ggallant1

If the EB actually met the EPA numbers in the real world, your points and argument would be a lot more valid. However, very few EB owners are reporting the 15/21 in the real world. The other motors meet the EPA standards.

Therefore, your point of "If you have to have the most amount of power, with the least fuel the Ecoboost wins every time. This IS what Ford was trying to achieve, and they nailed it," doesnt hold water, in my opinion.

s_vares

I think most people are getting the EPA rated 15/21 under normal conditions. In all fairness I get about 14/20

Still much better than other towing engines IMO

f150man3.5

Good thoughts truck owner. For comparison 04 5.4 pulling 6500# tt with 3 adults and two kids, with about 400 #'s in the bed. Over a 120 mile trip one way i got 9.5 mpg. Over the coarse of a week non towing avg 16mpg doing day trips. On the ride home avg 9.9 mpg.
Same trip with ecoboost following year. Going avg 10.9mpg. Day trips for the week avg 23mpg. Going home avg 11.4 mpg.
So upgrading trucks based just for mpg towing, no it is not worth it. But daily driving, yes i can see the benefit for upgrading

ecobeest

I bought my truck first and foremost based on towing numbers. I wanted it to haul what I needed to haul. That led me to go with the EB platform. However, a very close second was indeed fuel mileage. I also knew full well that posted EPA numbers mean NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.

FWIW I can consistently obtain 20MPG on the highway out of my 2012 (Max tow + HD Payload with LT tires) and I am downright thrilled about it! If I stomp on it of course my economy goes to s__t. Then again the grin on my face makes up for the difference.

Compared to my 08 5.4 my EB is night and day.

violinguy77

Burn gas and haul *****

cobrajet

Maybe for some this is what they should buy

74 HP and 95 ft lbs torque! I know the 3 foot box is a little small, but the tail gate opens for more room!

g475

Try get the EPA rating out of the tundras 5.7 real world. My Eco will get 18.5 mpg all day long in mixed driving. And that's driving pretty hard to. I'm happy with it. 4x4 screw 3.73

engineermike

Actually, a poll was done a while back. A lot of people responded and the vast majority were getting between 15 and 21.

engineermike

100% correct.

Here's where I think you're wrong...

In 2010, v6 2wd 1/2 tons got the following fuel mileage:
Chevy: 15/20
Dodge: 14/20
Toyota: 15/19

The EB was released in 2011, rated using the same system at 16/22. So actually, they should have said "The power of a v8, torque of a big block v8, and better fuel economy than a v6." If you want to nitpick, for whatever reason, Ford decided not to top GM's 6.2, Toyota's 5.7, and Dodge's 5.7 in the Hp department, though I wish they would have. The reality is that both the 5.0 and the EB fall between other manufacturer's large and small v8's in power.

Where their marketing went biased, IMO, is that they could have advertised the 5.0 exactly the same way as the EB, with "the power of a v8 fuel, economy of a v6" because it's numbers (15/21) actually match or surpassed all of the 2010 v6's also. Clearly, they were worried the market wouldn't accept the complicated 6, so they biased the advertising towards it.

Of course, now that the Ford 3.7 is rated at 17/22 and the Dodge 3.6 is rated at 17/25, it kinda throws the whole "fuel economy of a v6" line out the window for anything with over 300 ft-lb of torque.

Razorback150

My truck exceeds EPA ratings.


Now everyone move along, nothing new to see in this thread.