6.4 2500- A different perspective

[MANual_puller]

I'm not sure that is entirely true in all cases, but in your case I understand the point.

I'm guessing if someone consistently brings up the same powerplants etc. and posts them in a positive light and defends them consistently I'm not sure why people wouldn't believe they are a fan or significant supporter of that engine.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't be surprised to take some ribbing on a Ford site for waxing poetic about a Hemi or Cummins either.

Facts also come in various shapes and sizes. Graphs, stats etc. are one form. Personal experience is another. I have personal experience with the 6.2 vs. 6.4 and I am happy with my choice and I reminded of that every time I have to tow the horses to shows.

Bingo + only citing one source. We can have a nice discussion no problem but that was getting a little excessive....

Citing the same source is like saying 'oh hey, nobody got murdered in Baltimore today so it must be a great place to live every day'. When I see a trend, then I'll pay attention. The engines in question are too new to have comparative trends.

 

[SouthTexan]

I'm guessing if someone consistently brings up the same powerplants etc. and posts them in a positive light and defends them consistently I'm not sure why people wouldn't believe they are a fan or significant supporter of that engine.

Yeah, and the sad thing is I am not even the one bringing up in just about every case. I posted about the 6.2L because that is what the thread talking about at that time. I brought up the Ecoboost in reference to why Ford doesn't offer the 6.2L in their half tons still.

Yes, I am a supporter of the 3.5L Ecoboost and will defend it if any false assumptions are stated. Like how some falsely say it has to rev high when towing like other V6 engines or that it is not built to handle the boost and what a half ton tows. Or how it gets bad fuel mileage when towing yet it gets better fuel mileage when towing than most half tons that aren't as capable or as powerful. I can speak from experience not only with my old personal ruck, but with our company heavy duty parts delivery fleet we have that already raked up over 160k miles being abused towing and hauling. However, as I said most of the time I talk about the Ecoboost or any other engine for that matter is because that is what the threads topic is on and/or there are some things posted I disagree with and respond just like anyone else here does.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't be surprised to take some ribbing on a Ford site for waxing poetic about a Hemi or Cummins either.

Actually not as much as you think or as much as it happens here at least. Of course this is not every forum, but most of the ones I have been involved with will not jump you for liking or bringing up positives about a Hemi. I have never been on a Powerstoke forum, but I can imagine that most of those forums are like you say. After all, I didn't jump the OP for liking the Tundra saying he "worships" it. I will debate whether it is the most capable half ton with others being "cars with beds" or the fuel mileage thing, but I will not chastise him for liking what he likes.

Facts also come in various shapes and sizes. Graphs, stats etc. are one form. Personal experience is another. I have personal experience with the 6.2 vs. 6.4 and I am happy with my choice and I reminded of that every time I have to tow the horses to shows.

Very true, and you also got to make sure it is apples to apples when it comes to all aspects of a comparison.

 

[derag2]

I think the fuel mileage complaints come mostly because guys arnt seeing the numbers Ford keeps putting out... They say 28mpg and most guys are getting 17,18 maybe 20... I know two people that have them and neither are overly impressed with them. I know another guy that loves his... So it's just pedends on what people are looking for.

 

[SouthTexan]

I think the fuel mileage complaints come mostly because guys arnt seeing the numbers Ford keeps putting out... They say 28mpg and most guys are getting 17,18 maybe 20... I know two people that have them and neither are overly impressed with them. I know another guy that loves his... So it's just pedends on what people are looking for.

28mpg? Where did Ford advertise normal people getting 28 mpg with a 3.5L Ecoboost? That is not even what the EPA states, and the EPA test is done a 60 mph max so there is no way you will be getting EPA numbers doing 70 mph.

And 17, 18, or 20 mpg is actually good for a vehicle capable of towing over 10K. I got 17 mpg combined average in my old truck, but it had aggressive tires on it and was a 4x4.

 

[River19]

I personally don't have a ton of brand loyalty, I search among the vehicles available at the time I need something and I usually have a specific set of criteria that are important to me. None of those criteria is the emblem on the hood. Hence why I still have a 2001 Tundra with 216K on it as my daily driver, off road and hunting rig.....

And why I had a highly modded 2001 F-250 7.3L diesel prior to this Ram.

I find the ribbing on this site a little more pointed than others but I don't get all that wadded up about online arguments.

south Texan you remind me of a lot of engineers I know (not sure if that is roughly your background) in that you feel the need to agree or disagree and address things in a line item manner........I'm not crapping on that approach , to each his own, but I am guessing that extends some of these casual ******* matches. Granted some people will never acknowledge facts and no matter what you show them or present them with they will continue to form their sometimes loud opinions based on more emotion than facts.....it is what it is. Most of the comments here tend to be non-personal, I wouldn't feel the obligation to address each one as if they are responding directly to you......unless of course they are

I enjoy some of the content you bring to the table.....it makes for lively discussions on a site where things crawl along.

And on the Ford PSD sites......depends on the site, some are like shark tanks with blood in the water and others are like a church social and everyone gets along even if they disagree.

