The Ecoboost is a good engine but how good is it really?

CAFE requirements make the Ecoboost insufficient despite it's virtues.

Ford is offering the diesel option because the Ecoboost fails to meet CAFE requirements.

Diesels are the answer, eventually everyone will follow suit.

I push diesels here because no one else does.

People like DiM and zvirus fail to accept the reality of the future.

Oh gee, another press release...

The Promaster diesel also has "late availability". Hopefully the Transit will have all engines available at launch. I would only guess that those engines will be replaced by the smaller 3.5 Cyclone and 2.7 EB in a few years, as in the F150.

The 3.2 Duratorque/Powerstroke is a good engine, but how good is it really? Ford is offering the diesel option because many customers demanded it. However, with an expected option price around $4000, it will take just right operator to make a business case for using the more expensive fuel.

Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Jun 6, 2014 11:42:31 AM

I didn't post this one.

It appears zvirus or one of his HEMI persona's are at work again.

@MrKnowitall
Why do you think the Duratorque diesel will be a $4 000 option?

Where did you get that information from, as it is probably incorrect.

I would expect between a $2 500 and $3 000 price premium.

These engines are much cheaper than the V6's. I would even expect these to cost the same as a V8.

I do think the gas engine FE figures are optimistic at best. Even the diesels will not achieve the quoted FE.

Why?

Because they are generally driven by someone who does not own them and they tend to be flogged a little more.

Ram charges $4000 to get the diesel- its a 4cyl, but gets a slightly more expensive trans (probably, since the 6sp auto is dirty cheap). The cost of the engine vs. another is quite small. The SCR aftertreatment is what really hurts the wallet.
Upon further review, the diesel IS about $4k more than the Ecoboost, $6k more than the base V6. Those numbers are from... wait for it: The build your own section of Fordvehicles.com
I do wish it was more difficult to post under another's screen name here.

We already know what the pricees are from the build and price. The diesel is a $5,995. option. People should become informed before they make A$$es out of themselves.

And MRKIA is correct. $4,130.00 over the EcoBoost.

I did post that one.^^^^^

It appears I mistakenly accused zvirus or one of his HEMI friends. My apologies.

I searched and searched for RAM ProMaster fuel economy figures so I could write about it on my website. I found a few forums with people posting about their personal ProMaster fuel economy, and it seems most people are averaging around 20 MPG combined. If that is true, it's got the upper hand on the V6 transit.

@Bafo
Apologies accepted.
On second thought, I must have been living in the future 23 yeras ago, when I had my first diesel and you where driving mams Geo Metro. LOL.

25 mpg on the diesel is not to be expected. On the new Sprinter, most guys are getting 23 max, 21 is more typical. Guys getting above 23 are driving very deliberately economically and monitoring their driving very carefully and going below the highway speed limits. Also the anticipated increase in MPG in Sprinters following break-in have not been seen. The first 2000 miles reflect pretty much what the rest will be like despite everyone assuming an increase.

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/ford-transit-general-discussion/2113-ford-releases-transits-gas-mileage-figures-2.html

The smart money is on the two gas engines. Stick with the that, and everything else is cream cheese.

It will be interesting to see the engine take rate for the transit.
I'm thinking that it will mirror the take rate for the F150 engines except the diesel most likely will slot in at the middle spot like the 5.0.

I'd love an EcoBoost passenger van. I've been waiting for them to be released for years. But I need to tow stuff. The issue is that the cargo van is rated to tow around 7500 pounds max. But anything for passengers is rater for more like 3500-4500 pounds max, even with the same model, drivetrain, and gear. Theres no way the passenger models weigh 2500 pounds more, so why the completely whimpy towing rates??

The much lower towing numbers than the E-Series will probably lead me to the Nissan NV....which is unfortunate because the Transit is more modern, larger, and makes much more impressive power and torque.

It will interesting to see what the FORD 3.2 Power stroke will be like. I'm hoping it will be available in the F150 as well with a Performance improvement to Match Rams 420 Torque Numbers. Regardless the EB3.5 will eat the Ram for lunch but hey, it would be nice to have my cake and eat it.
Now on the cost to build a diesel I'm a little puzzled. The Block in all the EB Ford engines is that the same as the diesels. The rotating assembly has to be as strong considering the Turbo x 2 on any truck app. Why would the cost be that much more? Just wondering!!!

