2011-12 Ecoboost vs. V8 5.0??
03-20-2013, 11:41 AM
#631
You agree with Skinner; you're an idiot.
Wow this thread is running long so let me make it longer.
Eco Boost is more efficient even if just a little, has more towing capacity, and is more expensive than 5.0. Long term cost of operation will likely be higher because anyway you slice it two turbos will require more maintenance and repairs in the long run than no turbos. I don't think the technology is as mind blowing as the hype however is the first time that I know of the Ford has a twin turbo on a gasoline powered truck the inevitably they will have to work out some quirks.
It really boils down preference. Heck most in this forum don't tow or haul anything on their trucks yet they own a truck.
Eco Boost is more efficient even if just a little, has more towing capacity, and is more expensive than 5.0. Long term cost of operation will likely be higher because anyway you slice it two turbos will require more maintenance and repairs in the long run than no turbos. I don't think the technology is as mind blowing as the hype however is the first time that I know of the Ford has a twin turbo on a gasoline powered truck the inevitably they will have to work out some quirks.
It really boils down preference. Heck most in this forum don't tow or haul anything on their trucks yet they own a truck.
Now that I am done ranting about the foolishness that persists, this seems well thought out and I wish I had said it that way. I disagree that is boils down to preference. It is choice: Do I want to pay more money for a little more hp and towing capacity that most who have made eco their choice bought? No. Is it a good choice to trade maintenance issues for HP? I don't think I need more than 360 hp and whatever the torque is. Thank you for saying that the technology is not mind blowing and mentioning the hype. The thug mentality here is pretty funny though and I really like the people who point out the v8 5.0 of 1995, that has 304k mi is not the same motor as the coyote, therefore I don't know what I am talking about and therefor I am wrong that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words turbos have been around a long time and have not lived up to the hype. Back to square one: If you want to save gas, ride a bike. If you want to spend money for slightly more performance by eco and live with the problems of the new technology (I know turbos are not new), but the way it is applied is. In case you have yet to figure it out, turbos are not all that popular. When I had a turbo rebuilt is was $3000. With the heat those puppies endure, I was not prepared to find out how long Ford's turbos (I know they are not made by Ford) will last. Did anyone ever stop to ask: Why doesn't Ford make their own turbos? Hmmmm...they can build an engine, but not a turbo?
03-20-2013, 12:00 PM
#632
Slightly more power? Oh, I guess based on a peak number. I guess areas under a curve doesn't mean anything to the layperson. How about 30% more torque and HP at 2500 rpms.
Slightly more power when compared to the 6.2 liter under 4000 rpms would be accurate.
I would agree that the ecoboost is not worth the investment if it were true that it makes slightly more power. Thus, I disagree.
Slightly more power when compared to the 6.2 liter under 4000 rpms would be accurate.
I would agree that the ecoboost is not worth the investment if it were true that it makes slightly more power. Thus, I disagree.
03-20-2013, 12:07 PM
#633
Who's winning?
03-20-2013, 12:29 PM
#635
Just going to add a little fuel to the fire. Consumers Reports says to avoid F150 with Ecoboost for 2011 (April 2013 Issue).
I have the 5.0 litre, but my next F150 will be an Ecoboost.
I have the 5.0 litre, but my next F150 will be an Ecoboost.
03-20-2013, 01:14 PM
#636
The following 2 users liked this post by Franchi Motorsports:
engineermike (03-20-2013),
geno51 (03-20-2013)
