engineermike

Warsurfer, you are correct. The rwhp numbers they state are 316 for the eb and 329 for the 6.2. Mt's caption was incorrect, but it still stands to reason that the eb is closer to the 6.2 than the advertised 46 hp difference, based on rwhp and track performance. So, the eb is 13 rwhp behind the 6.2, while the 5.0 is 30 rwhp behind the eb. No sign of eb "overhype" from ford.

Rick Skinner, note that I presented data and a source, warsurfer presented a coherent counterpoint using data, and I conceded. This is how you do it.

WarSurfer

Agree 100% and the Eco does have more 'usable' power - you heard it here first. Lol

engineermike

Have you seem the torque curve comparison from the same article?

Many haven't noticed this, but as the oem's have their hp wars with big v8's, they've been pushing the rpm ranges higher and higher. With a naturally aspirated engine, there are basically three ways to get more power: more cylinder pressure (requiring more octane), more dislplacement (worse gas mileage), or more rpm (less low end torque). If you get bored, compare the specs of the Iforce 5.7 Toyota to the 1990 zr1 vette motor. They are astonishingly similar, but one was considered an ultra high performance supercar motor.

Adding turbos to a small engine resets us back to a lower rpm range. When I was first introduced to a Buick turbo years ago, I said "with an rpm range and torque output like that, this sure would make a good truck motor." Too bad nobody important was around to hear me. Of course, I figured no oem would be ballsy enough to do it and if they did, the stuck-in-yesterday crowd wouldn't buy them.

RRSkinner

1. Everyone knows the engine is not the same, including me. It does not invalidate anything whatsoever.

2. Why would I test drive a vehicle that the experts like Motor Trend, Consumer reports and friends of mine at the Dealership are advising me to stay away from?

3. While you claim I make blatantly false statements, you do not have one example. The one you use is that my old 5.0 is not comparable to my new 5.0, when in fact it is. They both have 8 cylinders and roughly the same amount of CI's. The old 5.0 is 170hp and the new is 360. That could easily be bumped up past 400. My assertion is that Ford is pushing ecoboost on an agenda that is not in most people's best interest. It is known as product differentiation which is a common marketing ploy.

As to the points that I am repeating:

1. Ecoboost is not paying for itself in gas savings.
2. Ecoboost is having reliability issues.
3. I don't buy new technology before it is proven. I know tubos are not new technology. The idea of cooling them is and it is not working. The heat generated by turbos has not been solved and debating that is ridiculous.
4. If I was doing a little heavy towing, my V8 is fine. If I was doing a lot of heavy towing, I am going power stroke.

So what of these statements is blatantly false? Please find something besides the old 5.0 is not the same as the new 5.0...or maybe shut up about your false allegations that I am making blatantly false statements.

You have engineer in your title. Please note that I don't have ceo or genius in mine. Like most engineers, if you can't put a slide-rule to it, you can't figure it out: Ecoboost is not delivering as advertised. That is why buyers of ecoboost are talking about the gas mileage, the towing problems and even threatening class-action law suit.

I am against the class-action lawsuit. However, the problems are real and too numerous to ignore. Lastly, you asked why I didn't test drive the ecoboost, claiming that as proof of something and I thought of something to add that "engineer" Mike didn't have the common sense to consider: Suppose I test drive it and really like the advertised advantages over the v8 and drove them both for even a month each. Then I decide to spend the extra money on ecoboost. After a time my ecoboost is sucking moisture into the intake and Ford claims "We are working on a fix for that". I don't think that is going to satisfy me or anyone else who runs into this problem. You are not going to propose that the rest of you ecoboosters loan people who have problems with their truck, their truck. It makes me wonder how many people on this site or from Ford.

XtraLargeTall

And the problem with high RPM power is that you either don't use that power or you get extra wear from being in that high RPM range. Which is where the purported lower reliability of the EB from being a V6 is crushed because of it's low RPMs. Now there is the turbo dilemma which will possibly never be truly determined. Personally, I'd trust them. But what do I know, I have ye olde 5.4

And as much as I'd like to continue to bursting Skinner's bubble, I'm starting to tire of the BS being spewed. If he's ignored, maybe he can go back to fixing airplanes, since he knows them so well.

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

Speaking of airplanes. Minus the weight of the 6.2 cast iron block it's specs make it the best candidate for a prop plane. Peak hp and peak torque within 20% of the redline.

packplantpath

So where did you find the new f150 without epas? If I had to make a bet, epas will cause more issues than turbos. In fact I would be willing to wager significant amount of money that there will be more epas issues than turbo issues in 5 years time.

As for the not getting mileage claims, see my post above

RRSkinner

Engineer's are concerned with numbers and data. I can't figure out your point about the 6.2. Using the KISS principal, I am not at all concerned about the ecoboost being 1 tenth faster in the quarter mile or the increased acceleration pulling ten thousand pounds. As to the "overhype" I am not sure that is a quote from me. I said over-sell (a nice term for deception) and I said hype. "overhype" sounds like a redundancy that I would not use.

I don't need data to make my point on reliability. I get what Ford is trying to do. They are trying to reinvent their product as new and improved and for some it is working. I just want old and reliable--Not "I went to get on the freeway and my ecoboost went into limp mode." or "Ford is aware of the problem and is working on a fix." I don't buy it when someone says "my truck almost got us killed either." If you go to get on the freeway leave room and if your truck doesn't accelerate, pull to the right--Duh! Look what we have concluded here: The same people buying the new, hyped ecoboast are the same people who don't know how to react when their truck doesn't create 365hp and 420lbs of torque. Sound like a judgment issue to me.

WarSurfer

And for 99% of the 150 6.2 owners, they will never be above 5k rpm. That cam / tune combination was designed specifically for the Raptor. I can only assume its use in other 150's was an attempt at cost savings (EoS).

Ford SVT engineers stated on the Raptor forum that nobody anticipated Raptor sales to be as strong as they ended up being. Ford fully expected to lose money on the platform but make it up in 'draw' or curb appeal. It's crazy that even with the popularity of the Eco, they can't keep 6.2's on the lots.

After taking my truck to Rausch Creek a couple weeks ago and running their two Baja courses, it's clear that the SVT folks did their homework. Max power and Tq on the top end is critical to maintain control at higher speeds off road - being able to spin the tires at will doing 60+ in a sweeper for example.

We jaw back and forth, in good humor for the most part, but Ford has really brought their game on all 4 engines and each has their niche.

thundergrey

It was cool to see this graph and reassures my purchase. HP means nothing if you can't use it and its way up in the RPMs and the same goes for torque. Thanks for the post!