ViolentG

The nature of a turbo is to cram more fuel into the cylinder than a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement would. If you constantly drive your truck by mashing on the accelerator you will get worse fuel economy than a non-turbo. If however you drive like you are trying to not break an egg and avoiding the use of the turbos you will take advantage of the smaller 3.5L displacement and get better fuel economy than the 5.0L.

Tests like the one in CR are not good indicators because like most of us over time their driving falls somewhere in between thereby averaging out to around the same as a 5.0L. I for one try to accelerate slowly, avoid stopping at lights (timing my coasting), etc and get around 17-18 mph which is probably similar to a 5.0L driving the same way.

It is nice to have the power and acceleration of the turbo when I need it though.

BigMcLargeHuge

In the CR article they said in the same breath that the BMW 328i 2.0 turbo DOES meet its EPA estimated mileage.

Their conclusion was that 'turbos are bad' but praised a turbo engine in the process (BMW).

This wasn't a shot at a technology, this was brand favoritism.

geno51

This

Harps

They might if there was a good consumer report

Blue_76

I have a twin turbo 535i BMW and a 328i BMW... of course the 535i will blow the 328I away but you cant even hear the turbos... not at any time do you ever hear the turbos on my BMW.... It does fly though and you can tell by the seat of your pants it has the turbos. Funny thing is that it will get about 30mpg on the hwy and the 328i will get about 34 mpg. You would think the difference would be more but as others have said... if you stay out of the turbo they will get good mileage.

Both cars have beat the EPA mileage on many trips.

Greg

Old Smoky

from the article;

CDC5.0

When it comes to the "power of a bigger engine with the economy of a smaller engine" stuff I always take it with a grain of salt.

Here's my reasoning. You have something like an F-150 which weighs 5500 - 6000lbs. No matter what engine you have it still needs to move all that steel. The amount of energy required to accelerate that much weight does not change.

You can move all that steel with a turbo V6 or an NA V8. The turbo V6 doesn't have to rev as much but it needs to get into the boost which uses more fuel. The NA V8 has to climb the rev range and has 2 more cylinders which uses more fuel. When all is said and done both engines are going to use a very similar amount of fuel with maybe a slight advantage to the turbo V6.

rdkev

OP is a fool who can't just live with the fact the EB is superior. It's ok, we all know you are just bummed you didn't get a 6.2 and have to stand up for yourself.

F 1Fiddy

I just got out of a 2010 F150 5.4 and it was a great truck. Now I have the same truck in a 2013 with the EB. The issue is where you do you want your torque peak? Do you want it down low or way up high in the rpm band. I have 6000 miles on this 2013 since I got it on Dec 28th. One thing I have learned is that I don't need to stand on it so hard to get to speed. If I will let the turbos spool up, I don't need the pedal so much. Also, there is a threshold in speed, when the truck becomes a brick in the air, and exponentially creates more drag. That seems to be somewhere above 65mph best I can tell. If you can keep it down there, it will do much better. I drive 80 on the interstate, so I loose a bunch in mpg. That is a personal choice. I know what it takes to get 18 to 19 mpg, and on 2 lane roads, I drive those speeds. Western KS interstate, I drive 80.

One thing to remember. 420 ft/lbs of torque takes a lot of fuel. It doesn't matter if its in a big block v-8 or a 213 cubic inch V-6 with 2 turbos. The efficiency seems to be when you don't need the full 420, you have much less mass to turn with the little engine than you do with the large one. I think that is where the turbos win.
I think if this v-6 was a little larger, it wouldn't need the boost so often, and would do a little better on fuel. Say around a 4.2L That would give you a little more grunt without to much turbo.
I still think that this EB engine is a product of that v-6 diesel engine that Ford developed for the F-150. Then fuel and emissions killed it and they converted it to a gas burner, which isn't that hard to do. The bottom end of this engine is built for diesel use, so it is super heavy built. That is why they are holding up so well pulling and long miles. So far, I really like mine. I like that power down low in the rpm band. CR got it wrong. It isn't holding gears that makes it feel powerful, its because it is powerful at low rpm.

rdkev

Same mpg... But more power and torque at a lower RPM? Who wants that?! Lol... Come on. I'm sick of this.