No ECO in EcoBoost

Ward's Calls Out Ford's EcoBoost Engines For Their Crummy Fuel Economy

Quote :

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case.

Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list.

In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel.

The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.

AutoBlog

The PUTC test back in 2011 drove 2k miles with a 2wd F150 Super Crew and averaged 21. Does sound like it can get good FE. My own 13 Fusion 1.6 EB gets EPA highway numbers frequently and even got 39 on a trip going 60 for 200 miles.

The 3.2L diesel isn't an EB and they complained their 4wd 2.7L didn't get 2wd mileage.

My lifetime MPG in my '13 3.5 EB is 14.9. Not impressed. My wife's 2.0 EB can't get city in mixed driving. Not impressed. Ford is good at marketing and programming the powertrain the pass the EPA mileage certification. The consumer experience and satisfaction side, not so much.

PUTC just got 19+ MPG in mixed driving with the 6.2 8L90E. That's intriguing.

We drove 320 miles, averaged 71mph and returned 46 mpg.

In the Diesel Cruze that is..

Well that's cheatin'

My 5.7 HEMI 8 speed gets better mileage than my 2011 Ecoboost ever did. And it sounds better.

Anything gets better mileage than the EB.

I see a GM 6.2 in your near future

get your checkbook ready for a LTZ or SLT though

A 6.2 with eight speed or GMC Duramax would be nice.  Going to have to live with this depreciating asset for a while.  Least until my financial conscious relents.

I'll live vicariously through you guys next truck purchases before I go off the deep end.  Until then I'll be grumpy.

MY Dmax avg mpg is 16, best highway was 23 !

Pardon my ignorance, but what does EB stand for?

My Dmax was right about the same 15-17 averages. Best I got was 20 mpg driving down the highway at 60 mph.

EB = EcoBoost Ford's marketing label for there turbo charged engines.

joemac wrote:

My Dmax was right about the same 15-17 averages.  Best I got was 20 mpg driving down the highway at 60 mph.

EB = EcoBoost  Ford's marketing label for there turbo charged engines.

After reading more last night this dingbell figured it out, but I did not realize that Eco-Boost meant turbo, thanks for clearing that up.. Man Ive been under a rock !