2013 FX4...... Opinions. V8 or Ecoboost
#101
Member
#102
He wants the easy sale.
#103
No dog in this fight
The following is my 2 cents. I do not have a dog in this "fight".
To original poster asking for mileage numbers from random people on the internet is generally a waste of time. More useful information would be found by reading comparison tests involving the engines/transmissions/gear ratios/tire sizes that you are interested in.
Generally if both or more of "your" trucks are tested by the SAME source of information at the same time they have been tested under the same conditions and the results are more valid. Even mileage numbers gathered this may be meaningless if you will drive/use the truck differently than they were driven/used in the comparison test. The same can not be said for different sources of information ie tests between different brands that only involve a single truck on your interested list and especially for random people on the internet.
Not questioning the numbers posted BUT.....
"My eco with the normal bolt-on and a tune runs 0-60 in 5.2sec in 193ft with a 110lb aftermarket wheel/tire combo... the 5.0 with the same bolt-ons and tunes from the same guy has had a best of 5.77 sec in 213ft down hill on stock tires/wheels (79lbs)!"
It would seem unreasonable that the "same bolt-ons and tunes" would be applied to a 3.5 litre twin turbo V6 and a 5.0 V8.
To original poster asking for mileage numbers from random people on the internet is generally a waste of time. More useful information would be found by reading comparison tests involving the engines/transmissions/gear ratios/tire sizes that you are interested in.
Generally if both or more of "your" trucks are tested by the SAME source of information at the same time they have been tested under the same conditions and the results are more valid. Even mileage numbers gathered this may be meaningless if you will drive/use the truck differently than they were driven/used in the comparison test. The same can not be said for different sources of information ie tests between different brands that only involve a single truck on your interested list and especially for random people on the internet.
Not questioning the numbers posted BUT.....
"My eco with the normal bolt-on and a tune runs 0-60 in 5.2sec in 193ft with a 110lb aftermarket wheel/tire combo... the 5.0 with the same bolt-ons and tunes from the same guy has had a best of 5.77 sec in 213ft down hill on stock tires/wheels (79lbs)!"
It would seem unreasonable that the "same bolt-ons and tunes" would be applied to a 3.5 litre twin turbo V6 and a 5.0 V8.
#104
Member
#105
I drive two different f150's
'13 RCSB 2wd 5.0 3.55 rear end, 265-65-17 tires, 5000 mile average 21.1
'13 Supercab ECO 4x4 3.55 rear end, 235-75-17 tires, 5000 mile average 19.9
Both trucks driven exclusively by me in similar conditions.
Not a direct comparison because the RCSB is probably 500 lbs. lighter without 4x4 and the extra body weight of the Super. The RCSB is marginally faster 0-60 as well. Both great engines, the RCSB is just more fun, and the sound of that V8 just can't be beat.
'13 RCSB 2wd 5.0 3.55 rear end, 265-65-17 tires, 5000 mile average 21.1
'13 Supercab ECO 4x4 3.55 rear end, 235-75-17 tires, 5000 mile average 19.9
Both trucks driven exclusively by me in similar conditions.
Not a direct comparison because the RCSB is probably 500 lbs. lighter without 4x4 and the extra body weight of the Super. The RCSB is marginally faster 0-60 as well. Both great engines, the RCSB is just more fun, and the sound of that V8 just can't be beat.
Last edited by Kennuck; 10-15-2013 at 05:49 PM.
#106
Junior Member
I have a 2013 Ecoboost Screw with just over 20,000 miles on it. I purchased a 7,500 lb trailer this spring and have pulled it almost 3,000 miles. I love the pulling power of this truck. Gas mileage while pulling is not great and varies wildly depending on winds and terrain. I average around 9 mpg but have seen anything from 5-11 mpg while towing. When not towing I average around 20 mpg or so depending on driving style. I did take the truck through Colorado and it definitely likes higher altitudes. I love the get up and go this engine has and I am very happy with the truck. My biggest complaint was the stupid My Ford Touch but Ford seems to have worked out the bugs with it's last update, at least for me. I have never driven the 5.0 so I can not compare the two. I like the EB because it gives me the best of both worlds. Plus when I am in California and I see one of those ridiculous green vehicle signs I park in it! Hey I have a green leaf on the side of my truck!!
#107
'13 Platinum
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Buckhorn70;3005984]I'm in the market for a 2013 FX4...... Should I get the V8 or the Ecoboost? Gas mileage point of interest for me.
Also..... 20" wheels or 18"? Which ride better and promote better fuel economy?
I like to hear what fuel mile ages you guys are getting. For the record I drive a 2010 FX4 5.4 V8.... Dash says I'm averaging 16.6 mpg. I haven't reset it in a year. 65% hwy/ 35% city.
