F150 with the 3.5L twin turbo eco boost

12346»

Comments

  • larryggggglarryggggg Member Posts: 2
    I'm happier now and I am responding to my initial post of mar '13. My mileage has improved with time. I was getting the bad 13 around town, compared to an earlier 15-1 6 mpg. Now, over time and up to about 16,000 miles the mileage has stabilized at about 17-18 around town. However, this around town is slightly different since I moved and the terrain is more flat.

    As, a side note, in my first six months, I also experienced a violent shaking of the engine and transmission, with the "check engine" light also shaking on and off. The dealer couldn't find any thing wrong. It hasn't done it since. Most of my problems centered around two sets of failing oxegon sensors.

    Another note on towing: I have a 8 - 10,000 lb toy hauler (sometimes more loaded) and this truck pulls it off with no problems, even up steep inclines pulling out of my place. I'm still impressed with the power and mileage as it has stabilized (I didn't do anything, note use only 91 octane fuel). My mileage is about 10 mpg at 55 mph with the heavy loaded toy hauler.
  • flash2782flash2782 Member Posts: 1
    50.000 miles on the ecoboost no broblems
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    I have been trying to provided detailed updates for the eco-boost enthusiasts. At 50,000 I would expect no issues from any manufacturer; however, platform and usage are key! Recognize over three years of production there have been numerous mfg changes , too numerous to mention ( ie electric to manual vac pumps, cold start strategy, exhaust system re-design , etc ). I'm only identifying with what a consumer a realize if they invest the money. Frankly there are too many variables that can net POOR fuel economy that woulD cause the buyer to be EXTREMELY disappointed in their investment. As stated the advertising is miss-leading and does not live up to all the hype. Buyer beware! There are too many alternative power trains and vehicles that will better service mileage and towing requirements when towing under 11, 000#.
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    I too share in your feeling about professional bloggers following you around. What really makes meanwhile mad is if they spent equal time involved with calibration issues and fuel economy issues they could do lot to improve customer satisfaction and future sales. I used to be part of this forum and believe they are not supporting this department and field service function anymore.
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    Unfortunately this is not the MPG you expected when you bought it. I too believe the truck will pull but the MPG is nothing to boast about!
  • eric1122eric1122 Member Posts: 1
    My ecoboost is flawless for 22,000 miles now. Dont believe the hype, these issues barely ever happen.....I live in Florida where its super humid
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    I really do appreciate the positive feedback, however, elevation, temperature and axle ratios are key factors. As a retired power train field service manager, and having owned over 270 cars, I have never owned a more temperamental vehicle! recognize this vehicle has been recalibrated numerous times and has gone through complete design changes over the last three years including porn from electric vacuum pump to manual design between 13 and 14. improvements have been made, however, models 2011, 2012, and 2013 all represent different design. I for one am very disappointed in the 2012 with electric vacuum pump. While this his vehicle will tow a 9000 lb trailer, don't expect more than 8.5/9.0 mpg at 68 mph and 19.4/19.7 hwy at 70 mph. The 2012 can even experience condensation and vaccum pump freeze blowing fuses and resulting in a low, if not, failed brake pedal in cold climate.
    As previously stated, at $54,000 a copy, these issues should not have been passed to the consumer!
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    There were some spelling corrections to be made in this response primarily in regards to VAC pump design changes between 2011 and 2013. RECONIZE (sentence 2) should have been capitalized.
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    Has anyone taken a look at their license plate lights lately? You might be surprised when you find then failed in less than 14 mths. Best part is it's not a simple bulb change. Moreover, what's the cost to consumer when they fail out of warranty?!
    Just my thoughts......., then again I've already had to replace both left and right side......
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    Well it's now Nov of 2013 and I agree about your comments regarding FREE Energy... As for professional bloggers, I'm begining to think you might be right. My major disappointment has come from Ford not engaging in their issues. Winter fuel cold start strategy is horendous!!
    Other major issues have been identified primarily that while there may be four model years identified between 2011 and 2013, there have been some are major changes and distinctions in each power train and their components that are factors in poor fuel economy. The consumers are not aware of these changes and assumes these eco boost platforms are the same. Advertizing alone is very misleading with a 2 wheel drive low axle eco boost delivering 23 mpg at 75 mph and a supercrew /373 axle only delivering 16.9 under 70mph with maximum trailer tow. Many calibration changes have ocurred, vacuum pumps have gone from electric back to engine design. Unfortunately, I have the later which is subject to condensation and freeze which can result in brake fade and poor performance with the only option to have the pump replaced. Hopefully this happens within the warranty period and the consumer doesn't have to pay out of pocket. There are other issues if I wanted to knit pick but not worth the print.
    My rig has improved in economy to 16cty/20hwy under 70 mph in temps above 45 but you have to kiss the rig everytime you take it out of the stable. (Winter fuel economy is still 13.8-14.5 cty and 17.0/18.5hwy).
    Federal EPA requirements over the next three years are going to force innovations including aluminum body components , eight and nine speed transmissions but variable valve timing and naturally aspirated gas engines will prevail. Currently there are too many alternatives to consider the 3.5 eco boost as a alternative, however, "Total Works" /Ford maintenance packages driving oil changes below $30.00 make it hard to jusify the diesel off set givin fuel cost sometimes as high as $1.00 per/gal difference for diesel and diesel additives etc.
    Watch the Big Three for major industry changes over the next three years. Pay special attention to transmissions and variable valve timing. There are and will be many other BETTER choices than the 3.5 eco boost as alternatives.
    Thanks for your comments!!
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    The 5.0 Ltr was really a smart choice plus something you can service for years to come!
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    I've noted your comments regarding 91 octane fuel and while it may net additional mpg, I've not sure it warrants the increased expense short of giving you a warm and fuzzy and bragging rights of increased mpg when towing, "Oh 1.4 mpg, yea but!!
    I agree the vehicle will tow but Ford still owes the consumer tuning and performance assistance. This rig could deliver more and create positive customer feed back if they would only invest a little money in fully understanding their own technology.
  • usamechusamech Member Posts: 1
    First time poster skimming thru the threads on the eco-boost. I apologize if this isn't the appropriate thread for this subject, but it seems like there's a lot of good intell and experience here to glean some valuable consumer info from.

