Irunelevens

Aren't the new ratings generally lower?

Irunelevens

http://www.mpgfacts.com/?did=86&year=2002

Just so you know I wasn't pulling that number out of my ***. Actually 17/26 for the '02 Z28. And it's the same for the '99 Trans Am
http://www.mpgfacts.com/?did=121&year=1999

Maybe these are the "new" ratings, and your window sticker is the "old" ratings.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I would imagine that the window sticker would be the old rating system.

I'm pretty sure the numbers in that link are for the automatic. Yes I know it says manual, but I believe they are mistaken. Here's an auto:



Manual:



Regardless, the numbers for the LS1's were pretty accurate. I averaged 19-20 around town and got a best of 29.4 on a completely highway tank in my 1999. The autos did not fair near as well as the manuals in terms of MPG.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Auto is 16/23, nice try. You should learn how to use google, your *** is clearly not the best place to pull information from. And 16/23 is only a hair off this truck, that's not bad. The new ratings are usually lower than what you are really going to get by a few MPGs.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Ahem...



Apparently you need to take your own advice.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

We are talking about the new rating not the window sticker...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=17416

Again, google>your ***

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

True, though I did average over 26+mpg (running at over 70mph most of the time) for a few tankfuls on a cross country trip in my 2000 Z28 automatic even with the 3.23 axle ratio, a 2.73 rear'd car would do even better.

Heater

If they pull as strong as Ford claims they do; I would consider that pretty good.

It'llrun

I wouldn't call 22mpg great in general. That said, for a heavy full size pickup with highest in-class payload and towing capability(when properly equipped, of course), that's about the best overall I've seen. Considering the power ratings with it, doesn't seem all bad. Now, if it GETS that mileage and TOWS that much... yet to be seen in the real world.

Right? .... riiiiiiight...
The following is what "right" looks like, in the closest "sure as fire guess" sense.SPOT ON! It just doesn't get much closer than that without even seeing it beforehand.


The big question I have is, how DO they figure the averages? I mean, do they test them all and use all variants of chassis, all gearsets per engine/trans, a single chosen gearset, what? The 3.5L is apparently available with some 4 different gear options... or should I say will be available... I passed on a chance to test drive one yesterday and now I wish I'd done it so I could ask questions while the reps were there... oh well.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

And I was talking about the OLD ratings...i.e. how they were rated WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.

Again, reading comprehension > your brain

On the topic of the thread:

Bottom line is that the F150 Ecoboost is now, OFFICIALLY, a V6 that produces V8 power with V8 fuel mileage. Just as I said it would be. Whether it does what that test claims or not is a moot point. Ford is not going to be able to sell a V6 F150 for MORE than a V8 F150 with similiar efficiency figures.

End of story.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Why would you compare old ratings to new? The new ratings are lower than what most people are getting. You get 19/29 with your car yet the new ratings put it at 17/26. Old ratings>new.

No it's a V6 that makes big V8 torque while getting slightly better than small V8 fuel mileage. It makes slightly more torque than a late 90's 454 does that was rated at 10/12 on the old ratings. I still say that's pretty impressive, I'm guessing in the real world this truck will be getting ~18-24mpg.

chaman

iTrader: (5)

Because when you are a snob with the biggest of self inflated egos, you need to do everything possible to maintain that frame of mind. This guy as a vast history of dealing with the reality of his beloved GM been always behind and reacting; not leading.

Just read his post referring to himself as been always right...not much proof is needed.

I suggest to anyone thinking of loosing time arguing with him to forget it, the more crap he says, the more he looks like tool.

In almost every thread "your highness" post ends up locked due to his "my **** dont stink" attitude.

Maybe he was victim to bullying? Who knows and really...who cares? LOL!

Forget it gocartone, he knows it all, except what is really going on!

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I wasn't comparing LS1 ratings to anything. Irunelevens brought up the LS1 mileage and I was conversing with him about it. Really it had almost nothing to do with the topic of the thread so you can stop being so concerned about it.

The new ratings are NOT lower than most people are getting, they are for the most part RIGHT ON. The OLD ratings were higher than most people were getting, THUS THE REASON FOR THE NEW RATINGS.

So you managed a much wordier version of exactly what I said. It's a V6 that performs like a V8 in every way - power and efficiency.

Just to make clear, this engine is not going to match or outperform a "big V8" as you say. It's not meant to go up against GM's 6.2, it's meant to go up against the 5.3. Just having the same or better peak torque figure, or even a similiar torque curve, does NOT mean it will perform comparable to the engine it's compared to.

