Trade in 13 Eco for 14 5.0?
12-10-2013, 05:09 PM
#22
Junior Member
12-10-2013, 05:13 PM
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
12-10-2013, 05:16 PM
#24
I have a 13 fx4 eco almost 19,000 miles one year old zero issues took an 800 mile one way trip to sc from upstate ny averaged 19mpg back in May. Its been in all kind of weather this weekend planning a trip to northern ny where it will be below 0 only warranty work that was done was tsb 13-8-7 to replace gaskets in the key fobs because they would work intermittently. Very happy with my truck.
The following 2 users liked this post by dac12046:
fringe_remnant (12-10-2013),
medicff0879 (12-10-2013)
12-10-2013, 05:22 PM
#25
Before I bought my FX4, I tested the same truck with the EB, and while the EB seemed to "feel" quicker at certain times, it didn't feel natural for a truck, and it lagged other times. The only time I felt the truck at its best was hard in boost. The last three vehicles I've owned are turbocharged (Mitsu Lancer Ralliart, '13 Escape 2.0, '13 Focus ST) and they all served their purpose, so I'm not against turbo'ed engines at all.
However, with this truck I felt that the 5.0L was much smoother, had no issues at any point in the RPM range, and just sounds awesome. Still had a lot of get-up-and-go for a 6000+ pound vehicle. And I'm averaging about 18.5 mpg while taking it easy on her.
However, with this truck I felt that the 5.0L was much smoother, had no issues at any point in the RPM range, and just sounds awesome. Still had a lot of get-up-and-go for a 6000+ pound vehicle. And I'm averaging about 18.5 mpg while taking it easy on her.
12-10-2013, 05:30 PM
#26
Beer Gut Extraordinaire
Before I bought my FX4, I tested the same truck with the EB, and while the EB seemed to "feel" quicker at certain times, it didn't feel natural for a truck, and it lagged other times. The only time I felt the truck at its best was hard in boost. The last three vehicles I've owned are turbocharged (Mitsu Lancer Ralliart, '13 Escape 2.0, '13 Focus ST) and they all served their purpose, so I'm not against turbo'ed engines at all. However, with this truck I felt that the 5.0L was much smoother, had no issues at any point in the RPM range, and just sounds awesome. Still had a lot of get-up-and-go for a 6000+ pound vehicle. And I'm averaging about 18.5 mpg while taking it easy on her.
12-10-2013, 05:39 PM
#27
12-10-2013, 05:42 PM
#28
Beer Gut Extraordinaire
The following users liked this post:
BE25FX4 (12-10-2013)
12-10-2013, 05:46 PM
#30
I can't say that I know how the power is compared to the other, I have had two ECO's, no complaints other than the name is misleading to assume it to be "Economical" in any form or fashion LOL? With that said, it does have more power, and in different areas of the power band, true not A LOT, but 30+lbft of torque is nothing to laugh at, especially down low.