 

[drittal]

There was advert early on for the F150 eco that used the highest number of the epa expected mpg range. My 3.73 usually nailed 17.5-18.5 evic at 75. The 3.31 was 1mpg better. Could hit 20 at 70.

 

[SouthTexan]

There was advert early on for the F150 eco that used the highest number of the epa expected mpg range. My 3.73 usually nailed 17.5-18.5 evic at 75. The 3.31 was 1mpg better. Could hit 20 at 70.

I never saw an advertisement for 28 mpg down here. Are you sure that wasn't for the base V6 since that one has the highest mpg? It doesn't say what kind of engine on that board.

 

[MANual_puller]

I never saw an advertisement for 28 mpg down here. Are you sure that wasn't for the base V6 since that one has the highest mpg? It doesn't say what kind of engine on that board.

I love Ford for this. Advertising is something they do very well. It seems like they always have the highest payload, towing and fuel mileage. What they don't tell you is that you have to pick one. They also don't tell you that they get those numbers with a trim package no one will buy. Any truck they actually sell won't do any of the things they advertise but because they do offer a package that will, they get to advertise that.

The 28 mpg had to have been a 2x4 rcsb with the v6. There's no other way. Who realistically would buy that truck? Very few would.

 

[drittal]

There wasn't a single F150 sold in 2011-2012 when they did this that was EPA rated at 28. The V6 was, iirc, 23mpg.

What ford did was under the EPA numbers was an expected mpg range. About a 5mpg swing above and below the official EPA number. Rated by EPA to 23mpg highway with an expected range between 18 and 28. They use the 28 to sell the truck. Then you take it in because of ****** mileage they tell you the 19 you actually get is within spec because of the 18-28. They take it for a quick drive at 50-60 mph just to show they did something and amazingly their MPG is in the low 20's because they grandpa'd it around town. The F150 forums were full of this back when I had mine. I bought mine expecting 17, and was happy with the mileage I did get. You want to hit EPA numbers slow down.

This is why I am still happy with my 6.4. Compared to my 3.73 EB it doesn't do as poorly as I expected. I was quite surprised. The second day we owned it had some 55-65 mph mountain roads and was in the low 20's evic.

 

[SouthTexan]

I love Ford for this. Advertising is something they do very well. It seems like they always have the highest payload, towing and fuel mileage. What they don't tell you is that you have to pick one. They also don't tell you that they get those numbers with a trim package no one will buy. Any truck they actually sell won't do any of the things they advertise but because they do offer a package that will, they get to advertise that.

This is the case with every manufacturer even Ram. They all try to tout their best numbers, but when you get down to it, those numbers are from different trucks. Another thing I think is funny that all of them do is put apples to oranges when doing their comparisons on their website or commercial. If they want to make their model look fuel efficient then they will compare it to another make's more powerful, but not so fuel efficient. If they want their truck to seem more powerful then they will pick the least powerful one of their competitors. I have seen this done b every singe manufacturers and I get a good laugh every time I do.

 

[drittal]

The 28 mpg had to have been a 2x4 rcsb with the v6. There's no other way. Who realistically would buy that truck? Very few would.

V6 4X2 rated at 17/23
EB 4X2 rated at 16/22

None were rated at 28, and it pissed off a lot of owners who expected high MPG from their Ecoboosts that really weren't all that ECO.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2012_Ford_F150_Pickup.shtml

 

[SouthTexan]

You want to hit EPA numbers slow down.

This is true especially since the EPA highway test only goes up to 60 mph.

Nobody should expect to get the same EPA fuel economy numbers doing 70 mph unless you are going down hill all the time.

 

[SouthTexan]

None were rated at 28, and it pissed off a lot of owners who expected high MPG from their Ecoboosts that really weren't all that ECO.

Do you know where that sign was located when you took the picture? I want to call my contacts at Ford to see if it was them that did or a dealer. If it was Ford then they would get in big trouble since it is illegal to market false advertisement. Like I said, I never seen a 28 mpg sign...ever.

I think many owners of the Ecoboost engines were expecting a bit too much. At the time when the Ecoboost came out, not only was in more fuel efficent than any other V8 at the time, but it also had better performance than most other V8 as well. Some mistakenly thought they were going to get base V6 kind of fuel mileage which is not the case. However if you compared it to other vehicles that it was as capable and with the same or better performance like the Ford 6.2L, GM 6.2L, Ram 5.7L, and Tundra 5.7L; it got pretty good fuel mileage. Heck, just looking at Fuelly.com would show you that if you got a 17.5 mpg average then you are doing better than even today's V8s that now have MDS and 8 speeds since most of those are getting between 16-17 mpg average.

 

[Core-Lokt]

I love Ford for this. Advertising is something they do very well. It seems like they always have the highest payload, towing and fuel mileage. What they don't tell you is that you have to pick one. They also don't tell you that they get those numbers with a trim package no one will buy. Any truck they actually sell won't do any of the things they advertise but because they do offer a package that will, they get to advertise that.

The 28 mpg had to have been a 2x4 rcsb with the v6. There's no other way. Who realistically would buy that truck? Very few would.

Not to morally equivocate, but every manufacturer does that in one form or another. But how about this?

