Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Well, yes, but ONLY when WOT or very close thereby.
At lower RPM cruise mode, partial throttle openings, there is simply not enough WASTE exhaust energy to SPIN the turbine section, so the wastegate is left in the bypass position.
Therefore, in comparison, the Ecoboost engine does not provide a reasonable level of torque for simply cruising along towing even a light load, and certainly not uphill. In point of fact the Ford Ecoboost design actually sacrifices cruise power, MPG (***), in order to produce "stellar" WOT "on-boost" torque levels.
*** The "standard" compression ratio for DFI engines is now at 12-14:1, but Ford runs the Ecoboost in detuned/derated mode, ~10:1 CR during simple cruise mode in order to provide for the effective CR to be above 14:1 ONBOOST/WOT.
Take away the turbo and raise the CR to 12:1 and cruise HP/torque/mpg would rise substantually. Or adopt Toyota's E-VVT-i intake valve closing delay technique and run the engine with 12-13:1 CR, Otto mode, for cruising, and revert to 10:1 CR with the wategate closed, on-boost, simulated Miller cycle.
However, for normal cruising to work or around town there is plenty of power and the mileage has been about 18 mpg with 23 on the highway. This is even better than I expected.
Well, yes, but ONLY when WOT or very close thereby.
Duh, that's the case for any engine. Your posts are comical.
The 5.4 v8 in my Expedition produces something like 365ft-lbs of torque at 3600rpm or so and it has pretty good off idle torque output. Trust me, when I'm towing my boat or travel trailer, I MUST FLOOR it to get max towing power whether at 2k rpm or 4k+.
Have you ever driven a DI turbo engine? I've driven a few 4cyl DI turbos and I've found the power to be very linear. I never needed to floor them to get power and it they were noticeably more powerful at part throttle and low rpm vs a n/a 4cyl and v6's I've driven.
Yes, lots of "magical-like" things can be done with/in the DBW firmware between the accelerator pedal position sensors and the throttle plate servomotor.
The accelerator pedal can have a perfectly linear "feel" while the throttle plate (and Turbo waste-gate) movement can be totally erratic, non-linear, in response.
The accelerator pedal can have a perfectly linear "feel" while the throttle plate (and Turbo waste-gate) movement can be totally erratic, non-linear, in response.
That's all I care about is how well it works.
Ford is far from the only manufacturer using turbo charging with DI. You should be bashing VW, Mazda, BMW, Hyundai and others that use the same basic design. Turbocharging is not going away.
DI and high compression alone isn't going to produce usable torque like a much larger engine. Boost is currently the only way to do it.
One of the benefits of two small turbos instead of one big one is that they spool up and generate boost more quickly - even at part throttle. Most of the critics of the 3.5 ecoboost engine have never experienced it.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/2011-ford-f-150-ecoboost-v-6-photos-and-add- itional-engine-details.html
The above link shows the torque curve of the ecoboost at part throttle and at WOT. It also shows the torque curves of some competitors.
Oh I know.
The above link shows the torque curve of the ecoboost at part throttle and at WOT. It also shows the torque curves of some competitors.
Great post. Gotta love that torque curve even at...um part throttle.
The entire 'Green' agenda is the stupidest thing on planet earth, for starters oil is naturally occurring but people have been brainwashed into thinking mother earth is going to implode.
Heat, electronics and turbos what a great match up, with the Ford Triton's blowing out spark plugs I can't wait till these get out in the field and start racking up dollars in repairs.
I find it quite hypocritical Al Gore & Oboma the planet messiah's do not stop flying around in 'Corporate Jets', BIG SUV's and living lavishly.
I hope the numbnuts enjoy the Keynesian economic policies and their 'green' unemployment benefits.
Keep this fragile truck, make sure you got the pocket book to fix it. *If* anyone can find one running after 5 years, I am sure it will be a money pit.
A diesel is the ONLY sane approach, however the 'greenies' will not allow it. So they build this POS 'eco crap'.
The v6 EB develops more power at lower rpm than most most gas v8s. Peak HP is at 5,000rpm vs 5,500 for the 5.0v8. Max torque is available at 2,500rpm vs over 4k rpm for the 5.0 as well, so the idea the the EB has to scream at high rpm to make power is more BS.