Is the diesel a Volvo OEM?

7500lbs isn't bad for a half ton van if that's a SAE J2807 rating....and I believe it is.

It wouldn't surprise me if the 2016+ 3/4 ton transit could tow 9.5k+ properly equipped.

@papa jim
The 3.2 diesel was developed from the 4 cylinder Duratorque, Ford just added another cylinder.

Nothing to do with Volvo.

@Big Al from Oz
Why doesn't Ford use one of their smaller diesels in the F150? It wouldn't be too difficult to adapt.

Eventually they may have to. I have the feeling that the 2.7l Ecoboost won't quite match the fuel economy of the Ram Ecodiesel.

If they're going to go through all the trouble to get these diesels ready for the Transit, why can't the do the same for the F150?

Why do they call it a 'half ton' when it's capable of carrying 5x that much?

@HEMI MONSTER
The reason is the CAFE footprint and the Transit is already designed to accept the 3.2 diesel, so the Transit is more or less already designed. This is similar to the US Colorado, it isn't hard to adapt and engineer the changes for the 2.8 diesel.

Also, a significant factor is driving the lack of diesels in the US. That is the quality of US diesel fuel.

US diesel fuel has a much lower cetane rating than what we and the Euro region uses.

The lower cetane rating makes it very awkward for US diesel engines to run at the lower compression ratios we run in our diesels. The lower the compression ratio the less NOx that is produced.

The US EPA then made the levels of NOx emissions more stringent than what our regulations are.

So, in the end the US energy policy is dictating a lower quality diesel which makes it harder to achieve a more stringent emission regulation.

I can't figure that one out since the US exports high cetane diesel with lower sulphur to the Euro region.

The oddity of this is that modern direct injected gasoline engines emit on average 10 times the particulates of a diesel.

So as you can see the use of energy and emission policy and regulations has formed a technical barrier for modern diesel technology to be used effectively in the US as a cheaper price.

But, hey the consumer pays in the end.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=20kW2eWPgj4

PUTC,

The 3.2 Diesel will NOT have any EPA ratings The 3.2 diesel doesn't have EPA fuel economy ratings because it's for Transits with GVWs over 8,500 lbs.

@HemiMonster,

The 2.7L EcoBoost will be rated closed to 30 mpg according to Ford engineers. We don't need a diesel in the F-150. You can great FE without the premium for diesel emissions tech.

Why have a diesel in a 1/2ton when you can get a gasser with the same power but vastly less maintenance cost and running costs which tows more and carrys more? We can go on all day about what these things can be modded to but its stock trucks that we are talking about here.

Diesel has its place for sure. Just not in 1/2 ton trucks, SUV's or sports cars to name a few.

Check out the current ecoboost vs Ecodiesel as a comparison. The deisel tows less, carrys less, costs more each mile to run, has the same TQ, the ecoboost has vastly more HP and after all that its slower.

Now tell me why the diesel is a better option? We all ready been through the "well diesels are cheaper to mod" and "diesels have more TQ when modded" argument. 99% of people who buy 1/2 tons don't tune them.

You would have to be a idiot or Ram fanboy to buy the diesel.

@Tom Lemon
Yeah. All the semi truck drivers must be idiots. Just stop by the parking lot and tell them to drive Ecoboost. Let us know, how it goes.

@Zviera - now you are defending the Ecodiesel............

This is what you said just recently about the Ram Ecodiesel

""I agree with Steve. Ram sure got quiet about sales of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Something fishy is going on."

Nothing fishy is going on. People just don't buy them, like they say they will because of price.
See, everybody cry he wants a diesel in half ton for years, but when they finally have that choice and see the window sticker price, they back up. All1 and his community cry about Jeep Wrangler with diesel, but he is not gonna buy one , because of price."

Is "Zviera" a Slovac word for full of sh!t?

"semi drivers are idiots"

@zv,

The guy above you asked why it wasn't in the F-150. I explained why. I said diesel has its place. Just not in 1/2 ton trucks, SUV's or sports cars to name a few.

