2013 Ecoboost or 5.0L V8 ?
07-25-2013, 08:47 AM
#51
Senior Member
The following users liked this post:
5.0FX4 (12-04-2013)
07-25-2013, 09:16 AM
#52
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by jwanck11:
fringe_remnant (08-15-2013),
MaxD08 (08-11-2013)
07-25-2013, 09:33 AM
#53
Senior Member
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.
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.
07-25-2013, 10:04 AM
#54
07-25-2013, 10:34 AM
#55
Senior Member
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.
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.
07-25-2013, 10:40 AM
#56
The Bear
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.
Now if I could just get that V8 sound from it, lol.
07-25-2013, 10:50 AM
#57
On more meds than ymeski
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...
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...
07-25-2013, 10:56 AM
#58
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.
07-25-2013, 09:42 PM
#59
Senior Member
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...
07-27-2013, 09:27 PM
#60
Senior Member
Well put
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.
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.