Sure it's a more complicated engine so durability is a huge question mark. Considering how well the EB has been selling we'll learn fairly quick how it holds up.
You make that up or did you find a factual, trustworthy, statement somewhere...?
~5000 RPM is NOT considered "low".
You neglected to mention the actual rating of V6's peak HP at 5,000 rpm vs the V8's at 5,500 rpm...?
Same thing with torque, need the actual numbers in order to judge fairly.
"...the idea that the EB has to scream at high rpm to make power is pure BS..."
NOT...!!
You can't quickly spool up those turboes without LOTS of exhaust gas flow into the turbine section. Plus you do not want BOOST at normal cruisng speed/rpm.
I'm not a fan of V8s by any means, but the gas-guzzling gas-hoggish EB is nothing more than a Ford marketing SCAM. I'll take a V6 with DFI and NO turbo, thank you. Maybe an SC if it's Miller cycle.
You make that up or did you find a factual, trustworthy, statement somewhere...?
I should have said torque instead of power.
From Ford.com
3.7 v6 302HP@6500RPM 278ft-lbs@4000rpm
3.5 EB 365hp@5000rpm 420ft-lbs@2500rpm
5.0 v8 360HP@5500rpm 380ft-lbs@4250rpm
6.2 v8 411HP@5500rpm 434ft-lbs@4500rpm
GM (per gmpowertrain.com)
4.8 v8 302HP@5600rpm 305ft-lbs@4600rpm
5.3 v8 315HP@5200rpm 338ft-lbs@4400rpm
6.2 v8 403HP@5700rpm 417ft-lbs@4300rpm
Dodge
5.7 v8 390hp@5600rpm 407ft-lbs@4000rpm.
So there you go, those are the numbers from each manufacturers website. Which engine generates it's max HP and torque at the lowest rpm?
I'll take a V6 with DFI and NO turbo, thank you.
You can have it, because that would be horrible in a truck/fullsize SUV for towing. For comparison, GM's DI 3.6 produces 273ft-lbs@5200rpm. How is that better the EB 420ft-lbs@2500rpm. That would be fine in an empty truck, but put 5klb+ trailer on back and it will be horribly slow while having to spin 5k+rpm to produce much pulling power. No thanks.
You can't quickly spool up those turboes without LOTS of exhaust gas flow into the turbine section. Plus you do not want BOOST at normal cruisng speed/rpm.
Well all I can say is a friend of mine just traded his v8 powered pickup for a EB f150 and so far he loves it. He's towed his 7k lb boat with it and he claims it feels much stronger than his previous v8 truck ever did. He's getting 20+mpg hwy nontowing, his old f150 never broke 17mpg hwy. I'll be curious to how well the EB holds up.
I have a 31 ft travel trailer that weighs 7900 lbs dry and this truck pulls it like no other I have owned.( 1998 silverado, 2003 yukon xl) I am very, very pleased with the truck. I got 8-10 mpg towing this trailer with the yukon when it was new and I get 9 with the f150 eb.
I never thought I'd own a Ford, but I love it now.
If you buy an F150 with out the 3.5 you will regret it. The truck is nice but the engine is amazing. It is hard to believe you can have this much power and save gas. My first tank with around town and a 32 mile commute to work (Atlanta) was 19.8 MPG. I am sold.
That's above 20mpg highway. My dash mileage monitor said 22.1, and I'm inclined to believe that isn't far off, because of the distance I traveled without having to fill up. I was astonished that I didn't have to stop to fill up dozens of miles before I did.
Averaged 60-70mph the whole way. Relatively flat (Rt. 95 from Maryland to Connecticut), but it is riddled with toll booths, so room to improve on mileage even.
And mine is the 4x4, Supercab, and the gear ratio is 3.73.
Not making this up. 20++ mpg highway out of a stock 4WD version of the EcoBoost F150.
I'm a bit of a light-foot (I like vehicles with ample power, so I don't always have to rev them). So I'll bet I could get ~24mpg out of a 2WD Ecoboost equipped Fun-50 from Florida to Maine, traffic and weather permitting.
