I have an Ecoboost with the 3.55s and factory 20" in about the heaviest truck you can get from Ford (Platinum w/all the options, 4x4, Supercrew). At 65 I'm knocking mid-20s off all day long. So far on this tank I have gone 96 miles on 5.0 gallons (19.2 MPG). This is with a lot of using the remote start, a couple of WOT runs through the middle of 3rd, a little bit of stop and go and freeway driving between 65-80 depending on traffic.

 

Which truck doesn't?
The rules haven't changed with the Eco...go fast or pull and you are gonna burn fuel....there is no magic here!

My Eco with 3.73s is running around 1800 rpm at 65.....

 

I hear ya. I just thought maybe it was the turbos starting to build boost around the 70mph is when it really starts drinking the fuel. I don't know just going off what others have posted since I don't have one.
As long as I don't hit right at 2K RPM I can get decent mpg's with the 5.4.. Is that true for the ECO as well?

 

21.5mpg last tank...4000miles on truck now, it loosening now...

 

turbos wont build boost unless they see a load. However a heavy rolling brick is a load at 70+

 

I have the exact same truck as Wookie. I only have 1500 miles on it but am not impressed with my 15.4 mpg average so far. I know it isn't broken it yet but come on. Seeing way to many people on here getting 20's. I baby it and do about 70% highway. I am at sea level but that shouldn't make me lose 25% fuel efficiency.

 

Two things that make the difference.

1. Watch the green meter! Changing to this screen helped me pick up a few MPG.

2. Give it more time. It takes a few thousand (4-5) miles to loosen this motor up. I have almost 8000 on mine now and it seems to still be climbing a bit more.

 

The same should hold true for just about all engines.

I don't have an EcoBoost but I have had a couple supercharged F150's which I believe would work on the same premis. Boost, or pressure, isn't just a product of rpm. Demand plays a much bigger part. If you are going 70mph at 2k rpm, you aren't going to be creating any boost, and will probably be in vacuum. It's not untill you hit an incline or need to rapidly accelerate that you are going to create pressure to force feed air into the engine.

I found with my supercharged F150s, that I could actually achieve better fuel economy with the supercharger because even if there wasn't any pressure being created (low demand) the engine wouldn't have to "suck in" combustion air as hard because the mechanics of the supercharger are aiding it into the engine.

After having had a couple force fed F150s, I'm big fan of forced induction. It's more often than not thought of as a power adder, which it really is. It is also a good way to allow your engine to work more efficiently. It's just kind of tough to drive a force fed vehicle conservitively when you have that much power on tap.

 

I thought about doing forced induction on my truck too. Just to try to help my mpg's up a bit but after reading that it requires premium fuel I turned down the idea quickly.
I wanted to do the sts turbo setup. I thought that would be a better route, but I'm not a big fan of having it mounted under the truck, especially at a 4K dollar price tag either.

It would be cool if Ford could throw the Ranger back in the mix or come out with a new F-100 or something.

 

Amen on that! This is a very large truck and will do some work... It is not a
ecocar.... It does get decent fuel economy when driven nice and it will pull the RV when the need arises. I don't believe it is reasonable to think you can have it all in one package.. It's all about compromise!

 

I just got mine it only has 600 miles on it but I do city driving mostly and I am getting high 15s on first tank, Same on the second tank, but I try to drive with a light foot, It does better than the tahoe I had It would run on 4 cylinders at speed. My average would be 14 in that with 50000 miles on it.

 

The EB is by far the best of both worlds as far as power and economy. It's a small displacement motor doing big things. 3.5L, 365hp, 420tq, 6k lb truck, off idle performance, can tow upwards of 11k lbs, and returns 20+ mpgs when driven reasonably. I dare anyone to find another gas motor that can compete in all aspects of the 3.5 EB. To put it simply, there isn't one.

To put the F150 on a diet would mean cutting a lot of corners in quality for the price paid. The use of hightech, lightweight, strong materials would make the price of the truck climb astronomically and I seriously doubt that if it were to happen, Ford would detune their engines to get optimal economy. they would rely on the gains the weight reduction created in itself. To put a less powerfull engine in a truck this size and expect higher mpgs would be urinating in wind. There are too many aspect that come into play when considering economy: aerodynamics, power to weight ratio, rolling resistance, etc.

I'm sure as technology gets better and more obtainable, so will the economy and strength of the internal combustion engine. Ford just so happened to take a gamble with EcoBoost and its paying off quite well. Right now it just doesn't get any better.

just my .02

 

Edit: double post

 

^^^^ well said sir^^^^

 

Thanks now I have to figure out why my Android keeps double posting! Lol