Ecoboost mileage doesn't add up
 

I can't figure this out and after a year it hit me. The ecoboost is 3.5l. The 3.7l is obviously a large engine. Yet the smaller engine mileage is listed at 1mpg less. It makes sense that the mileage is not figured by a lead-foot kicking in boost, so what is causing this direct injected gas-sipping engine to get less mileage than it's big brother 3.7?

I'm not surprised that the engine making 302 hp and 278 lb. ft. torque gets better gas mileage that the engine making 365 hp and 420 lb. ft.torque.

That isn't real well thought out because that is true at full throttle. Everyone knows epa mileage is done with the gentlest of foot. That's why their mileage is always higher than most people actually get.

I don't know if you get paid for the nonsense, but you should. Even you should realize how valid my point is and how irrelevant maximum power is in this issue.

You are a moron




:thumbsup::banana::roflol::eek::coffee:

So are you saying the EPA's gentlest of foot never got into the boost during their testing? If they did their is your answer.
I think you get paid for this. Why else would 99% of your posts be crapping on Ecoboost threads when you have never owned one? I would think a 5.0 owner would contribute to a 5.0 thread once in a while.

I'll just leave this here

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

Nassty,

I often contribute to 5.0 threads. 5.0 threads do not contain nearly the number of problems that the eco threads do. When ever someone has a legitimate problems the same people show up to change the subject, make personal attacks and call the problem "rare". It's pretty obvious.

I do agree with you that when the epa testing is done for mileage, they never get into the boost--you probably already know that.

...and I'll just leave this here - may end up being prophetic...

https://www.f150online.com/forums/5042078-post40.html

:coffee:

MGD

Okay... enough.

I've seen enough reported posts as a result of simple posting and it WILL stop. The next overall derogatory comment - as determined by me or by my staff - will result in a vacation from the site. I'm sick of the immature nonsense.

Any questions? Contact me... otherwise, stay on topic and stop the personal IMMATURE attacks.

-Rockpick
f150online.com Administrator

Back on track, I am okay if someone can point out why this is flawed or explain what is actually going on. I have yet to see or hear that.

RP long time no see, how have you been?

Again

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

The EPA doesn't determine mileage by pressing the gas like there is a baby kitten underneath the pedal, they actually have to get up to a certain speed in a certain amount of time, which heaven forbid, may involve getting into boost.

That's a good point. Do you think they are getting into the boost then? What speed do they have to get up to and how fast?

Maybe cam timing has something to do with it.

Maybe the normally aspirated motor's higher compression ratio makes it more efficient at light throttle.

Maybe the EPA testing is flawed.

Maybe the 3.7 mpg was rounded up by the EPA (xx.6) and the Ecobooost was rounded down (xx.4), and the difference was less than 0.2 mpg.

Sounds like definitive maybes to me. As to the compression ratio, I thought that was so when the turbos kicked in and raised the compression ratio, it wouldn't get to high in the eco and cause engine knock.

Why do you think the cam timing matters?

As to the EPA testing being flawed, that sounds really weak. Why even do it?

As to your rounding point, that sounds a lot like the previous weak argument.