GM says they are not worried about the Ecoboost, but they are underestimating its capabilities!
Are you simply against Ford or turbo charging? Just about every manufacturer is using DI and turbo charging. Even GM uses it.
And don't bring up simply using DI and high compression. It's not enough on a small displacement engine for truck use. Sure it will make big HP, but torque at a usable rpm is far more essential in a truck.
Not very well thought out, IMO.
Actually, during acceleration, going up even a slight incline, or towing, you will ALWAYS be on boost in the EcoBoost. Torque peaks at 2500 rpm, lower than the V8s options. And even under very light acceleration you can hear the turbos spool, and you feel the vehicle accelerating, regardless of your theories on pedal position and wastegate operation.
You've somehow theorized that because wastegates could be overactive, that they necessarily have to be in this application. That is some pretty wild guestimating on your part, backed up neither by reports nor data. You cannot will the Ecoboost to be an inferior engine, I'm sorry to say
Your post about pedals and feel is irrelevant. When you demand torque, the engine responds by closing the wastegates linearly, because the vehicle
increases velocity at a linear rate. It is not beyond all of us who are used to driving v8 trucks to take notice of the sensation of acceleration, contrary to your flimsy theories. In fact, it makes my prior 5.4 seem athsmatic and weak by comparison. Not only does the EB accelerate more readily, it burns 30% less fuel on average as per my real-world driving.
I.E. There is no acceleration lag, whether by lack of spool or boost going to waste, you are incorrect either way. Whatever you seem to think could happen, has been programmed out of this vehicle. And just because torque peaks at 2500 doesn't mean there isn't ample torque under partial throttle. The EB is more responsive at lower rpms and partial throttle than the Vortec 6.0
And it most certainly does not go straight to WOT with partial application of the accelerator. I don't know where you came up with that nonsense. I am far more likely to need close to WOT to get a naturally aspirated slug to move. The difference in actual acceleration between partial throttle and full throttle in the EcoBoost is very wide. Under partial throttle it accelerates with traffic, under full throttle it accelerates more aggressively than any stock naturally aspirated truck I've driven. So it cannot be all or nothing. The middle (linear) progression you claim doesnt exist, happily does. You are mistaken on all counts, it drives just like a more responsive, more efficient, more powerful truck.
There literally is no real-world situation in which the powerband of the EB is not superior to the 5.4, the 5.0, as well as the equivalent Vortec offerings. :sick:
Torques like a modern diesel when you do it that way. Granted the range of the powerband is like 1500-4500 rpm compared to a diesel where its 800-2400, but unless you had a tach, you couldn't tell.
In 1st - 3rd, I can hear spool at 1900-2000 rpm.
Averaged 23.6 mpg highway (on the dash) yesterday over a 30 mile trip (i.e. not instantaneous fuel economy, but averaged over a distance). Mountainous highway driving with moderate inclines and declines. 70 degrees F. 60mph cruise control setting.
Hoping to find the speed in which I can get over 24 mpg over a distance before they switch to wintergas. :mad:
The how about DI, high/low compression, and......
Supercharging!!
No energy "WASTED" out the exhaust during cruising, 98% of the time.
15:1 native/base CR, 12:1 effective (E/VVT-i) for cruising. 10:1 "effective" before boost with heavy engine loading.
And it causes parasitic loss due to having to turn a pulley proportional to the RPMs.
A supercharged V8, all else being equal, will be less efficient than a naturally aspirated one. So if your goal is 500hp and 11.5 mpg, supercharging is probably the way to go.
You are mistaken, 98% of the time, turbocharging wastes almost no energy whatsoever. At low RPMs and low throttle setting, turbochargers have irrelevant amounts of back pressure through the exhaust stream.
Are you hung up on the idea that there is intake air going to wastegate? Why does that bother you? It's energetically 'free' air. And it keeps a steady supply of boost available to ensure maximum energy efficiency under light load.
