Jump to content

Custom Search





Coming Up Next:
Lincoln Continental • Lincoln Aviator


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

#81 OFFLINE   akirby

akirby

    fordmantpw's alter ego

  • Moderator
  • 25,066 posts
  • Joined 18-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Alpharetta, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2013 Fusion Ti (Ruby Red)

Posted 11 January 2015 - 10:17 AM

But there is no 6.2L in the 2015 f150. You are correct that the 3.5LEB has more power - 33 more lb/ft at much lower RPM and more towing capacity.

2013 Fusion Titanium (Ruby Red)
2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve (Luxe/Cappucino)







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


#82 OFFLINE   Hugh

Hugh

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined 24-April 06
  • Region:Canada British Columbia
  • Location:Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  • Current Vehicle:2014 Ford Escape Titanium AWD

Posted 11 January 2015 - 04:07 PM

But there is no 6.2L in the 2015 f150. You are correct that the 3.5LEB has more power - 33 more lb/ft at much lower RPM and more towing capacity.

True, I feel he is saying the EB35 should be compared to the Boss 6.2L and IMO the Chevy 6.2L based on power and towing/payload capacity. That is a A2A comparision unlike comparing the Chevy 5.3L and saying it gets better mileage then the EB35. Compare Chevy 5.3L vs. Coyote 5.0L...


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


#83 OFFLINE   Extreme4x4

Extreme4x4

    SheMember

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 2,090 posts
  • Joined 25-March 00
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Payson,Az. USA
  • Current Vehicle:2013 Explorer Sport, 2008 F250 SD

Posted 11 January 2015 - 05:00 PM

If someone actually wants to see some actual "real world" numbers for the 2.7L EB F150. Here ya go:

http://www.f150forum...ormance-284018/

 

Said folks can also look at F150 3.5L EB numbers and see how much they vary. Gee, what a surprise, not everyone is a mindless robot. 

 

My 3.5L EB Explorer Sport can easily meet the EPA numbers all day long. It can also easily exceed them............... and easily not meet them. It all depends on how I drive. 

 

One thing to realize with 3.5L EB numbers, and one of the reasons for such a huge variation in numbers, is the engine itself. The 3.5L EB in the trucks is basically a generation 1 for the trucks. As such, Ford really erred on the side of caution with the engine, and it will dump alot of fuel under load. Load is many things, from wind to speed to payload to towing to temperature. They have learned alot from this. When the next generation 3.5L EB comes out (probably for the 2016MY) expect to see a big difference. Fuel will be controlled much better, and the wild swings that the haters seem to love to point out (basically acting like a V6 in light conditions, and a BB V8 under heavy load) should really moderate. 

 

This will do nothing to keep the haters from hating. After all, the only true anecdotal reports are the negative ones, and all of us who are happy with our EB's and get good to great numbers out of them are liars. :)


Edited by Extreme4x4, 11 January 2015 - 05:01 PM.

  • CurtisH, Edstock, akirby and 1 other like this
Gloria
2013 Ford Explorer Sport LOADED, and we love MFT
2008 Ford F250 4x4 Crewcab, shortbed, Lariat (Navigation and DVD) V10
2003 Mazda Tribute ES AWD, loaded (sold)
2001 Ford F150 Lightning (sold)
1993 Ford EB Explorer, 1000RTI (sold)
1969 Ford F250 4x4 Crewcab (sold)
1968 Chevy C10 Longbed, (sold)
1968 Chevy L78 Camaro SS
1966 Yenko Stinger, YS-100
1937 GMC 2.5-ton cab/chassis (sold)

#84 OFFLINE   Hugh

Hugh

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined 24-April 06
  • Region:Canada British Columbia
  • Location:Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  • Current Vehicle:2014 Ford Escape Titanium AWD

Posted 11 January 2015 - 05:25 PM

Thanks Extreme for the daily chuckle. :) Stop making sense ;)


  • Extreme4x4, CurtisH and Edstock like this

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


#85 ONLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,247 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 11 January 2015 - 08:18 PM

The comparison of the 3.5 EB to the 5.0 is not exactly apples to apples either. If I recall correctly the 3.5 is a more powerful engine, more in line with the 6.2. If mileage is compared to the 6.2 the mileage should favor the EB.

