I've noticed a trend in the ecoboost threads on this forum.

Tons of turbo bashing. There seems to be a lot of guys on here who seem to think that these borg warner turbos won't last very long.

I'm curious to hear why this distrust in turbochargers.

Aren't pretty much all diesel engines made now have turbos as well? I guess I don't know anyone who would rather have the 6.2 gasser instead of the 6.7 turbodiesel on a Superduty.

 

I think the basic theory behind it is that if there are more moving parts, that is more that can break. While I am not particularly critical of turbos myself, I do live in an extreme climate(-50 to -60F) that tests vehicles durability on all fronts, and turbos are indeed one more thing that can fail. On top of that, you can count me in the group of guys that wasn't all that impressed with the eco in comparison to the 5.0. Personal preference I suppose. You could also count me in the group that would take the 6.2L gas motor over the 6.7 diesel. Its just not worth the $8k premium to me. Maybe if I was towing a 15,000lb horse trailer or something, then I would look into it. But for most applications for most people, the 6.2 would do just fine.

 

pretty much how i felt as well.

 

It's a form of buyers remorse. They lash out at the Ecoboost because they realize they chose the inferior engine. Just kidding of course, someone had to stir the pot.

 

While I admit that the ecoboost is one cool motor, I don't think it is worth the extra money unless you need to tow a lot of the time. I have the 5.0 and am very pleased with its performance as a whole. The eco boost doesn't beat it by enough in the mpg factor for me to warrant the price difference. With that being said, I believe it is all up to the person buying the truck and what they want or what they need. I think the engines all perform for what they were designed for and it is up what someone wants.

 

Nassty, what are you getting city before your tires? we have identical trucks besides motors so i'm curious. my first 4 tanks i was getting 16.5 city, now i'm at 15.5 due to a very short commute in traffic.

 

I was getting 16.5 -17mpg, but where I live it's more like "in town" driving not city.There are only 3 stop lights in a 10 mile radius so you don't get stuck in traffic very long and less stop and go traveling. Also with the EB the fuel mileage can be adjusted quite a bit from the gas pedal. My mpg's can vary quite a bit depending on how I drive. I bet my 73 year old dad could get outstanding mileage with my truck.He's in no hurry to get anywhere anymore.

 

so it seems like for in town driving the ecoboost is no more fuel efficient. that's good to know

 

They bash the turbos due to ignorance. They have no experience with them. I have a friend with a 1981 tractor with turbo and the bearing are just NOW starting to go.

 

I'm sure others could get better mpg's than me.Although I try to drive conservatively I usually end up giving in to the temptation to spool up the turbos. It's all good, even if I don't get as many mpg's as I could I still get about 3-4 mpg's more than I did with my 06 5.4 3v and it's a lot more fun to drive.

 

yep, i haven no experience with turbos. i removed my turbo from my 6.0 so i could stay ignorant.

i try to stay out of the throttle but i always end up getting irritated with some slow driver or something. i'm definitely glad with the MPG i am getting though so far. ford did a great job on the new motor line up.

 

$800 (I think) difference for 10% better mileage sounded pretty good to me. It may only be 2 mpg EPA difference, but 2 mpg when we are only talking high teens/low twenties for mpg is a big difference, IMHO of course. It all depends on how much you're driving for this price difference to be offset by gas costs.

As far as towing, unless you need the max tow package, there is no difference, at least in mpg. The 5.0 & 3.5 are both gonna chug gas if you've got a heavy parachute behind you.

I don't really tow much at all, an atv trailer pretty regularly in the winter @ 2000# maybe and I make a wood pellet run once in fall, that one pushes 7000#.

One thing I wish was different about this 3.5 EB, they need to let the turbos whistle a little more, I like that sound, especially in a truck.

 

Terrible comparison, I will let you think about it real hard and get back to me...

Have a more relevant one?

 

I love my ECOboost. If one of the multitude of moving parts breaks I have a warranty that will outlast the time I own the truck. You guys act like this is the first turbo charged engine ever. The truck is so damn fun to drive. 5.0 is a bore, gets worse mpg's and has less power. No Thanks

 

Jntibs, the issue with turbos is that most of the units used on gas engines were oil cooled and coking was a problem. Usually the turbos didn't work after the first 50,000 miles due to the coking and extreme temps. The turbos used on the EB engines are water cooled like those found on diesels. Cooling and long life are not going to be an issue. I'd still recommend to let the engine idle for a minute after hiway driving to cool these units down some before the heat sinks in and the temps go thru the roof. It's pretty much a requirement for large diesels, should be for these.