Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2011, 10:39 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,283
I guess it takes gas to make all that power.
But thanks for the report, my friend has ordered his, so will be glad to hear about your experience. He will only tow about 5% of the time, so it will work great for him.
__________________

__________________
crocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2011, 12:01 AM   #12
Site Team
 
acadianbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,920
The ecoboost moves so effortlessly that it may be that people are accelerating faster and towing at higher speeds? Or not . . . . It would sure be a kick in the pants if tow mileage was actually less than the 5.4. There is an extensive article in pickuptruck.com that inferred that the new 5.0 V-8 might actually get better mileage when towing. But a direct comparison has yet to be actually done. They were also clear that unloaded mileage is great with the ecoboost. This will be interesting to watch.
__________________

__________________
http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp297/acadianbob/IMG_2757.jpg
2012 F150 FX4 Ecoboost, 2016 Surveyor 274BHS
2003 Yamaha FJR1300, Demco Premiere Slider
1969 John Deere 1020, 1940 Ford 9N, 1948 Ford 8N
Jonsered 535, Can of WD-40, Duct Tape
Red Green coffee mugs
acadianbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:01 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
thebrakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, Michigan
Posts: 1,105
Typical non-full-timer is only towing 5-10% of their total annual mileage.
IMO, the goal for a V8 alternative would be:
a. Similar or better NON-towing performance as the V8 alternative.
b. Better NON-towing gas mileage (90-95% of driving) than the V8 alternative. Should pay for the upgrade premium within a few years. If it takes 10 years to offset the engine upgrade premium, then you really haven't saved money, right?
c. Similar TOWING performance (5-10% of driving) as the V8 alternative, regardless of gas mileage.

If point b is satisfied (better non-towing mileage), then lower mileage while towing will not be a significant issue, since it's such a small percentage of total driving.

This is why many of these independant articles recommend full-time RVers stick to the larger V8 or SuperDuty/Diesels. For them, if towing mileage isn't any better, you might as well benefit from the added torque at low rpm from the big V8, and maybe better fuel economy of the diesel.
__________________
thebrakeman ('70), DW ('71), DD ('99), DD ('01), DD ('05)
2004 Surveyor SV261T (UltraLite Bunkhouse Hybrid)
2006 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD Premier
Equal-i-zer WDH (10k), Prodigy Brake Controller
thebrakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:09 AM   #14
Moderator Emeritus
 
MtnGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 9,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by tugboat View Post
i have a eco boost, 4x4, crewcab short bed, 3.73 rear, tow max, i have just got back from a trip, towing a 30' tt rv, total wt. 6500 lbs. I had no problem towing with this motor, power was great, but, i did get, 8.3 mpg ave on this trip, i was easy on and off the gas, and stay around 65 mph. i was hoping for 10 to 12 mpg, i now have 4500 miles on it, so maybe next trip will be better. tug
tugboat, good report, and I hope you keep us update with future trips.
__________________

Chap , DW Joy, and Fur Baby Sango
2017 F350 Lariat CCSB, SRW, 4x4, 6.7 PS
2017 Grand Design Reflection 337RLS
MtnGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:09 AM   #15
Site Team
 
acadianbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebrakeman View Post
This is why many of these independant articles recommend full-time RVers stick to the larger V8 or SuperDuty/Diesels. For them, if towing mileage isn't any better, you might as well benefit from the added torque at low rpm from the big V8, and maybe better fuel economy of the diesel.
I agree with most of what you say except the latter. The 6.2 does have more torque ultimately than the ecoboost but that torque is at 4,000 RPM. Down low, where most of us tow, e.g. 2,000 RPM, I'll bet that the ecoboost is putting out more torque than the 6.2. It's tough to beat turbos for torque production.

Now diesel is a different matter of course.

