anyone regretting getting the powerboost?

[PB Humbler]

You do realize the PB has the same motor right? It's benefit is the 35kW worth of e-motor it's got adding 47hp / 70ftlb tq across the entire powerband sitting on the front of the trans.

Im well aware of the what the Powerboost is, and drive one regularly that a friend of mine owns. The guy i replied to knew exactly the reason i was saying ill race him because he is well aware of the tuned ecoboost easily beating the stock PowerBoost. It was more of a joke that i figured he would pick up on (which he did). When you do the math tho on the surface it apperars the PB trucks have the engine itself detuned from the factory by 17 hp which after tuning can be fixed with ease. What would worry me with tuning a PB is the battery longevity and the driveline durability being that the PB has added hardware between.

Sponsored

 

[HammaMan]

Im well aware of the what the Powerboost is, and drive one regularly that a friend of mine owns. The guy i replied to knew exactly the reason i was saying ill race him because he is well aware of the tuned ecoboost easily beating the stock PowerBoost. It was more of a joke that i figured he would pick up on (which he did). When you do the math tho on the surface it apperars the PB trucks have the engine itself detuned from the factory by 17 hp which after tuning can be fixed with ease. What would worry me with tuning a PB is the battery longevity and the driveline durability being that the PB has added hardware between.

They're paper gimped. It's why they pull on raptors too, despite the raptor's paper showing "more" power. They had to at least give them some feelsgood for spending that much

 

[Atlee]

No regrets yet, but then I'm violating your preset conditions. Got my PB strictly for the 7.4 Kw PPoB, since I boondock a lot and got tired of hauling generators and gas.

Absent the PPoB, I would have struck with my old steel 2014 HDPP truck a while longer.

 

[Snakebitten]

Battery longevity?
There's a lot of good reason it doesn't say Hybrid anywhere on it.

It's not THAT kind of Hybrid.

That "battery" costs about the same as a set of KO2's

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

Full disclosure, I have the 400w 2.7. I can't see needing more than 400w honestly. It'll power a fridge for a while or anything else I can think of just enough to hold over.

The hybrid system doesn't return the mpg numbers I would be impressed by. City driving is a pretty small percentage of total driving, and the highway rating was barely improved. I would need a solid 5mpg difference in highway and even more in city to make the hybrid headaches worth it. I do appreciate the beefier frame though.

 

[ks54703]

Owned a 21 XLT 302a PB for a year and drove it for 7K miles with only the issues being the recalls most F150's experienced.

Personally the PB purchase was to find out what the hype was and was it worth all the hype it was getting.

Will it haul ass, most definitely will go that but doing it realiably time after time the report card is still out on that fact.

Will a moderately equipped PB have enough payload to be used day in and day out as a heavy hauler. Nope only with only a 1640 payload in a 4X4 SCrew 5.5 box 302a XLT. Only a stripped down XL will give reasonable payload for daily loading.

Will a 4x4 PB be a good long term Off Roader. Well again the report card is out on that fact too. But after a serious looking over and seeing what was saw was not impressed with the placement of vital components in venerable locations. Not a vehicle to I'd play ditch the bitch with.

Will the PB return good fuel mileage. Late spring into summer then into early fall it surely will. When winter cold comes here to Central Wisconsin the PB turns into just another 3.5 EB.

Was the PB enjoyable vehicle to drive. After coming to gripes with how it worked yes it was.

Is the purchase of a PB regretted with having no issues no. Is the trading off of the 21PB for a 22 XLT 302a 2.7EB with the Payload Package equipped the same regretted not at all.

Both truck have their own quirks and nuances but here the 2.7EB with the payload package is the overall personal choice.

 

[amschind]

I went from apples to apples (in terms of options) 2021 Powerboost to a 2022 5.0

The 5.0 gets better highway mpg period.
The powerboost gets better mileage in the city on trips > 5 miles.

The powerboost is much faster at altitude, but the 5.0 absolutely rips on e85 at sea level.

Idling on electric and the generator are almost worth it in of itself, but in CA, 2.99 e85 saves a ton vs 87, even accounting for mpg loss.

I was happy with both but slightly happier with my 5.0

Again, I think this points out the design flaw in the Powerboost: it's too powerful for a half-ton. The PB torque at the rear wheels is 1.5x the 5.0L Coyote torque at the rear wheels (partly due to the 3.73 in the PB and the 3.55 in the 5.0 to get those efficiency numbers). For comparison, the Powerstroke with the 3.31 makes about 1.62x as much rear wheel torque as the Powerboost. The Powerboost 3.5L is in a completely different class from the 5.0 (i.e. the difference in torque is nearly as big as the difference between the PB and the 6.7L), BUT the 5.0L can pull EXACTLY AS MUCH as the PB.

