Ford Ecoboost Engine

[rossn2]

I have a 2011 XLT F150 4x4 Supercrew, with 3.55 limited slip rear end and the Ecoboost engine. Have slightly over 2400 miles now and decided to dump the factory fill and filter last night. These engines call for Motorcraft 5w30 semi-synthetic oil and there's an Jan 2011 upgrade to a FL-2055 filter. I about dumped on myself last night as the filter was a little over $23 at the dealer and it's huge. With the new filter, the fill limit changes to 6.2 quarts from 6.0 quarts too. Put in Pennzoil Platinum 10w30. I've been averaging 17.8 mpg combo driving and I'm really easy on the gas...hopefully it will go up to the rated 21mpg...

 

[sciphi]

Nice ride!

Hope your gas mileage does go up. It ought to as everything breaks in.

 

[tig1]

For a 4x4 crew cab 17.8 seems goo, but if you can achieve 21 MPG with this truck I would say that's great. MPG should go up with the miles you put on. How's the power with this V6? I saw the videos on this engine and it looks good. I would go with a HTO-06 oil like Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 or Mobil 1 5w30.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I sure the Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is even cleaner than the 5w. Less VII - Less gum and varnish..

 

[addyguy]

Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is an excellent oil choice for a twin-turbo V-6 in Texas.

You do have a nice truck, but as a general observation, I think these 'Ecoboost' engines will be a disappointment for fuel mileage as time goes on - Ford has really hyped them to do something I'm not sure they can do.

 

[rossn2]

The 10w30 is SM and the 5w30 is SN. Don't know if that will effect anything. It get's hot here in TX so I went with the 10w30. Power is great...I just wonder how many people who buy the Ecoboost know about Turbo-spool/cool down after coming off a highway before shutting off the engine???

 

[Nick R]

pics or it didn't happen

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: addyguy

You do have a nice truck, but as a general observation, I think these 'Ecoboost' engines will be a disappointment for fuel mileage as time goes on - Ford has really hyped them to do something I'm not sure they can do.


I tend to agree with that. Fuel mileage always seems much more dependent on the vehicle than on the particular engine, and an F-150 is an F-150 is an F-150. I'm sure the Ecoboost will do better than a v8 just because turbocharged engines are always a little more thermally efficient than N/A engines, but as for 21 mpg in combo driving? I'll wait to see. The Ram 1500 (310 HP 4.7) that I drive at times gets a solid 15 combo driving, and between 19 and 22 highway (depending on wind and how much the A/C has to run). Getting 17+ with an Ecoboost in combo driving is already a pretty significant gain over a v8, so I wouldn't expect another 4 mpg necessarily.

Actually where I'd really expect a turbo engine's gas mileage to shine is in towing, where the turbos are consistently working hard and the thermal efficiency gain is greater. IF a v8 gets 12 towing a load, an Ecoboost might get 15+ towing the same load. Of course that's also where I'd expect a small turbo engine to have shorter life than a bigger N/A engine, but I'm betting Ford got that part right and beefed the internals enough to take it.

 

[Clarence_Iba]

It's really 5w30 and not 5w-20 now?

 

[rossn2]

In the V-6 Turbo yes 5w30....the other engines use 5w-20...

If i could figure out how to enter pics of truck I would...

 

[MNgopher]

You do realize that you are geting fuel mileage above the EPA rating already, right? The EPA numbers on a F150 4x4 with the Ecoboost are 15 mpg city, 21 mpg highway, and 17 mpg combined.

Unless you are only driving at 55mph on the freeway all the time, I'd say you are already getting about the best you can expect. At nearly 18 mpg for a full size truck in combo driving, that's pretty good when you compare it to what the V8's typically do (my old one averaged 14.9 mpg long term, jury's still out on my new to me one...)

 

[rossn2]

Can't run 55 mph on highway or I'd get run over...lol

 

[A_Harman]

I wouldn't expect any better fuel economy when towing than with a V8. They have to inject a lot of excess fuel to control EGT's to make life easy for the turbos and cats.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I wouldn't expect any better fuel economy when towing than with a V8. They have to inject a lot of excess fuel to control EGT's to make life easy for the turbos and cats.


Possibly. Or they might do it with the variable cam timing with potentially less reduction in efficiency (basically using exhaust gas reversion to reduce combustion temperatures- EGR on steroids). Turbocharged spark-ignition engines don't get as much efficiency gain as diesels, but they can still come out ahead.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It still takes 300 foot pounds of gas to make 300 foot pounds of torque.

There's no magic in E-B motors. We have 2 in the family now and they consistently return poor mileage IMO. Great power, very smooth and quiet, etc., but if you drive it briskly it gets V-8 mileage.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I sure the Pennzoil Platinum 10w30 is even cleaner than the 5w. Less VII - Less gum and varnish..


viscosity improvers are not the same now as they were 20 years ago. You insist on repeating this misinformation ad nauseum.

Using your own standard mentioned with respect to oil's start-up flow, do you have any verifiable data to demonstrate that VII's currently used contribute to gum and varnish? Because personally I don't believe it for a second, and have seen no evidence of it. Repeating something a million times doesn't make it so.

 

[NateDN10]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It still takes 300 foot pounds of gas to make 300 foot pounds of torque.

That is silly. First, "foot pounds of gas" doesn't make any sense. Second, efficiency can vary widely. As an extreme example, a rich-running engine will make less power and use more gas than a correctly tuned one.

Theoretically, a turbocharged engine can recover some of the energy in the exhaust stream to do useful work and thus increase efficiency. In reality, there may be other mitigating factors such as the need to run rich so as not to melt the turbo.

 

[ammolab]

Originally Posted By: NateDN10

Theoretically, a turbocharged engine can recover some of the energy in the exhaust stream to do useful work and thus increase efficiency. In reality, there may be other mitigating factors such as the need to run rich so as not to melt the turbo.


The energy recovered from the exhaust in a turbocharged engine does not drive the wheels...it just crams more fuel and air into the engine. Turbo engines get better mileage because they are smaller displacement Air/Fuel pumps when the vehicle is driven "off boost".

 

[maersk]

A 200 HP naturally aspirated engine will be more fuel efficient than a 200 HP turbocharged engine, when run constantly at 180~200 HP. The turboed engine is more efficient when run at a small fraction of peak power.

Reasons include:

- better cylinder volume to surface ratio promoting less heat loss
- compression ratio, likely lower on the turboed engine
- no energy lost driving a turbocharger (that energy isn't free, it's paid in full in increased backpressure)
- possibly higher rpm range for the same power on the turbo engine (higher air and oil pumping losses, reciprocating mass inertial losses, etc.)

 

[kkreit01]

Sounds fun. Are their other filter equivalents yet? I would have used 5w30 myself.