As a Ford owner I am disappointed that Ford is continuing with the Eco-Boost and not yet accepting that its a failure.
Engine deactivation on the Chevy and Ram is the answer to better gas mileage.
Turbo doesn't work, they are unreliable and more air pushed into an engine results in more fuel needed to balance the increased air.
An internal combustion piston gas engine reached it limit 40 years ago, OHC, VVT, direct injection and turbo is a drop in the bucket to increase power and gas mileage.
Ford is doing too much, trying to hard, making the engines too complicated instead of choosing a path to make it a simple engine design.
Send me back in time and drop a 300 CI straight 6 cyl engine in the new van and it will have better performance and gas mileage numbers than the new eco-boost!

@Tom#3 - please post 3rd party non-partisan evidence that the Ecoboost program is a failure.

or please go back to shovelling BS......... or was it coal?

In 2011 Ford advertised the F-150 Eco-Boost would get 22 MPG

That never happened! Owners are getting 17 MPG at best
In 2015 when Ford brings out the 2.7 Eco-Boost and if they say 27-30 MPG will you believe them?

It looks bad, very bad that a Ram 5.7 V8 Hemi is getting 19 MPG when the much smaller Ford 3.5 V6 Eco-Boost is getting 16-17 MPG.

Lou BC
Subaru used the turbo in the 1980's and it was a failure cause the turbo destroyed and melted down the boxer engine.
Why isn't anybody else and only Ford using the turbo?
What kind of advancement in metal inside the turbo will handle the extreme temps, speed and pressure of the turbo?
The Eco-Boost uses 2 turbos, what happens when one fails and you run the engine off balance?
A diesel engine is designed and built stronger cause of the turbo, the V6 eco-boost is a regular gas engine from a car that has twin turbos added on.
A F-150 weighs 5200 lbs empty and it has a modified midsize car engine running at max power just to pull the heavy weight of that truck around and that's destined for failure!
You're not getting any gas mileage in the eco-boost cause you are running that engine at its max power limit, flooring the gas pedal everywhere you go just to keep up with traffic!

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/how-ford-tested-the-aluminum-f-150-s-metal-at-a-nevada-gold-mine-161112760.html Story on Yahoo this morning how Ford installed a 2015 aluminum bed on a 2011 F-150 and tested it in a copper mine.

@Tom#3

Tom says "Turbo doesn't work, they are unreliable and more air pushed into an engine results in more fuel needed to balance the increased air." AND HERE'S THE KICKER, BOYS AND GIRLS. Tom says: An internal combustion piston gas engine reached it limit 40 years ago

Uh, Tom? Every marine vessel of any sensible tonnage uses turbo engine; they have for years. Durable is the middle name.

You also say that IC gas piston engines reached their peak 40 years ago. Really?

Since that time the average FE for a full sized American pickup, van or passenger car with a V8, at highway speeds has doubled. Your comment is retarded.

You also said that the fuel/air mixture needs to be balanced. Hello????? Every IC engine ever built had to have a properly balanced air/fuel mixture. EVER BUILT...

Gasoline engines with turbos are extremely effective at responding quickly to driver inputs. Apart from Cup Racing, the world's major racing teams all rely on turbo engines. Get real, dude!

@Tom#3
Surely you can't be serious with the comment regarding turbocharging?

Do you know what metallurgy is?

Do you understand the changes in lubricants as well over that period of time?

Do you know what an IGV is?

Do you know how car computers can manage an engine if a turbo fails?

Did you know that most every V8 in a current pickup is based on a "car" V8, no different than the EcoBoost?

The world has made some amazing changes over the past 30+ years.

Turbocharging is going to be on 80% of vehicles within a decade.

Get used to it, because you'll probably own a turbocharged vehicle with 15 years as you will have no choice.

BAFO, Thanks for explaining to everyone the stupidity of the energy policy in the U.S. and the difficulties it creates for diesel engineers. The truth is that diesels are far cleaner emissions wise than gas engines yet the low cetane rating we have to deal with works to INCREASE emissions AND reduce power and fuel economy. It's amazing what the manufacturers have been able to do in spite of the noose around their neck.