The flaw isn't that the F150 is bad or that the 3.5L PB is bad, just that the 3.5L PB needs, at absolute minimum an HDPP F150 and more likely an F250 Superduty chassis to exploit any of its power; it is not offered in either configuration. I remain convinced that the 2.3L I4 wasn't used because of marketing concerns, namely that the PB would be accused of "tree-hugging" or some other nonsense unless it could wipe the floor with the Raptor. Well, like most of us, I don't smoke Raptors off the line very often but I do buy gas every week, and I'd be happy to trade 100 lb-ft and 50 HP for 28 or 30 MPG.

 

[thebigdu]

Again, I think this points out the design flaw in the Powerboost: it's too powerful for a half-ton. The PB torque at the rear wheels is 1.5x the 5.0L Coyote torque at the rear wheels (partly due to the 3.73 in the PB and the 3.55 in the 5.0 to get those efficiency numbers). For comparison, the Powerstroke with the 3.31 makes about 1.62x as much rear wheel torque as the Powerboost. The Powerboost 3.5L is in a completely different class from the 5.0 (i.e. the difference in torque is nearly as big as the difference between the PB and the 6.7L), BUT the 5.0L can pull EXACTLY AS MUCH as the PB.

The flaw isn't that the F150 is bad or that the 3.5L PB is bad, just that the 3.5L PB needs, at absolute minimum an HDPP F150 and more likely an F250 Superduty chassis to exploit any of its power; it is not offered in either configuration. I remain convinced that the 2.3L I4 wasn't used because of marketing concerns, namely that the PB would be accused of "tree-hugging" or some other nonsense unless it could wipe the floor with the Raptor. Well, like most of us, I don't smoke Raptors off the line very often but I do buy gas every week, and I'd be happy to trade 100 lb-ft and 50 HP for 28 or 30 MPG.

I'm sure this has been discussed on here, but I often wonder why Ford didn't use the 2.7 Eco for the PB.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

Yeah it would've made more sense to use a more compact cheaper engine for hybridization. I like the 3.3 a lot and think it would've done really good. The focus with a hybrid shouldn't be crazy power numbers or acceleration, it should be mpgs. I really hate the fact that they didn't go the plug in route. Regardless of power train, Towing 8k+ lbs, compatibility with other F150 parts, and a bare minimum 1500lbs payload should have been the basic requirements.

 

[turbopilot]

i'm strictly asking those who do not use powerboost only features (extra towing capacity, onboard generator, etc) frequently like i do. a part of me wish i had just bought the 3.5 ecoboost. less headache to worry about down the road with the hybrid system. more mods available for the ecoboost too. powerboost's mpg seems underwhelmed. anyone in similar boat?

I regret the decision so much I just traded my 2021 PB Job 1 for an identical (silver instead of white) 2023 PB. The PowerBoost with PPoB 7.2 is a keeper. 2023 PB seems to have much smoother transitions between the ICE and electric motor. Regenerative breaking is also smoother. The only thing I miss is the bed camera. I hope that can be solved later.

 

[dmac]

Again, I think this points out the design flaw in the Powerboost: it's too powerful for a half-ton. The PB torque at the rear wheels is 1.5x the 5.0L Coyote torque at the rear wheels (partly due to the 3.73 in the PB and the 3.55 in the 5.0 to get those efficiency numbers). For comparison, the Powerstroke with the 3.31 makes about 1.62x as much rear wheel torque as the Powerboost. The Powerboost 3.5L is in a completely different class from the 5.0 (i.e. the difference in torque is nearly as big as the difference between the PB and the 6.7L), BUT the 5.0L can pull EXACTLY AS MUCH as the PB.

The flaw isn't that the F150 is bad or that the 3.5L PB is bad, just that the 3.5L PB needs, at absolute minimum an HDPP F150 and more likely an F250 Superduty chassis to exploit any of its power; it is not offered in either configuration. I remain convinced that the 2.3L I4 wasn't used because of marketing concerns, namely that the PB would be accused of "tree-hugging" or some other nonsense unless it could wipe the floor with the Raptor. Well, like most of us, I don't smoke Raptors off the line very often but I do buy gas every week, and I'd be happy to trade 100 lb-ft and 50 HP for 28 or 30 MPG.

Yeah I agree that there were marketing forces going into the design decision, ect.

I think the suspension runs out of capacity before the engine does in the powerboost for sure.

Powerboost does brings many utility features in a package that is great to drive. Almost 600tq is awesome daily driving even if you dont need it.

