My new Ecco Boost
#31
02-21-2011, 03:29 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Tx
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except the Taco only gets 18mpg... 
Plus it is a lot smaller then the full size trucks, not just an inch or two.
My wife's car is a '07 4Runner. I REALLY like the way it drives. I have looked long and hard at getting a Taco, and still kind of want to. But with three kids, it is barely big enough.
My old 97 F150 was much bigger then the 4Runner/Taco, but smaller, and 1000 lbs lighter then the current F150. (my 2wd v6 Scab weighed @ 4060, new v6 Scabs list at 5100) Build me a truck the size of my old '97, drop in the new, modern fuel efficient motors and transmissions, (3.7+6r80) and I bet it would drop a EPA of 19-25 and a TRUE combined of 22-23, in an Scab/Screw.
Plus it is a lot smaller then the full size trucks, not just an inch or two.My wife's car is a '07 4Runner. I REALLY like the way it drives. I have looked long and hard at getting a Taco, and still kind of want to. But with three kids, it is barely big enough.
My old 97 F150 was much bigger then the 4Runner/Taco, but smaller, and 1000 lbs lighter then the current F150. (my 2wd v6 Scab weighed @ 4060, new v6 Scabs list at 5100) Build me a truck the size of my old '97, drop in the new, modern fuel efficient motors and transmissions, (3.7+6r80) and I bet it would drop a EPA of 19-25 and a TRUE combined of 22-23, in an Scab/Screw.
#33
02-21-2011, 08:34 PM
My Yoda only gets 18. I have tracked it with the fuely application and have only averaged 18.4 over 28k miles. This is miles traveled vs gallons used.
It is also 1/2 the size of the F150 inside, which is why I am now looking at the F150. I should have kept my Superduty.
It is also 1/2 the size of the F150 inside, which is why I am now looking at the F150. I should have kept my Superduty.
#34
02-21-2011, 09:08 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orting, Wa.
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old 97 F150 was much bigger then the 4Runner/Taco, but smaller, and 1000 lbs lighter then the current F150. (my 2wd v6 Scab weighed @ 4060, new v6 Scabs list at 5100) Build me a truck the size of my old '97, drop in the new, modern fuel efficient motors and transmissions, (3.7+6r80) and I bet it would drop a EPA of 19-25 and a TRUE combined of 22-23, in an Scab/Screw.
I see what your sayin here but I think they had to beef em up all around to get the tow ratings up to where they are. You wouldn't want to tow 9-10K trailer with a 4K truck.
#35
02-21-2011, 10:24 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, larger and heavier hurts mpg, which will cost sales every time gas goes up, and with no new Ranger, Ford will miss sales.
I rarely tow, so I'd like to see the F150 at 4,000 - 4,500 lbs and rated to tow 6,000 lbs+-. Ford can sell an entry level F250 in the same price range as an F150 XLT for people who need to tow 8k+.
#36
02-21-2011, 11:43 PM
Good point about the advertised tow ratings. I'm sure that's a factor in why the F150 has gotten bigger.
Unfortunately, larger and heavier hurts mpg, which will cost sales every time gas goes up, and with no new Ranger, Ford will miss sales.
I rarely tow, so I'd like to see the F150 at 4,000 - 4,500 lbs and rated to tow 6,000 lbs+-. Ford can sell an entry level F250 in the same price range as an F150 XLT for people who need to tow 8k+.
Unfortunately, larger and heavier hurts mpg, which will cost sales every time gas goes up, and with no new Ranger, Ford will miss sales.
I rarely tow, so I'd like to see the F150 at 4,000 - 4,500 lbs and rated to tow 6,000 lbs+-. Ford can sell an entry level F250 in the same price range as an F150 XLT for people who need to tow 8k+.
I was excited when the first F-100 rumors started some years ago. I do not need a super truck that can pull the earth off its axis. I have friends with SDs and Durajunks if I needed to borrow something that big. I need something that will haul my bass boat on the weekends and 4-5 people during the week and get decent mileage. The Explorer SportTrac is close to what I NEED but is hamstrung by the name. No body will rent a trailer to an Explorer due to the Firestone fiasco and it is priced the same as an F-150 and with the same mileage. Why bother?
For this reason I have a Platinum Ecoboost on order. Sure it only has the 3.55 rear end so the trailer weight is a paltry 9,900 pounds. However, it will do everything I ask of it and do it with style. On those rare chances (I still haven't found) I need something more a case of beer will get me a bigger truck.
The real problem is that it cost almost exactly the same to make a big truck as a little one. So for a few $$$ more the customer can buy something much more capable. What is the incentive to buy a smaller truck other that it is easier to park?
#37
02-22-2011, 02:58 AM
I ordered an EcoBoost the first day they were available and got one of the first off the line, the first in Colorado at least. I ended up taking it for a spin and then leaving it at the dealer and taking my deposit back when I left. It was an FX4 SuperCrew with the 6.5' bed. Great truck, but I just bought a new car while it was on order, so I am waiting another year.
To me, this is the right engine and is a game changer (I hate that saying, It always makes me think of Obama).
It was the quickest truck I have driven since my Lightning. Took it on the Highway and the Comp was reading about 20mpg while crusing, which is pretty good for 3.73 gears on a brand new engine. To me, that kind of mileage is impressive for these pigs, of you can have a lifted 4WD and average high teens for your MPG, that is pretty solid.
