Go Back   Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans > Late Model F150s > Engine / Drivetrain Talk
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-05-2013, 11:57 PM   #771
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 3,187
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanks: 570
Thanked 740 Times in 414 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRSkinner View Post
...What I found after a great deal of research and numbers crunching ...There is a ton of info out there. After reading I eliminated ecoboost. ...Be careful you if you are not 100% accurate because the ecoboosters feast on any inaccuracy to try and discredit accurate information.....
You claim to have done this in-depth analysis, but somehow. . .

1) You missed the fact that the 2011 5.0 is NOT the same engine that's in your '95 F150. This is not just some minor oversight that's not quite 100% accurate. If you don't have a clue about the 5.0, then how can you have done "a great deal of research"? And yes, this error speaks volumes about your credibility, calling into question all of your other claims.

2) You didn't bother to do a simple test drive to compare the two.

3) You have made blatantly false statement after false statement, all of which are easily dis-proven.
engineermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 12:04 AM   #772
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 3,187
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanks: 570
Thanked 740 Times in 414 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRSkinner View Post
...2. I get more performance. Yes you do and very little for the money....
I get 200 ft-lb of additional torque for $2000. What's it cost to add that torque to your 5.0?
engineermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 12:10 AM   #773
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 3,187
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanks: 570
Thanked 740 Times in 414 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beakie View Post
1. I think everyone involved, himself included, understands that skinner is not looking to discuss facts. it is looking only to speak of it's own opinion, unsupported at that, and not defend the points it tries to make.....
This is an excellent observation. The funny part is that his "facts" (opinions), are easily disproven with actual facts, but then he considers those facts to be "foolish", usually doesn't bother to rebut them, but then posts the same false information again.
engineermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 12:12 AM   #774
Senior Member
 
geno51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Prescott AZ
Posts: 2,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 480
Thanked 427 Times in 261 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike View Post

I get 200 ft-lb of additional torque for $2000. What's it cost to add that torque to your 5.0?
Careful mike don't claim that your going to bring the troll over from the other thread

But yes your right you can add that and no the 5.0 won't do that for the same price
__________________
2012 Fx4 EB Screw 3.73 EL 5.5 bed. Full Race SCTtune,Full Race Intercooler, Full Race 3" Exhaust, Afe stage2 CAI,Bilinvic custom FXR 3" retro 55w 5k headlights Custom indash 9" android tablet
geno51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 12:16 AM   #775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 11
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

I didn't read anything but the last few posts so I'm guessing people are back and forth like most "opinions". I just thought I would throw in my two cents. I've owned both 2012 5.0 & eco. Both are good power plants. If you gotta have the sound -5.0. If you want impressive performance -eco. Both seem to get about same mileage with same driving characteristics, from what I've observed. I went with the eco because I am a stickler about having tons of power and speed. The only vehicle I have ever been happy with was a hopped up 6.0 diesel. Oh, and by the way, tune filter and catback and I think this eco will be all I need. I'm happy with a tune. Hope it helps.
chrisrennison21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 12:56 AM   #776
Senior Member
 
ibd2328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,023
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Thanks: 62
Thanked 309 Times in 258 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_earth View Post
Yes the ECO develops more torque at a much lower RPM range and probably is a better engine for towing "heavier" trailers but what I keep reading on this forum is if you want to tow get the ECO. I just want to say that I tow my 18' dual axle travel trailer with my 5.0/3.73 and it tows really great.

Never once did the transmission shift into 1st going over the Red mountain pass in CO (11,600") on 550 heading south into Durango this last summer. On the steepest grades it held 2nd/3rd just fine. I also had my truck bed full with dirtbikes, generator, and gear as well as the family in the cab. I also averaged 11.6 mpg for my entire trip from AZ to CO and back with some off roading with the trailer in tow in 4 low thrown in too.

Just saying this because I keep reading post almost suggesting the 5.0 is a poor choice for towing. Just think back a few years when the average 1/2 ton did not even come close to the torque and HP both these engines have today as well as having a 6 speed transmission.
I think my 2003 1/2ton is rated at 350ft-lbs at 2500... so in 10years you have 30 more ft-lbs at +2000 more rpms. Not really a valid statement. Also note: you have a 6 speed tranny with a Torque converter ratio of greater than 2.3, the generation 10's have 4-speed automatics with 1.9 stall ratios and still have within 5% of the max towing of a newer model.(some even have higher payloads). The point is, the newer models are all about efficiency!!! They do the same amount of work, just with more Efficiency.


You are valid on your other statements about both being good towing trucks. However, again, I think the issue is: which one is more efficient while doing the same amount of work.

Sure, the 5.0 could tow a 8k+ trailer and so could the eco.... The question is how efficient can it do this? Obviously, work is the constant in this equation so you have to look at other variables. Such as: RPM's, fuel economy while doing work, strain on components, Torque converter stall % vs final drive.

