Ford Inside News banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The F150 with ecoboost engine does not meet expeditions or advertisment by FMC. Paying an addition premium for moer fuel economy is a wate. Gas mileage is very disappointing and much lower than advertised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Ecoboost only boost FMC profit

I am disappointed in gas mileage. It is well below that advertised by FMC of 16-22 mpg. I only get 15.8-16.5 mpg. Wasted the premium cost for ecoboost. I would suggest to anyone looking at F150 to by eith an 8 cyl or a regular 6 cyl but no ecoboost. You'll get almost the same mpg with the 8cyl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I'm not a huge fan of Turbo engines...period. We have a Turbo Sonic. It gets EPA mileage if you really REALLY baby it. Drive it even 'normal' and you are going to do worse. Case in point, we have a 2013 Focus and a 2013 Sonic. Driving them the same way, the non-tubro Focus gets EPA while the Sonic doesn't. Go really, REALLY conservative, and the Focus is slightly better than EPA, but that is when the Sonic jumps.

I agree with some posters that the Turbos look better on paper than they perform in real life. Having a relative with one and having test driven both the 1.6 and 2.0 Escapes (along with our Turbo sonic) just enforce to me that Modern Turbos are slightly harder to get epa numbers out of than NA engines, and feel like they have slightly less power than advertised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I'm not a huge fan of Turbo engines...period. We have a Turbo Sonic. It gets EPA mileage if you really REALLY baby it. Drive it even 'normal' and you are going to do worse. Case in point, we have a 2013 Focus and a 2013 Sonic. Driving them the same way, the non-tubro Focus gets EPA while the Sonic doesn't. Go really, REALLY conservative, and the Focus is slightly better than EPA, but that is when the Sonic jumps.

I agree with some posters that the Turbos look better on paper than they perform in real life. Having a relative with one and having test driven both the 1.6 and 2.0 Escapes (along with our Turbo sonic) just enforce to me that Modern Turbos are slightly harder to get epa numbers out of than NA engines, and feel like they have slightly less power than advertised.
I could not agree more. Depending on the engine and application they look good on paper and thats about it. They cost more, eat more gas, and are more complicated and will likely cost you more down the road in repairs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
GTDI motors are very power dense and efficient.
Can't be argued.

What can be argued is how properly they are sized to vehicles.


Naturually aspirated motors derive their power through high rpms, thus you have to wind that motor out and it is not instant like a turbo, which when called upon immediately signals for more fuel as proportionally needed.

But you are wrong if you think you can't drive a typical turbo motor easily, for both good power delivery and fuel economy.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top