__________________
http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp297/acadianbob/IMG_2757.jpg
2012 F150 FX4 Ecoboost, 2016 Surveyor 274BHS
2003 Yamaha FJR1300, Demco Premiere Slider
1969 John Deere 1020, 1940 Ford 9N, 1948 Ford 8N
Jonsered 535, Can of WD-40, Duct Tape
Red Green coffee mugs
acadianbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:24 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
thebrakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, Michigan
Posts: 1,105
I'm a definite turbo fan (pardon the pun ). Drove a '89 Probe (turbo) for 10 years. It was the low-rpm torque that I loved most about it, as I didn't have to shift to pass somebody, and it was easy to drive around town without winding it out.

I was referring to the typical V8 generating torque at the lower rpm ranges (1000 rpm), versus the Ecoboost not doing anything until 2000 rpm.

The torque curves I have seen showed the Ecoboost not doing much below 2000 rpm, but the VERY steep curve quickly overtakes the V8s by 2500 rpm.

It's probably a V8 benefit that's only noticed when driving around town, especially when starting from a stop. But to some, they may appreciate putting around town between 1000-2000 rpm between shifts, rather than having to push to 2500 rpm.

I've never driven either of them. Perhaps the Ecoboost revs into it's happy place so easily that it's just as satisfying as the V8 at 1500. But I think that's about the only plus to the V8 (5.4 or 5.0 I'm not sure), is that torque generation WAY down low.

And when I say not doign much at 2000 rpm, I'm referring to the actual torque curve for the Ecoboost. It's torque curve literally starts at 2000 rpm. Below 2000rpm, the 5.0L V8 (and probably the 5.4L, too) is generating a LOT more torque than the Ecoboost, although they are equal by 2500. I'm not sure what that means. Does it idle at 2000 rpm? If not, what's it doing below 2000? I'm just trying to interpret what I see in the data.
__________________
thebrakeman ('70), DW ('71), DD ('99), DD ('01), DD ('05)
2004 Surveyor SV261T (UltraLite Bunkhouse Hybrid)
2006 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD Premier
Equal-i-zer WDH (10k), Prodigy Brake Controller
thebrakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:24 AM   #17
Site Team
 
acadianbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,920
I've been thinking about ecoboost towing MPG a bit. My guess is that this is a Jekyl and Hyde motor. I think every understands that unloaded mileage is quite good. But there is a lot of HP and TQ available there, and if you use it, I'm sure it will happily provide it while using the fuel to do it.

If you have driven and ridden in an ecoboost, you will discover that they are deceptively quick and powerful. It doesn't feel like you are doing anything. My buddy's ecoboost loafs onto the freeway; 1,400 RPM shift points. Then as you enter the freeway you look to see that you are already doing 65 mph. Now my 5.4 would be working pretty hard to do that; 2,500 RPM shift point, lots of throttle and lot's of effort and noise.

Because of fuel consumption, I have a light throttle foot with my 5.4. If you drive an ecoboost in the same leisurely way, the mileage is way better. (I've seen it on my buddy's dash computer; and watched it)

Similarly, when towing, I try to stay in overdrive. If a hill provides too much load, I back off to let it stay in overdrive; sometimes dragging down to 50 mph. Here again, the ecoboost will be deceptive. It will easily maintain the original speed where my 5.4 cannot hold overdrive. So, I think you will find yourself "doing more" with the ecoboost; perhaps without even realizing it. That is likely to take fuel. My bet is that a light foot when towing will return good fuel economy.

Well, I have the 5.4 with 3.73s (4WD) with a Surveyor 235RKS. My buddy has a 4WD ecoboost with 3.73s and a Surveyor 264. We are doing some camping together so will have a chance to compare fuel mileage in exactly the same conditions and speeds. The trailers are nearly identical in profile and weight as well. We shall see . . .
__________________
http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp297/acadianbob/IMG_2757.jpg
2012 F150 FX4 Ecoboost, 2016 Surveyor 274BHS
2003 Yamaha FJR1300, Demco Premiere Slider
1969 John Deere 1020, 1940 Ford 9N, 1948 Ford 8N
Jonsered 535, Can of WD-40, Duct Tape
Red Green coffee mugs
acadianbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 11:41 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
thebrakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, Michigan
Posts: 1,105
Reality will prove out over charts and graphs, for sure.
I definitely agree about the driving ease of a turbo. And that's the beauty that it's taken American OEMs so long to deliver. It took $4 gas before they would invest in real turbo technology at a hi-volume basis.

