Small Turbo Engines Don't Deliver

Relative to gas engines, I think most would agree with that even though manufacturers continue with the hard sell these days. Consumer Reports gives their assessment.

In summary of CR results. Smaller displacement turbo engines are slower and have less fuel economy. Gotta wonder what the manufacturers were smoking when they rolled out this path.

Interesting the 3.5L Ecoboost F150 is 0.1 sec faster than the 5.0L (0 to 60mph) with essentially the same fuel economy.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html?EXTKEY=I93YT01&CMP=OTC-YUTBE

PUTC did a test of two EcoBoost trucks, empty and pulling a 9k trailer. The empty truck ran 6.8 0 - 60 and got and average over 2k miles of driving of 21 mpg. Using CR as a basis for any conclusion would be a worthless exercise to me. Their scientific methods lack science.

I hear you but in my mind PUTC ain't much better. Different test conditions would give different results and apply across the board. Some like to do slow rolling starts for 0-60mph times. It looked like one CR guy is an automotive engineer which has to trump an online blogger. Of course real world driving conditions are what matter which includes driving at real freeway speeds.

I recall the 2010 PUTC half-ton tow compare had the ram losing to the ecoboost by only 3 secs over the full 3.5 mile Davis Dam hill climb. And that's knowing the ecoboost gets a sizable (11.9 sec) jump at the start. Something seems rotten in Denmark there.

When someone with real credibility has a real comparison I'll start to take notice. CR isn't the one with credibility. The EcoBoost came out in 2011, so I don't think it beat the Ram in 2010.

Good point. The 2010 tow was Ford's durability test engine put back in a F150. The review was published in Dec 2010 so it was sometime before then.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/12/ford-f-150-ecoboost-v-6-beats-v-8-competition-in-dam-challenge.html

I don't drag race when pulling a trailer, so some of that testing doesn't mean much. A test showing how well a truck can maintain speed on a hill would be more meaningful.

I only tow occasionally and commute more often, so an EcoBoost would likely make more sense than a 6.2 or 3/4 ton truck. A 5.0L vs an EcoBoost would be more of a comparison for me and the added punch when I need it and the FE when I'm commuting might be worth the added cost. I just don't buy anything based on CR opinions as they often bias their results to suit the point they want to make.

toyboxrv wrote:

I don't drag race when pulling a trailer, so some of that testing doesn't mean much. A test showing how well a truck can maintain speed on a hill would be more meaningful.

That would be a good test for towing.

I pulled the setup in my sig pic over Raton Pass and LaVeta Pass in Colorado last year. Bed of the truck was loaded down too. 3 adults in the cab. It flat out embarrassed any Hemi rig I've had in the past pulling similar loads on the same roads, and it got markedly better mileage doing it.

I set my cruise at the bottom of Raton Pass at 65mph and had to turn it off before I got to the top. It held that speed with no problem at all. I cut it off to keep from running everyone else off the road.

I just wish it sounded like a truck instead of an Accord doing it though.