Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


blazerdude20

Wards calls out Ecoboost

Recommended Posts

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/07/ford-ecoboost-poor-fuel-mileage-complaints-wards/

 

"Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit of an about-face from a media outlet that praised the 3.5L and 2.0L EB engines for their efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, love this part of the Ward's article. Pretty much sums it up.

 

 

"The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot."

 

Why would Ward's state that a 4x4 drivetrain rated at 18/20/23 mpg is supposed to get the same EPA mileage as the 4x2 version?

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit of an about-face from a media outlet that praised the 3.5L and 2.0L EB engines for their efficiency.

 

Indeed, and even awarded both the 3.5L EB and 2.0L EB engines 10 Best Awards.

Edited by JasonM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who got to Wards first? Seriously, the article is borderline insane. So are the comments on Autoblog. First moaning how you need 93 octane for the power, not getting the Fuel economy when you forget what wheel drive you have. Wards team must have had a brain tumor for breakfast. The work from them is usually good but this is an about face in the most blatant and terrible way. Good grief!

Edited by Hugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this isn't the first story of it's kind. Just about every publication has harped about the Ecoboosts not getting the claimed numbers. They haven't mentioned any other automakers numbers, but the aura that the Ecoboost are thirsty engines are out there. Im wondering how my fuel mileage would be on these engines since I'm certainly not light footed by any means. I have always averaged 12-14MPG on the LS and 13-15 on the MKX. But I think asking people to drive like an old lady to achieve the EPA estimates is laughable.

 

I should have my one of my friends with a Mustang GT (who averages 20MPG cause he drives like an old lady-Yes midlife crisis he can barely afford) try one of these Ecoboost and see if he can even reach those numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know, as I said in another thread, I'm reaching as advertised fuel economy. Can't speak for others but consider this: If an EB15 got equal to better power and fuel economy then the D25, mission success. An EB20 vs a D30. An EB35 vs Boss 6.2L....that's my train of thought and I do believe that is conveyed enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3.2L Power Stroke diesel I-5: The massive Transit van uses this engine, and anyone needing to move a storeful of refrigerators will find it outstanding. It’s reasonably quiet, considering the inside of this truck is like a drum.

Perhaps it wasn’t fair comparing it with the Ram diesel, which clearly is designed for passenger duty. The Transit I-5 delivered admirable fuel economy for a truck this size, averaging 19 mpg (12.3 L/100 km).

 

Wait. Where's the "dressing down"? :headscratch:

 

 

 

...although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines.

 

I'm not seeing this either. :headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could get the rated MPG out of my EB20 Edge. I'm lucky to get 18 city and 25 highway (it's rated 21 and 30mpg). I do drive fast on Interstate 5 for most of my Hwy. driving, (75 to 80mph) but I really drive it easy around town trying to use the cruise and coasting as much as I can, but find that it just doesn't like stop and go at all. I have friends that get the same mileage as me with their 3.5L N/A's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real proof of the pudding comes from customers. Are customers claiming that they get poor gas mileage? (I do not know),

 

All I know is my 1.5L in my Fusion deliver's better than the EPA rating fuel mileage in both city and highway driving. It also gets better fuel mileage then my previous car which was a 2012 Hyundai Sonata without a turbo. So this is one customer on the positive side of the fuel mileage ledger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only thing I find "odd" from Ward's is

The problem with this new Mustang engine is that it doesn’t sound like it belongs in a pony car.

So that out weights

 

Compelling technologies include a twin-scroll low-inertia turbocharger (a first for Ford) and high-pressure fuel injectors with six holes laser-drilled to help atomize spray into the combustion chamber.

AND

 

The 2.3L EcoBoost goes hard when called upon, capable of a 60-mph (97 km/h) sprint in 5.2 seconds and a top speed of 145 mph (233 km/h).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, love this part of the Ward's article. Pretty much sums it up.

 

 

"The EPA says this engine should get 26 mpg (9 L/100 km) on the highway with 2-wheel drive. Our 4x4 supercab never got close to that, even under a light foot."

 

Why would Ward's state that a 4x4 drivetrain rated at 18/20/23 mpg is supposed to get the same EPA mileage as the 4x2 version?

The real "take away" should be how the EB2.7L is "optimized" for a given "typical" load. Actually this is true for ALL EcoBoost engines ! In order to get "good" fuel economy with ANY EcoBoost engine, requires a light foot AND a light load.

 

 

I would really like to see some "real world" data of a F150 2WD SuperCab towing a 3,000-5,000 lbs trailer, 2.7L EB versus a 5.0L. I suspect the fuel economy difference will be very small.

Edited by theoldwizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anytime you put "ECO" in the name of your product, fuel economy will automatically be a target for reviewers above anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a herd mentality from so-called journalists who seem to just parrot what everyone else is saying rather than having their own independent opinions or doing their own research. Bad news gets a lot more publicity than good news these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anytime you put "ECO" in the name of your product, fuel economy will automatically be a target for reviewers above anything else.

Maybe Ford should've stuck with "Twinforce"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ecoboost engine family is so misunderstood...the engines will get mileage if you drive them to get good mileage... If you drive them for power,mileage will suffer.

 

Many customers and the media expected Ford to have an engine that developed high HP and torque and high MPG...AT THE SAME TIME...that expectation should have been quelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ecoboost engine family is so misunderstood...the engines will get mileage if you drive them to get good mileage... If you drive them for power,mileage will suffer.

 

Many customers and the media expected Ford everyone to have an engine that developed high HP and torque and high MPG...AT THE SAME TIME...that expectation should have been quelled.

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a herd mentality from so-called journalists who seem to just parrot what everyone else is saying rather than having their own independent opinions or doing their own research.

 

In this case, Ward's did their own evaluation and research of Ford vehicles equipped with 1.0L, 1.5L, and 2.7L EcoBoost engines, and they arrived at the same conclusions that other independent reviewers did: with the exception of the 1.0L 3-cylinder, EcoBoost engines fall short when it comes to real-world fuel efficiency.

 

Kudos to Ward's for not simply rehashing press releases from Ford Motor Company this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "real world" include all the drivers who get at or above the EPA ratings on ecoboost vehicles? Or does it only include those who fit your preconceived opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just like any motor you can't lead pedal them if you want good numbers

 

Basically. That's just physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics be damned! I want 1000HP all the torque that any drivetrain can handle and 6000MPG and all for under 50K!

 

 

And for the love of all things holy I should be able to floor it and only lose 1MPG!

Edited by fuzzymoomoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My observation of driving habits of most people, are one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake. They tailgate and are in a hurry to go nowhere in town but to the next red light. Complaints about real world fuel economy are not valid. Most drivers don't want to do what it takes to achieve good economy, whether it's in an EcoBoost equipped vehicle or a normally aspirated one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics be damned! I want 1000HP all the torque that any drivetrain can handle and 6000MPG on 87 octane and all for under 50K!

 

 

And for the love of all things holy I should be able to floor it and only lose 1MPG!

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×