And just so everyone knows, Horsepower at an RPM below 5252 is torque's worst enemy. It's simple mathematics. @5252 rpm torque = hp. When the rpm range is below 5252 torque is always greater than HP. When rpm is above 5252, HP is always greater than torque. They don't work together like most people have been taught by their friends. Unless you are racing, HP is really a negligible constant in truck equation.

Okay, I'm done
P.S. sorry for using efficiency like 100times in this post. Just wanted to get the point across
__________________

Last edited by ibd2328; 04-06-2013 at 12:59 AM.
ibd2328 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 08:11 AM   #777
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 2,363
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Thanks: 67
Thanked 196 Times in 166 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibd2328 View Post
Unless you are racing, HP is really a negligible constant in truck equation.
Torque is a measurement of work being done, hp is how fast the work is being done. So unless you want school bus or dump truck performance, hp is important in day to day utility.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/h...e/viewall.html

Edit: my point is, neither hp nor tq is the 'only thing you need'. For the most utility in a daily driver, a balance of hp/tq is optimum.
__________________
2010 Tux Black Raptor SCAB

Last edited by WarSurfer; 04-06-2013 at 08:15 AM.
WarSurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 09:13 AM   #778
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 3,187
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanks: 570
Thanked 740 Times in 414 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRSkinner View Post
2. The gas savings are minimal--if any

2. I get more performance. Yes you do and very little for the money....
You've quoted CR a few times, citing them as "experts". I'd like for you to review some information published by the experts at MotorTrend, who compared all 4 of the new Ford engines:

Ecoboost
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorTrend
At 17.2 mpg, our fuel economy was ... best of the test....the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2. The EcoBoost F-150 was fastest of the test, reaching 60 mph in 6.2 seconds and finishing the quarter in 14.8 seconds at 95.0 mph....The dyno showed 316 rear-wheel horsepower
5.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorTrend
The Coyote-equipped F-150 goes from 0 to 60 in 6.9 seconds, and finishes the quarter mile in 15.3 seconds at 93.3 mph....as-tested fuel economy (15.5 mpg)...The best dyno run showed 286 peak horsepower
So, Ford's "hype" says the EB has 1% more hp and gets 5% more mpg. MT found that the EB actually makes 9% more hp and gets 11% more mpg.

And here's the kicker:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorTrend
EcoBoost engine had most power on the dynamometer, followed closely by the 6.2L, then the 5.0L
So, the "hyped" 365 hp engine made more power than the 411 hp engine. Which one was overhyped again?

And finally, about the "very little performance for the money", note that the good people of the F150forum, stock for stock, have run .6 seconds slower in the quarter with the 5.0 vs the EB (quickest vs quickest in similar weight trucks). That difference is a pretty good bargain for roughly $1500.

Last edited by engineermike; 04-06-2013 at 09:47 AM.
engineermike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 10:25 AM   #779
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 2,363
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Thanks: 67
Thanked 196 Times in 166 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike View Post

So, the "hyped" 365 hp engine made more power than the 411 hp engine. Which one was overhyped again?
.
I hate to pick on you Mike, given who your post is addressing, but the 6.2 clearly made more hp:

Name:  image-590176658.jpg
Views: 27
Size:  27.4 KB

The Eco made more hp lower in the range, but the 'most' power was made by the 6.2. Their statement that the Eco made more power than the 6.2 is false, according to their Dyno graph. More usable power perhaps, but that wasn't their statement.

I totally get the point you are trying to make, and don't disagree. I'm just not in love with MT's reporting style.
__________________
2010 Tux Black Raptor SCAB
WarSurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WarSurfer For This Useful Post:
thundergrey (04-06-2013)
Old 04-06-2013, 10:37 AM   #780
Nicer than ymeski56
 
XtraLargeTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Morgan, Colorado/Curtis, NE
Posts: 21,728
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Thanks: 136
Thanked 440 Times in 321 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarSurfer View Post
I hate to pick on you Mike, given who your post is addressing, but the 6.2 clearly made more hp:

Attachment 210062

The Eco made more hp lower in the range, but the 'most' power was made by the 6.2. Their statement that the Eco made more power than the 6.2 is false, according to their Dyno graph. More usable power perhaps, but that wasn't their statement.

I totally get the point you are trying to make, and don't disagree. I'm just not in love with MT's reporting style.
I'd never seen that graph before and so it was kinda interesting how the EB was above the 6.2 all the way to 5K RPM where it ran out of steam and the 6.2 kept going.
XtraLargeTall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 10:37 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Join F150 Forum

 

The Mustang Source
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 20011 F150forum.com
This site is in no way affiliated with the Ford Motor Company.