Step up to the Denali trim & that gets you a 6.2, vs a 5.3. More engine options await for a 3/4 ton, 7.3 for the Ford & a 6.4 for the Ram, as well as a Dmax, ISB or a 'stroke for more options........

 

LOL, not a chance.

Don't be so thin skinned. It was just feedback. You disliking the EB and preferring the V8 was a foregone conclusion, you would have been much happier with the V8 F150. Its like comparing the I6 hybrid S Class with an S8...the consumers for both vehicles are different and the right S Class to compare to the S8 is the one with the V8. Same as in this comparison. Someone who would buy a S580e wouldn't consider an S8. Someone who would buy an EB F150 wouldn't consider a 6.2L GM V8 truck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striker223

There is a major difference, for example I'm getting 28.5 average in my 4.0 and 22.5 in my W12 when in theory that's "impossible" according to the EPA. The VW is getting it's sticker highway MPG as its average, when nearly no driving is done in a stop and go or low speed the ecoboosts get their asses kicked by the V8s

I believe you both, my cars tend to outperform on the highway too, but the EB F150 will also outperform on the highway. The point is the difference. My cars also tend to underperform in the city, yours will too.

The EB gets ~ 3MPG better economy than the 6.2L GM trucks, and it takes regular fuel. There is no way a 6.2L will cost the same or less to fuel than the EB. Just the difference in fuel alone adds $24 to the cost of a tank of fuel, so if the fuel economy were the same the 6.2 would still cost $100 more a month to fill up assuming you fill up once a week. Its math.

As for the 5.3 outperforming the turbo 4 on the interstate, again that comparison makes no sense. Someone would choose the 4 if they were primarily doing urban driving and use, on the highway the V8 is a better option.

Thats the point of having lots of engine options. They all have a different best use case.



Yet my business partner who has a 6.2L Silverado gets pretty close to the EPA fuel economy...he lives where I live lol.

And I do not live in a city, I live in a suburban area.

 

I quite liked the Ecoboost! Go back to the other thread. The turbo whoosh was intoxicating and it was fast, quite fast. It sounded wayyyyyy better than I thought it would, even burly. No, I wouldn't buy a Ford over a Chevy but if someone handed me that truck I'd keep it, I basically said that too. I gave the Ecoboost a fair shot I think, it's torquier and probably lays down better numbers at a drag strip. But it doesn't drive as well, it just doesn't. You can't catch the Denali flat footed, ever. I caught this Ford flat footed a time or two, in real world driving.

People cross shop 6.2 vs Ecoboost all the time.

 

But you will ALWAYS prefer the V8.

 

Once again I'm telling you that real world with the ecoboosts is that they are the worst mpg trucks. Go on ford forums if you refuse to listen to people who have actually driven them/love with them. I've done timing chains on 4 of them now and I've driven cars post repair for 3-4 days and I know what they get on my route to work vs the GMs that I've also done lifter repairs on.

The ecoboosts lose. Period. They only do better in the city or denser areas like where you live, you do not get up to 70-80 on your commute to work and you do a lot of 25-35 that is unheard of here. Slowest we go is 45 and most is 55-65

 

Well if it were a weak V8, not necessarily. But overwhelmingly most V8s on the road these days are strong.

You must have not had the 6.2 in the Suburban, you would know more what I'm talking about with the responsiveness and quickness. 5.3 is enough to get job done and feel decent on the streets, but the 6.2 GMs seriously haul ***.

And yes, I'll always prefer a V8. Lol you bought the V8 S-Class, when the I6 is just about as fast. Verrrrry close. What's the problem?

That doesn't mean I'm saying the Eco isn't a wholly competent motor, quite the opposite.

 

Not always in my case, I intentionally avoid them in my work SUVs. I always pick the physically smallest engine instead so it's easily worked on and I have zero concern for power, that said I also KNOW that the 4.7 V8 gets better mpg than the 4.0 I-6 my Jeep has by about 2.5 mpg since I have 3 of them as customers.

