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 07-25-2013, 08:47 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
EcoboostKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanked 126 Times in 99 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVA99 View Post
2013 6.2L F150. Go big or go home...when towing TQ is king. 12 MPG no matter if towing, cruising hwy, or stop & go city. Consistent with power, MPG, and durable cast iron block.
You are correct!! Torque is king when it comes to towing. So wouldn't you rather have max torque at 2500 rpms with the ecoboost rather than waiting to hit 4500 rpms to reach max torque with the 6.2L??? Then the best part is when your not towing you can average 20mpg on the highway..
__________________

2011 F150 FX4 Ecoboost
Max Tow Pkg, Fx Luxury Pkg
6.5' bed, 157"wheelbase
EcoboostKev is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EcoboostKev For This Useful Post:
5.0FX4 (12-04-2013)
Old 07-25-2013, 09:16 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 801
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanked 218 Times in 142 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by violinguy77 View Post
While I understand the base logic in your argument there are a few factors that you did not appear to include in your statement. Torque is monumental, we will both agree on that. However, how long does it take the motor to get into that power, i.e. how fast will it spin up. Depending on track conditions, racers will change the fly wheel either for quick acceleration or sustained speed when cruising.
Not following you... The 3.5 is in its power essentially immediately. The 5.0 takes longer to get to its power - and the 5.0 will never match the tq/hp power potential of the 3.5. I'm referencing the Tq curve for the engines as static information. Bottom line, the 3.5 will be at coast capability much quicker/sooner than the 5.0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by violinguy77 View Post
You say that dipping into the throttle and dropping gears is going to burn more gas and in the days of carburetored engines this was very true. You are correct that under higher RPMs the RATE at which fuel is consumed increases. Remember in the boosted applications the motor is performing like a larger displacement motor. You will note in the majority of advertised towing tests between the motors in question, the TT still managed similar or poorer fuel economy than the naturally aspirated 5.0 and even the 6.2. When under boost, the computer must contribute more fuel to the mix.
Although differently in carburetor applications, applying throttle in NA/DI FI engines consumes additional gas. Your last sentence is the kicker and 1 of 3 reasons the gas consumption numbers between the 3.5 and 5.0 appear similar. In order for the EB to maintain speed, boost is applied regularly starting at the lowest cruise RPMs - and perhaps too often. Boost is there because the 3.5 is a true tow machine and pruposed to be capable of moving a significant load behind it when and as needed. The down side is that more gas is consumed while simply cruising, the upside is that when moving the load is needed, that capability is present with the 3.5. That all speaks to the laws of averages...

The second reason gas consumption appears higher in real world application is all about driving style. 3.5 owners move their pull behinds as if they are not there, simply because they can, and that consumes an inordinate amount of gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by violinguy77 View Post
A lot of these arguments come down to perceived work the engine is doing and what it was designed to do. You can spin the 5.0 all day long and it will be fine. The excessive heat generated with forced induction is not present in this application. When towing you can take advantage of engine breaking at higher RPMs. You are not going to driving uphill both ways LOL.
There is no parasitic loss with a TT application so not sure what point you are making. Up hills, it is absolutely necessary to plant the foot in the throttle with any reasonable/significant load and spin the 5.0 in the highest parts of the RPM curve. Not only does that gulp gas, I disagree that it is OK to spin "all day long" and have an engine that is going to last for the long haul. Time will tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by violinguy77 View Post
That being said the recreational and light duty tower will fair fine with the 5.0. The seasoned hauler should consider the eco-boost or even a 3/4 ton. As mentioned by other posters, payload is usually what puts people over the limit, not the trailer in tow. I have posted an excerpt from an article where the author is towing with the 5.0 and you will note there was never a need to "floor it". INfact they had to back off the throttle going uphill.
I deleted reference to the article. Pre-purchase, I towed hills in my area with the 5.0. Real experience (not caring about needing to defend something I owned nor caring about who may or may not provide me sponsor money nor caring what anyone thought of the experience, etc...) was there was NO chance of getting off the throttle to maintain speed. I had to be in in hard to barely keep up with traffic. Deeper that the throttle is applied, more gas was consumed. The last part of the gas puzzle therefore is how hilly the route the average Joe is towing.

At the end of the day, I think most have summed up there is nothing to be significantly gained from debating the gas consumption issue. In my area, the 5.0 would have me at the pump far more than a 3.5. In other situations, the reverse would evaluate true. I still have no idea why anyone attempts to compare the 3.5 and the 5.0. They are not in the same class. Even that article broke down a choice that I can somewhat get behind in the last paragraph - mating an application to an engine. We do seem to agree that with no load or a light load, purchase choice all comes down to preference.

