2015 Ford F150

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by khell86

The Ecoboost managed to beat Chevy's new 6.2L by a minute up the climb. GM sacrificed low end grunt for the MPGs. Look at the available rear end gears for the 6.2L.

completely wrong. the new 6.2 has even more low end grunt than the old one. plus the 6.2 smatteres the ecoboost in the loaded 0-60. and in loaded fuel economy.

the only reason the ecoboost "won" that test is because of gm's usual poor trans tuning, and they were at 10,000' where the n\a 6.2 was probably down 60+ hp.

even at the high elevation ther 6.2 still pulled off better mpg's, and killed the eb in loaded 0-60.

EB is nothing but a scam.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Exactly. And what's more, it doesn't lose much FE when towing. My last F150's MPG was cut almost in half when towing. My EB goes from 21-22 Hwy to 18-19. BTW, that's with a SuperCab 4x4 with 3.73 gears.

ummm wut? the EB is known for getting by far the WORST fuel economy under load. in fact the 5.3 has been tested to get at least 3-4 more mpg pulling the same load.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by calebparkin3

Having plenty of experience with both I'm going to strongly disagree. I prefer the 5.0 simply because I'm a V8 kind of guy. If the Ecoboost sounded like the 5.0 it would be my choice because it is better in every way.



From your post I'm beginning to think you shouldn't be taken seriously, your clearly stating opinions based on blind fanboyism. Have you ever even drove an Ecoboost or 5.0 F150? I'm going to guess no your info is just coming from magazines and the web.

actually I have tested many of these actual truck. with vids. direct comparisons of EB stock and tuned vs the old 6.2, new 5.0 vs new 5.3, 5.3 vs hemi, etc.

the 6.2 can beat an EB both stock and tuned. the 5.3 with the t\c off consistently beats the 5.0.

unlike you, i'm actually NOT going off internet mumb jumbo, and have driven all of these trucks. and in reality the EB is nowhere near the killer the internet hype makes it out to be.

[big hammer]

geez. ecoboost owners are like the prius drivers of the truck world.

[Number 3]

Look a smaller displacement DI Turbo in a truck is a novel idea. It has worked for Ford and they've sold a ton them.

Now they've gone one better with a 2.7L and to make that work they put a few hundred pounds of premium materials into it.

So the question for GM is does Ford now have a Full Size truck that will not only get better MPG than the Silverado but even the Colorado?????

However, the Ford with an Ecoboost and aluminium will have a premium cost. A turbo charger and intercooler will add at least $500 I would think and the aluminium (even by Ford admission posted earlier in this thread) will add $1,000.

So we shall see how this plays out. Ford already had a great interior and I don't see anything in this new truck that raises that bar much if any. I didn't hear of any technology (other than aluminium and ecoboost) that isn't in the competition.

It's a FE vs. Cost play in the market and if Ford has to lose $1,500 or so on an equal sale to a Chevy, that FE number better be big.....................and if it is big, wait for the first commercial of Ford advertising "A Full Size Truck with Mid Size Fuel Economy". Called it here first.

1 - This is a another great truck from Ford. Period.

2 - Ecoboost is nothing special, it's the application of it that is.

3 - Turbos running max boost towing 100% GVW up a hill in 110 F temps are not optimum.

[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by MMC

My 2014 Silverado with the 5.3 got a best 50 mile average economy of 24.9 mpg. more than the EPA rating, this is a regular cab Z71 4x4.
My average over the life of the truck is 19.7, mostly urban driving.

What's your rear end gear ratio?