I have no idea if the V8 Touareg gets better real world with the 4.2 vs 3.2, according to actual owners it appears to be a dead tie. I have no direct experience since I only service Q7s and Cayennes and those are different.

 

Thanks for finally being real lol

Im sure it was the 5,3, but I have driven them with the 6.2 and like I said my partner has a Silverado with the 6.2. I am not saying anything negative about either engine, I would get the V8 too in the F150 I’m just saying people that want the EcoBoost don’t want a big V8. If they did…they would buy one.

No problem, like I said I want the V8. Comparing the 6 and the V8 though doesn’t make sense, that’s my point.

The F150 V8 may outperform the EcoBoost in FE and fuel cost but not the GM 6.2.

And again you’re saying lots of things about my daily commute that are not true lol. I drive 12 miles every day each way on the highway at 80 MPH, almost everywhere I go involves a highway.

But that’s the point, that sort of use case is what the EcoBoost is for. People bought it because it gets considerably better economy in that specific use case. That’s why comparing them makes no sense.

 

I'm actually surprised the King Ranch didn't come with a V-8 automatically as part of the package.

Who would pull a horse trailer down the highway always in the boost.

Talk about killing an engine. Lol

Diesels are made to run under constant load in boost but we're talking gas engines here.

Less HP per liter = engine doesn't have to work as hard.

 

it does, the V8 is standard. The EcoBoost and the Ecoboost hybrid are the upgrade options.

I much prefer the Ecoboost, my last F150 was Ecoboost, but theres nothing wrong with the standard V8. it can be upgraded with a supercharger, but on current gen trucks it’s a 10k upgrade plus installation. If the installation is done by Ford, the warranty remains intact.

 

How was I not being real? I do own 3 NA V8s.

That said I totally gave that Ford a fair shot. I loved the thing as a whole. Engine needs work compared to GM’s best, it is what it is. It does not drive as refined and the 10 speed transmission does the job better in the GMC.

A V8 is way more refined than a V6 by nature, that’s not my
opinion it’s a fact.

 

Of course it is, that again is a foregone conclusion that surprises nobody. The engine doesn’t need work, it’s never going to be a large displacement V8. Apples and bowling *****. The EB gets much better fuel economy especially in low speed and urban settings and that’s the selling proposition.

Its like Mmarshall comparing vehicles against a Buick. We all know he’s going to pick the Buick. You’re going to pick the V8.

 

Cool deal friend.

Why did you prefer the Ecoboost If I can ask..

Did it get good gas mileage or something else?

Does the Ecoboost cost more?
Your thoughts plz.

 

Drivability. It has more torque than the V8 (an additional 100 lb-ft), and it delivers peak torque at lower RPM than the naturally aspirated V8 engine. It is a modest extra cost over the standard V8. If I were getting a gas F150 today, I'd actually get the EcoBoost hybrid, it has considerably more power and torque than either the V8 or EcoBoost (430 hp, 570 lb-ft). If you're so inclined you can get significant power increases with a tune.

 

Adding in recent data point on EcoBoost.

Drove a 3.5 EcoBoost Expedition Max 1,300 miles up from DC to Massachusetts, Northern Vermont and back over the past week. We avg'ed just under 20 mpg, rated at 16 city, 21 highway and 18 combined. Our drive was predominantly highway, but also had plenty of climbs and descents. Power was okay, but sound was meh. Our unit had nearly 60K miles, transmission banged a bit into gears and whatnot. We were tracking to nearly 585 miles on a full tank on the last one (most efficient of the 3 or so tanks we used up), which is spot on with the EPA targeted range for the nearly 28 gallon tank. Much of the driving was 75 mph or so, definitely above the EPA test cycle speeds.

I was hoping that we'd have a new Suburban or even the new Wagoneer but they didn't have any available.