@Lou
I am not defending Ecodiesel . I am just saying, that anything is better then Ecoboost for mileage, which Tom Lemon left out of his talk.
Semi truck doesn't start his engine very often in very cold weather and they drive great distances. They must have Turbo Diesel for economy and mileage. Acceleration from red line is not their main concern.
It goes like this for my 1/2 ton needs.
HEMI > ECODIESEL > ANY OTHER ENGINE > ECOBOOST
For some in mild temperature weather like Lou from BC might go.
ECODIESEL > HEMI > ANY OTHER ENGINE > ECOBOOST

@DeverMike/Paul/Tom Lemon/Greg Baird/TRX4Tom/Dave/Hemi V8/Tom Terrific/sandman 4x4/lautenslager/zveria/Bob/US Truck Driver/Glenn/Jason/Hemi Rampage/smartest truck guy/Maxx/SuperDuty37/Ken/Ron/johnny doe/jim/ALL1/Frank/Idahoe Joe/The Guy/AD/Casey/papa jim/Young Guy/BeeBe/Steve/Chris/The truck guy/Alex/Mr Chow/Yessir/All Americans/Scott/Buy American or say Bye to America/Ram Big Horn 1500/Hemi Monster or whoever you want to call yourself.

Quit the crap, really.

It's getting long in the tooth.

You want to debate, but it has to be on your terms.

Learn to debate with good information, then we might be able to have a decent debate.

Opinions are good, but if they are only your view to support the UAW, then how good are they. Look at what you guys have done to Detroit.

Terror tactics (union tactics) don't work on me.

If PUTC wants the UAW or whatever to control this site I suppose it's their decision.

It's not kids like I've been told by PUTC.

@zviera - thanks once again for making Ram and yourself look dumb.

I am sure that you are the inspiration for @Tom#3.

I like the Ecodiesel but the fact that it was placed into a Ram 1500 which was the poorest cargo ratings to begin with..........

I now see why you keep mentioning those little diesels that you have all of that "life" experience with - they all have similar or better cargo capacity than a Ram 1500.

Truth is advertising law should make Ram change their designation to Ram 1000 not Ram 1500.

The Ecodiesel badge should be followed by Ram 880?

@Mark49

Your remark about the EPA leaves a hole that you could drive an aircraft carrier through.

First, I agree with your comment but the EPA is issuing clean air regulations that exist entirely to promote a political (not scientific) agenda at the expense of the majority for the benefit of a precious few.

Needed? A complete change at EPA, or the elimination of same.

@Lou , you never owned a diesel, so you have just one more option left. Personal attacks. That's exactly what you do. I am out for today.
Have a great day everyone.

Those are very disappointing numbers. Time to move beyond gas and diesel.

Guts
Glory
Ram

papa jim
you are the fool that owns a eco-boost that only gets 16 MPG when the Ram 5.7 HEMI gets 19 MPG.
Ram did it WITHOUT a turbo!

duh! why do you think Ford switched to a smaller 2.7 EB for?
duh! idiot, they did it cause the 3.5 EB failed to reach its MPG numbers, then when the 2.7 EB fails they will bring out a 1.9 EB
please don't lie and tell me your EB gets 22 MPG cause I know too many people that already own one!

V8's are not necessarily inefficient and V6's are not necessarily more efficient. It all has to do with the way it is driven.

A common myth is that a turbo increase fuel economy. The truth is that it can, but not always. Especially when the driver makes use of the added power that the turbo creates. This is especially true with gas engines.

In a diesel usually a turbo will increase fuel economy over a non-turbo diesel. This is because of the low power to weigh ratio of a diesel engine. A non turbo engine has to work so much harder to make the same power as a turbo diesel that in almost every instance it will increase fuel economy.

With that being said, my belief is and always has been, if you are concerned about fuel economy, go with a diesel whenever possible. If fuel economy isn't a primary concern, just pick the engine that you feel will meet your needs the best. A turbo V6 and modern V8 will get similar fuel economy all things being equal.

@Tom3

Get real, dude! I have never owned a EB F150

You sound like you've been huffing those reddi whip cans again.

@Ecoboost owners
Wow I was just reading through this 22 page long thread. I honestly hope that no Ecoboost owner has had these kind of issues:
http://www.f150forum.com/f70/good-luck-ecoboost-owners-123110/