy. Compare a 1.6 Ecoboost with a 2.5L NA is equal and better. 2.0L Ecoboost vs. a 3.0L NA etc...

Now the fact you need premium fuel is a point of issue I'll give you that. I don't think it was not that unrealisitc. Then again, I might pay more attention the average person. But letting the average person (not you) dictate the direction where the criticism goes is plain unfounded and wrong.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg

 

READY AYE READY "ONE NAVY"

Former Vehicles:
1993 Mercury Topaz GS Maroon ext. - Grey 'Mouse Fur' int. (Vulcan and 3A) AKA 'Thunder Topaz' 1999-2010
2011 Ford Fiesta SES Monteray Grey ext. - Black Leather w/ Oatmeal stitching int. (HB and 6A) AKA 'Little Car' 2010 - 2012

2002 Ford Taurus SES Sport Black ext. - Medium Stone 'Mouse Fur' int. AKA 'Ferdinand the Bull ' 2012-2014

2014 Ford Escape Titanium AWD Tuxedo Black ext. - Black Leather int. 2014-2017


#48 OFFLINE   02MustangGT

02MustangGT

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined 20-February 02
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 January 2015 - 08:21 PM

Continue to drink the koolaid on EB. SIGH.
The numbers on the sticker do not pan out in the real world. It HAS been proven over and over again on boards such as these. From real owners. My brother has the exact F150 I have except he has the 3.5 EB with 3.31 gears and I have the 5.0 with 3.73 gears. We drove the same 210 mile stretch (some city, some hwy, some interstate). He averaged 17.0 mpg. I averaged 17.8 mpg. Real world fuel economy matters when it comes time for me to spend another $50 grand on a truck.
2002 Mustang GT Premium 5-Speed (95,000 miles, for sale, PM me for details)
2013 F-150 XLT Supercrew 4x4 (thanks to DTP for building a solid product)

#49 OFFLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,591 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 10 January 2015 - 08:27 PM

Every vehicle tested under the EPA protocols is tested the same way. There is no trailer/payload test for trucks in the same way that all cars are only tested with the weight of the driver and fuel.

Precisely.

Anytime someone reviews fuel economy and sets their own tests, you can bet that the whole thing

has been reversed engineered to provide the desired conclusion - let's pick a driving cycle that proves

Ecoboost doesn't work as effectively as Ford says but we'll down play the poor result of our Ecodiesel star..



#50 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 08:46 PM

He averaged 17.0 mpg. I averaged 17.8 mpg.

 

 

Undoubtedly you drove side by side the whole way, accelerating at the same rate, decelerating at the same rate and traveling at the exact same rate of speed.

 

No?

 

Well then you didn't drive the same route.

 

Under reproducible laboratory conditions, the EB gets better gas mileage than the V8.

 

But those reproducible lab conditions involve acceleration that is so moderate that a smart fortwo can perform it.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#51 OFFLINE   02MustangGT

02MustangGT

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined 20-February 02
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:05 PM

Exactly RJ, LABORATORY CONDITIONS. Real world fuel economy says otherwise. I can drive the same route at generally the same speed in my 5.0 equipped F150 and get better fuel economy than a 3.5EB equipped F150. It's really that simple, I spend less on fuel than my brother does, that is enough proof for me.
2002 Mustang GT Premium 5-Speed (95,000 miles, for sale, PM me for details)
2013 F-150 XLT Supercrew 4x4 (thanks to DTP for building a solid product)

#52 OFFLINE   papilgee4evaeva

papilgee4evaeva

    La Voz de Razón

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,525 posts
  • Joined 07-September 07
  • Region:U.S. Southern Atlantic
  • Location:Research Triangle, NC
  • Current Vehicle:2007 Infiniti M35x; 2013 Ford Fusion Titanium; 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:15 PM

Continue to drink the koolaid on EB. SIGH.
The numbers on the sticker do not pan out in the real world. It HAS been proven over and over again on boards such as these. From real owners. My brother has the exact F150 I have except he has the 3.5 EB with 3.31 gears and I have the 5.0 with 3.73 gears. We drove the same 210 mile stretch (some city, some hwy, some interstate). He averaged 17.0 mpg. I averaged 17.8 mpg. Real world fuel economy matters when it comes time for me to spend another $50 grand on a truck.

