(Part 1)
Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 FX2 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, Part 1 - PickupTrucks.com News

(Part 2)
Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 FX2 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, Part 2 - PickupTrucks.com News


The Ecoboost seemed to do pretty well, but I gotta admit I am disapointed in its towing MPG. They only managed 7.2mpg avg's with it. Seems like a decent engine though, Unloaded MPG's were more acceptable and about what I expected from it. But still not right for me. The 5.0L is my pick of the litter.

Anyway hope ya'll enjoy the read.

 

I have driven much of that route, especially 163 out of Laughlin, and I can tell you it is a tough climb. During the summer it is not unusual to see multiple vehicles broken on the side of the road. It is also a hill that Ford uses to test tow vehicles on a daily basis. The Ford test track is in Yucca, Az. Not far from the "big hill".

I would like to know how the ecoboost would have done, had premium fuel been used during the most extreme portions of the route. Maybe that would have made some difference in fuel economy.

I predict that not to far in the future, the v6 will be the norm for most light duty trucks on the road. With CAFE standards continuing to climb, the auto makers don't really have a choice.

So, I will be taking really good care of my truck, and hanging on to the old v8 as long as I can.

 

I agree with you for the most part...But I don't think V8 will be completely dead in the future. I read an article recently that said Ford still has big plans for future V8's, But Ford is speculating they will be engines more akin to the 5.0L V8 and not so much the 6.2L V8. If I can find the article again I'll repost it here for you.

Turbo'd V6's might become more the norm, but I suspect Ford will still offer a V8 option such as the 5.0L.

 

I'll be happy if I can get the same unloaded fuel mileage with mine as they got.
I seldom tow and never tow anything heavy so the crappy towing mileage doesn't matter to me.By not towing, I don't really need the 36 gallon tank either.I already can't afford to fill the 36 gallon tank in the Bronco.

 

This article suggests what I've suspected after a few test drives in both the 5.0 & EB, and that is the EB has to work harder under certain conditions (obviously towing, but really anytime those turbos spool up). When it does, the MPG hit is more significant than a 5.0 under similar conditions. I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out which engine would be better in a truck that will be lifted (4-6" w/ 35s), and I'm not expecting any tests to come out to help me decide that From what I'm seeing with the EB so far in these tests, my concern is that the EB will have to work harder in a lifted truck vs the 5.0, but the highter torque may be a plus in this use case, so it's a tough call overall.

 

One more comment, this article confirms that the small gas tank in the EB is a weakness for those who are going to use the truck to tow no matter how frequently. Some may go out and install a larger tank like the SD guys are doing (short bed SDs come with a small tank as well), but it would only make sense to make the 36 gallon tank an option. I would go for 36 myself regardless of towing frequently. Fewer trips to the station is a good thing.

 

I'm simply fricken impressed with the unloaded MPG's! That speaks volumes for a person who lives in a fairly flat area.

 

Filled mine up this evening, reset the guage and went from Ft. Pierce, Fl to Stewart, Fl on Indian river Dr. speed limit 35-45 for approx 25 miles upon arrival in Steward average MPGs was at 27. Was as high as 28 but the last few miles was alot of traffic and some stop and go. Will post a pic of the dash showing this asap.