FX4 in shop - have 2011 F-150 EconoBoost as loaner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually the Eboost has virtually no lag caused by the turbos.

But there is some trans programming that causes some luggy feelings. I think it is the TC lockup not releasing quickly.

Both my friends Taurus SHO and our Lincoln do this under certain conditions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: unDummy
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

Well, I did not flog it outright (it will be someone's truck at some point), but it did have 2 places where it lagged (almost felt like a 2 stroke kicking into a powerband)


I guess that is why its called the EcNoBoost.

Every turbo has a little lag. You'd think that a little more torque converter stall and 'all' those gears would eliminate it.




Interesting point on this note: When my buddy Jon deleted the EGR from his 6.0L PSD, the little bit of turbo lag there was... disappeared completely.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I don't know it is compairable to the 5.4 at anything


You're talking about ~320 rwhp versus ~240 rwhp, the EcoBoost will smack the 5.4 3V around at any task you set before it, as will the new 5.0 4V:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/road-test-review-2011-ford-f-150-xlt-50-liter-v-8.html


That is what I was talking about. I have very happy with my 5.4 3V got about 14.5MPG towing my BIL's windstar from phoenix to yuma. I know it is a "slow" pickup but it is by far the heaviest 1/2 ton on the road. The one thing I like about the current f-150 it does everything well.
 
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
How is the truck optioned? Is it a SuperCrew 4x4? Im really jonesin to drive one of these. I have a 05 SuperCrew 4x4.

It is a SuperCrew XLT 4x2; not a great amount of options, but there are more that I would have expected for an XLT. I am very impressed by the overall response of the engine and provided that it stands the test of time, I think Ford has a winner. You would not know that you are driving a V-6 unless you opened the hood and checked.

The dealer informed me that my FX4 should be ready tomorrow, so I will be returning the Econoboost and picking up Black Betty!
 
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
They gave you this loaner because they want you to trade. Lucky for you! I have not driven one yet. Keep us posted.

Ha! My FX4 is only 6 months old - no chance of that happening. 10K off sticker and 0.9% for 72 months...no way that I am trading. Although I would not have a problem owning this new 2011 (provided it was trimmed the same and was an FX4) I would not trade my 5.4L for it--regardless of the posted numbers, but hey that is just me...
 
Ben99GTYou're talking about ~320 rwhp versus ~240 rwhp said:
Ford says (from my OM for the 5.4L and the Ecoboost flyer at the dealer for the 3.5L):

--5.4L 3V V8 with 310 hp and 365 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)
--5.4L 3V V8 with 320 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque (E85 fuel)
--3.5L V6 with 365 hp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)

So the 5.4 loses 70 hp from engine to wheel, but the 3.5L only loses 45 hp? All things being equal how is that possible? Does not seem plausible to me--either both lose 70 or both lose 45...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It's not "Econoboost". It's "Ecoboost". (Right?)


Right!


+1 Correct--it was dark when I looked at the truck and engine. The badge on the door is not easy to see in the dark
33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: RISUPERCREWMAN
Only time will tell however it did survive the Ford Torture Tests! They were brutal for such a small engine!


Indeed it was fairly torturous; from the Ford flyer:

-- More than 1.5 million total hours of computer analytical time
-- More than 13,000 total hours of laboratory dynamometer testing
-- Dynamometer tests help ensure 150,000 mile durability, including:
  • More than 5,000 hours at full load (full boost) conditions
  • More than 2,500 hours of testing at or above 5,000 engine RPM
  • 1,000 hour tests to ensure dependability for even the toughest truck customer – that is almost 42 days of continuous operation
  • Extreme thermal cycling replicates conditions from the Arctic Circle to Death Valley to simulate 10 years of use in the harshest environments

-- More than 100,000 hours of in vehicle testing that replicates extensive real world customer operating conditions
 
I have returned the EcoBoost to the dealer and Black Betty is back in the stable. The truck had 493 miles on it when I picked it up and about 720 when I returned it.

My final thoughts on the 2011 truck and the Ecoboost after driving it for a few days in mixed traffic are (in no particular order):
  • I feel certain that a 4x2 unloaded could easily average 24-26MPG (if driven moderately).
  • The truck feels solid and comfortable--all controls and instruments are easy to reach and read.
  • For an XLT, the amount of technology was nice (I believe higher equipped models would be even better).
  • The "all in one" key and remote door lock opener is a nice improvement from 2010; I will be checking into an upgrade.
  • The "split" drivers side mirror (with the "bubble" in the upper left hand corner) is a must have--no blind spots; I have to have this on my 2010.
  • Ford could easily dump the 3.7L and 5.0L and reduce the engine selection to the 3.5L and the 6.2L--there would be no need for the other engines (Although I have no idea if the 3.5L is a costly option, I did not see the sticker).
  • The new turn signal functionality takes some acclimation (it does not click and stay, you have to hold it for a few seconds to have it continue to blink).
  • The instrument panel is very easy to read (nice change to the blue lighting) and the economy "meters" are huge help when attempting to drive economically.
  • My initial perception about the turbo lag was not correct; there is no lag. The power is steady and true with no lag. I am not sure what I was feeling that first day.
  • The sound of the twin turbos spooling up is very nice (but I would miss the rumble of my 5.4L).
  • Ford specifies (recommends) either a Synthetic Blend or Full Synthetic for the 3.5L (no conventional). I, of course, would run PP or PU in it.
  • The oil filter seems small (it is much smaller in diameter but longer than the FL-820s).
  • The forced air tubing is nicely designed (duh-I should have taken some photos).
  • There is a fair amount of heat under the hood (and a ton of aluminum insulation), but the turbos are behind and slightly below the center of the front wheels (possibly for some inductive cooling from the air under the truck).
  • Ford needs to dump the design of the windshield wipers and move into the 21st century, My grandfather's 1969 F-100 had those same blades.
  • The headlights are **much brighter** than my 2010; I need to see what the difference is and change mine.
  • The 2011 feels a bit more nimble than my FX4 (but I am assuming the 5.4L and XFer case add quite a bit of weight to my 2010).
  • Last, but certainly not least, barring any major design or longevity issues, I think Ford definitely has a winner in this engine and it could be a new platform upon which to expand into the V8 realm.
At any rate, there you go, my thoughts and opinions after a short tour of duty with the Ecoboost--my guess is we will hear much more about this engine in the future.

