How reliable is the Ford Ecoboost engine?

[gbaglo]

I'm not certain of the years, but there is a Ford F series recall right now for a transmission that drops into first without notice. Would be disturbing.

[Eggscape]

“Ford issued a safety recall on about 1.5 million vehicles Wednesday. It's recalling select 2011 to 2013 Ford F-150 vehicles with six-speed automatic transmissions.”

Pre Eco Boost.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

I'm not certain of the years, but there is a Ford F series recall right now for a transmission that drops into first without notice. Would be disturbing.

Very

Originally Posted by Eggscape

“Ford issued a safety recall on about 1.5 million vehicles Wednesday. It's recalling select 2011 to 2013 Ford F-150 vehicles with six-speed automatic transmissions.”

Pre Eco Boost.

Aside from the timing, this particular fault is unrelated to the engine. The problem is due to a transmission speed sensor.

[padlin]

Not to belittle the issue, especially seeing as how my truck is one of the recalled ones, but the write up's say there were at least 5 related crashes, out of 1.43 million F150's.

[Perry Butler]

Originally Posted by Higgy

My experience with the F150 eco directed me to purchase the 5.0L engine, this engine gets better MPG when towing and as a man who has turned a few wrenches, I like getting my power from a larger displacement engine and a more naturally aspirated engine with less moving parts, turbo, blower , after coolers.... I have 289,000 on the 5.0 and buying another with the ten speed tranny that increases MPG as well running gear performance

If you currently have 289,000 on your 5.0 I'm guessing your previous EB was one of the first ones. They've come a long way since then. I've yet to talk to someone with a 5.0 that even comes close to the gas mileage we get with our 2015 EB 3.5. Not even close. And yes, I divide miles by gallons pumped, not what the console says (the console is very optimistic).

Our 2003 Odyssey has 270,000 miles on it and aside from the turbos has many extra moving parts and still purrs like a kitten. I also know of many 2010 and newer owners of the 3.5 EB with 2-300,000 miles and have yet to run into someone that had blower problems. Yes, those first ones had problems, but that's been fixed. Are they perfect? No, but neither is the 5.0.

I learned a long time ago, don't buy the first of anything. Let them build that new model a few years to work out the bugs. We're perfectly happy with the 2015 EB 3.5 with the 6 speed transmission. I'll wait a few years for the 10 speed to be perfected.

Oh, and if you want to kill an engine, lug it. We can run our 3.5 at 13-1,400 rpm, but I don't like the sound. At 1,700 is purrs like a kitten.

Enjoy,

Perry

[Farther]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

But, is it organic? And, gluten-free?

As a former organic chemistry student, yes, gasoline is organic and gluten-free. Just don't put it in your body.

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by etuna

I have a 2015 F150 with the 2.7 litre eco boost engine purchased new in September 2015. It has 67,000 kilometres on it, about 33,000 pulling our Escape 19. So far not a single issue with the truck. It has the power the maintain the speed limit on any grade while pulling the trailer. The fuel mileage varies depending on terrain and wind, but averages 15.8 litres/100 km pulling the trailer. I am very happy with it.

For convenience that is 14.88 mpg. Nothing to brag about but not bad at all considering. That means he probably gets around 17-19 mpg under ideal circumstances while running light and 10-12 mpg while towing, or something like that.

The enlightening thing about this report is that he has spent almost half of the miles towing so the number is low relative to what others might get but representative of what an avid RVer might hope for.

It sure beats the heck out of the 5-6 mpg I get with my 1995 big block Chevy 2500.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by padlin

Not to belittle the issue, especially seeing as how my truck is one of the recalled ones, but the write up's say there were at least 5 related crashes, out of 1.43 million F150's.

This is typical of recalls. Although a very small fraction of vehicles have the problem, there are enough that it is well-known to dealership service departments and the manufacturer (and frustrated owners)... but it is not recognized as a safety issue. After a very small fraction of the defective vehicles have incidents which cause or at least risk injuries, the issue is identified (by the manufacturer, or the U.S. NHTSA or Transport Canada) as requiring a recall (which is only done for safety reasons).

I guess that in this case a very small fraction of a very small fraction of 1.43 million equals about five.

The good news for people buying Ford trucks with the newer 10-speed is that it has an overrunning clutch so a shift into first gear doesn't cause engine braking... and that transmission has an unrelated control system, anyway.

In the "good old days" there were fewer recalls, because without today's communications and data management tools problems like this were never addressed as safety issues. Now every manufacturer has a list of active recalls.

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by Farther

As a former organic chemistry student, yes, gasoline is organic and gluten-free. Just don't put it in your body.

Are you saying that gasoline is not bio-compatible? Who'd have thought!

[emers382]

Originally Posted by mizterwizard

For convenience that is 14.88 mpg. Nothing to brag about but not bad at all considering. That means he probably gets around 17-19 mpg under ideal circumstances while running light and 10-12 mpg while towing, or something like that.

Etuna says he gets 15.8 l/100km while towing not average overall -"The fuel mileage varies depending on terrain and wind, but averages 15.8 litres/100 km pulling the trailer. I am very happy with it."

