engineermike

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

I get 200 ft-lb of additional torque for $2000. What's it cost to add that torque to your 5.0?

engineermike

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.

geno51

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

chrisrennison21

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.

ibd2328

iTrader: (2)

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. [MENTION=106909]525[/MENTION]2 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

WarSurfer

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.

engineermike

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
5.0
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:

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.

WarSurfer

I hate to pick on you Mike, given who your post is addressing, but the 6.2 clearly made more hp:



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.

XtraLargeTall

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.