Considering dropping Ecoboost for 5.0
01-30-2015, 10:10 PM
#141
Here's some common sense: No one ever said theyre worried about mass, up-front catastrophic failure of the 3.5. That has nothing to do with it and you guys are missing the point. Bottom line is, even if Fords claims are spot on and it goes 150k as a workhorse, what happens at 250k? 350k? The turbo hardware isnt going last forever if its frequently spooling up to tow that heavy load for 15-20 years. that's just science. ..its going to start lagging and mileage will go down eventually. And Its gonna cost you (or whoever owns that old truck then) a few thousand when it comes time to service it. Go ahead, laugh at me and name all the notoriously reliable GAS turbos throughout history.
The vast majority of these don't tow daily. Most are pavement queens. But let's be honest, ford doesn't make a half ton motor I'd want to tow daily with. That went away with the 6.2. The 5.0 is going to run 5-15% higher rpms. Is that so much better?
But turbo replacement simply isn't that expensive. Seriously, worrying about turbos when you have electronic power steering, vct, sunroof, 6-8 speed transmissions, transfer cases , and power everything. A failure of some of those costs as much or more than 2-4 turbos installed. It's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. People spend more on lift kits, tires, and tuners and tunes than turbo replacement. And those things actually have a potential detrimental impact on longevity too. Unless you drive a stripped down 6.2 or 3.7 turbos on a 3.5 should be the least of your worries.
The following 5 users liked this post by packplantpath:
08SDGal (01-31-2015),
130428 (01-31-2015),
frieed (01-31-2015),
moseinsocks (01-31-2015),
NickPic83 (01-31-2015)
01-30-2015, 10:26 PM
#142
So we are worried about 300,000 mile outcomes? 99% of any vehicle models made will never get there. Between poor maintenance and accidents that ship has sailed. By 300,000 miles engines are shot regardless of technology unless diesel. And even if the engine is good, the rest of the vehicle is shot. Too darn many bells and whistles. The era of the 300,000 mile truck is over. How many people want to drive a 300,000 mile camry because it isn't going to be much different?
The vast majority of these don't tow daily. Most are pavement queens. But let's be honest, ford doesn't make a half ton motor I'd want to tow daily with. That went away with the 6.2. The 5.0 is going to run 5-15% higher rpms. Is that so much better?
But turbo replacement simply isn't that expensive. Seriously, worrying about turbos when you have electronic power steering, vct, sunroof, 6-8 speed transmissions, transfer cases , and power everything. A failure of some of those costs as much or more than 2-4 turbos installed. It's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. People spend more on lift kits, tires, and tuners and tunes than turbo replacement. And those things actually have a potential detrimental impact on longevity too. Unless you drive a stripped down 6.2 or 3.7 turbos on a 3.5 should be the least of your worries.
The vast majority of these don't tow daily. Most are pavement queens. But let's be honest, ford doesn't make a half ton motor I'd want to tow daily with. That went away with the 6.2. The 5.0 is going to run 5-15% higher rpms. Is that so much better?
But turbo replacement simply isn't that expensive. Seriously, worrying about turbos when you have electronic power steering, vct, sunroof, 6-8 speed transmissions, transfer cases , and power everything. A failure of some of those costs as much or more than 2-4 turbos installed. It's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. People spend more on lift kits, tires, and tuners and tunes than turbo replacement. And those things actually have a potential detrimental impact on longevity too. Unless you drive a stripped down 6.2 or 3.7 turbos on a 3.5 should be the least of your worries.
^amen brother!
01-30-2015, 10:37 PM
#143
Senior Member
Cant believe this thread is still going.
If Ford offered a V10 in the new F150 I'd still pick it over the EB V6.
Get over it.
If Ford offered a V10 in the new F150 I'd still pick it over the EB V6.
Get over it.
01-30-2015, 11:01 PM
#144
Senior Member
Yeah, I doubt either the 5.0 or the eco's make it 300k lol. Aren't the cylinder pressures, pressure on the intake manifold, pressures somewhere higher on a turbo motor? It seems like there'd be more stress on the engine of a forced induction motor than a NA motor, gaskets could fail earlier, issues like spark knock/misfires could be more serious on a turbo engine, etc. Or is that untrue? That's what makes me concerned about getting the Eco. Plus, can someone find a used gas turbo motor with close to 200k miles? Because I know I can find a NA engine with over 200k. Heck, I just sold a truck with one last month (GM 350 w/ 240k miles). Not trying to be argumentative, I've honestly never seen a turbo gas motor with 200k miles. Possibly because that type engine has been in sportier cars in the past that lived short lives, I don't know. So what's up with that? Any high mileage turbo gas engines around?
01-30-2015, 11:26 PM
#147
Why anyone would want that prehistoric 5.0 is beyond me, couple old timers and their V-8 drone SMH, thankfully the technology and vehicle manufacturers will be putting this old dog to rest in a couple years.
Don't worry guys, you can still have you drone via Ford sound system.
Don't worry guys, you can still have you drone via Ford sound system.
The following users liked this post:
ducgsxr (01-31-2015)
The following users liked this post:
2ndchance (01-31-2015)
01-31-2015, 12:20 AM
#150
I'd like to pose a question...
All possible longevity issues aside, has anyone ever owned an F150 that was a more capable towing platform than a current one with the Ecoboost engine?
An honest question that I think I know the answer to. I've not seen any media comparisons between the eco and the 6.2 but it think that at higher elevations (where I tow), the eco prevails hands down, and at lower elevations, with the ecoboost torque curve, it will do the vast majority of towing at a more comfortable rpm.
All possible longevity issues aside, has anyone ever owned an F150 that was a more capable towing platform than a current one with the Ecoboost engine?
An honest question that I think I know the answer to. I've not seen any media comparisons between the eco and the 6.2 but it think that at higher elevations (where I tow), the eco prevails hands down, and at lower elevations, with the ecoboost torque curve, it will do the vast majority of towing at a more comfortable rpm.