PickupTrucks.com - Special Reports

PickupTrucks.com's poorly-titled and conducted test gives the economy showdown prize to F-150. Ford gets bragging rights to a test outsiders conducted which is outside their control-and nothing like what the premise was.

 

[drittal]

. Heck, just looking at Fuelly.com would show you that if you got a 17.5 mpg average then you are doing better than even today's V8s that now have MDS and 8 speeds since most of those are getting between 16-17 mpg average.

I got 17.5-18.5 hwy. Average was about 15 mixed. My father in low has max tow 2012, his gets about same evic mileage on hwy as my 6.4. He's had his in to the dealer for flash and everything. They say averting is within spec.

My friend has a 5.0 3.55 and gets almost exact same mileage as my 3.73 EB, if not a little better. Taurus X 3.5 awd did 22. Explorer EB awd did 20.5.

 

[SouthTexan]

I got 17.5-18.5 hwy. Average was about 15 mixed. My father in low has max tow 2012, his gets about same evic mileage on hwy as my 6.4. He's had his in to the dealer for flash and everything. They say averting is within spec.

My friend has a 5.0 3.55 and gets almost exact same mileage as my 3.73 EB, if not a little better. Taurus X 3.5 awd did 22. Explorer EB awd did 20.5.

Wow, my 2011 F150 HD long bed 4x4 with 3.73 got 16.5-17 mpg combined and that was hand calculated. I never go by lie-o-meter mileage because even my Ford(they don't call it EVIC) was 1 mpg off with my hand calculations even being higher than what the meter said sometimes. Although that is not as bad as the very optimistic +2.5 mpg my EVIC in my Ram states compared to my hand calculations. Hell even PUTC mentioned this in that 2016 Texas Truck Showdown.

"All of our competitors turned in lower real-world fuel economy figures than their trip computers suggested, especially the 2016 Ram 1500, which got 21.8 mpg on the unloaded leg according to its computer, but only returned 17.7 mpg in reality — an almost 20 percent difference."

Texas Truck Showdown 2016: Towing Mileage Test

It is gotten to the point to where if someone tells me EVIC numbers then I don't even listen to them because I know they will be off. It basically goes in one ear and out the other unless it is hand calculations when it comes to Rams due to how wildly optimistic their EVIC is.

 

[drittal]

Fuelly tells a closer story.

2014 Ram 5.7l 15.96mpg
2014 f150 3.5l 15.95mpg

2015 Ram 5.7l 16.01 mpg
2015 f150 3.5l 16.47mpg
2015 Sierra 6.2l 16.64mpg

 

[MANual_puller]

Fuelly tells a closer story.

2014 Ram 5.7l 15.96mpg
2014 f150 3.5l 15.95mpg

2015 Ram 5.7l 16.01 mpg
2015 f150 3.5l 16.47mpg
2015 Sierra 6.2l 16.64mpg

See, that's exactly what is to be expected. They are all about the same size and weight. It takes a certain amount of energy to move them. Can't overcome physics. Any debate over fuel mileage, especially in a pickup, is nonsensical. For all intents and purposes they get the same mileage in the real world.

 

[SouthTexan]

Fuelly tells a closer story.

2014 Ram 5.7l 15.96mpg
2014 f150 3.5l 15.95mpg

2015 Ram 5.7l 16.01 mpg
2015 f150 3.5l 16.47mpg
2015 Sierra 6.2l 16.64mpg

Yes it does. As I said before, when the Ecoboost came out in 2011 it did very well compared to all the other engines it competed with.

2011
Ram 5.7L: 14.9 mpg
Ford 3.5L EB: 16.4 mpg

2012
Ram 5.7L: 14.9 mpg
Ford 3.5L EB: 15.4 mpg

2013
Ram 5.7L: 14.6 mpg
Ford 3.5L EB: 15.5 mpg

2014
Ram 5.7L: 16.0 mpg
Ford 3.5L EB: 16.0 mpg

2015
Ram 5.7L: 16.0 mpg
Ford 3.5L EB: 16.4 mpg

As time progressed, the Ram 5.7L gained [DELETED] an 8 speed transmission and the F150 went to a lighter truck in 2015. Trucks get better and better with every upgrade just like I have no doubts the new 10 speed in the 2017 F150 along with the Gen 2 EB will get better mileage than the current one. Then Ram will come up with something a few years later to compete with that. That is how progress works.

 

[MANual_puller]

As time progressed, the Ram 5.7L gained MDS and an 8 speed transmission and the F150 went to a lighter truck in 2015. Trucks get better and better with every upgrade just like I have no doubts the new 10 speed in the 2017 F150 along with the Gen 2 EB will get better mileage than the current one. Then Ram will come up with something a few years later to compete with that. That is how progress works.

Mds debuted in the 5.7l hemi in 1500 trucks in late 2004 with the 2005 model year, I don't believe 2500 trucks with the 5.7l ever got mds. My old '06 did not have it and neither does my '11. Vct was introduced in 2009. That did make it into the hd trucks too. Changes to the 5.7l hemi since 2009 have been very minimal.

Edit: the jump in 2014 is attributed to the new 8 speed transmission.