[HeavyIOM]

Originally Posted by big hammer

actually I have tested many of these actual truck. with vids. direct comparisons of EB stock and tuned vs the old 6.2, new 5.0 vs new 5.3, 5.3 vs hemi, etc.

the 6.2 can beat an EB both stock and tuned. the 5.3 with the t\c off consistently beats the 5.0.

unlike you, i'm actually NOT going off internet mumb jumbo, and have driven all of these trucks. and in reality the EB is nowhere near the killer the internet hype makes it out to be.

if you think "testing" them is even close to driving them everyday through different terrains ,weather and situations. Actually putting them to work like they are made for, not just driving them for a week of "testing" and saying you have experience with them. Just because you make a video of your "testing" does not make you an expert. The things that you have said about the Ecoboost prove you have no real experience with it

I have no experience with GMs new trucks and have said that before. I don't ever plan on experiencing them either unless work says other wise. I would hope that GM could finally make a truck lineup that could compete with the competition with brand new engines, as Fords lineup is 5 years old. What's sad is GMs lineup is on par with Fords 5 year old lineup besides the 6.2 which sounds like a pretty awesome piece of machinery.

[Stock Boy]

Am I the only one who hears Sam Elliott's voice narrating each post?

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Stock Boy

Am I the only one who hears Sam Elliott's voice narrating each post?

LOL, not anymore you aren't.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

[DDoug]

Originally Posted by Stock Boy

Am I the only one who hears Sam Elliott's voice narrating each post?

lol, you probably know this but he's done voice over for all 3 trucks over the years.

I guess toy yoda is next.

[khell86]

Originally Posted by big hammer

completely wrong. the new 6.2 has even more low end grunt than the old one. plus the 6.2 smatteres the ecoboost in the loaded 0-60. and in loaded fuel economy.

the only reason the ecoboost "won" that test is because of gm's usual poor trans tuning, and they were at 10,000' where the n\a 6.2 was probably down 60+ hp.

even at the high elevation ther 6.2 still pulled off better mpg's, and killed the eb in loaded 0-60.

EB is nothing but a scam.

If you wantch the video where they do the F-150 they have to slow down to avoid traffic during the loaded 0-60. So theres really nothing concrete on whether or not the 6.2 beat the ecoboost. It did beat it in the MPG department, but i guess thats one of the benefits to being a minute slower. As for the elevation, I guess if you're living up in that area just avoid GM trucks is how youre making it sound.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by khell86

If you wantch the video where they do the F-150 they have to slow down to avoid traffic during the loaded 0-60. So theres really nothing concrete on whether or not the 6.2 beat the ecoboost. It did beat it in the MPG department, but i guess thats one of the benefits to being a minute slower. As for the elevation, I guess if you're living up in that area just avoid GM trucks is how youre making it sound.

Yes. If the guy doing the test is correct it is a 8 mi. pull, then the ecoboost averagrd 65 mph and the 6.2 averaged 54 mph. That alone will affect FE. Add to that they couldn't keep the ecoboost full throttle without going too fast for most of the pull, it looks like IN THIS SPECIFIC TEST the ecoboost performed better. Do the same thing at a lower altitude and higher temperature and the results may be different.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Look a smaller displacement DI Turbo in a truck is a novel idea. It has worked for Ford and they've sold a ton them.

Now they've gone one better with a 2.7L and to make that work they put a few hundred pounds of premium materials into it.

So the question for GM is does Ford now have a Full Size truck that will not only get better MPG than the Silverado but even the Colorado?????

However, the Ford with an Ecoboost and aluminium will have a premium cost. A turbo charger and intercooler will add at least $500 I would think and the aluminium (even by Ford admission posted earlier in this thread) will add $1,000.

So we shall see how this plays out. Ford already had a great interior and I don't see anything in this new truck that raises that bar much if any. I didn't hear of any technology (other than aluminium and ecoboost) that isn't in the competition.

It's a FE vs. Cost play in the market and if Ford has to lose $1,500 or so on an equal sale to a Chevy, that FE number better be big.....................and if it is big, wait for the first commercial of Ford advertising "A Full Size Truck with Mid Size Fuel Economy". Called it here first.

1 - This is a another great truck from Ford. Period.

2 - Ecoboost is nothing special, it's the application of it that is.

3 - Turbos running max boost towing 100% GVW up a hill in 110 F temps are not optimum.

For what it's worth I believe it was motortrend was thinking that the new 2.7 might be capable of hitting 30mpg hwy.... That I seriously doubt, but I wouldn't be shocked if it could hit around 26mpg hwy

[Ecofx86]

Here is the 5.3 2014. ... Can you say weak sauce.?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk