In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
frenchyd said:In reply to Antihero :
Towing with an echo boost has the engine in boost a lot and that's when mileage drops.
A V8 has the torque at freeway speeds and the newest ones get really great fuel mileage towing. compared to a the eco boost. I hauled 7000+ pounds over the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas at 70+ mph (75-85) getting 17 mpg.
The newer ones ( mine 's a 2016) with 10 speeds are supposed to be even better.
Going to & from work I average 22-24 mpg.
To be honest this isn't how I see it. For me at least.
alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
Because when you are in the boost, the mileage drops precipitously. I love these engines, but I call them "Eco/Boost" because you can have one or the other, but not both.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
That's just the result of doing work. Towing requires a lot of energy, whether it's a gas, a diesel or an electric vehicle.
Rather than just individual anecdotes, here is a much larger sample size of real world results:
2.7 EB
3.5 EB
5.0
Personal Anecdote input here:
2022 Raptor - it's a great daily driver that does everything. It's comically fast for a truck and extremely comfortable; but, because of the Raptor stuff, it gets doodoo mileage and doesn't tow as much as a regular F-150. I honestly worry about long term reliability with a boosted Ford engine and ease of performing maintenance. I feel spoiled anytime I have to do anything to the 2UZ-FE, as it's a very convenient engine and bay to work in.
I really only use it for long trips and towing. I use my 01 Sequoia for DD duties and around town.
I have a 2021 F150 with the 3.5 and put 26k miles on it last year so this is all true facts.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
Because when you are in the boost, the mileage drops precipitously. I love these engines, but I call them "Eco/Boost" because you can have one or the other, but not both.
Towing takes power and power takes fuel.
Historically turbo engines had lower BSFC because they ran richer under boost to protect the engine. Supposedly the newer direct injection tech has fixed this, but I've never owned or driven an ecoboost so I can't really comment.
I tow in boost with my f-250 diesel all the time though. :)
I want it to be a small/tiny trailer, so it might even be in a Maverick's ability even. Maverick would probably be even handier for me when it's not towing too.
In the end it'll depend what I end up wanting to tow for me to decide what to get
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
Because when you are in the boost, the mileage drops precipitously. I love these engines, but I call them "Eco/Boost" because you can have one or the other, but not both.
Towing takes power and power takes fuel.
Historically turbo engines had lower BSFC because they ran richer under boost to protect the engine. Supposedly the newer direct injection tech has fixed this, but I've never owned or driven an ecoboost so I can't really comment.
I tow in boost with my f-250 diesel all the time though. :)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being in the boost all the time when towing. Clearly the engine is designed for it. And I get that increased load means increased fuel use. All I'm saying is that my anecdotal experience is that these engines have a larger delta between the fuel economy under high load vs. low load than the NA engines I've had in the past. My old 5.4-powered trucks would get about 8mpg towing my travel trailer, same as the 3.5EB. The difference is that the best the 5.4 could do under light load was about 15, while the 3.5EB could do close to 20 (again, older trucks, steel body, 6-speed auto). Oh, and also the 3.5EB had WAY more power and torque than the 5.4s. 
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
That's pretty much exactly how a turbo engine is supposed to work in the ideal world. The efficiency of a small engine when doing small engine things, the power/torque of a big engine when doing big engine things.
EVs are weird in this regard, it turns out the big engines are the efficient ones so we really have to reevaluate how we think about this stuff. But that's a different conversation.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Big, heavy, slow turning engines can be very efficient, but only if they're diesel. Oversized, naturally aspirated gas engines will always be inefficient due to throttling losses. And for automotive applications, making an engine really, really efficient across a wide RPM and load range is also harder. So while big engines are more efficient in a general sense, that doesn't always translate exactly into cars.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
Because when you are in the boost, the mileage drops precipitously. I love these engines, but I call them "Eco/Boost" because you can have one or the other, but not both.
