Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

  • Custom Search


blazerdude20

Wards calls out Ecoboost

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proved

 

You have a strange definition of 'proved'.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:

 

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33085&id=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........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep ignoring the facts

 

Again, I'm having a hard time seeing these *facts* of which you speak.

 

I'm seeing plenty of context-free anecdotes, but that's not exactly evidence of anything..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regarding your EB vs. 5.0 comparison:

 

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33187&id=33183

 

Lookie that. The EB isn't rated much higher than the 5.0 to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So evidence of real world results doesn't count? Ok.

What do you want me to provide, screenshots of the lcd mileage screens? Or the countless articles that have been provided by the media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So evidence of real world results doesn't count? Ok.

What do you want me to provide, screenshots of the lcd mileage screens? Or the countless articles that have been provided by the media?

 

I want you to provide statistically valid independently verifiable data. Not 'my brother this----my uncle that----my cousin's ex-boyfriend the other.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because right now there is exactly *one* statistically valid, independently verifiable testing regimen for fuel economy: The EPA's.

 

If you don't like it, if you disagree with it, that's fine and good, but you can't expect me to take your obviously biased summary of your brother's driving habits as reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the countless articles that have been posted by trusted media, most of which has praised Ford in the past, are unreliable as well. I see. You believe what you want to believe and I will continue to believe the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trusted Media?

 

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

You really don't understand how EPA testing works and why your real world results are anecdotal at best.

 

Two people could drive a 3.5LEB F150 on the same route and get vastly different results.

 

It's really simple - you have to drive the EB vehicles more carefully and closer to the EPA test to get EPA numbers. If you'd rather not do that then enjoy the 5.0L but don't bitch about the tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the countless articles that have been posted by trusted media

 

again, not statistically valid, not independently verifiable.

 

If you think the statistically valid, independently verifiable EPA data are incorrect, please supply your own statistically valid, independently verifiable data.

 

Otherwise you're arguing that the ocean doesn't have fish in it because you didn't find any in a glass of water you scooped up at low tide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could drive your truck on the same route and get 19 which is the EPA combined. I could also drive it differently and get 15.

 

Your trucks aren't identical. Your driving isn't identical. In the EPA test all those variables are controlled very carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Drive the EB vehicles more carefully.." Hahahahahaha

 

 

Daggone it, I'm gwanter youse all three hunnert an sisty five herses, even if'n I don' hav tu.

 

Wut? My gas tanks done emptied isself out? Consarn it. I thought they done suspenned da lawz uh fizziks f'r this 'year truck.

Edited by RichardJensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just over on f150ecoboost.net to see what kind of mileage they were getting.

 

I've seen reported figures as low as 9 (albeit with a ton of mods and some runs over 90 mph) and as high as 25.

 

Again, everyone's mileage is varying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW: When a Kentuckian with *Ric Flair* in his avatar tells you that you need to drive the EB engines w/a light foot to get the EPA mileage...............

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/58054-wards-calls-out-ecoboost/?p=925849

Edited by RichardJensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With modern cars, its real easy to destroy fuel economy by allowing your foot to sink heavier on the throttle,

years ago we were taught to keep the throttle steady with carbs so as not to activate enrichment (Accelerator pump)

but with today's Injected car I've found that lifting off and easing back in gives big changes in the vehicle's economy

So I'd bet that Ecoboost's geometric power delivery would make throttle position even more crucial to fuel economy.

 

Not telling people how to drive here, just simply sharing something I've discovered over the past decade or so.

It took me so long to change my driving habit, from something I thought was a constant to watching the instant

economy and responding to what it was doing. Ive had instances where a constant throttle actually makes the

instant fuel economy gradually increase around 25-33% above what I thought it should be but then I back out

of the throttle and ease back in and there's the economy again.

 

Am I talking madness or have other people noticed this?

Edited by jpd80

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

×