    I'm a non-owner looking to buy a used 2011 or so F150 supercab, 4x4, for a work truck. I'll be driving 70 miles per day total for work with about 5 miles of that being city traffic in the mid-atlantic region. I'll never be towing. Interested in either the 3.5 or the 3.7 non-eco-boost v-6's for the best gas mileage I can get. I'd really like to get something with an mpg of about 20, since the van I currently drive gets about 23.

    Any opinions? Should I steer away from the eco-boost? Is the gas mpg controversy really about just advertised vs actual only when towing? Anything I'm not considering that I should be? I'm not up to speed on trucks since I haven't owned one in over 10 years. Thanks for any assist.
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    If you're just planning to use it for transportation there are many other power trains that would make you happier. If you plan to do light duty towing under 6000# and you want a Filesa Ford, the 5.0 would be your best all around. If you' re looking at alternatives the 5.7 Hemi or 5.3 GM with variable valve timing will give you better fuel economy both city and
    and highway. The Hemi is actually boasting better city and highway but the trim in the. GM line-up is really nice.
  • jazzinjazzin Member Posts: 1
    I'm looking to buy me an F-150 soon and was really wanting to get me one with the ecoboost engine in it. After reading some of these threads, I am wondering if maybe I should give up on getting the ecoboost engine. Would I be better off getting the V6 or the V8? Need to get a truck soon so any reply's are appreciated.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    edited December 2013
    Been lurking here for quite a while. Conclusion is to stay away from the Eco Boost until the bugs are worked out.

    Harley offered some good advice for alternative trucks. Such as the Ford 5.0 V8 and offerings from Ram and Chevy/GMC.

