Topic Sponsor
2011+ Engine Related Questions Sub-Forum to the new engines that debuted in 2011.

Boating Magazine towing test: Ecoboost vs 6.2

Old 08-30-2013, 11:16 AM
  #11  
F150 Forum
 
EcoPowerParts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 242
Received 109 Likes on 73 Posts
Default

I'd like to see what a tune would have done for both, that's where the BIG differences would show. The Raptor would pick up maybe 30TQ and the Ecoboost around 100TQ and possibly 1 or 2 MPG.
Old 08-30-2013, 12:25 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 16,109
Received 500 Likes on 383 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by EcoboostPowerParts
I'd like to see what a tune would have done for both, that's where the BIG differences would show. The Raptor would pick up maybe 30TQ and the Ecoboost around 100TQ and possibly 1 or 2 MPG.
This exercise was under extreme load, I don't doubt the power increase but I don't see an improvement in mpg since the vast majority of the test was under load (in boost). You gotta feed that extra 100tq.

Add 100tq AND add the 600lbs - as long as we are comparing apples and gummy bears.

lol
Old 08-30-2013, 12:26 PM
  #13  
F150 Forum
 
EcoPowerParts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 242
Received 109 Likes on 73 Posts
Default

Why would you add 600lbs, they come the way they come the key is tuning can bring out more power in both, just not nearly as much in an NA V8.
Old 08-30-2013, 12:30 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 16,109
Received 500 Likes on 383 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by EcoboostPowerParts
Why would you add 600lbs, they come the way they come the key is tuning can bring out more power in both, just not nearly as much in an NA V8.
Because they compared trucks that weren't similar. An FX4 SCREW with a 6.2 would have been more appropriate - the weight difference, tire size, gearing (mpg wise), front profile, rolling resistance, aerodynamics are ALL in the Eco's favor as compared to the raptor.

Apples to gummy bears.
Old 08-30-2013, 12:58 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
EcoboostKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 675
Received 127 Likes on 99 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Left Plate
With that kind of mileage I would say they were running the crap out of them! Idk about the raptor, but that is not normal for the Eco.
Under normal towing speeds with the same amount of weight I average 10-10.6mpg.. Just wish they picked an F150 with the same options and gearing as the Eco for the test, The results are still impressive none the less!
Old 08-30-2013, 02:44 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
mr_diggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
Received 19 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

the 4.10 gears make up for the 35" tires. (31.9"x 4.10)/(34.7")= 3.77. So the Raptor with 35's & 4.10's is like having 3.77:1 gears in the ecoboost right? The tire mass is an issue but shouldn't affect the type of test towing as *much* as it would on a 1/4mi time or dyno run to redline right? Off the line, the suspension movement might hinder the Raptor in "soaking up" power being put to the ground. I agree though, a 6.2 SCREW vs 3.5 SCREW would have made more sense.
Old 08-30-2013, 03:00 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
SIC_HDPP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,411
Received 231 Likes on 164 Posts

Default

They probably had a hard time trying to find a non raptor 6.2.
Old 08-30-2013, 03:50 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 16,109
Received 500 Likes on 383 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by mr_diggs
the 4.10 gears make up for the 35" tires. (31.9"x 4.10)/(34.7")= 3.77. So the Raptor with 35's & 4.10's is like having 3.77:1 gears in the ecoboost right? The tire mass is an issue but shouldn't affect the type of test towing as *much* as it would on a 1/4mi time or dyno run to redline right? Off the line, the suspension movement might hinder the Raptor in "soaking up" power being put to the ground. I agree though, a 6.2 SCREW vs 3.5 SCREW would have made more sense.
Like I posted earlier, there are numerous things that give an advantage to the Eco. Even if each is slight, they all add up and 600lbs is nothing to sneeze at. It's like drag racing with three fat chicks in the truck with you.
Old 08-30-2013, 05:17 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
mr_diggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
Received 19 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WarSurfer
Like I posted earlier, there are numerous things that give an advantage to the Eco. Even if each is slight, they all add up and 600lbs is nothing to sneeze at. It's like drag racing with three fat chicks in the truck with you.
I guess I always have fat chicks with me....humph.
Old 08-30-2013, 05:24 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 16,109
Received 500 Likes on 383 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by mr_diggs

I guess I always have fat chicks with me....humph.
Lol

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Boating Magazine towing test: Ecoboost vs 6.2



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 PM.