Cheers!
 
NotSoEcoBoost, no power numbers on FFV/E85? Or was Ford worried that someone would break something with the extra eco-hp?
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Ford says (from my OM for the 5.4L and the Ecoboost flyer at the dealer for the 3.5L):

--5.4L 3V V8 with 310 hp and 365 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)
--5.4L 3V V8 with 320 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque (E85 fuel)
--3.5L V6 with 365 hp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)

So the 5.4 loses 70 hp from engine to wheel, but the 3.5L only loses 45 hp? All things being equal how is that possible? Does not seem plausible to me--either both lose 70 or both lose 45...


Because the new 5.0 and 3.5 EcoBoost are very "conservatively" rated, wink wink nudge nudge.
 
So the Eco-Boost is no longer using the FL-500s? Yet another filter for the aftermarket to keep up with. Not that I am complaining since with my track record I won't be in a 2011 F150 until about 2018 or later
smile.gif
!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
So the Eco-Boost is no longer using the FL-500s? Yet another filter for the aftermarket to keep up with. Not that I am complaining since with my track record I won't be in a 2011 F150 until about 2018 or later
smile.gif
!


All depends on the application. The F150's use the FL2055, the other ones use the FL500S. At least according to the parts notice I got the other day at work.
 
Originally Posted By: unDummy
NotSoEcoBoost, no power numbers on FFV/E85? Or was Ford worried that someone would break something with the extra eco-hp?

I do not think the 3.5L is an FFV engine, so no E85...
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Ford says (from my OM for the 5.4L and the Ecoboost flyer at the dealer for the 3.5L):

--5.4L 3V V8 with 310 hp and 365 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)
--5.4L 3V V8 with 320 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque (E85 fuel)
--3.5L V6 with 365 hp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)

So the 5.4 loses 70 hp from engine to wheel, but the 3.5L only loses 45 hp? All things being equal how is that possible? Does not seem plausible to me--either both lose 70 or both lose 45...


Because the new 5.0 and 3.5 EcoBoost are very "conservatively" rated, wink wink nudge nudge.

Conservative rating or not, from the flywheel to the tires, the powertrain is exactly the same on the 5.4L and the 3.5L and so I do not understand how the parasitic losses would be different between them.

Can someone explain this?
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Ford says (from my OM for the 5.4L and the Ecoboost flyer at the dealer for the 3.5L):

--5.4L 3V V8 with 310 hp and 365 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)
--5.4L 3V V8 with 320 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque (E85 fuel)
--3.5L V6 with 365 hp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque (Regular gas)

So the 5.4 loses 70 hp from engine to wheel, but the 3.5L only loses 45 hp? All things being equal how is that possible? Does not seem plausible to me--either both lose 70 or both lose 45...


Because the new 5.0 and 3.5 EcoBoost are very "conservatively" rated, wink wink nudge nudge.

Conservative rating or not, from the flywheel to the tires, the powertrain is exactly the same on the 5.4L and the 3.5L and so I do not understand how the parasitic losses would be different between them.

Can someone explain this?


So the logical argument is the 5.0 and 3.5 produces more HP and Torque than it is rated by Ford. I read a couple articles from a couple of magazines that suspected the same thing.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Conservative rating or not, from the flywheel to the tires, the powertrain is exactly the same on the 5.4L and the 3.5L and so I do not understand how the parasitic losses would be different between them.

Can someone explain this?


The parasitic losses aren't different, the difference is that the 5.4 3V with its ~240 rwhp dyno numbers is actually making something close to its claimed 300 HP while the 5.0 and EcoBoost with their 310-320 rwhp dyno numbers are making more like 380-390 HP.

It matches up pretty well with the '11 Mustang's conservative ratings. It's advertised 14 HP less than the 2010-2011 Camaro SS but is making almost 10 HP more to the wheels stock for stock. I'm not sure why, but lately all of the advertised output of all of the new engines seem to be very conservative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
F-150 Camper Shell Recommendation?
Replies
7
Views
501
meep
ls1mike
Rental review, 2023 F-150.
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
ls1mike
Shel_B
Ford Halts Production of F-150 (various models)
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
4K
PF52
E
How the used-car price spike affected tax assessments in Virginia
2 3
Replies
48
Views
2K
NormanBuntz
U
2016 Volvo V60 - dealer put used oil back in the car
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
fdcg27
Back
Top