Why are people bashing Ecoboost?

[acdii]

I surf a bit and every so often come across someone bad mouthing the Ecoboost engines. To date, other than the brief instance of possible fires, which Ford quickly resolved, I have heard of no troubles with the Ecoboost. The one thing about the EB is, if you drive it hard, it will suck gas through a firehose, but drive it lightly and they are economical. Lets face it, the pulling power of a big block V8 in an F150 that gets 24 MPG highway is nothing to laugh at.

 

Has anyone heard any reason why the bad mouthing?

[FusionDiffusion]

Because it's "new" technology. People have a tendency to hate/make fun of new things until they learn to accept them. They hear turbo and think "bad idea" because they believe the turbo is going to break or blow the motor before you hit 100k. It probably comes from the bad rep turbos got in the 80's and early 90's because they were associated with poor reliability. These people don't usually realize how the EcoBoost turbos are vastly different than the turbos of the past (smaller, robust liquid cooling, etc) and how they should be just as reliable as any other Ford engine.

 

I've noticed a similar disdain for electric cars by the general public. They tend to believe all kinds of myths and if you tell them otherwise you're a liberal eco hippie.

 

In a more specific population there has been some disappointment because it is a lot harder to achieve rated milage with a GTDI unless you drive it very carefully.

 

I predict the negativity will calm down in a few more years when use of GTDI is widespread and there are people with 100k+ miles on their EcoBoost engines with no problems.

[acdii]

Already found a few used MKT/Flex with near 100K on their EB engines. Be interesting to see how long they last before the intakes gum up. That was the one bad side of GDI, no fuel to wash down the back side of the intakes. Apparently Ford figured out a way around that.

[Goodburbon]

I badmouth because they are inconsistent. I had 2 identical F-150's. One chokes and bogs in wet weather, the other does not. One gets 15mpg average while the other got 19. One was 1 full second slower 0-60.

 

In summation. One truck has less efficiency, less power, less reliability, and FORD's answer. "I guess you got a good one"

 

I LOVE the boost, but the eco just isn't there, and I'm on my 3rd ecoboost vehicle. You can't continue to sell a truck that gets "up to" 23mpg "highway" that gets 16-18 consistently on actual highways and NOT suffer some in your reputation.

 

 

 

.

[acdii]

I test drove a 2010 MKT EB, got 24 MPG mixed city Highway.

[Waldo]

The people who have always said "there's no replacement for displacement" are not yet willing to admit defeat.

[acdii]

The people who have always said "there's no replacement for displacement" are not yet willing to admit defeat.

True, Very True! Years ago it was said running a Gas engine in an RC plane would need a very big plane. Not anymore. They have Gasoline engines now in the 17CC range, and I believe a 10CC is about to come out. Technology works wonders these days. A 20CC gas engine has the equivalent output of a 1.20 4 stroke glow motor, yet burns half as much fuel, 1/4 that of an equivalent 2 stroke, and the weight is about the same including the electronic ignition, and battery pack. Smaller package, more power, yep.

[ctrcbob]

In my "younger" days (when I was a kid), I remember the engines I had for my models were OhTwoSevens. (Don't remember of that was 0.27 or 0.027). What would that be in cc's?

[FusionDiffusion]

In my "younger" days (when I was a kid), I remember the engines I had for my models were OhTwoSevens. (Don't remember of that was 0.27 or 0.027). What would that be in cc's?

 

0.27 cubic inches = 4.4 cubic centimeters. 0.027 cubic inch would be a very tiny (thumb size) engine.

[Ronzo66]

I just stepped out of a 2011 Taurus w/ 3.5l and into fusion 1.6l EB (company cars). This engine is way overhyped. After 5k miles on fusion, the mileage is still poor. It is rated for 36 on highway and I've done that with a strong tailwind traveling at a constant 70mph one time only. On average I'm getting 31mpg vs about 28-29 in the Taurus under the same conditions and driving styles on the highway. City isn't much better and is probably worse because I have to dip into the throttle more to motivate it to do anything.

 

This engine has to work harder at a higher rpm compared to the 3.5l v6. The EB is loud and course and sounds like a tractor while the non boosted six cylinder was much smoother with a solid engine note. Might be the gearing in the fusion but then that defeats the purpose of a small displacement boosted engine. So, in my opinion there isn't a substitute for cubic inches.

 

 

I believe the accord with v6 has better mileage than fusion with 2.0l EB. Granted the Honda weighs less.