Towing takes power and power takes fuel.
Historically turbo engines had lower BSFC because they ran richer under boost to protect the engine. Supposedly the newer direct injection tech has fixed this, but I've never owned or driven an ecoboost so I can't really comment.
I tow in boost with my f-250 diesel all the time though. :)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being in the boost all the time when towing. Clearly the engine is designed for it. And I get that increased load means increased fuel use. All I'm saying is that my anecdotal experience is that these engines have a larger delta between the fuel economy under high load vs. low load than the NA engines I've had in the past. My old 5.4-powered trucks would get about 8mpg towing my travel trailer, same as the 3.5EB. The difference is that the best the 5.4 could do under light load was about 15, while the 3.5EB could do close to 20 (again, older trucks, steel body, 6-speed auto). Oh, and also the 3.5EB had WAY more power and torque than the 5.4s.
That is the benefit of a smaller engine - less fuel consumption when you aren't working the engine hard.
A turbo engine should technically get a little better economy under heavy load because the EGT is lower post-turbo, indicating that more thermal energy is being utilized instead of thrown away. Practically speaking it can become a wash because the compression ratio in a production engine tends to be higher than ideal, because people want to drive engines that are not soggy at light throttle So ignition timing is a bit retarded from best.
Aircraft used the turbos to gain power, then gain efficiency, then assist in driving the prop, and eventually the turbine was doing such a high percentage of the work they figured on just eliminating the piston engine...
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Why do you think boost bad when towing? It's still running without enrichment, and it's still running good spark- just like the V8 does.
Because when you are in the boost, the mileage drops precipitously. I love these engines, but I call them "Eco/Boost" because you can have one or the other, but not both.
Towing takes power and power takes fuel.
Historically turbo engines had lower BSFC because they ran richer under boost to protect the engine. Supposedly the newer direct injection tech has fixed this, but I've never owned or driven an ecoboost so I can't really comment.
I tow in boost with my f-250 diesel all the time though. :)
The 3.5l does not enrich under nominal boost- otherwise it would totally defeat the purpose. It has the same combustion problems as the 5.0l engine does at high loads and low speeds.
It's capable of hitting some rather shocking exhaust temps without any damage.
I get that towing lowers FE a lot. But when you need more energy to do something- that's kind of the result.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
frenchy's point was that boosting when towing is worse than NA- and for these engines, it's generally not. Modern materials means you don't enrich under boost like engines used to do- the temp limits to protect to are really high.
In reply to alfadriver :
Just out of curiosity, what are the exhaust valves made of?
Speaking from Audi experience, the stock turbo valves (10v five cylinder, 20v four cylinder) were sodium filled. The problem with them, at least with the 10v engines, besides having a restrictive shape like having a work boot in the port throat, is that with high EGT they had a tendency to lose their heads with disastrous results. There would be a coffin corner in a tune were there was a three degree window between detonation and potentially dropping a valve. Inconel valves are an upgrade for reliability, they were running $55 a pop when I bought them about ten years ago.
I don't know what the Subaru EJ20 turbo exhaust valves I just bought are made of, but they cost about the same on a dollars per mass ratio. Smaller valves but a lot more of them.
As a real-world data point, my 2013 3.5EB gets 17mpg (indicated) in mixed freeway and city driving. When I towed my car on an open-top trailer (3000lb of car + trailer) from San Diego to Reno, it averaged 15mpg.
Everything Ive seen about these on GRM is overwhelmingly positive, im in the minority of not being a fan.
I think they are too complicated for a truck for truck stuff. Ive seen lots of cooling problems, turbo failures, leaks, timing/phaser problems and trans problems (early ones). Reports are that their isnt much of a real benefit in fuel economy over V8s for the 3.5s (2.7s supposed to get much better economy) in the real world and when towing or when driven hard economy drops quickly. A couple of old timers have told me they dont like the power delivery for a truck, but most people dont mind.