    Here is the thing! You really can't make more power without burning more fuel. However when the "MORE" power is not needed, there are ways to increase mileage, such as variable valve timing and disabling a cylinder during light duty. And small efficient engines with the turbo "BOOST" when needed is certainly a great alternative. However the turbo must be operating, and not operating, darn near perfect at all times to really be effective. And the driver must be willing to drive with a light foot and stay "OUT" of the turbo. When the turbo activates, a lot of air and fuel are dumped into the engine, which may be even more than a efficient V8 would use.

    We occasionally tow a small camper weighing about 3000#. As do several of our friends. Our truck is a V6.
    Strangly enough, the folks with the V8s get about the same mileage "TOWING" as we do.

    Not towing, we get 1-3 better mpg than they do, both Local and highway. But that also depends on how heavy our right foot is. The V8s just don't need to work as hard as the 6s, to accomplish anything but the lightest task.

    Conclusion: If I was working the truck with anything more than 1000# load most of the time, it would be a V8. Also, if asking the V6 to accelerate like an 8, for that "seat of the pants" experience, the mileage is going to be pretty much the same as the V8.

    If you don't need a heavy duty, heavy towing, super manly Pickup, you might consider a midsize truck. I have owned a couple each of Ram, Chevy, and Ford full size trucks. Our present one is a Midsize and much better fits our needs since we no longer tow a 30' 6000# camper.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Kip
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    Recognize by design the turbos no the Ecoboost are actually operating all the time which is also a draw back. While the Ecoboost may provide torque, unless you take delivery on one with less than the 373 axle or a 2 wheel drive model, don't expect to boast to your neigbor about great fuel economy. I think you your choice to look at alternative power trains will best serve you long term.
  • harley060107harley060107 Member Posts: 41
    There are some updates that you may want to review. My comments are only made to provide a perpective buyer with good data to make an informed purchase. As the owner of an 2012 Ecoboost (Supercrew), the rig will pull, however, there are too many alterntatives that will do the same thing providing equal to or better fuel economy empty. Long term you will not have to deal with turbo warranty, maintenance, and many of the other associated issues. Even with a 373 axle on alterative power trains, you can drive at highway speeds above 70 mph without getting penalized with a severe mpg drop.
    Depending on when you buy the Ecoboost and which model year, you could even be subject to paying more for the ecoboost power train.
  • just_focusjust_focus CincinnatiMember Posts: 53
    edited December 2013

    I did the research and decided to buy the 5.0 over the Echo Boost. I have 4500 miles on the truck now and it has been flawless. The 5.0 is a very nice engine with a lot of gas saving technology. I have been logging every tank of gas and can say being truthful that my average gas mileage is 18.5mpg. My truck is a 2013 F150 supercab 2wd XLT with the towing package 3.55 gears and 7100lb GVW. I got about $12,000 off sticker when I bought it a few months ago. I know other trucks like the Tundra hold value a lot better than the F150 but I also think they pay closer to sticker when buying. If anyone is considering the GM trucks with AFM you had better check out their forum because it looks a lot worse than the Eco Boost forum. Honda tried variable cylinder management for years and never perfected it so I am not sure why GM would even try.

  • hackattack5hackattack5 Member Posts: 315

    I started this thread over 3 years ago. I just looked at the first post (mine) and remembered the Ford salesman telling me about getting 29MPG in the ecoboost. Now that is funny right there. Maybe the New F150 will get 29MPG.

  • rmartin4334rmartin4334 Member Posts: 2
    My wife has had her 2013 FX4 ecoboost for almost a year and we love it. mpg is14.5 city and 20 hwy. I think it would be better but she likes to hear the turbos whistle. I was very skeptical about the v-6 I'm a V8 man But it has made a believer out of me. Her truck out pulls my 5.7L 351 granted mine has 250,000 miles but that little V6 snatches our 10,000 lb camper like it's not there and still gets 13-14 mpg. I've come to like it so much I plan on buying one for myself at the end of the year.
  • rmartin4334rmartin4334 Member Posts: 2
    I'm actually thinking about a rocky ridge or Tuscany conversion. Anyone have any info. Pros/cons
Sign In or Register to comment.