Willie you have the 1st gen EB. My 2011 got about the same mileage as you. My 2018 is a gen 2 and gets much better mileage. The Eco mode is one of the operating selections you can make on the new trucks with the 10 speed trany.
Willie you have the 1st gen EB. My 2011 got about the same mileage as you. My 2018 is a gen 2 and gets much better mileage. The Eco mode is one of the operating selections you can make on the new trucks with the 10 speed trany.
I owned a 2012 F-150 Supercrew 4x4 with 3.5 Eco, now own a 2018 F-150 Supercrew 4x4 with 2.7 Eco.
Both tow(ed) a tandem axle Tr-20 effortlessly. The 3.5 is a beast, but the 2.7 is really strong also.
I went with the 2.7 last year due to dealer incentives...no regrets at all.
One thing you'll find with the Eco is it makes gob of torque at lower RPM's, it doesn't rev like crazy and hold a gear while pulling grades.
I guess I am just getting too old but the only V6 engine I would consider is their 3.0 Powerstroke.
2012 Ranger Z519 Comanche - Merc. 225 Pro XS - 24 Razor 4 XL/25 Tempest Plus
I have a 2012 3.5 Eco boost and it has as much power as most V8's. Excellent torque. I'm extremely pleased with mine. I have a Chev 1500 with a 5.7 l and it does a better job pulling my 190 vs reata with 200 hp opti max than the chevy.
I had a 360ci Dodge Ram before I bought my first EcoBoost in 2012. The Ram would bog down pulling my Triton 21x through the Ozark Mtns. The air conditioner would shut off and I'd lose 30 mph by the time I reached the apex. The 2012 3.5 EcoBoost acted as though there wasn't even a trailer behind it going through the same mountains. My new 2017 3.5 EcoBoost pulls the same and it's lifted with 12 ply Nittos. These engines are amazing!
That makes sense, turbo and supercharged motors will work much better at altitude than a normally aspirated motor. The boost helps overcome the loss of air/oxygen at higher altitudes.
Mercury 2002 200hp Carbed Saltwater
OT566776
2002 Cape Horn 22' Bay
Reply With Quote