I have a '13 EcoBoost. I bought for torque & towing HP, not economy. I get just under 16 city, 23 hwy if I baby it, but I rarely do --20 mpg typical. 17.5 avg, 50/50 driving. Other than missing that V-8 note, I am delighted with the EB.
My Platinum came with 20's. Ride is good but I am more old school truck man ... 18's were my plan had I gone Lariat instead. Depends on what look you're after...I hate the optional 20's on the Lariat.
Also..... 20" wheels or 18"? Which ride better and promote better fuel economy?
I like to hear what fuel mile ages you guys are getting. For the record I drive a 2010 FX4 5.4 V8.... Dash says I'm averaging 16.6 mpg. I haven't reset it in a year. 65% hwy/ 35% city.
I have a '13 EcoBoost. I bought for torque & towing HP, not economy. I get just under 16 city, 23 hwy if I baby it, but I rarely do --20 mpg typical. 17.5 avg, 50/50 driving. Other than missing that V-8 note, I am delighted with the EB.
My Platinum came with 20's. Ride is good but I am more old school truck man ... 18's were my plan had I gone Lariat instead. Depends on what look you're after...I hate the optional 20's on the Lariat.
#108
I love the EcoBoost, it's a marvel as far as technology and engineering goes. But after still hearing countless CAC stalling issues which almost seem weekly on this board and a few others and on trucks built as new as June/Aug of this year.
I am sooooooo glad I have the 5.0 under the hood of my F-150. I don't care if the Eco is .5 quicker to the 1/4 mile, I'm never taking my truck there anyway. I don't care if my truck doesn't tow 11,300 or whatever the Max Tow Eco is, as my current truck tows 6,000-8,000 just fine.
Hopefully by the time I need a new truck, sometime around 2016/2017 Ford has permanently cured the CAC stalling issue and I will at that time re-evaluate my interest in small displacement, forced inducted engine options. I sincerely appologize if this comes across as a troll post, it is and was not meant to be.
People will continue to say, ahh it ain't that big of a deal or wouldn't keep me from buying one etc.. But personally if I'm spending upwards of $40k for a truck I don't want any design flaw with it period. Just my luck would be when I need all that torque the engine is famous for, it would fall on its face leaving myself or my family in a potentially dangerous situation.
I am sooooooo glad I have the 5.0 under the hood of my F-150. I don't care if the Eco is .5 quicker to the 1/4 mile, I'm never taking my truck there anyway. I don't care if my truck doesn't tow 11,300 or whatever the Max Tow Eco is, as my current truck tows 6,000-8,000 just fine.
Hopefully by the time I need a new truck, sometime around 2016/2017 Ford has permanently cured the CAC stalling issue and I will at that time re-evaluate my interest in small displacement, forced inducted engine options. I sincerely appologize if this comes across as a troll post, it is and was not meant to be.
People will continue to say, ahh it ain't that big of a deal or wouldn't keep me from buying one etc.. But personally if I'm spending upwards of $40k for a truck I don't want any design flaw with it period. Just my luck would be when I need all that torque the engine is famous for, it would fall on its face leaving myself or my family in a potentially dangerous situation.
Last edited by Pool Runner; 10-15-2013 at 06:12 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Pool Runner:
Billlh (10-15-2013),
G_Twenty_six (10-28-2013)
#110
Member
I love the EcoBoost, it's a marvel as far as technology and engineering goes. But after still hearing countless CAC stalling issues which almost seem weekly on this board and a few others and on trucks built as new as June/Aug of this year.
I am sooooooo glad I have the 5.0 under the hood of my F-150. I don't care if the Eco is .5 quicker to the 1/4 mile, I'm never taking my truck there anyway. I don't care if my truck doesn't tow 11,300 or whatever the Max Tow Eco is, as my current truck tows 6,000-8,000 just fine.
Hopefully by the time I need a new truck, sometime around 2016/2017 Ford has permanently cured the CAC stalling issue and I will at that time re-evaluate my interest in small displacement, forced inducted engine options. I sincerely appologize if this comes across as a troll post, it is and was not meant to be.
I am sooooooo glad I have the 5.0 under the hood of my F-150. I don't care if the Eco is .5 quicker to the 1/4 mile, I'm never taking my truck there anyway. I don't care if my truck doesn't tow 11,300 or whatever the Max Tow Eco is, as my current truck tows 6,000-8,000 just fine.
Hopefully by the time I need a new truck, sometime around 2016/2017 Ford has permanently cured the CAC stalling issue and I will at that time re-evaluate my interest in small displacement, forced inducted engine options. I sincerely appologize if this comes across as a troll post, it is and was not meant to be.
Message isn't going to self destruct right? I quite like my laptop.....
Last edited by ymeski56; 10-15-2013 at 06:07 PM.