2011 Ecoboost F150 driving impressions

[venumb]

Anyone have any actual driving experience in these besides opinions of what is being produced?
Just curious as to how it feels on the road, not to what advertising and options are influencing people.

 

[mustangc]

Anyone have any actual driving experience in these besides opinions of what is being produced?
Just curious as to how it feels on the road, not to what advertising and options are influencing people.

Yeah, the OP and I have both driven the new EB. See his opening review. While I can't compare it to the 5.0 or 6.2, It does run circles around the existing 5.4. The low end torque is very good. The only thing it is missing is that V8 rumble. If you have a specific question about the feel / sound / performance of the engine, one of us could probably answer it.

 

[mustangc]

You know, there usually isn't much going on in the F150 thread, so it's kinda fun to see some active debating going on here. This infighting has been entertaining, and is much better than the normal stagnation in this forum. That being said -> I think I just heard the bell ring for the next round ;-)

Are you saying that Ford can't build a v8 to meet the requirement of a fullsize truck?

I believe the 5.0 and 6.2 meet the requirement really well. The 5.0 is a great value, gets mileage as good as if not better than the competition, and makes competitive power as well. I believe it will hold it's own against much larger engines from Chevy, Dodge, and Toyota. The 6.2 does one thing well... haul a##. Unfortunately there it suffers in the mileage department. But for many, power is what matters most.

Here's my though. If Ecoboost is SO good then Ford needs to put it in place of the 5.0 in the Mustang GT. I mean I would hate that, but it makes sense as Ford sells more than enough Mustang GT's to effect the quota for average sells to meet X amount of MPG in the total # of vehicles they sell. Plus it would just be a better performance car in probably most every aspect. Why was Ford so foolish to waste the money to develop the greatly inferior 5.0 when they could of just gone Ecoboost all the way? I'm sure there are plenty of tree hugers out there that would love to buy a Mustang if they offered Ecoboost in it.

The tree huggers like hybrids, not performance cars. They'd prefer the 31 mpg base V6 if they were to venture into Mustang-land.

I figured the subject of the EcoBoost in the Mustang would eventually come up. The 5.0 Mustang has a much better ring to it than a turbo V6. I would much rather buy a 5.0 Mustang instead of an Ecoboost Mustang. Front engine, rear drive, V8 power is the key recipe for the 'Pony car'. However, I understand your example (because you feel the same way about the F150 as I do the Mustang), but here's where you and I differ...

If Ford chose to offer the EcoBoost in an SVO Mustang while still keeping the 5.0 in the GT, I wouldn't whine, witch and moan about the existance of the Ecoboost. I would simply buy the one I wanted.

BTW, you're the only one here who said the 5.0 was inferior to the Ecoboost. The two can coexist... they just fill different niches.

 

[Jroc]

The tree huggers like hybrids, not performance cars. They'd prefer the 31 mpg base V6 if they were to venture into Mustang-land.

I figured the subject of the EcoBoost in the Mustang would eventually come up. The 5.0 Mustang has a much better ring to it than a turbo V6. I would much rather buy a 5.0 Mustang instead of an Ecoboost Mustang. Front engine, rear drive, V8 power is the key recipe for the 'Pony car'. However, I understand your example (because you feel the same way about the F150 as I do the Mustang), but here's where you and I differ...

If Ford chose to offer the EcoBoost in an SVO Mustang while still keeping the 5.0 in the GT, I wouldn't whine, witch and moan about the existance of the Ecoboost. I would simply buy the one I wanted.

BTW, you're the only one here who said the 5.0 was inferior to the Ecoboost. The two can coexist... they just fill different niches.

Tree huggers like improvements, but why do we have to get all technical about me saying tree huggers? It doesn't really matter. You don't feel that environmentalist would approve of a Ecoboost motor over a performance v8 motor? You don't think that the Eco in Ecoboost stands for economy?

Basically in the F150 the the 5.0 is the new 4.6 3v, and the Ecoboost is the new 5.4. So by recognizing this as a good thing it is being implied that the Ecoboost is the superior motor to the 5.0. The niches are this if you wanted to live with a 4.6 3v before you buy the 5.0, and if you wanted to go with the premium motor before you go with the Ecoboost.

No thats BS if this motor is good enough for a 6,000 lb F150 made to tow, and haul heavy loads, then its more than good enough to power a lowly little cheap platform Mustang.