Power at the eod is often what sells on the test drive, and the PB needs to sell in order to offset all the cost Ford sunk into engineering it. See my latest post in General Discussion for what maybe they could do next. https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/i-have-a-not-truck-conventional-idea-for-the-f-150.18186/

 

[amschind]

I'm sure this has been discussed on here, but I often wonder why Ford didn't use the 2.7 Eco for the PB.

Another great question.

 

[dmac]

Another great question.

I think they just wanted to F on the Ram 5.7 and GM 6.2. No other real good reason.

 

[thebigdu]

I think they just wanted to F on the Ram 5.7 and GM 6.2. No other real good reason.

Eh, I would hope Ford's engineers have a better explanation than that, but of course it's possible. Not too hard to "F" on the 5.7 Hemi though. And I would think they could get very close if not surpass the GM 6.2.

 

[JExpedition07]

Again, I think this points out the design flaw in the Powerboost: it's too powerful for a half-ton. The PB torque at the rear wheels is 1.5x the 5.0L Coyote torque at the rear wheels (partly due to the 3.73 in the PB and the 3.55 in the 5.0 to get those efficiency numbers). For comparison, the Powerstroke with the 3.31 makes about 1.62x as much rear wheel torque as the Powerboost. The Powerboost 3.5L is in a completely different class from the 5.0 (i.e. the difference in torque is nearly as big as the difference between the PB and the 6.7L), BUT the 5.0L can pull EXACTLY AS MUCH as the PB.

The flaw isn't that the F150 is bad or that the 3.5L PB is bad, just that the 3.5L PB needs, at absolute minimum an HDPP F150 and more likely an F250 Superduty chassis to exploit any of its power; it is not offered in either configuration. I remain convinced that the 2.3L I4 wasn't used because of marketing concerns, namely that the PB would be accused of "tree-hugging" or some other nonsense unless it could wipe the floor with the Raptor. Well, like most of us, I don't smoke Raptors off the line very often but I do buy gas every week, and I'd be happy to trade 100 lb-ft and 50 HP for 28 or 30 MPG.

The PowerBoost puts down 600 lb ft at the wheel? Most stock dyno’s I have seen for the 5.0L V8 show 400 lb ft at the wheel on E-85. You have to be 600 lb ft at the wheel to be 1.5x 400 lb ft. I am aware that’s not on 87 octane but that is a typical wheel torque figure for the 5.0 on a fuel it is made to use from the factory, so it does still count. Both these show stock trucks before and after.

https://lmr.com/products/2021-f150-gen3-coyote-rcsb-hits-the-dyno

 

[amschind]

The PowerBoost puts down 600 lb ft at the wheel? Most stock dyno’s I have seen for the 5.0L V8 show 400 lb ft at the wheel on E-85. You have to be 600 lb ft at the wheel to be 1.5x 400 lb ft. I am aware that’s not on 87 octane but that is a typical wheel torque figure for the 5.0 on a fuel it is made to use from the factory, so it does still count. Both these show stock trucks before and after.

https://lmr.com/products/2021-f150-gen3-coyote-rcsb-hits-the-dyno

The issue is the rear-end gears. To address the wimpy electric motor, Ford won't sell a PB with anything but a 3.73. The 5.0, meanwhile, is putting up those efficiency numbers with the 3.55. So there is a 5% advantage in torque AT THE WHEELS in addition to the SAE net torque. That also affected the torque calculation with the 6.7L Powerstroke, which uses a 3.31 rear end. Sorry that I didn't make that very clear.

 

[JExpedition07]

The issue is the rear-end gears. To address the wimpy electric motor, Ford won't sell a PB with anything but a 3.73. The 5.0, meanwhile, is putting up those efficiency numbers with the 3.55. So there is a 5% advantage in torque AT THE WHEELS in addition to the SAE net torque. That also affected the torque calculation with the 6.7L Powerstroke, which uses a 3.31 rear end. Sorry that I didn't make that very clear.

I believe the two 5.0L trucks shown are a 3.15 and one is a 3.31/3.73 since it’s a 4WD. Both show the same 400 lb ft at the wheel on E-85. I am not trying to be rude at all! I love to learn more about this stuff but I don’t follow. I thought your twist force at the wheel is the same no matter the ratio, and that it just differs in input revs to get that same torque no? Either way this shows Ford has underrated the 5.0 on high ethanol fuels from the factory. Well they actually don’t rate it at all, Ford only says “increased performance”. No way no how is it only throwing 410 lb ft into the transmission from the crank if it puts down 400 lb ft at the wheel.

Sponsored