In that respect., it's a lot better than the Boss 6.2, I remember Raptor 4x4 being 12/16 mpg

and EB 4x4 was way better than that about 20-25%...

 

Now comparing GM's new 6.2 4x4 Silvy to the EB 4x4 f150 you see 15/20 mpg Vs 17/23 mpg

but the people doing the comparison couldn't see the differenc according to their "real world test"

the same ones that brought Ecodiesel unstuck against 2.7 EB.... oh well.


Edited by jpd80, 11 January 2015 - 08:18 PM.

  • Hugh likes this

#86 OFFLINE   LSFan00

LSFan00

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined 19-December 06

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:04 PM

As much as ford spends in different configurations and avoiding a smaller Colorado style smaller distraction from f series sales I am amazed they refuse to simply offer a diesel three liter as an option, priced anywhere they want, just to cover the whole market. It wouldn't be hard to do so and smother the vm motori eco diesel hype.

It's fine to be right, about modern smaller turbo GDI engines, but why not also...win em all?

#87 OFFLINE   fuzzymoomoo

fuzzymoomoo

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Joined 18-February 14
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Southeast Michigan
  • Current Vehicle:2008 Focus, 2015 Focus

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:07 PM

As much as ford spends in different configurations and avoiding a smaller Colorado style smaller distraction from f series sales I am amazed they refuse to simply offer a diesel three liter as an option, priced anywhere they want, just to cover the whole market. It wouldn't be hard to do so and smother the vm motori eco diesel hype.

It's fine to be right, about modern smaller turbo GDI engines, but why not also...win em all?

 

 

Most likely answer is they don't have a plant available for all the extra tooling, and the $$$ investment involved isn't worth it in their minds


What? What happened?


#88 OFFLINE   akirby

akirby

    fordmantpw's alter ego

  • Moderator
  • 25,066 posts
  • Joined 18-April 06
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Alpharetta, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2013 Fusion Ti (Ruby Red)

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:07 PM

As much as ford spends in different configurations and avoiding a smaller Colorado style smaller distraction from f series sales I am amazed they refuse to simply offer a diesel three liter as an option, priced anywhere they want, just to cover the whole market. It wouldn't be hard to do so and smother the vm motori eco diesel hype.

It's fine to be right, about modern smaller turbo GDI engines, but why not also...win em all?

 

Cost, time and resources that could better be used elsewhere.  e.g. It might require adding a production line for the small diesel to meet all product demands.  That gets expensive really quickly.


  • fuzzymoomoo likes this

2013 Fusion Titanium (Ruby Red)
2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve (Luxe/Cappucino)

#89 OFFLINE   Hugh

Hugh

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined 24-April 06
  • Region:Canada British Columbia
  • Location:Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  • Current Vehicle:2014 Ford Escape Titanium AWD

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:17 PM

In that respect., it's a lot better than the Boss 6.2, I remember Raptor 4x4 being 12/16 mpg

and EB 4x4 was way better than that about 20-25%...

 

Now comparing GM's new 6.2 4x4 Silvy to the EB 4x4 f150 you see 15/20 mpg Vs 17/23 mpg

but the people doing the comparison couldn't see the differenc according to their "real world test"

the same ones that brought Ecodiesel unstuck against 2.7 EB.... oh well.

Again, don't let logical sense get into the conversation.


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


#90 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,233 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:25 PM

As much as ford spends in different configurations and avoiding a smaller Colorado style smaller distraction from f series sales I am amazed they refuse to simply offer a diesel three liter as an option, priced anywhere they want, just to cover the whole market. It wouldn't be hard to do so and smother the vm motori eco diesel hype.