The reason I think the 4.4L Diesel (or whatever it is supposed to be now) is a waste of time over the EcoBoost, is that the EcoBoost is a $700.00 premium and relatively easy to maintain. A Diesel in these trucks would cost at least a $4,000.00 premium, if not $5k, plus way more maintenance. Simply not worth it for 2-3mpgs, you would have to drive for 400,000 miles before you could recoupe that difference, plus you may never catch the EB with the fuel premium for Diesel.
All in all, I loved the truck but needed to be disciplined and wait. Will probably order nearly the exact same truck later this year.
To me, this is the right engine and is a game changer (I hate that saying, It always makes me think of Obama).
It was the quickest truck I have driven since my Lightning. Took it on the Highway and the Comp was reading about 20mpg while crusing, which is pretty good for 3.73 gears on a brand new engine. To me, that kind of mileage is impressive for these pigs, of you can have a lifted 4WD and average high teens for your MPG, that is pretty solid.
The reason I think the 4.4L Diesel (or whatever it is supposed to be now) is a waste of time over the EcoBoost, is that the EcoBoost is a $700.00 premium and relatively easy to maintain. A Diesel in these trucks would cost at least a $4,000.00 premium, if not $5k, plus way more maintenance. Simply not worth it for 2-3mpgs, you would have to drive for 400,000 miles before you could recoupe that difference, plus you may never catch the EB with the fuel premium for Diesel.
All in all, I loved the truck but needed to be disciplined and wait. Will probably order nearly the exact same truck later this year.
#38
02-22-2011, 09:08 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Tx
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lot of good points here. Plus, one way or another, all the truck makers are staring at that 30mpg Light Truck Fleet* Cafe standard coming in a few years (2016). The only way they are going to make that goal is to do one of two things - 1 - make the 1/2 ton trucks smaller/lighter, or 2 - make them HEAVIER - push them over the "light truck" weight limit so they are not counted. While I hope for #1, I kind of expect #2.
*I just found out, for CAFE, light trucks counts trucks, suv's mini vans, full size vans, and cross-overs (line the HHR and PT Crusier)
*I just found out, for CAFE, light trucks counts trucks, suv's mini vans, full size vans, and cross-overs (line the HHR and PT Crusier)
#41
02-25-2011, 11:22 AM
I purchased my 3.7 because its fuel economy is supposed to be even better than the EB and it will not be used for towing very often. At first, its fuel economy was horrible. Around town I was getting 13 to 15 and on the highway it was struggling to get 19.
After the first 500 miles it started getting 19 to 20 in town and 22 to 23 on the highway. Seems like the more I drive it, the better it does.
I went from so displeased that I called the Dealer to inquire about undoing the deal to having nothing but smiles and good words in a tank of gas. Hope the original poster of this thread has the same experience.
After the first 500 miles it started getting 19 to 20 in town and 22 to 23 on the highway. Seems like the more I drive it, the better it does.
I went from so displeased that I called the Dealer to inquire about undoing the deal to having nothing but smiles and good words in a tank of gas. Hope the original poster of this thread has the same experience.
#42
03-05-2011, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My new F150 4X4 arrived yesterday Feb 8, 2011. The good--It is so quiet. I love the shift points, 1300-1500 while loafing. Great torque. The steering and handeling are great. I have been waiting for something to come along and give me a better truck than my 2004 Duramax. Now the bad Hmmmm. I left the dealership and drove 70 straight miles, flat road, tail wind, set cruise at 60. The lie-o-meter never showed over 17.2. When I drove the demmo at Fargo before new years, the drivers were telling me they were seeing 29-30. O K. I guessed that this new engine would be a game changer for Ford. I am selling my Ford stock this morning.
Update:
I posted this thread because the day before I picked up my new truck I scoured the internet looking for a buyers first impressions. NOT ONE anywhere. I was upset when I did read the sticker, but I thought, What the Heck I will give it a try. Its been a week and about 500 miles. I do like it very much. My first fill doing the math came up to 18.4 mpg. Going for a trip today and will fill again and see where that puts me. I have had probably 15 new 1/2-3/4 ton trucks. My first fill has usually been about as good as it gets. I laugh when anybody says (especially a salesman) Oh it will get about twice as good of mileage when It gets BROKE IN. Probably not, but gets you off HIS back. I say again- Its not a game changer. I found it interesting that it was only about 700 bucks higher that a standard engine. Game changer would have been thousands higher. I am just trying to be helpful and call it like I see it. Hope I don't hurt anybody else's feelings.
Update:
I posted this thread because the day before I picked up my new truck I scoured the internet looking for a buyers first impressions. NOT ONE anywhere. I was upset when I did read the sticker, but I thought, What the Heck I will give it a try. Its been a week and about 500 miles. I do like it very much. My first fill doing the math came up to 18.4 mpg. Going for a trip today and will fill again and see where that puts me. I have had probably 15 new 1/2-3/4 ton trucks. My first fill has usually been about as good as it gets. I laugh when anybody says (especially a salesman) Oh it will get about twice as good of mileage when It gets BROKE IN. Probably not, but gets you off HIS back. I say again- Its not a game changer. I found it interesting that it was only about 700 bucks higher that a standard engine. Game changer would have been thousands higher. I am just trying to be helpful and call it like I see it. Hope I don't hurt anybody else's feelings.