Don't make this a double standard where its good enough to power a F150 while sounding like shit, and being some little 3.5L v6 regardless of whether its TT or not, but not good enough in a Mustang GT or Cobra because you feel that those cars have to be V8 powered because its traditional, and the rumble of the V8 stirs some kind of passion in your soul, and then act like its ok for the new Coyote motor that Ford hyped up so much on the Mustang GT, that's suppose to be so good, and put Fords N/A V8's back on the map get outdone by, and placed below some 3.5L V6 motor in the F150. The Mustang is no more deserving of V8's being its highend motors than the F150. Hell the % of F150's sold with V8 opposed to V6's is way bigger than it is in a Mustang. The hell with a SVO put that mofo in a GT or Cobra. I mean its win win. Better fuel economy, which means, better emissions, more lowend torque from the V6, possibly less weight, especially if you plan was to add some FI after you bought the car, better weight placement, and hell its just getting with the times. We don't need v8's in this day, and age. We are beyond that kind of thinking because we are so advanced, and our economy motors are just so good.

BTW my Popular Mechanic magazine I received today says that Ford claim the Ecoboost to offer a 5% improvement in fuel economy over the v8's. That's pathetic. Why waste the time developing this motor to get better MPG if you only going to increase it 1 or so MPG?

 

[mustangc]

Obviously you didn't read my post. There is no double standard. I admit that an Ecoboost in a Mustang wouldn't bother me as long as they kept the V8 as an option, just like the presence of the EcoBoost shouldn't bother you if you can still get the V8 that you want. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[steeltoe]

The Ecoboost is the replacement for the 5.4L. I drove one in Atlanta at the F-150 round up. I was very impressed with it. You can hear the turbos inside the cabin with a 6K trailer behind it. This motor feels a lot stronger then my old Lightning when it was stock. I am definitely considering either getting an FX2 for a DD or swapping an Eco-boost in my Raptor.

 

[F8L SN8K]

What we've got here is a failure to communicate. There's some men you just can't reach. Which is the way he wants it. Well he gets it. And I don't like it anymore then you do.

Jroc they offer the engines you want. They offer other engines also. GTFOI. I understand you dislike that they don't offer the 6.2 in the FX4 but you said the 5.0 wasn't inferior(I wouldn't call it that either) so get the FX4 and slap a whipple on it from FRPP. You wanted the FX4 because it was more extreme and more off-road but want a 6.2 then get the raptor. Win. We get that you are pregidice against all V6s. They are offering V8s as top of the line also. Sounds to me you just like complain and argue.


Like above I agree this truck felt like a stock lightning in acceleration. I was impressed with the truck as a whole. I would love to drive a 6.2 to see how it performs as well. The only thing is that when you are towing a race car trailor to different states fuel economy starts to become a growing concern on your operating budget.

 

[F8L SN8K]

Sure it would be nice to have a V8 that got 23mpg in a truck but that goal isn't obtainable just this moment at these levels and cost. So they are offering choices to meet market demand. They are building engines you want ans need and they are building veichles that performs the way I need them to. You have to look at the logistical side of things also. This was fords current solution to stronger emissions, gas, and performance.

Ford has pushed all their engines. 3.7,5.0,3.5 and 6.2. They did the F150 round up and let people come drive all 4 and it's competitors and all their engine combinations. A HUGE expense to put on. You did acceleration test, cornering and towing with a loaded trailor.

FORD DRIVE ONE.

 

[Jroc]

Obviously you didn't read my post. There is no double standard. I admit that an Ecoboost in a Mustang wouldn't bother me as long as they kept the V8 as an option, just like the presence of the EcoBoost shouldn't bother you if you can still get the V8 that you want. That's all I'm trying to say.

Yes I read what you said, and if you don't mind there being a v6 Mustang you shouldn't mind there being a Ecoboost Mustang. What I'm getting at is the V6 shouldn't be the premier motor. Would you want there be a v8 GT, while the Mach 1, or Cobra has a Ecoboost v6?

Don't kid yourself into thinking that the Boss motor is the premier motor in the new F150. It's just there to try and appease people like me. From the tests I'm seen the Boss really doesn't out gun the Ecoboost, and they post similar track times. Plus Ecoboost is all aluminum, cheaper, more fuel efficient, etc. I feel that Ford put a ass load of time, money, and effort in making Ecoboost really good for this truck, and put the v8's on the back burner because they wanted Ecoboost to be better than their v8's.