It's fine to be right, about modern smaller turbo GDI engines, but why not also...win em all?

 

Because the only available diesel they've got is a strictly commercial grade model (the I-5 in the Transit) that is not a good match to the F150 in that it wouldn't reduce TCO---thus making it unpalatable for commercial buyers---and it's too unrefined and too weak to appeal to retail buyers.

 

Might Ford offer a diesel in the future? Possibly.

 

Why aren't they offering one now? See comments above.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#91 OFFLINE   fuzzymoomoo

fuzzymoomoo

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Joined 18-February 14
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Southeast Michigan
  • Current Vehicle:2008 Focus, 2015 Focus

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:30 PM

 

Because the only available diesel they've got is a strictly commercial grade model (the I-5 in the Transit) that is not a good match to the F150 in that it wouldn't reduce TCO---thus making it unpalatable for commercial buyers---and it's too unrefined and too weak to appeal to retail buyers.

 

Might Ford offer a diesel in the future? Possibly.

 

Why aren't they offering one now? See comments above.

 

 

That said, I'm sure ford has an engine plant that's due for a major retooling over the next few years, maybe then we might see a light duty diesel. Until then, I think Ford is going to stick with their plan of going full hybrid. They've learned enough with Fusion and C-Max hybrid to green light that program IMO


What? What happened?


#92 OFFLINE   RichardJensen

RichardJensen

    Does whatever a SpiderPig does

  • Moderator
  • 35,233 posts
  • Joined 02-September 04
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Current Vehicle:2000 Mercury Sable

Posted 12 January 2015 - 01:59 PM

I still have my doubts that we'll see a NA built diesel. I think the successor to the 3.2L I-5 will get a close look, but I don't anticipate much beyond that.


photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#93 OFFLINE   cdnexplr

cdnexplr

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Joined 22-June 11
  • Region:Canada British Columbia
  • Location:Canada
  • Current Vehicle:2003 For Mustang Mach1

Posted 18 March 2016 - 06:23 PM

I've had nothing but problems with my 2013 Escape with the 2.0L Ecoboost.  From day 1 it never got anywhere near the mileage it was supposed to, almost double the highway mileage from the window sticker.  Ford even tested the vehicle twice themselves and found it wasn't getting close but couldn't explain it and said after doing a carbon cleaning that there was nothing else they could do.  Another family member with a V6 2012 Escape was getting better mileage and they drove like a mad man lol.  Even if I baby the gas and slowly accelerate, it still doesn't help so I have no faith in the Ecoboost engines.



#94 OFFLINE   92merc

92merc

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined 19-October 05
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Bismarck, ND
  • Current Vehicle:2007Mercury Montego : 2003 F150 SuperCrew

Posted 19 March 2016 - 12:00 PM

I have a 2013 Escape Titanium 2.0L as well.  I've been very happy with it overall.  In town mileage I match EPA.  Out of town, I don't.  But the overall does match EPA ratings.  And I drive in mixed driving mostly. 

 

Previous vehicle was a 3.0L Mercury Montego FWD.  I got 21mpg in mixed driving.  I get the same mileage in my Escape.  Considering how much more HP/torque the Escape has, same weight, AWD, and more wind resistance, I think the mileage is reasonable.



#95 OFFLINE   silvrsvt

silvrsvt

    Bite my Shiny metal ass!

  • Moderator
  • 17,533 posts
  • Joined 03-October 02
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Current Vehicle:2017 Escape SE AWD/2013 Taurus SHO

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:23 PM

My parents have a 2013 Escape Ti FWD also and when they come down to visit me in MD from NJ, the MPG's can vary almost 4 MPG depending on temperature outside,traffic and speed...if you set the cruise for 70 it does much better then 75.

 

In my tuned SHO, I get about 19-21 MPG making the same time, I've noticed the MPGs really hurt when its cold out, but once its over 50, I gain about 2-3 MPG. My best numbers where 25 MPG going to to PA with AC on and it being 85 out.