My 2.2L I4 turbo-Probe beat 5.0L V8 Camaros, yet I got 35mpg on a trip to Traverse City and back one weekend. That was technology from 22 years ago!! It's not new. When they put a 2.0L Ecoboost in the new Focus (with direct injection and other doodads), it will probably be a screamer around town, getting 40mpg on the highway.

Like you said, my mpg was probably no better than that Camaro's during that stoplight race. But that's my point: When you want/need the performance (small percentage of driving), it's right under your right foot, just waiting. But when you want to save money, you just take it easy! You can't do that with a non-aspirated engine.

Jekyl & Hyde....I like that analogy!
__________________
thebrakeman ('70), DW ('71), DD ('99), DD ('01), DD ('05)
2004 Surveyor SV261T (UltraLite Bunkhouse Hybrid)
2006 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD Premier
Equal-i-zer WDH (10k), Prodigy Brake Controller
thebrakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 01:01 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebrakeman View Post
I'm a definite turbo fan (pardon the pun ). Drove a '89 Probe (turbo) for 10 years. It was the low-rpm torque that I loved most about it, as I didn't have to shift to pass somebody, and it was easy to drive around town without winding it out.

I was referring to the typical V8 generating torque at the lower rpm ranges (1000 rpm), versus the Ecoboost not doing anything until 2000 rpm.

The torque curves I have seen showed the Ecoboost not doing much below 2000 rpm, but the VERY steep curve quickly overtakes the V8s by 2500 rpm.

It's probably a V8 benefit that's only noticed when driving around town, especially when starting from a stop. But to some, they may appreciate putting around town between 1000-2000 rpm between shifts, rather than having to push to 2500 rpm.

I've never driven either of them. Perhaps the Ecoboost revs into it's happy place so easily that it's just as satisfying as the V8 at 1500. But I think that's about the only plus to the V8 (5.4 or 5.0 I'm not sure), is that torque generation WAY down low.

And when I say not doign much at 2000 rpm, I'm referring to the actual torque curve for the Ecoboost. It's torque curve literally starts at 2000 rpm. Below 2000rpm, the 5.0L V8 (and probably the 5.4L, too) is generating a LOT more torque than the Ecoboost, although they are equal by 2500. I'm not sure what that means. Does it idle at 2000 rpm? If not, what's it doing below 2000? I'm just trying to interpret what I see in the data.
If you are referring to the torque curve from pickuptruck.com, they mentioned it was very hard to get readings from the EcoBoost at low RPM's. It took a Ford engineer to finally get decent numbers. The torque is there, it is just very tough to measure on a dyno.

Look at the image below. The steady state torque of the 3.5 EB is NEVER below the torque of the 5.0.


Below is the full writeup:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04...8-engines.html
__________________
2012 Flagstaff 8528 BHSS
2008 Ford F250 Crew Cab 4x4 6.4L Power Stroke

fordmantpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 02:33 PM   #20
Site Team
 
acadianbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,920
Fun discussion everyone!! And a nice chart there. The chart does make the point I was trying to make about the ecoboost "out-torqueing" the 6.2 at any RPM below 4,000; where you really want it. And the 5.0 never matches it.

Brakeman, I'm with you on turbos. I had a 1.8 turbo VW Jetta. Pulled like a V-6 when needed and economy like a 1.8 4 cyl in normal driving. Best of all worlds.

If there is any issue coming off of idle with the ecoboost, it would be somewhat masked by the very low first gear; 4.xx something.

__________________

__________________
http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp297/acadianbob/IMG_2757.jpg
2012 F150 FX4 Ecoboost, 2016 Surveyor 274BHS
2003 Yamaha FJR1300, Demco Premiere Slider
1969 John Deere 1020, 1940 Ford 9N, 1948 Ford 8N
Jonsered 535, Can of WD-40, Duct Tape
Red Green coffee mugs
acadianbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 AM.