 

You two drove in the exact same manner?  Same MPH, same acceleration, same amount of stops-and-goes in the city and coasting down the highway?

 

If not, you've just exemplified the "your mileage may vary" caveat.


CURRENT VEHICLES

2007 Infiniti M35x, 126k (mine)

2013 Ford Fusion Titanium, 55K (wife's)

2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, 138K (because kids)

PREVIOUS VEHICLES

2005 Buick Rainier CXL V8, 166K (mine; sold)

1999 Nissan Maxima SE Limited, 188K (wife's; donated)

2001 Pontiac Bonneville SLE, 126K (the Cruise Missile; started getting gremlins, plus we outgrew it)

1996 Nissan Pathfinder SE 4WD, 111-160K+ (stupid odometer) (sold to make room for the Bonnie)
1995 Dodge Intrepid (wife's; almost everything that could go wrong did; towed away stealthily)

FUTURE VEHICLES?

Maybe a truck after some time...?


#53 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:25 PM

Exactly RJ, LABORATORY CONDITIONS. Real world fuel economy says otherwise. I can drive the same route at generally the same speed in my 5.0 equipped F150 and get better fuel economy than a 3.5EB equipped F150. It's really that simple, I spend less on fuel than my brother does, that is enough proof for me.

 

Ah yes, the 'real world' a place where you can freely insist upon universal conclusions drawn from hypothetical situations (hypothetical situation in bold). Yes, indeed, the 'real world.'


  • Extreme4x4 likes this

photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#54 OFFLINE   02MustangGT

02MustangGT

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined 20-February 02
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:27 PM

And I have also proved that I can drive the exact same route in a similar manner and spend less on fuel driving a 5.0 equipped F150 versus a 3.5EB equipped F150. Many others have noted that the non EB engines return better fuel economy than EB engines in similarly equipped vehicles. I have noted the same. I have my proof, have you driven each and tested for yourself in the real world?
2002 Mustang GT Premium 5-Speed (95,000 miles, for sale, PM me for details)
2013 F-150 XLT Supercrew 4x4 (thanks to DTP for building a solid product)

#55 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:28 PM

proved

 

You have a strange definition of 'proved'.

 

Because all I've seen is a claim with zero documentation and some pretty imprecise language.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#56 OFFLINE   02MustangGT

02MustangGT

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined 20-February 02
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:31 PM

RJ, tell me about the time you have driven an EB equipped Ford product and a similarly equipped non EB Ford product. Oh wait, you haven't. Your opinion is not better than my opinion as much as you would like to think. I have experience with both engines and have noted the results in favor of the 5.0.
2002 Mustang GT Premium 5-Speed (95,000 miles, for sale, PM me for details)
2013 F-150 XLT Supercrew 4x4 (thanks to DTP for building a solid product)

#57 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:32 PM

RJ, tell me about the time you have driven an EB equipped Ford product and a similarly equipped non EB Ford product.

 

I don't have to tell you *anything*. You're the one claiming that you have *proof* that under *real world* conditions the EB engines do worse than NA engines.

 

How this works is, you make a claim, *you* furnish evidence to *support* that claim.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#58 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:33 PM

And, just in case you're wondering, "me and my brother drove the same route and he got worse mileage" is not even *remotely* close to *proof* of any conceivable sort.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#59 OFFLINE   02MustangGT

02MustangGT

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Joined 20-February 02
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:43 PM

Keep ignoring the facts and the articles that have been posted over and over regarding EB FUEL ECONOMY IN THE REAL WORLD. I have noted similar results.
2002 Mustang GT Premium 5-Speed (95,000 miles, for sale, PM me for details)
2013 F-150 XLT Supercrew 4x4 (thanks to DTP for building a solid product)

#60 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,312 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 10 January 2015 - 09:54 PM

BTW:

 

http://fueleconomy.g...=33086&id=33084

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

I wonder why the EB engine with the *greatest* deviation from EPA estimates is also the vehicle with the most power........


photo-thumb-15254.jpg









Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service | DMCA ·