 

I purposely waited 2 weeks before I picked up my new car at the dealer because I just knew this thing was crap. Of course it was held up in Mexico for an extra 4 weeks due to engine fires........

 

At least the stereo sounds better than the Taurus.

[flawless_detail]

I hear most americans bashing them because they arent built in america. Whether they are or arent I dont know but it's what I've seen.

[DuratorqSupporter]

I surf a bit and every so often come across someone bad mouthing the Ecoboost engines. To date, other than the brief instance of possible fires, which Ford quickly resolved, I have heard of no troubles with the Ecoboost. The one thing about the EB is, if you drive it hard, it will suck gas through a firehose, but drive it lightly and they are economical. Lets face it, the pulling power of a big block V8 in an F150 that gets 24 MPG highway is nothing to laugh at.

 

Has anyone heard any reason why the bad mouthing?

 

Depending on the engine and intended application, a lot of potential customers have rightfully expressed concern about the ability of the engine in very specific circumstances. I think EB motors are absolutely great, they give you power when you want/need and fuel economy when you don't particularly care about power. That being said, there have been documented issues with a few of the ecoboost motors, most of them surrounding the 3.5L EB motor in the F-150. The issue, imho, is that the 3.5 EB does have the power of a v8, but the engine is required to operate at a much higher rpm for the torque and hp to pull a load at speed. This means that the engine is working harder, in fact while an engine is operating at peak torque numbers it will actually wear the engine out faster than it would if the engine were operating at redline, not to say that redline is good for the engine either. The 3.5 EB had some reported cases of crankshafts cracking, this was due to the fact that Ford had too long of a service interval for the engine oil. There have been other issues but this is the one that I have seen brought up repeatedly brought up. As long as you swap your engine oil ahead of Ford's service interval, you shouldn't have an issue.

 

The EB motors in pickup trucks are ideal for someone that wants a truck, but doesn't use a truck to its capabilities very often. The motor has guts when you need it and relatively good efficiency when you don't.

 

The fact of the matter is, any EB motor is more complicated than a naturally aspirated engine and complications require you to be a little smarter to make sure they don't snowball into bigger issues. On the plus side EB motors are much more flexible than any of their competitors. Just remember there are 2 sides to every coin. And a lot of people hate on them because they don't usually reach their EPA estimates, but they fail to realize that any boosted motor has the same issue. Boost is fun and addictive but it isn't economical. Stay out of the boost and achieve your fuel economy but you won't enjoy the drive as much.

Edited October 9, 2015 by DuratorqSupporter

[BlackBetty]

People hate them or talk crap bc yes the fuel mileage is better but if you drive it hard it will get poor fuel mileage. People don't understand that.

 

To make X amount of power you need X amount of fuel. It's always the same whether your driving a 4cyl, V6, turbo car, v8 etc.

 

EPA testing is 50mph on a Dyno.. No one will ever get that kind of mileage in the real world. People also seem to forget that too. EPA is a standard that all cars use so you can compare mileage with different cars. There are so ma y variables in the real world they couldn't do a real test like they can in a lab.

 

In a nut shell. People are expecting 30mpg but driving like a pissed off teenager. You can drive a Prius like that and you'll get poor gas mileage too.

[boominup]

We just jumped into a Fusion Titanium with the 2L EB and traded in an 09 Milan Premier with the 3L V6. Strictly around town with stop and go driving and some extended stretches, the Milan could never give me better than 16-18 MPG and highway driving on long trips would range about 23-25 MPG. I loved the V6 but it seems that economy could have been better. With the Fusion our 1st tankful gave us 28 MPG and today my wife had to drive to CT from So Maine about 200 miles and she called and said the mileage meter was showing 32.7 MPG! Now I'm a believer because the V6 was rated at 240 HP and the EB is rated at 241 HP!!! And believe it or not but the EB feels a bit snappier on takeoff to midrange! Performance testing showed it at 0-60 in 6.7 seconds! Quick enough for me!! I was never a big fan of 4 cyl engines in larger cars but now??? I'm all smiles!

 

After some closer looking I came to realize that my 3 L Milan had 220 HP, not 240 like I 1st reported. Now I also realize why the Fusion feels peppier than the Milan. But I really am enjoying the extra mileage we are getting even with the 20 extra HP! Lovin it so far!!

Edited May 17, 2016 by boominup