Last edited by jwanck11; 07-25-2013 at 09:23 AM.
jwanck11 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jwanck11 For This Useful Post:
fringe_remnant (08-15-2013), MaxD08 (08-11-2013)
Old 07-25-2013, 09:33 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
jayandsam09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: GA
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Thanked 131 Times in 104 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwanck11 View Post

Not following you... The 3.5 is in its power essentially immediately. The 5.0 takes longer to get to its power - and the 5.0 will never match the tq/hp power potential of the 3.5. I'm referencing the Tq curve for the engines as static information. Bottom line, the 3.5 will be at coast capability much quicker/sooner than the 5.0.

Although differently in carburetor applications, applying throttle in NA/DI FI engines consumes additional gas. Your last sentence is the kicker and 1 of 3 reasons the gas consumption numbers between the 3.5 and 5.0 appear similar. In order for the EB to maintain speed, boost is applied regularly starting at the lowest cruise RPMs - and perhaps too often. Boost is there because the 3.5 is a true tow machine and pruposed to be capable of moving a significant load behind it when and as needed. The down side is that more gas is consumed while simply cruising, the upside is that when moving the load is needed, that capability is present with the 3.5. That all speaks to the laws of averages...

The second reason gas consumption appears higher in real world application is all about driving style. 3.5 owners move their pull behinds as if they are not there, simply because they can, and that consumes an inordinate amount of gas.

There is no parasitic loss with a TT application so not sure what point you are making. Up hills, it is absolutely necessary to plant the foot in the throttle with any reasonable/significant load and spin the 5.0 in the highest parts of the RPM curve. Not only does that gulp gas, I disagree that it is OK to spin "all day long" and have an engine that is going to last for the long haul. Time will tell.

I deleted reference to the article. Pre-purchase, I towed hills in my area with the 5.0. Real experience (not caring about needing to defend something I owned nor caring about who may or may not provide me sponsor money nor caring what anyone thought of the experience, etc...) was there was NO chance of getting off the throttle to maintain speed. I had to be in in hard to barely keep up with traffic. Deeper that the throttle is applied, more gas was consumed. The last part of the gas puzzle therefore is how hilly the route the average Joe is towing.

At the end of the day, I think most have summed up there is nothing to be significantly gained from debating the gas consumption issue. In my area, the 5.0 would have me at the pump far more than a 3.5. In other situations, the reverse would evaluate true. I still have no idea why anyone attempts to compare the 3.5 and the 5.0. They are not in the same class. Even that article broke down a choice that I can somewhat get behind in the last paragraph - mating an application to an engine. We do seem to agree that with no load or a light load, purchase choice all comes down to preference.
Wow. I feel cheated. Having owned both, I guess I had a bad Eco. Same driving style and all my fuel mileage towing and not pulling have been better with the 5.0. My Eco was just too unreliable for my liking, 19 trips back in 11 months. Maybe that's why the mileage was so poor, especially towing.

From the sounds of all this info above though, Ford should only build the Eco and scrap all the lesser engines. If they do, I guess I will have to drive this 5.0 into the ground or buy another brand. It got so bad with mine that my wife called it the ecobust.
jayandsam09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:04 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,590
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Thanked 498 Times in 344 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayandsam09 View Post

Wow. I feel cheated. Having owned both, I guess I had a bad Eco. .
I thought you had established that was the case.......

It is OK though. Every data Analyst knows that the plural of anecdote is data.
packplantpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:34 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
EcoboostKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanked 126 Times in 99 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayandsam09 View Post
Wow. I feel cheated. Having owned both, I guess I had a bad Eco. Same driving style and all my fuel mileage towing and not pulling have been better with the 5.0. My Eco was just too unreliable for my liking, 19 trips back in 11 months. Maybe that's why the mileage was so poor, especially towing.

From the sounds of all this info above though, Ford should only build the Eco and scrap all the lesser engines. If they do, I guess I will have to drive this 5.0 into the ground or buy another brand. It got so bad with mine that my wife called it the ecobust.
Sorry for the problems you had and it was obvious you got stuck with a lemon which does happen with every brand. But there are hundreds of thousands of happy ecoboost owners that would disagree with your wife.. You were cheated!!!!!!
__________________

2011 F150 FX4 Ecoboost
Max Tow Pkg, Fx Luxury Pkg
6.5' bed, 157"wheelbase
EcoboostKev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:40 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
FordmanUGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

I do have to admit that after working at Carmax and test driving both the Eco and the 5.0 the Eco has won me over power wise.

