Lenn

Ladies and Gents-

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a good little round or two of "Back and Forth". Hell, its what makes the world go 'round. What I don't want and what my staff will intervene with is when things get out of hand. Variations of "out of hand" exist from forum to forum. We have a relatively low tolerance for it here in the open forum because we don't want to become one of those sites that's got no tech threads (due to the techies leaving because of arguing) and its overrun by people that are arguing all the time (usually the people that don't contribute much beyond the OT section). That's not the message I want to send to my new members. If you guys want to "come at me, bro" until you jizz in each others eyes, come on down to the VIP section and cut loose. Heck, I might join in just for S's and G's.

packplantpath

Yea it sure is a shame that nobody gets the sticker mileage..... Wait you mean the sticker only claimed 21 highway?

You should have seen it before I had to peg it to get around a few asshats in the fast lane doing 50.

packplantpath

Looks like I missed all the fun here today while I had fun with my ecoboost. Just consider this thread an easy place to keep tabs on the riff raff. :-)

RRSkinner

Don't ask here. The site is full of ecoboasters. For me I read up and thought about what I use my truck for and how I want to spend my money. What I found after a great deal of research and numbers crunching is that ecoboost was not saving the gas hoped for and ecoboost was having mechanical problems. Further, I don't want to replace turbos and I had my last truck for 18 years. There is a ton of info out there. After reading I eliminated ecoboost. The salesman at the dealer love it. I am guessing they get a bonus. Then I was deciding between 3.7l and 5.0l. My old 5.0 had 170hp and I think the 3.7l is 320. Be careful you if you are not 100% accurate because the ecoboosters feast on any inaccuracy to try and discredit accurate information.

In My opinion eco is a better choice for some, but Ford is over-selling what it will do. 5.0 is better for me because I rarely tow and the 3.7 has plenty of power for me as well. I think the 5.0 will hold its value the best and eco will require the most maintenance. I wonder in 5 years what percent of eco owners will have fried turbos.

Here is some engine analysis:

How We Dyno Tested Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 Engines

Posted by Mike Levine | April 25, 2011

By G.R. Whale and Mike Levine, Photos by Greg Whale
In response to reader comments about observed low-end power output (or rather, the lack of measured output below 2,000 rpm) during our earlier dyno test of Ford’s all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, we’ve rerun the test.
This time, we combined engineering resources from Ford and our friends at K&N Engineering. Ford graciously flew in an engineer from Dearborn, Mich., to participate in the testing at K&N’s headquarters in Riverside, Calif.
We also made sure we had two 2011 F-150s to compare on the same day on K&N’s SuperFlow chassis dyno – an EcoBoost V-6 and a 5.0-liter V-8. Both trucks were 145-inch-wheelbase models with four-wheel drive and 3.73 rear axles. The EcoBoost F-150 ($41,300) was a SuperCab FX4 with a 6.5-foot cargo box and 4,650 miles on its odometer. The 5.0 F-150 ($40,715) was a SuperCrew with a 5.5-foot cargo box and 3,130 miles. All the tires were identical: Wrangler SR-A P275/65R18 114T.
The SuperFlow eddy-current dyno is different from the Dynojet inertia-type dyno we’ve used in the past. Whereas an inertia dyno measures engine power at a vehicle’s rear wheels based on how fast it can spin heavy drums, an eddy-current dyno adds the ability to simulate a load on the trucks by using electro-magnets to add resistance to drum spin, as if they were pulling a trailer.

EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 F-150 on the Superflow dyno.
Both trucks were run in two-wheel drive, lashed down securely on the SuperFlow’s four spinning rollers.
Conditions were favorable the entire day. It was cloudy with a light drizzle. The temperature in the dyno cell was 68 degrees, barometric pressure was 29 inches and humidity was 45 percent. K&N used industry-standard SAE correction factors to determine the power ratings from both trucks, which account for environmental factors at the time of testing.
To keep both trucks cool, we used seven fans: three in the forward room wall, two squirrel-cage fans aimed at the radiator, one squirrel targeted at the EcoBoost’s turbo intercooler in the lower bumper and one directly under the right side exhaust.
EcoBoost on the Dyno
The EcoBoost gasoline twin-turbo direct-injection engine required more than six hours to test properly on the dyno because measuring its low-end power output was difficult.
At first, we encountered an issue accurately reading engine rpm on the dyno, even after the Ford engineer identified a specific wire for the dyno to "listen" to. Eventually, Ford and K&N decided to use vehicle speed to determine power output because the Ford engineer could receive the same data on his laptop that was plugged into the truck’s onboard diagnostic system as K&N measured with the dyno.





