2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost

Discussion in 'Trucks and Trailers' started by Capemay Eagle, Oct 8, 2010.

  1. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Posts: 207

    Shhhh.... don't give this administration any ideas on how to get more money to spend on BS things.

    I bet there would be a lot fewer fat-ass drivers out there if they were taxed everytime they "weighed in" when they started their trucks.

    The other disappointing thing to me... I have been "hearing" for years that the big three should be coming out with light duty diesel trucks (like a C1500 with a smaller diesel). Honestly, very few companies actually NEED to be running the big guzzlers that they are and could benefit from smaller more efficient diesels... but they have done nothing to this. I like that Ford has placed some emphasis on fuel economy while still keeping their trucks work worthy... now it is just a matter of a couple of years to see how the other two answer this challenge.

    I remember my first car had a GM 3800 series 2 in it making 200HP... I thought that car had lots of power.... and now GM has 312HP V6s running around.... back when I was 16 the Z28 only had 275HP... it brings a smile to my face to see cars advancing so quickly... too bad it didn't happen back when I was paying $0.89 a gallon and could afford to drive something that was "less fuel efficient." :laugh:
     
  2. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 992

    Exactly. If we had a displacement or engine size tax it would 'force' people to put their money down more efficiently, however I can't see it happening as people will rise against the government trying to regulate their freedom of choice.

    The 3.8L V6 is still a fine engine, although outdated when compared to alloy 24V blocks now. Manufacturers mean well but I wouldn't call it as much advancing as it is getting out of hand. The economy will remain in poor condition for some time. Having people buy $80-120K trucks SUVs and the like don't help matters. Yes, they add to the overall cash flow, but it proves that manufacturers can make a $200K truck, and people WILL BUY IT even though the dealer will make $25K and the manufacturer will make a good $25K as well. The GM Tahoe & Yukon were plated as GM's "cash cows" because of this.

    Anyway, pushing high horse out of a small engine is a good idea on paper, and used for automotive marketing purposes to help sales. I'd much rather have a 3800 V6 than say a new 2.0L Turbo Hyundai Sonata (274hp) in a front wheel drive application. I drive 5-6 months in the snow, and a turbo FWD will cause more problems than what it's worth.

    Same goes for the F150 EB, it better come with a standard full time AWD system of sorts, as in 2wd in the winter...it'll barely move. When it does gain traction at low rpms, boost will kick in allowing you to lose traction once again.... Or traction control will cut power nearly entirely which can just as well hamper any forward momentum. Ick. I can't wait for some real world test results!
     
  3. doubleedge

    doubleedge LawnSite Senior Member
    from ND
    Posts: 912

    Why would a turbocharged gasoline engine be different than a diesel engine in this respect? I don't read about this problem with diesel engines. Are you suggesting that the turbo gas engines have more torque off the line and more turbo lag than a diesel engine?
     
  4. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 992

    Diesel would be similar depending on engine management software, driving nanny's (traction control), etc, all play a part if tractability off the line in snow, or on ice. Each manufacturer programs their own computers for the most part. If it's programmed correctly it won't cut more than a small percentage of power so you don't lose momentum, when say trying to climb a hill covered in snow from a stop. The Sprinter van/wagon as a good example of traction control done right. So far it's the only vehicle I've driven (and owned) with a traction control system. Yes, the system can be completely shut off so you can use it on a farm or another area that has a bad mudded road for instance, and not worrying about getting stuck. Not all systems can be shut off.

    As for turbo lag, it's all in the engine management programming and engine parts used in construction of the engine. Most vehicles built in the last few years have virtually eliminated lag, which means you'll have a full onslaught of power and torque when you push the pedal down. If you're used to driving say an older turbo charged engine, the throttle input on a newer vehicle will take some getting used to, and chances are good that your older vehicle doesn't have any electronic nanny's, or traction control aids which can also hamper your forward momentum in some circumstances.

    Most automatics built over the last few years also come with a 'hill holder' feature. It's always on, if you will, so if you take your foot off the brake the vehicle won't roll back. This helps, especially if you can't gain traction and start fish tailing, then chances are decent that you won't go back into the front of another vehicle. Obviously on a slick surface anything is still possible.
     
  5. doubleedge

    doubleedge LawnSite Senior Member
    from ND
    Posts: 912

    So, you are basically saying that your previous comment about a turbo gasoline engine being terrible in winter is false? I am very confident that a high volume consumer vehicle would have a similar or better traction control system than a relatively low volume commercial van.
     
  6. bradseabridge

    bradseabridge LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 720

    All of this is pointless anyway, we are talking about 2-3 months out of the year when you might have traction problems, and that's like 5-7 times out of the year where you would actually drive on bad snowy roads. That's also if you absolutely have too and can't wait until the next day when the roads are clear (assuming most counties live in the 21st century and can get roads clear fairly effectively). IF you still need to drive in the snow and it's slick or deep that's what they make tire chains for.

    I'm not going to base my truck buying decisions off of 2-3 months out of the year or because we MIGHT get snow. Like I said if we get snow too bad for the 4wd then I put the chains on, and I go anywhere and do anything with those on.
     
  7. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Posts: 207

    HA! Way down here it is only that way 1-2 DAYS out of the year.... but 360 is really pretty far north (Canada... aye?) so I can see how it would be of more interest.

    The interesting thing about the Sprinter van... it wasn't "American." It was a Mercedes design sold through Freightliner and then Dodge.... that just means MERCEDES probably has a good nanny for snowy driving... :) too bad they don't make a pick up.
     
  8. bradseabridge

    bradseabridge LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 720

    They do, it's called a UNIMOG look it up. It's my dream truck, portal axles UHH IM DROOLING!!
     
  9. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 992

    Not at all. More power and torque at low rpm make it harder to gain traction in poor weather conditions. Which is why it'd be nice if Ford has it's own AWD 4x4 system like GM and Dodge have for better tractability. LSD is optional on all F150's but the FX4 here in Canada. EB3.5 with open diff and rear wheel drive = no thanks. I'd have better luck with the 5.0L V8 2wd. It comes with an open diff as standard equipment as well. It's at least a cost savings to folks that plan to add a box with tools on the back, etc, where winter traction won't be too bad, but if I wanted storage space for tools, I'd get a cargo van. If anything, Ford should add the 3.7L V6 to the E Series, at the very least.

    Sprinter is only a low volume van in North America. Worldwide there are more variants of the Sprinter on the road than the E series van. They make an excellent buy, used! My 3500 Sprinter cube eats 14L/100km combined city/highway driving. The old and crude but solidly running GMC 3500 cube van that I had before it with the 5.7L engine ran 26L/100km in combined driving. Nearly a 50% savings in fuel costs, longer distances between oil changes (as mine's a 2006; pre 2007 emissions!) puts $10-12K back into my pocket each year. No major problems, just brakes and a few light bulbs over the 212,000kms that's been put on it. The only downside that I'm starting to see is that it's not made for the salt on the roads here. Corrosion is starting already from the pre season spraying. That's one way I can tell it was more biased toward weather in Europe.
     
  10. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Posts: 207

    And so I did..... I was thinking more in lines with "normal" pick ups :laugh:
     

Share This Page