 

[F8L SN8K]

The top of the line trucks get the 6.2. In the HD that's the only engine available. The 6.2 has more HP and torque but with chassis and drivtrain its rated to tow the same amount. So you are upset that the 3.5 is a great engine and the v8 no linger completly blows the v6 away. Ford as spent significant time and money on all 5 new engines for 2011. The 6.2 is a truck engine through and through. Hence the iron block. The 6.2 can be made to have 500hp easily without FI. For people who have short drives and want the biggest baddest by the 6.2. The 5L is a great all around and cheap. The 3.5 obviously is a great engine. Heck the 3.7 will do what a lot of people would need. Choices are great. And mustangc was referring to the competion as inferior engines compared to fords line up. Ford will build what they can sell and still please the EPA. Sure make the ecoboost an OPTION in the mustang just like they did in the F150. I'm sure there is a market for it.

 

[steeltoe]

What we've got here is a failure to communicate. There's some men you just can't reach. Which is the way he wants it. Well he gets it. And I don't like it anymore then you do.

Jroc they offer the engines you want. They offer other engines also. GTFOI. I understand you dislike that they don't offer the 6.2 in the FX4 but you said the 5.0 wasn't inferior(I wouldn't call it that either) so get the FX4 and slap a whipple on it from FRPP. You wanted the FX4 because it was more extreme and more off-road but want a 6.2 then get the raptor. Win. We get that you are pregidice against all V6s. They are offering V8s as top of the line also. Sounds to me you just like complain and argue.


Like above I agree this truck felt like a stock lightning in acceleration. I was impressed with the truck as a whole. I would love to drive a 6.2 to see how it performs as well. The only thing is that when you are towing a race car trailor to different states fuel economy starts to become a growing concern on your operating budget.

I've driven a 6.2L Raptor and to be honest I wasn't impressed. They drive identical to the 5.4L Raptor. I would like to drive a 6.2L Harley and see there is a difference in how the motor performs but right now my feeling is the Eco-boost is a much better motor.

Here is how the motors compare between 2010 and 2011
2010 2011
4.6L 2v 3.7L
4.6 3v 5.0L
5.4L Eco-boost
6.2L 6.2L

Fact is everyone should get used to the idea of the Eco-boost Fords plans is to have Eco-boost in 90% of their product line by 2014 personally I take that as everything but the Super Duty.

 

[mustangc]

Ecoboost tops the list

The EPA has released the mileage ratings for the EcoBoost, so the picture is finally complete for all 2011 F-150's. I have to admit that I had still been leaning towards the 6.2 because of the ultimate power and sound of the big V8. However, comparing the mpg rating is quickly tipping the scales in the EcoBoost's favor. I knew the 6.2 would be much worse, but I didn't expect it to be 2 mpg less than my 2005 5.4 3V. The figures below are for 4x4 models, which are 1-2 mpg less than 4x2 models:

Engine.....Mileage........Power......Max Tow....Cost over base
3.7..........16/21........302/278......5800............-
5.0..........14/19........360/380......9800........$1000
EB 3.5......15/21........365/420.....11300.......$2315
6.2..........12/16........411/434.....11100.......$3260

(FYI - 6.2 Raptor SuperCrew mileage is 11/14!!!)

Of course, the numbers above are for example only as often the model, cab, wheelbase, axle, etc. has to change when moving between the engines and tow packages. However, it does prove a point.

The Ecoboost matches the most fuel efficient V6 in highway mpg while also matching the most powerful engine in capability. As much as my heart pines for the 6.2, the long term cost can't be justified, especially if tuners get the EB up over 400 horsepower. I have driven the EcoBoost, but I have yet to DRIVE the 6.2, so there is always the possibility that a back-to-back drive may change my mind again, but I doubt it.

My wife wants a 6.2 S-crew Raptor. So do I, but at 11/14 mpg, it couldn't be a daily driver replacement for the '05 Lariat. It would have to be a toy (as Ford intended). But for a $50k sticker, I'd rather have a GT500 as the family 'pet'.

 

[Silver2003Cobra]

What was delivered to the house today was a loaded Platinum sporting the Ecoboost. Rated to tow 11,300 lbs and payload of 3,060(mind you the F250 PS payload is 2,430)

not sure where you got your info... according to Ford.. the lightest max payload you can haul in a F250 is 3070 lbs.. the heaviest is 4290 lbs

the lightest conventional towing max is 12,000 lbs and heaviest is 17,500...

so, all in all, the lightest max towing and hauling in a F250 are heavier than a the best F150..

 

[terminutter03]

I bought an XLT 4 door and I love it. So fast!