I am always surprised by the claims that some other engine has more power than an Ecoboost (when it has more displacement...OK, fine) and then some other engine has more fuel economy (when it has less power...OK, fine). I understood that what Ford was doing with this product approach was offering the flexibility to have greater economy, and power, when each is needed. There are many situations where that approach adds value.

One that I see is towing, where there are multiple tests of the F150 with the 2.7 or 3.5 Ecoboost. The detractors say things like "Sure, it gets better fuel economy empty, but not when towing...." to justify their larger naturally aspirated engines. But that was the objective. When reading through one of the tests, the towing fuel efficiency of an Ecoboost on a long pull was lower than a specific naturally aspirated large displacement competitor. People crowed about that, while not acknowledging that the Ecoboost climbed the hill significantly faster than the large V8. It simply takes fuel to make power. If the Ecoboost owner wanted to match the fuel economy of the larger V8 on that pull, he just had to slow down to wait for him.

My personal choice would be to opt for a smaller engine, turbocharged, in most cases. That could mean an Ecoboost, but it would also apply to many other situations, like the 28i being more flexible to drive when it is a four cylinder than when it was a six cylinder naturally aspirated.

__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver
2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue