CorvetteDreamin

Yep, if fuel economy is your goal, you might want to skip the turbo and go for something simpler.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html

Their focus was on small cars but I'm confident the information can be extrapolated to include trucks as well.

Full disclosure: I have the 5.0 and I loathe the incessant debate about the EcoBoost and the 5.0. My point is simply to help those considering buying one or the other with additional information.

F150/4me

Not sure I agree, it has more to do with operator , a turbo engine can be a guzzler or a sipper. IMO

knauby

I would agree with some observations about fuel economy however, torque and towing with a turbo kicks a**.

Truck owner

It shows the F150 results at the bottom of the chart. Seems like most have found out on this board that the fuel mileage is the same for the Ecoboost and 5.0. I am getting 15 mph on my Ecoboost as the sticker stated, 100% of my driving had been local driving (city) if you want to call it that, lots of stop/starts for stop signs and lights. I am sure on a trip my mileage will be around 18-19 or better and thats better than my SD. I got the MaxTow 3.73 rear and Off Road package w/6.5 ft bed Crewcab so i am please with it so far. For the trucks the only advantage to the Ecoboost is the Lowend torque and boost it provides while towing and that was the main reason i bought the Eco over the 5.0. Both great trucks, i didnt buy the claims of a turbocharged V6 getting great fuel economy, I was just looking for better fuel economy over my Super Duty and smoother ride and I got it in the Ecoboost. But I would never buy a car with a turbo, straight 4 cyc. due a great job of that.

HoustonRider

There is only a debate because there IS a turbo on these trucks. Turbos on cars have been around forever. I think I had a turbo on an old Volvo back in the 80s. As with diesels the turbo is here to stay.

If there wasn't a turbo option the debate would be 5.0 vs 6.2 vs 3.7.

I only opted for the Ecoboost for the stickers on the side of the truck, but turns out I can get 17-18 on a tank in the city ( and I was opposed to the Ecoboost after I bought it)

Regular Cab

X2. Your right foot has a LOT to do with fuel economy,and that applies to both the 5.0 and Eco,with the edge going to the Eco.

boosted150

^^^^^I totally agree with this ^^^^^

It's all in the driver.

My 1999 Saab 9-5 had a 2.3L turbo with a 5spd manual, weighed 3,600lbs, was the most comfortable car I've ever driven (I've driven Caddy's, BMW's, etc). For that much weight on that small 4cyl, I still got 35 mpg highway which blew my mind for a mid-size car. No matter if you drove 65mph or 80mph, I consistently saw 34-35mpg. Awesome for cross country road trips! That was straigt-up highway, though. The minute you went into the city, or decided to have fun with it, you were getting 22-23mpg.

Fast forward to the Ecoboost F150, the same is true. Big ***** truck, "small turbo engine." Highway mpg at 70: 20-21mpg. The minute you hit the city or start to have fun with it: 13-15mpg. No surprise there. I'm just happy I'm getting better mileage than my old Silverado 5.3L (11-12mpg in the city no matter what).

Thanks for posting the consumer reports article. They did find some mileage increases in their table for turbo vehicles vs NA. I still think it's all in the driver.

bubbabud

^^^^^ The secret to getting the most from a turbo engine is relearning how to drive and training your right foot to stay out of the turbo when you dont need the power. Its hard to do because it feels and sounds so good to plant your foot and feel the boost

SkiSmuggs

No regrets. I get 20.5 mpg in my 70 mile commute vs 16-17 with my 2003 Tundra. And my Tundra could barely tow a 5500 lb trailer at 8 mpg while my F150 pulls a 9K fifth wheel handily at 10-11 mpg.

sgtpatiolantern

I tend to find Consumer Reports and Car and Driver "tests" to be highly suspect. Their criterias at times seem ridiculous and I question if they really put the time into their testing that they had in years past. Maybe I am just blowing smoke, but with the avalanche of new products every year, I don't think they can dedicate the time to real world testing.