I don't know what your deal is with turbocharging, but it is pretty odd. Just about every diesel uses it these days. Small displacement engines of 3.0 L, 6 cylinders, run a huge % of the world's commercial and transportation industry.
And the EcoBoost gets boost low in it's rpm band, similar to a diesel. And it does so while getting diesel-like economy, so clearly it 'wastes' less energy (in terms of fuel burnt) than Naturally Aspirated V8s.
More power for less fuel. Seems like a no-brained that the EcoBoost works, despite all wwest's strange theories on what is going on internal to the engine.
The same technique could be used today but with a "PSD" type CVT. A synchronous AC motor powered by an inverter for one input and the engine for the other input.
The SC would just idle along, virtually no power consumption, supplying only atmospheric pressure until called upon for boost. At that point E/VVT-i could be used to delay the intake valve closing, changing the effective CR from 12:1 (DFI standard) to <10:1 to accomodate BOOST.
The engine could even run in Atkinson cycle mode for light loads/loading.
Ford runs the TwinForce/EcoBoost engines at a wasteful 10:1 100% of the time so as to accomodate the use of boost 2% of the time.
That's my "rub".
Why do you single out Ford. Porsche, BMW, VW/Audi, GM, Mazda, and other's all use turbo charging and DI in pretty much the same fashion. If you think you're smarter than the engineers at the leading auto manufacturers, then you need to show them how to do it the "correct way".
BMW's new 2.0 DI twin turbo 4 cylinder has 10.3:1 compression and 240 HP. It's enough to push a 5 series 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds and yield 34 mpg hwy. Pretty impressive IMO.
That's exactly what I'm doing in the only "way" available to me.
"Pretty impressive IMO.."
Yes, if you're solely focussed on the "boy racer" aspects.
Just how often, in the "real world" do you have need of "stellar" 0-60 times.
Plus I was a Ford "person" forever, '60-'91.
What I'd really like to see is for Ford to resurrect the Lincohn brand via an LS430 clone but with a modern day 300HP DFI V6.
And the point stands, there is nothing inherently superior to clutching in a supercharger, when turbos have essentially no backpressure under steady-state driving, thus giving boost at even very low RPMs when called for. This works far better than your idea because the boost is energetically 'free', and continuously available. Since highway driving is a lot of speeding up and mild inclines (mixed with the slowing down and declines) that boost IS used at even very light throttle, to compensate for all the little imperfections in steady-state driving.
That's why it is more efficient in the real world. that boost gets used A LOT even with mild throttle. Going from 60-65 mph, boost is used. going up a 1-degree incline, boost is utilized. And it was already available due to the low-spooling turbos. There is no need for the to go to full-throttle to acquire it, as you theorized.
This is not a Supra with a single big-turbo conversion. There is no waiting for pressurized air in these modern DI turbo engines. EcoBoost engine has the ability to use boost as low as 1200 RPMs, that I have witnessed, possibly lower. Average cruising is 1500-2000 RPMs at 60-70 mph with the 3.73 ratio.
This engine can supply boost at cruising RPMs. Or linearly with the load, 100% of the time that the engine is under load. Again, this has PROVEN superior to high compression natural aspiration that rely on vacuum of the valving. And with all the engineers in the world (and there are tens of thousands), none have deemed this method less energetically efficient than having a clutched
supercharger on an accessory belt, lest they probably would have done so for the tens of millions of gas/diesel turbo-injected engines which collectively run essentially all the world's commerce.
Your obsession with compression is still rather ridiculous.
Despite your obsession with that stat, the engine --->accomplishes<--- efficiency.
Mild cruising is where the biggest gains are. This engine sees average highway economy of 20-24 mpg depending on the application and conditions.
There obviously isn't enough of an 'energy' waste by lowering the compression
to actually waste any of the vehicles fuel supply unduly. The very 98% of the time you are hung up on is the 98% that this engine outperforms it's naturally aspirated competitors.
I.E. Mild driving the engine is most efficient, heavy driving it is most powerful in it's class of truck.
Your personal issue with Ford is your own personal issue, not Ford's issue.
The next step is for you to come to the realization that modern turbocharged engines do not have to be wound up in order to do that work. The EcoBoost has the ability to move MORE air and fuel through itself at LOWER RPMs than can all the V8 competitors.
