2011 F-150 Ecoboost, I'm tempted

rholbrook

Well-Known Member
Location
Kaysville, Ut

BCGPER

Starting Another Thread
Location
Sunny Arizona
I have a 2010, and I must admit it's a nice truck..

I don't like the idea of an aluminum block, twin turbo, V-6. I don't like the idea of being Ford's crash test dummy either, so I'd never consider a first year run on any new engine. With that said, I'm really wanting that new 6.2 though.
 

phatfoto

Giver of bad advice
Location
Tooele
Ford ran that motor in a couple different trucks in testing including racing it in the Baja 1000. Teardown after 150000 miles or so showed little to no wear, after beating the tar out of this motor. I like the idea of this motor being able to tow 11,000 pounds, and still deliver better mileage than a diesel.
 

Caleb

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverton
My boss just bought one. His computer shows 16.4 MPG. That's not bad for a 400HP gasser.
Hmmm, I would expect better. My Tundra (with a 6" lift and 35" tires) is getting 15.8mpg (corrected for tire size) for around town driving. It's stock with 381HP.
 

Caleb

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverton
what kind of torque is it putting out though? and what are you correcting?

401 ft/lbs. I'm correcting for 35" tires. Stock setup is 32" tires. Everything (My speedo, odometer, etc are all off by 9.375%...typical with lifted vehicles with oversized tires, figured this was common knowledge on a 4wheeling site :)).
 

Will3161

Active Member
Location
Bountiful
True, I suppose your odometer would be off...assuming you didn't regear. I suppose you would get close to the same mpg as the ford if you had stock tires.
 

muleskinner

Well-Known Member
Location
Enoch, UT
Hmmm, I would expect better. My Tundra (with a 6" lift and 35" tires) is getting 15.8mpg (corrected for tire size) for around town driving. It's stock with 381HP.

It only had 1000 miles on it when I looked at it. I'm not sure what he is getting now.
 

Caleb

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverton
It only had 1000 miles on it when I looked at it. I'm not sure what he is getting now.
That makes more sense then. I was going to say, for an engine that's touting great fuel economy, that's not that great. I have heard good things about the new engine though, just nothing first hand from someone that has one.
 

muleskinner

Well-Known Member
Location
Enoch, UT
That makes more sense then. I was going to say, for an engine that's touting great fuel economy, that's not that great. I have heard good things about the new engine though, just nothing first hand from someone that has one.

I guess even the 16MPG sounds good compared to my 460 with 245HP getting 8-10MPG empty. It doesn't tow worth a shit and gets terrible mileage to boot!:rofl:

Good thing I only average 1000 miles a week. If my work didn't just buy me a Titan I'd probably buy a new F150.
 

BCGPER

Starting Another Thread
Location
Sunny Arizona
I'd love to see 16. My 10 Supercrew only averages around 13.5 mpg (lifted, on 35's).

The problem I learned the hard way with this truck is you can't order a truck the way you want it, you can only order different "packages". With everything I wanted, the only gear ratio available were the 3.55's which explains the lack of power and fuel mileage. Of course, I learned this AFTER the truck was being assembled and my wishes were being changed along the line.
 

Caleb

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverton
Yep, I found that out too about not being able to really customize the build. I luckily found a screamin deal on a barely used truck that had all the options I was after (including the options you couldn't get with the other included options from the factory). The Tundra also comes with 4.30 gears with the tow package. So even towing my 8000lb+ travel trailer, it still has plenty of power. Although I plan to reprogram the computer to correct for the larger tires and correct the shift points.
 
Top