Jus Cruisin

I'm not at all worried about advancement. I just know that there'll be all the guys cheering about the horsepower gains and then weeks later they'll be just as many if not more whining about the crappy fuel mileage they get with it when dragging their trailer around. Hardly a week goes by on here that a new thread gets started about the poor mpg experience when towing with the Ecoboost 3.5l.

Didn't say it won't drag a trailer, power-wise. It'll still likely have the same handling issues the '15+ has (mine included).

BabyboostFX4

Ford would have been better off not working with GM on this. But hey, if the General wants to help fund the project that's fine by me. I just don't trust them when they have a clunky 8-speed out there currently.

Rexey

agreed. For some reason people think it should get better mpg than the 5.0 even though it replaced the 6.2. That gets brought up soooooo little. The 3.5 Eco gets amazing mpg compared to what it has replaced.

SilverSurfer15

I'm waiting on a day they implement different tunes with on the fly shifting as factory options. They do it with the transmissions already, one day I suspect they will have economy mode, sport mode, tow mode that will actually change the whole vehicle. Limit boost to 8psi o something in economy with no timing. Basically what the diesel guys have been doing for years.

back on topic though, as someone else stated, I don't really understand the o/d ratios. The only real benefit I see is that you can get into overdrive at lower speeds now. Like example, .64 might be too low to hold 40mph but .74 might not be. So now you can be o/d more often.

The thing is though, lower rpm doesn't necessarily translate to better mpg or better driveability. With all these gears being so tightly coupled, it would seem going up with the ring and pinon would make more sense. Take some of the load off in these o/d gears so they actually work. regardless of how steep the lower gears are for getting up to speed, .64 final overdrive with 3.31s is never going to work well. its just too passive. Its going to downshift on every windy breeze or slight incline, but I suppose it will just drop into the previous o/d gear and still be operating under 1:1 which in theory leads to better mpg.

jcb206

I see what your saying.

I barely read those. Engines get what they get towing. I give my experiences on here but if I were getting 8 mpg, it would make little difference as long as performance was good. But I get excellent towing mpgs, but then again I don't tow 75-80 mph.

LSchicago

People seem to focus on what's available now, and why it doesn't get better real world MPG than the 5.0.

11screw50

From a towing standpoint, work takes fuel. The efficiency of the engines are likely pretty close so to do the same work with all else being equal, they should use pretty close to the same amount of fuel. Of course, higher revs means more friction which lowers efficiency. Looking at the ratios in the new trans, they are not that different than the current transmission (a little wider range) I don't think it is going to be a game changer when towing (at least not from a fuel consumption standpoint) unless there is significantly less friction than in the existing transmission.

Heck, sometimes I wonder if the EPA's mpg requirements can even be achieved. Internal combustion engines do have a maximum efficiency and there will always be some level of drivetrain losses. If (and yeah, that is a huge if) we are approaching maximum efficiency and minimum drivetrain losses, where else do you make gains (aerodynamics and rolling resistance)?

I wonder if the real goal of the 10 speed is to keep the EB out of boost in the test so that the test numbers will look great? the problem is that in the real world, people won't drive it like that because if you keep it out of boost it performs about like the 3.5NA and that doesn't fit people's performance expectations.

joutlaw

For me it's a simple math problem. Go 60-65 and get 12-13 MPGs or go 75 -80 and get 8 MPGs. Depending on the length of the trip, how much is your time worth?

Rexey

still. The 6.2 didn't get better real world mpg than the 5.0... Reason is it's built to 12k+ towing. The 3.5 Eco is designed to be an amazing replacement to the 6.2. And guess what... It is.
The 6.2 had terrible everyday mpg compared to the 3.5tt.

If you want to compare the 2.7,5.0,3.5 as grocery getters and always empty I suppose you could.

But why not compare them as they were intended?

1. 3.5 They can either barely afford an f150 or They only have a truck for (name your reason). But 0 work.
2. 2.7 tows what most want, either likes tech or doesn't hurt, and really amazing mpg, and power for a truck.
3. 5.0 Old timers "have to have a v8 don't trust those snails only v8s last bla bla bla.
4. 3.5tt truly amazing towing extremely leisurely towing unlike the v8 screaming to tow it's maximum. Plus when you've got 2k in the bed and your trying to climb a hill you you really want to lay into the throttle? The 3.5 will climb that hill at 2500 rpm with the full 420 soon to be 470tq.

I owned a crew 4x4 2002 with the 5.4. Loved to scream while towing. Absolutely wore me out.

Rexey

keep in mind the 10spd was co developed and going into the camero next year. So, it's not optimized for the ecoboost.