2011 Ford F-150 engine dyno data, as reported by Ford following SAE's J-1349 standard.

5.0 on the Dyno
The 5.0 required significantly less time and effort to "hook up" on the dyno.
Three runs were conducted within an hour of completing EcoBoost testing. Peak horsepower was measured at 285.5 hp at 5,913 rpm, and peak torque was measured at 284.9 pounds-feet at 4,290 rpm. That’s about 10 to 12 percent less power and torque than we observed on the Dynojet.
Why the drop in power and torque from our original 5.0 dyno session a few weeks ago? It’s possibly due to several factors, including wholly different dynos were used, we didn’t run the 5.0 on the Dynojet with a load on its rollers and it took six hours to dial-in the GTDI truck for best power. The same setting was copied for the 5.0, which might not be ideal for a naturally aspirated engine.
Throughout the tests, the 5.0 demonstrated a healthy torque curve that looks broader and less peaky than the EcoBoost, though at a lower level of power. It also shows off the engine’s ability to steadily wind up power all the way up to redline.
We continue to be big fans of the 5.0 as an excellent all-around engine. We think this is supported by the on-road data we collected during our full drive test and earlier Dynojet session at K&N.
Summary
We look forward to seeing other magazines and enthusiasts test their EcoBoost V-6 and 5.0-liter V-8 F-150s on chassis dynos around the country. We think they may also encounter some of the same challenges we had trying to find the best way to test a rear-wheel-drive twin-turbo gasoline direct-injection engine. We have no doubt that the EcoBoost engine is delivering the power. It's measuring it accurately, especially at lower RPMs, that's tricky.
Regardless of where peak power output was measured on the dyno, both the 5.0-liter V-8 and EcoBoost V-6 are incredible performers on the highway. They are engines the F-150 has long deserved to have. To determine which is best for you, be sure to read our in-depth road tests of both engines. And if you think one engine has an advantage over the other, it’s good to know that F-150 buyers have this kind of choice in capable half-ton powertrains.

The 5.0-liter V-8 F-150 on the Superflow dyno.
Special thanks to K&N Engineering and Ford Motor Company for providing the trucks, facility and assisting with this test.

RRSkinner

I meant to quote the guy who said I was saying the same thing over and over like it was scripted. Right back at you! All I am objecting to is the hype of ecoboost and the foolish replies I get to my objection. It is the same over and over:

1. I bought eco to save money. Fact--you are not going to save enough to pay for the expense at the dealer or for maintenance to pay for what you save at the pump.

2. I get more performance. Yes you do and very little for the money.

3. I get to tow more. Yes you do and then the MPG's are way worse than the V8

For me the V8 is a no-brainer for most people and most people who paid extra for the eco did so without thinking it through. They live in denial of the reality that they paid a lot extra for very little, if any value. Don't take it out on me! A fool and his money are soon parted. Let me know next time your eco is in the shop and I will give you a ride home. No hard feelings (unless you are a hot chick and eco-man isn't taking care of you) LOL

XtraLargeTall

If you care so little then why the hell are you consistently posting the same, disproven BS? Guess you really don't have anything better to do

rich_earth

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.

packplantpath

What year is your truck? 3rd gear for me is about 40 mph tops.

And nobody is saying the 5.0 is a bad towing motor. But it is definitely a less good towing motor that benefits much more from 3.73 rear end. Heck I've towed all over the place with much weaker engines like a chwvy 350 in a old dump truck. Weak as water but got the job done since it had a split shift 4 speed.

There is something to be said for having power to spare.

MadocHandyman

WTH are you talking about? Paying extra for very little? I paid less for my Eco than I would have for the 6.2 option.
You still aren't getting it.

beakie

1. I think everyone involved, himself included, understands that skinner is not looking to discuss facts. it is looking only to speak of it's own opinion, unsupported at that, and not defend the points it tries to make.

2. pointing out the obvious, while common sense to most, only causes skinner to have to create new "opinions" which will go un-supported... entertaining, but tiresome.



The 5.0L is a great engine, strong, economical and most importantly, built Ford tough.
3.5L Ecoboost is another great engine, stronger than the 5L, slightly better mileage, and again, built Ford tough.

Mileage wise they are comparable, but power wise they really aren't... taking that into consideration, some people don't need as much engine as the 3.5L offers, so why would they go with it?
Can't everyone agree with that?

Even skinner is able to justify going with the 5L over the 3.7L, even after stating it's more engine than he used to have, and currently needs. He bought it for his reasons, but uses his own fabrications to justify doing so. Kind of the way some will buy the 3.5L with Max Tow, knowing they will never need it, but it's "nice to have".





All that said, if nothing else, the stories skinner tells sure are entertaining... of all the fabrications (I mean "jobs") he's come up with, I'm really surprised Fiction Writer/Author wasn't included, atleast that would be believable.