Yes, more air moves through the EB at lower RPMs, and especially at lower throttle inputs. Opposite of your belief that they need to go to WOT in order to get spool. That hasn't been true of most tubocharged engines in a decade.
Naturally aspirated engines cannot acheive peak compression at low RPMs due to partially closed throttles, but pressurized engines can! They need LESS 'winding up' to achieve peak efficiency.
That's why turbo-DI are more efficient in the real world. Even a clutched supercharger will struggle to meet the air demands of the engine on-demand (light load, slight incline, resume acceleration on the cruise control got mild acceleration) without being permanently parasitic to the engine.
atmosphere "above".
For a given level of boosted air volume a turbocharger requires virtually the same "drive" energy as would a SuperCharger. Ford's EcoBoost design provides that energy via running the DFI engine in a substandard fashion.
Just look at how/why the Atkinson cycle engines gain more efficiency via using more of the mixture combustion energy to push the piston downward. Not enough "waste" energy in the exhaust to spin a turbine so the only choice for converting an Atkinson cycle engine into a Miller cycle engine is with a SuperCharger.
"..Mild cruising is where the biggest gains are..."
No, the biggest gains for the EcoBoost engine is "ON-BOOST". That's when the effective compression ratio is optimal for a DFI engine with intercooled boost.
Mild cruising, partial cylinder "fill", is EXACTY when the standard DFI compression ratio of 12:1 would be of the most benefit.
"..naturally aspirated competitors..."
All have 12:1 or higher compression ratio, some even 14:1, and accordingly have a ~15% gain in FE.
I don't think that I have ever stated otherwise.
But from the manufacturer's design viewpoint why bring on "boost" when the naturally aspirated mode will do the job with greater fuel economy.
My guess would be that when the engine ECU decides that the level of power commanded by the driver requires boost the wastegate will be FULLY closed and the DBW throttle WIDE open, both INSTANTLY.
Only after the optimal level of boost is reached will the wastegate and throttle position be moderated.
It is energetically free, quite literally because the turbos produce no more backpressure than the catalytic converters and/or muffler.
1) The gasses passing through the exhaust housing were already passing through there post-combustion
2) under steady-state engine function, the turbos are turning proportional to the speed the exhaust gases were already going, minus the minute resistance for drawing the intake air.
3) there are structures downstream on the exhaust that are more restrictive.
= under mild loading, the turbos can and do provide pressurized air from only the excess energy expent in the afterproducts of combustion.
From outside the vehicle, you can hear the intake whine AT IDLE. That means
there is at least enough negative pressure at the airbox to cause the sound of high-speed vacuum. And at effectively 0 backpressure, the intake air is achieving high velocities, with some of it likely going to wastegate. Again, that is at 0 load and sub-1000 RPMs. And yet you refuse to believe that on these engines, mild boost is not available for proportionally mild acceleration from 1500-2000 rpm? :confuse:
Seriously, EVERY engineer KNOWS what you said about superchargers vs
turbochargers is blatantly false, and documented
You're going from bad opinions to now demonstrating a rejection of proper understanding on the topic. You quite seriously have taken on the role of the uneducated on the room with that statement.
If the efficiency is gained on boost... And it gets best-in-class fuel economy on the highway...
Where is this efficiency loss you speak of manifesting itself in the real world?
Answer: it does not manifest itself in real world driving conditions. For someone that attempts to quote a lot of engine-related jargon, you completely miss the mark.
You are guessing that the exhaust to spool the turbos is not enough... For partial boost under partial acceleration and partial throttle?
And why you are doing so with any certainty is beyond comprehension. There is mild boost available for mild acceleration. Which happens several hundred times on a highway cruise...
This ' build-up' is not only imperceivable from a 'feel' standpoint, it does not
manifest itself under quarter, third, half-throttle or anywhere in-between when it comes to fuel economy.
The engine goes to boost 1000 times in 200 miles, yields 23 mpg, and you think
that is happening despite some WOT condition?
