Ecoboost!

[nocooler]

I drove a Ford 2011 Crewcab 4x4 with the ecoboost and was surprised. I drove a 2011 GMC Sierra Crewcab 4x4 w/5.3 afterwards and was sorely disappointed.

The torque curve on the ecoboost is down right nasty - 420ft/lbs from like 1500rpm to 5000rpm, it's stupid. No need to rev it like you do with the 5.3 - turn off the traction control, build some boost and have some fun. It sounds extremely pissed off @ WOT.

I hate to say it but I think there will be a Ford in my fleet very soon. I just can't deal with GM's AFM (active fuel management) - cruise around town I could feel it kick in and out of 4 cylinder mode, it was down right annoying. This is hard for me - as I love LSx's - but the ecoboost is damn sexy.

Price wise it's around $3000 more for the Ford, but I'll see what they can do - to make it comparable.

If you get a chance drive one.

[SuperSix]

I'm hearing more and more good things about that platform.

[Steve Wood]

Yeah, that is the one I would like

[firebird_1252]

the only thing that i read is that the gasmilage isnt what they say. people love the power though.

[SuperSix]

the only thing that i read is that the gasmilage isnt what they say. people love the power though.

Couldn't be any worse than a standard V8.

"Such engines are cheaper to build than diesels -- less than $1000 more costly than a conventional V-8 in comparison to the $4000 or $5000 price tag of a diesel engine, according to Ford. That thousand bucks buys you more power, expected to top the targets of 340 horsepower and 340 pound-feet of torque from the 3.5-liter turbo V-6, compared with the 320 and 390 for today's 5.4-liter Triton V-8.
2009 Ford F 150 XLT Side View
 Click to view Gallery

It will also return 15-20 percent better mileage, Ford engineers predict. That extrapolates to 16 mpg city/23 highway for the EcoBoost engine, compared with 13 and 18 for the V-8 today.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0812_2011_ford_f_150_ecoboost_engine/index.html

[firebird_1252]

if i'm not mistaken the milage was the same as a standard v8. my question is, what grade gas does it use?  87 all the time?

[firebird_1252]

and for the record, i hate and i do hate to admit that i really like what ford is doing with the ecoboost. wish gm would do something like that. maybe a small diesel?

[nocooler]

Rob - it runs on 87, and gets 2mpg better than the V8. It gets the same MPG as 5.3 with AFM - but has a better torque curve. It's flat from 1500ish to 5k @ 420 ft/lbs - non of the v8's can compete.

Real world mileage depends how hard you are on it. The mpg display showed 20ish average for me on the highway but went to nothing as soon as I started playing.

[firebird_1252]

jeremy 87 all the time? towing or not?

[$1987 GN$]

and for the record, i hate and i do hate to admit that i really like what ford is doing with the ecoboost. wish gm would do something like that. maybe a small diesel?

I messed that up originally, I do not follow the diesel line much.

GM did; they made a 2.9-liter turbo V6 250 hp, 406 lb.-ft. a couple years back . . .

Oh and it would install traverse or inline. Serious power too!

AJ___

[nocooler]

Rob - yes doesn't matter, it's tuned for 87. Any modifications and they'll pull the warranty - but from the testing they've done on it, they'll stand behind it stock

Speculation says the Gen V in the next vette will be small displacement, direct injected, afm, and boosted - I'm sure that'll trickle down threw the line eventually.

Edit: it should be mentioned that it's not a flex fuel vehicle either - probably has to do with the current size limitations of the direct injection injectors.

[firebird_1252]

thats really cool jeremy! like i said i like what they're doing but.. still not enough to look at it. i hate the feel of how ford drives and feels on the interior

[nocooler]

Really - I preferred how the Ford drove - it parked easier and drove nicer. The interior - the GMC was nicer imo, but not by much - both were very comfortable.

[motorhead]

At the end of the day you'll still need V8 fuel consumption to make V8 power. But, as turbo V6 owners we have already come to terms with this.

Wait to see that GM does with it's direct injected 3.6L; my brother works on stuff that he's not allowed to talk about.

[$1987 GN$]

At the end of the day you'll still need V8 fuel consumption to make V8 power. But, as turbo V6 owners we have already come to terms with this.

Wait to see that GM does with it's direct injected 3.6L; my brother works on stuff that he's not allowed to talk about.

and for the record, i hate and i do hate to admit that i really like what ford is doing with the ecoboost. wish gm would do something like that. maybe a small diesel?

I messed that up originally, I do not follow the diesel line much.

GM did; they made a 2.9-liter turbo V6 250 hp, 406 lb.-ft. a couple years back . . .

Oh and it would install traverse or inline. Serious power too!

AJ___