Now if I could just get that V8 sound from it, lol.
__________________
2001 5.4L Lariat SCab 4X4 Offroad
FordmanUGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:50 AM   #57
On more meds than ymeski
 
my67falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The most famous town you have never heard of.
Posts: 10,625
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Thanked 542 Times in 327 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EcoboostKev View Post
I can't seem to find a 5.0 F150 anywhere in this link????
You know the obvious reason why the Ecoboost gets the Max tow pkg and not the 5.0... Ford certainly didn't just give the Ecoboost the max tow pkg over the 5.0 because it wanted to "PUSH" Ecoboost sales. The Ecoboost has proven to be the best towing 1/2 ton on the market...
IMHO: The 5.0l can pull the weight, it just isn't offered in the max tow platform. That being said, the Eco could easily pull more weight, it would exceed the safety limitations that Ford has set for the platform.
__________________
Lakum deenukum Waliya Deen

See Falcon blog. Blog Falcon, blog.
http://falcon-whyihatemyin-laws.blogspot.com/
my67falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 10:56 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,590
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Thanked 498 Times in 344 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by my67falcon View Post

IMHO: The 5.0l can pull the weight, it just isn't offered in the max tow platform. That being said, the Eco could easily pull more weight, it would exceed the safety limitations that Ford has set for the platform.
I agree. I tow with our work truck with a 5.0 occasionally. Compared to motors of 10 years ago the 5.0 is a dream. I just got won over by the ease of power in the Eco.
packplantpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2013, 09:42 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
EcoboostKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanked 126 Times in 99 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default

I'm not saying the 5.0 couldn't do the same job as the Eco. It certainly will and it's a fantastic engine but it just won't do it as effortless as the Eco...
__________________

2011 F150 FX4 Ecoboost
Max Tow Pkg, Fx Luxury Pkg
6.5' bed, 157"wheelbase
EcoboostKev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 09:27 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Spring, Tx.
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Thanked 57 Times in 37 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default Well put

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwanck11 View Post
Not following you... The 3.5 is in its power essentially immediately. The 5.0 takes longer to get to its power - and the 5.0 will never match the tq/hp power potential of the 3.5. I'm referencing the Tq curve for the engines as static information. Bottom line, the 3.5 will be at coast capability much quicker/sooner than the 5.0.



Although differently in carburetor applications, applying throttle in NA/DI FI engines consumes additional gas. Your last sentence is the kicker and 1 of 3 reasons the gas consumption numbers between the 3.5 and 5.0 appear similar. In order for the EB to maintain speed, boost is applied regularly starting at the lowest cruise RPMs - and perhaps too often. Boost is there because the 3.5 is a true tow machine and pruposed to be capable of moving a significant load behind it when and as needed. The down side is that more gas is consumed while simply cruising, the upside is that when moving the load is needed, that capability is present with the 3.5. That all speaks to the laws of averages...

The second reason gas consumption appears higher in real world application is all about driving style. 3.5 owners move their pull behinds as if they are not there, simply because they can, and that consumes an inordinate amount of gas.



There is no parasitic loss with a TT application so not sure what point you are making. Up hills, it is absolutely necessary to plant the foot in the throttle with any reasonable/significant load and spin the 5.0 in the highest parts of the RPM curve. Not only does that gulp gas, I disagree that it is OK to spin "all day long" and have an engine that is going to last for the long haul. Time will tell.



I deleted reference to the article. Pre-purchase, I towed hills in my area with the 5.0. Real experience (not caring about needing to defend something I owned nor caring about who may or may not provide me sponsor money nor caring what anyone thought of the experience, etc...) was there was NO chance of getting off the throttle to maintain speed. I had to be in in hard to barely keep up with traffic. Deeper that the throttle is applied, more gas was consumed. The last part of the gas puzzle therefore is how hilly the route the average Joe is towing.

At the end of the day, I think most have summed up there is nothing to be significantly gained from debating the gas consumption issue. In my area, the 5.0 would have me at the pump far more than a 3.5. In other situations, the reverse would evaluate true. I still have no idea why anyone attempts to compare the 3.5 and the 5.0. They are not in the same class. Even that article broke down a choice that I can somewhat get behind in the last paragraph - mating an application to an engine. We do seem to agree that with no load or a light load, purchase choice all comes down to preference.
Well put good man. At the end of the day the 3.5 is definitely the tow machine. You also make a good point about terrain and who is pulling what where. After a year with the 5.0 she is a great daily driver but ill be damned if I am going to tow more than 6500 lbs across country with it lol. I think to close the argue,net of fuel consumption we would really need to see fuel rate consumption in similar situations. At the end of the day it will very from driver to driver as you pointed out. Thanks for the rebuttals and discourse, it's nice to have someone that responds maturely and factually.
__________________
2012 Ford F150
FX2
5.0L V8
violinguy77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 09:27 PM
 
 
 
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 12:18 AM.


Copyright 2006 - 20011 F150forum.com
This site is in no way affiliated with the Ford Motor Company.