2011-12 Ecoboost vs. V8 5.0??
#771
Senior Member
...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.....
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.
#773
Senior Member
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.
#774
Senior Member
#775
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.
#776
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
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.
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.
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
Last edited by ibd2328; 04-06-2013 at 12:59 AM.
#777
Senior Member
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.
Last edited by WarSurfer; 04-06-2013 at 08:15 AM.
#778
Senior Member
Ecoboost
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
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
And here's the kicker:
Originally Posted by MotorTrend
EcoBoost engine had most power on the dynamometer, followed closely by the 6.2L, then the 5.0L
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.
#779
Senior Member
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.
The following users liked this post:
thundergrey (04-06-2013)
#780
Meaner than ymeski56
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.
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.