You can see my MPG tracking at fuelly below in my signature.


"Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something."
Thomas A. Edison


Ford Products owned though the years:
1986 Escort GT Race Red
1998 Mustang GT Dark Green Satin
2002 SVT Focus Satin Silver
2006 Mustang GT Tungsten Grey

2010 Escape XLT AWD Sport Blue
2013 Taurus SHO Ruby Red

2017 Escape SE AWD Platinum White

Future Fords:
2021 Bronco

20xx Mustang GT350 or the like

 

199923.png
 
photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#96 OFFLINE   Tom Bucceri

Tom Bucceri

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Facebook Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined 24-February 17
  • Region:U.S. Pacific Coast
  • Location:Washington
  • Current Vehicle:Fusion

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:08 PM

The trip odometer on my 1.5 L 2016 Fusion SE says I'm getting 29 MPG.

Should I believe this?


Edited by Tom Bucceri, 24 February 2017 - 09:08 PM.


#97 OFFLINE   OX1

OX1

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
  • Joined 15-January 08

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:12 AM

 

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.

 

 

   Normal drive for me to work, 45-50 MPH roads, 12 miles with maybe 10 lights (don't hit all of

them red and there is some longer stretches that are great for building mileage back up).  

My 14 Stang GT gets maybe 1 MPH less than my 15 AWD fusion (usually get 22-24 in fusion).

Fusion is 200 lbs heavier, but it's got to be more aero than the stang. Now if I really get into it

driving like a maniac, fusion would do no worse than 19, I'd guess, Stang probably 15

(obviously the speed you attain in Stang would be much higher overall).

 

  Does a V6 honda accord get better mileage than my fusion. Most definately, but even on a dry day,

I can brake boost a bit and beat virtually any FWD across an intersection (at which point the "race" IS over).

In the rain, my 143 HP mazda6 auto would spin the tires like crazy if prodded even half throttle, but

the fusion, even if brake boosted and floored, hooks up like it is bone dry out. . 

 

  Bottom line to me is ford over-delivered in real world performance of this fusion. The thing 

handles way better than the supposed flagship mustang GT, non PP (it's not even close and

they both have 235 width tires). I attribute much of the handling to balance, as the car has
AWD weight in the back and a relatively light motor up front. The ride is so nice and quiet

we call it "the couch". 

 

  Anyway, fuel economy is average or a bit worse than it's competitors, but who else offers 

this package (which I got for a smokin deal of almost 7 grand off sticker, but even at sticker of

$29.8K, was not bad for what you get). Not real worried about MPG, all these gov't mandated

high MPG or electric vehicles coming is going to make gas really cheap. Might have to start

commuting in the 430 bird, just to help out the coming gas glut. 

 

 Finally, the eco's are real easy to hop up with only tunes, IC's and maybe DP/IC pipes. 

Some 2G AWD fusions are running 300 WHP with very minor mods, some guys getting

13.9's @ 102. You can get an honest 60 ft-lb torque increase @ 2500 RPM, and that is only

the 2.0 eco. Even the 5.0 gets maybe 20 Hp (and almost no torque increase) from a 93 tune. 


Edited by OX1, 25 February 2017 - 06:22 AM.

59 Bird-430

70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos

86 Capri, 5.0 Turbo

14 Stang GT

15 Fusion AWD


#98 OFFLINE   OX1

OX1

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
  • Joined 15-January 08

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:25 AM

The trip odometer on my 1.5 L 2016 Fusion SE says I'm getting 29 MPG.

Should I believe this?

 

My fusion reads 1, sometimes 2 MPG higher on display than real world. 

Oddly, my stang reads 1 MPG lower than real world. Our 

2.0 escape is dead on, usually. 


59 Bird-430

70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos

86 Capri, 5.0 Turbo

14 Stang GT

15 Fusion AWD









Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·