EcoBoost Full Test

Z71_Silvy

I'm too LAZY to Choose a Custom Title!!!
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
1,693
Reaction score
0
Another fantastic test by pickuptrucks.com

I'll save everyone the searching. These figures are for a 3.55 equipped truck, crew cab, and 2WD. One had a 9K pound trailer attached.

Unloaded MPG - 20.80
Loaded MPG - 8.3

For a loose comparison's sake, here are the figures from the test of the 5.0...which had shorter rear gears, and a heavier curb weight. Trailer weight stayed the same.

Unloaded - 13-18MPG (in the LA area)
Loaded - 9.42MPG

Full article is a great read:

LINK
 
Last edited:

Carolinaboy

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Posts
10,717
Reaction score
1
Location
Bluffton, SC
Wow that is interesting that they are that low during tow. Really not too surprised though.
 

buckshot85

HorsePower- if it don't scare ya it aint enough
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Posts
2,510
Reaction score
0
Location
Hampton S.C.
Wow that is interesting that they are that low during tow. Really not too surprised though.

thats what i was thinking under tow it's acting just like a regular v6 and being the turbo is probably producing a good bit of psi the whole time
 

svensk

TMC's official Zombie Slayer
Joined
May 20, 2009
Posts
2,726
Reaction score
0
Location
You betcha
Levine noted what I experienced on the second page, "noticeable turbo lag when unloaded". The engine hits max torque at 2500 rpm but it seems to take a second longer than normal to get there.

The comments people are tearing him apart for only running the test with 87 octane when ford's user manual recommends premium for heavy duty or hot towing applications. His response was Ford told him to use 87 and that he didn't have a user manual in the vehicle to find this information.
 

Z71_Silvy

I'm too LAZY to Choose a Custom Title!!!
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
1,693
Reaction score
0
Levine noted what I experienced on the second page, "noticeable turbo lag when unloaded". The engine hits max torque at 2500 rpm but it seems to take a second longer than normal to get there.

I wonder if it's a 'torque management' type of thing...

The comments people are tearing him apart for only running the test with 87 octane when ford's user manual recommends premium for heavy duty or hot towing applications. His response was Ford told him to use 87 and that he didn't have a user manual in the vehicle to find this information.

I doubt that would have any difference at all. Certainly not one big enough to write about...
 

svensk

TMC's official Zombie Slayer
Joined
May 20, 2009
Posts
2,726
Reaction score
0
Location
You betcha
Levine noted what I experienced on the second page, "noticeable turbo lag when unloaded". The engine hits max torque at 2500 rpm but it seems to take a second longer than normal to get there.

I wonder if it's a 'torque management' type of thing...

The comments people are tearing him apart for only running the test with 87 octane when ford's user manual recommends premium for heavy duty or hot towing applications. His response was Ford told him to use 87 and that he didn't have a user manual in the vehicle to find this information.

I doubt that would have any difference at all. Certainly not one big enough to write about...

I thought the 5.0 felt held back more by torque management than the eco.

Regarding the regular vs premium thing while towing - Levine mentions in the comments that he believes the ecoboost was running rich intentionally. This was done during the hot climbs to keep the engine cool. This would be minimized running higher octane.
 

Z71_Silvy

I'm too LAZY to Choose a Custom Title!!!
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
1,693
Reaction score
0
Levine noted what I experienced on the second page, "noticeable turbo lag when unloaded". The engine hits max torque at 2500 rpm but it seems to take a second longer than normal to get there.

I wonder if it's a 'torque management' type of thing...

The comments people are tearing him apart for only running the test with 87 octane when ford's user manual recommends premium for heavy duty or hot towing applications. His response was Ford told him to use 87 and that he didn't have a user manual in the vehicle to find this information.

I doubt that would have any difference at all. Certainly not one big enough to write about...

I thought the 5.0 felt held back more by torque management than the eco.

Regarding the regular vs premium thing while towing - Levine mentions in the comments that he believes the ecoboost was running rich intentionally. This was done during the hot climbs to keep the engine cool. This would be minimized running higher octane.

I suppose. Either way, he is doing what Ford told him to...I can't fault him...his tests are in a league of their own.
 

Dusten

Its ok, you don't have to tell me, I know I'm a ba
Joined
May 2, 2010
Posts
243
Reaction score
0
Location
Marysville, Wa
I should have an eco-boost this week and can post my results too :tmc:
 

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
28,836
Posts
1,109,352
Members
4,800
Latest member
SpeakerMan
Back
Top