Just a Reminder

[sgtsandman]

All i know is when i go to buy a 2011+ F150 as my next fullsize im getting the 5.0.

Given a choice, I would have done the same with the FX4. I know a couple people with some F150s with ecoboosts in them that have been fine so far and they like them. I would still prefer a proven, non-force fed engine. Preferably one with a proven track record of reliability like the 5.0.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Given a choice, I would have done the same with the FX4. I know a couple people with some F150s with ecoboosts in them that have been fine so far and they like them. I would still prefer a proven, non-force fed engine. Preferably one with a proven track record of reliability like the 5.0.

I test drove an EB and i dont really see the hype.

The 5.0 ran just as hard (atleast off the line, the EB mighta been a bit stronger 45-75), and sounded so much sweeter.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yet to be proven. So far, the engines aren't doing a repeat of the 80's where engines and turbos were failing left and right. I'm still inclined to think a force fed engine isn't going to be as reliable as a naturally aspirated one. Maybe they finally figured everything out and they will hold up just as well as or better than what we've had to this point.

The world is not yet ready for Rusty to get an Ecoboost...

Given a choice, I would have done the same with the FX4. I know a couple people with some F150s with ecoboosts in them that have been fine so far and they like them. I would still prefer a proven, non-force fed engine. Preferably one with a proven track record of reliability like the 5.0.

I would be all over a 5.0 Ranger...

 

[Grumpaw]

Wait... there are OTHER forums on the internet?!

Oh yeah....even one's dedicated to "Chowdah", both New England and Manhattan.

Grumpaw

 

[sgtsandman]

I test drove an EB and i dont really see the hype.

The 5.0 ran just as hard (atleast off the line, the EB mighta been a bit stronger 45-75), and sounded so much sweeter.

One thing that has been echoed by people with ecoboosts and do work with them, you are either in eco or boost and your fuel mileage will reflect it. If you do a lot of work with your truck, get the right naturally aspirated engine for what you want to do or get a diesel.

 

[Dirtman]

My moms new edge with the EcoBoost is slower and gets worse mileage than the old mkx with the naturally aspirated v6... granted the v6 was nearly twice the size (3.7 vs 2.0) but still. EcoBoost don't fix everything.

 

[sgtsandman]

My moms new edge with the EcoBoost is slower and gets worse mileage than the old mkx with the naturally aspirated v6... granted the v6 was nearly twice the size (3.7 vs 2.0) but still. EcoBoost don't fix everything.

Ecoboost is one of Ford's answer to the overall fleet fuel mileage numbers the government imposes on vehicle manufacturers. They are a mixed bag for the end user. In my FX4, it was a nice power gain. I'm sure that isn't the same result across the board with every product line. The gas mileage is higher, which is nice (22 mpg overall vs 17 mpg). For example; driving to Skykesville, PA, Stroudsburg, PA, and back. I had to fuel up one less time with a tank one gallon smaller on the FX4 versus the same trip done with the XLT that has a 19 gallon tank.

Now if I was hauling a load or pulling a trailer with both on the same trip, the results might be different. I don't know if I'll ever get an opportunity to test that out or not (same course, same load, same trip). I'm not going to do it for experimentation. I need a real reason to make a trip like that, especially multiple times.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Gotta pay to play. If you need 400hp you are going to feed 400hp.

But with an Ecoboost if you don’t need 400hp all the time you don’t have to feed 400hp all the time.

 

[Dirtman]

That'd be great if the 2.0 ecoboost could make 400hp... I dont even think it makes 250. The 3.7 in the old mkx made 305hp and got 18mpg. The ecoboost in the edge is getting 17mpg. It's just a loose loose combo in a heavy suv. They offer the 2.7 EcoBoost in the edge st which is probably a decent fit but they wanted almost 10 grand more for it.

 

[sgtsandman]

Gotta pay to play. If you need 400hp you are going to feed 400hp.

But with an Ecoboost if you don’t need 400hp all the time you don’t have to feed 400hp all the time.

Just to be clear on my comments. I don't think that you think it's a complaint session on my part. I know what I have and what I'm getting into.

Someone down the line might not and should know the pluses and minuses to each type of engine. I've done stuff on the 2011 that hurt the highway mpg and knew that ahead of time, plus I knew it wasn't going to be a great gas mileage vehicle to begin with when I bought it. It's a truck. You get a bigger V-6 engine in a 4X4 truck, you aren't gonna see 30 mpg, period.

With the ecoboost, I'm sure we'll be seeing comments, questions, and concerns in the future about their truck all of a sudden getting horrible mileage after they loaded the bed full of firewood or hooked a trailer on the back but have been getting 20ish mpg before that. I'm just going on record to make sure it's clear, you are either going to get great gas mileage when you are traveling light or there is going to be a significant drop when you are hauling a load. One doesn't get something for nothing. Me personally, I'm going to be very curious what those numbers might be once I get to run the thing through the wringer. I need to stock up on firewood since I couldn't do it this year and there is the family camping trips with all the gear, boats, clothes, and food that normally were handled by my CR-V in the past (I beat the crap out of that thing and it took it like a champ). Being that I'm one of the first ones to have a 2019, I'll be posting about my experiences with it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Either one is going to be better then feeding a 460.

What i liked about the 5.0 is it "felt" more familiar. You hit the throttle, the motor rumbles, your ass goes back into the seat, and it goes.

Just like my 460.

The eco was put the throttle down, it kinda moved, then just as the turbos started working it shifted and was back to blah.

 

[sgtsandman]

If you are going for sound, Ecoboost is definitely not going to give you that V-8 rumble. V-6 isn't bad. Depending on the plumbing, they can still sound pretty good. A four cylinder, is well, just going to sound like a four cylinder. Definitely a loss in that department.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If you are going for sound, Ecoboost is definitely not going to give you that V-8 rumble. V-6 isn't bad. Depending on the plumbing, they can still sound pretty good. A four cylinder, is well, just going to sound like a four cylinder. Definitely a loss in that department.

It aint just the sound.

Its the powerband in general. The 5.0 feels more like the old engines...the eco..not so much.

 

[sgtsandman]

It aint just the sound.

Its the powerband in general. The 5.0 feels more like the old engines...the eco..not so much.

There is a whole range of experiences with a V-8 that I'm not gifted enough to put to paper. There is a reason the phrase "There is no replacement for displacement" exists.

 

[Uncle Gump]

I'll take 300 ponies of ecoboost please... why be greedy?

To get back on subject...

If you build it... they will come

If you build it right... they will stay

When they stay... you build a community

Build a strong community... they will keep coming...

Lots to look forward too in Ranger-land

There is about a metric shit ton of 2019 Ranger Information and unknowns since the launch. About the time that gets close to figured out... Here is another New Ranger. While they're at it... lets have a New Bronco in the middle that shares some architecture with the yet to be seen Ranger.

What fun we will have!

New life for TRS... no reason it shouldn't remain on top of the heap.