Finally, you MIGHT see 18mpg unloaded driving very conservatively in the city with this engine...I certainly can see that. But you will not be seeing 24mpg in any situation. Maybe, in a completely highway tank, on a completely flat surface, with cruise control on the entire time, you may be able to break 23mpg. But all this can also be done with the 5.3 - I drive a 2006 5.3 with the HO package for a work vehicle and i've seen as high as 18.2mpg city and 22.9mpg highway. The overall average, when actually using the truck as intended - at the very least to move two or more people and some tools/equipment around, is 16-17mpg in mixed driving. I personally GUARANTEE that's exactly what you'll see with the Ecoboost F150. The only thing I won't guarantee is what will happen to efficiency when you load this truck close to it's limit. I would not be surprised in the least to see significantly worse mileage than a 5.3 in the same situation.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Ah...still mad about getting owned over on SSU eh? How many alter-egos do you have here? Gonna sign in under one of those screennames to "own" me again?

Try actually contributing to a thread JUST once...if you can.

Honestly, I don't know why your *** hasn't been banned yet. You are a waste of space here. But whatever.

ThisBlood147

Time will tell if the market will bear out a turbo six pick-up. What does it hurt for someone to try? Personally, I think I would have tried the Ecoboost in the Mustang before I did it in the F150....but I guess offering 5 different production models of Stang might net you a sales cannibalization problem.

Either way, we still don't have any real world data from real world owners. This thread is still little more than a circle-jerk session.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

It had everything to do with the MPG ratings debate of how the old ratings were closer than the new ratings.

Yet just a few posts ago you said the old ratings were right on? You even listed your car as getting 19/29 compared to the 19/28 old rating, a few mpg higher than the new 17/25 rating for it?



It makes similar torque as a 454 did yet gets almost double the MPGs, how is that not outperforming it? It beat the 5.3 pretty badly in the towing test; I don't see it getting worse mileage when loaded as that makes no sense at all. If anything it'd blow its doors off when loaded as all of its torque is down low and it won't be reving out like the 5.3 would have to.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

Close...I said the old ratings were right on FOR THE LS1. I then went on to say that the old ratings were IN GENERAL higher than reality, and the new ratings are IN GENERAL right on.

There were plenty of cases where the old system was right on target with reality. However in the majority of cases they were high. The new ratings are much more accurate...this doesn't mean that they are all lower or higher, just that they are closer to reality than the old ratings. This is why you will notice that not every single vehicle lost efficiency with the new ratings. Some lost 1-2mpg, some stayed the same.

See again you are throwing the fact that the ecoboost is not a V8 right out the window. V8 power, yes. V8 efficiency, yes. As good as a V8 in every single way? More than likely not. Why do you think this has never been successfully done in the past? Because there are ALWAYS trade-offs...Ford just believes it has finally surmounted the majority of the major problems with using a turbo six in place of a V8. But again, they are not going to try to claim that this thing can run against the big V8's. They are marketing this as a replacement for the standard V8. And in the end, the only problem with that is the fact that it's still a V6.

I'm telling you that regardless of numbers on paper, or what a preliminary prototype test may tell you, the Ecoboost is NOT going to be able to run alongside the likes of the 6.2.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

You agreed with the old ratings for the LS1 but disagree with the new ones on them, yet agree with them on this new engine just to make a point? Wow

Let's see, it gets better MPGs than all the V8s in this test yet smoked them in the towing contests, where is it lacking?? You say it's more than likely not as good as a V8 in every way, what ways isn't it? You keep making **** up to hate on this truck.

You're telling me based on **** pulled out of your ***, what good does that do me? I don't think I ever said anything about the 6.2, but I don't doubt it would keep up with it. The Dodge in the test is close to a 6.2 for power and torque and the Eco smoked it 0-60 and beat it on the course. It might not beat a 6.2 but I don't doubt it would keep up with one, a lot better than the 5.3 kept up with the Eco. So the only thing you have to go off shows you are wrong, only in your fantasy Chevy>everything else world you are right.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. The old rating system WAS (fact) right on for the LS1. We have no evidence to say that the new system will not be right on for the Ecoboost F150...we do know however that it is very accurate on the Ecoboost SHO, so it's safest to assume at this point that it will be for the truck too. When there are real world figures to support an argument against the ratings, then we can talk.

I don't see anything odd about that perspective.

Again, it gets THE SAME MPG as competing V8's. The Ecoboost is rated 16/22, and the 5.3 Silverado is rated 16/21. Hell Ford's own competing V8 gets 15/20. As for it's performance, i'll accept tests when they involve a production truck and not a manufacturer-supplied prototype.

I think this argument is over my friend. You clearly don't understand what i'm trying to explain, and it's obvious at this point that even if you did, it wouldn't change your mind.

So i'm going to respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that.

It'llrun

Which V8 full size offering gets a 22mpg hwy rating? Keep in mind, this version also carries the highest tow/haul ratings along with the rating of more than many V8's and probably any making it's power and torque.

I see the Silverado Hybrid is now rated at 23hwy on chevy.com.... Look at its tow/haul capability?

According the Ford, the V6 will be available for well under 30k... I will say right off though, I wasn't able to build one with this engine, so Idonno if their add works out or not. It's said to be available in the XL package though, so unless the engine adds 7K to the price, getting it for under 30 should be no problem. The Hybrid Silverado starts around 35k.