Trade in 13 Eco for 14 5.0?
12-10-2013, 06:17 PM
#41
The following users liked this post:
medicff0879 (12-10-2013)
12-10-2013, 06:17 PM
#42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
As Homer would say, Dohhhh, glad you mentioned that about condensation in the tank. For whatever reason I had a brain fart moment thinking it was better to be empty, than full. Thanks for the info.
12-10-2013, 06:17 PM
#43
BTW op. Careful letting it sit to long. Turbos might freeze up on you!
12-10-2013, 06:18 PM
#44
Inebriated 4 ur safety
I don't get some of the logic on here. A person has a 2011 F150 5.0L with 3.73 gears that is rated to tow 9,300 lbs. He trades it in to get a new EB with 3.73 gears that is rated to tow 11,100 lbs and complains about fuel when the only other engine that is rated to tow that much is a 6.2L that gets 13 mpg in the summer(my coworker is getting 11 in the winter weather and even worse in this 34F temp cold front). The part I don't get is if the 5.0L 3.73 with a tow rating of 9,300lbs was fine then why didn't said person get an EB with 3.31 gears which is rated to tow only 100 lbs shy of the 5.0L 3.73 if fuel was a concern. Or even a 3.55 EB 4x4 that is rated for 9,600lbs which is more then their previous 5.0L 3.73 rating. Why would one complain about fuel mileage of a 11,100 lb tow rating capable truck when your only other option is another engine that not only costs a lot more, but uses more fuel. Why on earth would one compare a 9,300 lbs tow rating truck to a 11,100lbs tow rating capable truck. I mean, you wouldn't compare the fuel economy of a 6.2L 3.73 (also 11,100lb capable) to a 5.0L 3.73 would you? So why would you compare the 11,100 tow rated EB to a 9,300 lb tow rated 5.0L? This tells me that said person bought too much truck for their needs and fuel economy wants. To me, if you are going to complain about the fuel mileage of a max tow F150, then you probably didn't need a max tow F150.
Last edited by Al Kohalic; 12-10-2013 at 07:10 PM.
12-10-2013, 06:21 PM
#45
Senior Member
Ford is not innocent....the word Eco is short for Economical or Eco friendly with a leaf and green lettering giving the illusion that it saves fuel or is geared to tree hugging environmentalists take your pick. I can't count how many times people complained that their V6 "Eco" engine uses way more gas then they expected. They could have read the window sticker but waited until they start feeling their wallets get lighter. Oh for the other part of the market they knew what they were getting into twin turbo engine with lots of torque that group doesn't complain.
12-10-2013, 06:22 PM
#46
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I don't get some of the logic on here. A person has a 2011 F150 with 3.73 gears that is rated to tow 9,300 lbs. He trades it in to get a new EB with 3.73 gears that is rated to tow 11,100 lbs and complains about fuel when the only other engine that is rated to tow that much is a 6.2L that gets 13 mpg in the summer(my coworker is getting 11 in the winter weather and even worse in this 34F temp cold front). The part I don't get is if the 5.0L 3.73 with a tow rating of 9,300lbs then why didn't said person get an EB with 3.31 gears which is only rated to tow only 100 lbs shy of the 5.0L 3.73 if fuel was a concern. Or even a 3.55 EB 4x4 that is rated for 9,600lbs which is more then their previous 5.0L 3.73 rating. Why would one complain about fuel mileage of a 11,100 lb tow rating capable truck when your only other option is another engine not only costs a lot more, but uses more fuel. Why on earth would one compare a 9,300 lbs tow rating truck to a 11,100lbs tow rating capable truck. I mean, you wouldn't compare the fuel economy of a 6.2L 3.73 (also 11,100lb capable) to a 5.0L 3.73 would you? So why would you compare the 11,100 tow rated EB to a 9,300 lb tow rated 5.0L? This tells me that said person bought too much truck for their needs and fuel economy wants. To me, if you are going to complain about the fuel mileage of a max tow F150, then you probably didn't need a max tow F150.
12-10-2013, 06:23 PM
#47
Inebriated 4 ur safety
Al, the original post is Satire, meant to be a joke. And I traded my 11 EB with 3.73's for a 13 EB with 3.55's. Oddly, it seems to get worse fuel economy than the 11, but it is by all means not the purpose of my original thread. It is meant to be joke, sarcasm in a sense LOL. I love the 13, especially when that remote start preheats the vehicle and seats for me on these super cold mornings.
I was not referring to you.
12-10-2013, 06:24 PM
#48
Seafoam is your friend to keep the gas in good shape.
12-10-2013, 06:24 PM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Ford is not innocent....the word Eco is short for Economical or Eco friendly with a leaf and green lettering giving the illusion that it saves fuel or is geared to tree hugging environmentalists take your pick. I can't count how many times people complained that their V6 "Eco" engine uses way more gas then they expected. They could have read the window sticker but waited until they start feeling their wallets get lighter. Oh for the other part of the market they knew what they were getting into twin turbo engine with lots of torque that group doesn't complain.