Not likely. More likely is that partial boost happens under partial throttle at partial load. At full bore it goes to full throttle and at anything less (less load, less acceleration) the boost it needs is less, as well as the need for the throttle to be only partially open.
Again, more efficient at moving a 5000lb chassis than ANY V8 NA competitor... And with more power and torque down low to boot.
And you somehow call this an inefficiency... :confuse:
All [NA competitors] have 12:1 or higher compression ratio, some even 14:1, and accordingly have a ~15% gain in FE.
False:
Ford 5.0 - 10.5:1
Ford 6.2 - 9.8:1
GM 4.3 - 9.2:1
GM 5.3 - 9.5:1
GM 6.2 - 10.5:1
Hemi 5.7 - 10.3:1
Ford EcoBoost - 10:1
I think you are confusing AFRs with compression ratios. They are NOT the same thing. Compression ratios of 12 and higher are more for racing gasoline engines. And compression ratios of 14 and higher are more likely to be found in a diesel.
And why do you think they have a 15% gain in fuel efficiency? Is that another one of your 'guesses?' :sick:
My guess would be that when the engine ECU decides that the level of power commanded by the driver requires boost the wastegate will be FULLY closed and the DBW throttle WIDE open, both INSTANTLY.
Yeah... keep guessing. That's working great for ya! :sick:
I agree the wastegate will begin to close, since there is already available boost under partial load, which will generate torque. But do you have anything other than amateur 'guesses' as to why the throttle has to open 'wide,' or that the EcoBoost's compression ratio (higher than GM V8 engines) is 'inefficient' ?
EcoBoost has the ----> BEST <---- fuel efficiency out of all the above listed.
If you want to continue talking truck engines, please try to gain some knowledge by reading up or asking questions, but don't be a pain and tell us that Ford is wrong based on your 'guesses.' Good day.
rather than simply leaving as implied.
You're saying the Range Rover with it's 13/18 mpg rating is just as efficient as the EcoBoost, since superchargers are just as efficient as turbochargers?
Tell me again, when the EcoBoost is beating these other direct injected engine types, why you are 'guessing' that the EcoBoost is going WOT for every light touch of acceleration?
Seems to me like... You're wrong about turbocharging. I'm not dismissing DI as useful, because it is. You just don't seem to understand how forced induction works is all...
I don't care what the wastegate or electronic throttle is doing, all I know from my 30 minute test drive is it works well. It was quiet and had more than enough power. The engine is quick and revs smoothly. The only thing I couldn't verify is actual fuel efficiency. The truck I was driving had 350 miles on it and the computer indicated an average of 16.5 mpg. With the cruise set at 55 the instant FE showed 25 or so, but that probably doesn't mean much on such a short drive.
If I decide to buy a new f150, I will take a 5.0v8 for a spin too, I just didn't have time to drive both today.
No, if you were able to hook an indicator light up to indicate release of the lock-up clutch my "guess" would be that's also when the wastegate closes.
How much "light touch" does it take to release the lock-up clutch...up to the computer.
And I'm not saying the throttle remains wide open with only a "light touch", only long enough to spool the turbine up to the desired boost level more quickly.
Hey, im fine with you wondering how these things operate. What I still don't get is why you affirmed that they were 15% less efficient than other engines pulling a 5000-6000 lb curb weight with minimal effort. Because... It seems to be a class leader in efficiency. But hey, thats just what the numbers say. Who are we to believe numbers over your opinion right?
And you are confirming that you have nothing to substantiate your claims that the EcoBoost is less efficient than other engines units torque class pulling
similar-sized vehicles?
Because the GM 3.6 is not a direct competitor to the EcoBoost 3.5. But it is a competitor to the EB 2.0.
Ford Explorer EcoBoost: 20/28 mpg
GMC Acadia 3.6 DI: 17/24
Both vehicles in the 4500-5000 lb range.
Nope, still not looking like EcoBoost is 15% less efficient as you claimed. In fact... It appears as if it's just the opposite .
Turbo+DI looks like the most efficient combination for SUVs too. That's odd
:surprise: You'd think every manufacturer would be putting R&D into turbo+DI... Oh wait... They are!