I will say they are very capable, and make good power though.
In reply to Opti :
The power delivery is reminds me of my 6.0 Diesel F250 but with more room. Very good lowend torque. Which I figure is desirable in a vehicle. Fuel economy drops rather quickly in most vehicles when towing or driven hard, that's not a feature of ecoboost engines.
What's a perfect truck engine for truck stuff? Any truck sold in the past 15 years have "complicated" (compared to carbed big blocks) engines
In reply to yupididit :
I also thought they came on early. A couple of old timers, probably drive very conservatively, have commented they dont like waiting on the turbos. I never experienced it in driving.
Yes but my experience and my friends experience, that own them, have been in real world driving fuel economy is only slightly better than its V8 alternatives, and when towing there is pretty much no fuel economy benefit. kb58 just mentioned they got 15 towing an open trailer. When I picked up my camaro a couple weeks ago I drove a 500K miles 05 Ram 4x4 with a 3.92 rear gear, it also got 15 mpg over a 6 hour trip towing the camaro on an open trailer.
When I say complicated im specifically talking about the turbo chargers and the added complexity to the intake, cooling system and oiling system that comes with them. All the sudden the benefit to service of having a physically smaller engine goes out the window when you have a bunch of stuff around it. Its also additional things to fail, leak or be removed to service other components.
Im aware pretty much all new vehicles are more "complicated" but Id take a simpler in design engine, if i plan on using a truck for truck stuff and servicing it myslef. Id recommend the LTx engine but apparently GM is as good at making a valvetrain as Ford is at making a cam phaser. I prefer engines like the Godzilla in my trucks. Tight package, cubes, and built with servicability in mind. Id do a coyote over a 3.5, im also not a huge fan of the coyote though.
If I was spending money on a new truck (in not a huge fan of any of them) for my use case of a truck, Id probably end up with the Ram with the 5.7 without the eTorque or whatever they are calling it.
93gsxturbo said:No one has ever gotten a sustained 24 MPG with any F150 regardless of powertrain.
Even ignoring the Diesel and Hybrid options, the statistically significant number of 24+ mpg 2.7 EB fill-up's on Fuelly would disagree with this 'fact'.
In reply to Driven5 :
Youre right some people have done it.
Its also incredibly unlikely that a normal person will achieve it. There is a problem with fuelly of the demographic that uses it. If people are tracking their fuel economy they probably care about it and may even take steps to improve it with hypermiling techiniques or modifications, Id be willing to bet on average it skews the real world results slightly to the right of the graph. I think the outliers on both sides of the graph are probably not very useful information. Most people should look at where the largest group of people fall and plan to fall pretty close to that.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
That's pretty much exactly how a turbo engine is supposed to work in the ideal world. The efficiency of a small engine when doing small engine things, the power/torque of a big engine when doing big engine things.
I'm not really concerned with fuel economy when towing. I dont spend enough time towing that the fuel cost of it means that much to me. My bigger concern is the fuel economy when commuting since that will 95% of the miles I put on. But there are times I need to tow or haul a heavy load, and I'd rather not have to own a daily and a pickup truck.
What year did they go to the aluminum body? Here in ohio its usually rust that kills cars before anything else.
In reply to gearheadmb :
I still have a hard time accepting Ford making an aluminum cab given all of their aluminum fuel pump control modules I have replaced. You know, the ones that turn to a circuit board loosely framed by white powder, that leaves the driver in shoeleather mode after a good rain.
The frames usually seemed to fail long before the cabs, at least in half-tons made in the past 20 years or so. Not sure what was up with that, but most have been 2005MY.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to alfadriver :
Just out of curiosity, what are the exhaust valves made of?
Never got that info while working. Although I do know that it's much less of a problem than the valve seats are. Which were upgraded in the F150 in 2016- a pretty significant upgrade that raised the temp limits significantly.
You'll need to log in to post.