We have a similar white 2015 F150 2.7EB with 66000km. almost the same as his 67000. Ours also is about half towing and we get similar mileage. When not towing have gotten as good as 23mpg. I don't trust the computer since it cannot even measure properly the amount of fuel used. When I fill I always put in more than it says I've used.

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by emers382

I don't trust the computer since it cannot even measure properly the amount of fuel used. When I fill I always put in more than it says I've used.

A paranoid person would say that the pump is wrong and you are not getting what you pay for. Good thing you are not paranoid.

[gbaglo]

The pump senses back pressure and shuts off. I would think the sensitivity of that feature likely varies from pump to pump and even depends on temperature. Just guessing.

In any event, you should stop trying to put in more gas when the pump shuts off automatically.

[TurboFlex]

I have a 2010 Flex EB (160,000 km) and a 2013 F150 EB (80,000 km), and have not had any issues with either. I pulled a 4,000 lb. Apex trailer with the Flex for one season and then bought the F150 for towing as the weights for the Flex were near the max limits for front/rear axle rating as well as close to the combined max rating for the vehicles. As most of my towing is in the Canadian Rockies mileage does suffer a little, but there is no shortage of power in either vehicle. Flex is still my daily drive and the F150 is the summer towing vehicle. As a side note a friend of mine bought a F150 with the EB engine, but traded it in a year later for a F150 with the V8 - he says he gets better mileage with the V8 than with the EB - he does not use it for towing, just his usual drive.

TurboFlex

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by emers382

I don't trust the computer since it cannot even measure properly the amount of fuel used. When I fill I always put in more than it says I've used.

Typically fuel flow in a vehicle is estimated by counting injection pulses and their duration, not measured with a flowmeter. The result can be significantly in error, which doesn't matter to engine operation because the engine control system tunes fuel flow based on various sensors of engine operation, but it messes up the calculated fuel economy. The vehicle's display is useful to indicate relative consumption (what driving conditions make it better and what conditions make it worse), and can be useful to project remaining range, but it shouldn't be expected to indicate total fuel used accurately.

My Sienna consistently under-estimates fuel consumption rate, but other vehicles of the same model and year are quite accurate. Don't expect too much, with any make, model, or technology.

[mizterwizard]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Typically fuel flow in a vehicle is estimated by counting injection pulses and their duration, not measured with a flowmeter. The result can be significantly in error, which doesn't matter to engine operation because the engine control system tunes fuel flow based on various sensors of engine operation, but it messes up the calculated fuel economy. The vehicle's display is useful to indicate relative consumption (what driving conditions make it better and what conditions make it worse), and can be useful to project remaining range, but it shouldn't be expected to indicate total fuel used accurately.

My Sienna consistently under-estimates fuel consumption rate, but other vehicles of the same model and year are quite accurate. Don't expect too much, with any make, model, or technology.

This is exactly right. It is interesting to note that the calculated economy is hardly ever low. It is very often high and is only accurate if you hit it lucky. I think the manufacturers are selling some snake oil there.

Simply counting injector on time and making a multiplication is not very accurate to begin with. There is a delay in the start of injection which happens while the magnetic field in the coil of the injector builds. Once the field gets strong enough the injector opens quickly. It takes some time for the injector to close when the current is shut off. There is inertia in the fuel path. These things mean that fuel isn't flowing at the same rate all of the time the injector is on.

If the manufacturer takes into account all of the variables and then does the calculation it can be really accurate but few go to that much trouble. If you can get a good average over a tank full that is all you can hope for. Instantaneous readings are only indicative of the momentary trend. They don't really mean anything in the absolute sense.

[Dave Walter]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

The pump senses back pressure and shuts off. I would think the sensitivity of that feature likely varies from pump to pump and even depends on temperature. Just guessing.

In any event, you should stop trying to put in more gas when the pump shuts off automatically.

I think that on some vehicles, the automatic pump shutoff happens much too soon. In my daughter's Equinox, I can generally only add a squirt or two of gas after the auto shutoff and before the tank overflows. However, in my FJ, I can almost always add another 8-10 Litres of fuel into the tank after the first time that the pump automatically shuts off. That is typically about 100 km of additional km's on a tank (approx 20%). I am allways careful not to have any spillage and have not had any issues doing this for the 200,000km on the truck.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Dave Walter

I think that on some vehicles, the automatic pump shutoff happens much too soon.

Yes, the shape of the filler neck can cause splashing that trips the pump shutoff prematurely. The usual solution is to fill more slowly, which can be frustrating.

Originally Posted by Dave Walter

I am allways careful not to have any spillage and have not had any issues doing this for the 200,000km on the truck.

Even without spillage outside of the vehicle, excessive fill level can damage the evaporative emission control system by forcing liquid fuel into the canister which is intended to handle vapour... so be careful.

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Even without spillage outside of the vehicle, excessive fill level can damage the evaporative emission control system by forcing liquid fuel into the canister which is intended to handle vapour... so be careful.

I knew there was a good reason for not topping up, but couldn't describe it.

[Farther]

I'm thinking that if you try to top off you can actually give fuel back to the fuel station UST through the nozzles evaporative emissions system.

[Hilola]

I think my owner’s manual advises against it but don’t remember if it says why.