mass-hole

Seems he just hates the ecoboost so much he went off the hinges and made himself look like a fool.

I know having the turbos go at 160k sucks. Its not the norm though and I really cant think of toooooo many cars I have had that didnt have some kind of issue by those kind of miles. I dont think I would be so pissed I wouldnt buy another ecoboost, in fact, I would probably take it as an opportunity to upgrade to GT's

RacerRoo

I think peoples fears of turbos are overrated myself. I have owned 3 turbo saabs (still have the convertible sitting in storage). I have never had turbo issues and one of the cars had the weaker Garrett that was known to fail by 100,000kms. The trick with turbos is fully synthetic oil changes and more often than what the manufacturer calls for. I stuck to 5-6,000 km intervals and at 200,000kms that Garrett was still going fine with just a little blow by at the seals during start up.

Because the 2018s are dual injected I would be tempted myself to get the 2.7 as the valve carbon build up should be ok now with the port fuel washing the intake valves. The drawback with turbos is the higher heat you get that degrades oil faster and increases engine bay heat temperatures and temperature cycling. This temperature effect degrades all the plastic and rubber parts in the engine bay much quicker. And we know how much plastic they are shoving under the hood these days.
Also, because of the use of dissimilar materials in the 2.7 (iron and aluminum), my fear with that engine is that it will start leaking from all the seams it has. The thermal cycling with different coefficients of thermal expansion materials is more likely to compromise the sealing with time. I keep my vehicles a long time, and as it happened with my 2 Saabs, the small steady oil drips are annoying down the road. Who knows... maybe it won't be an issue at all, but unless you drive a cool running older technology engine, I believe many of us have experienced old oil dripping cars and it's annoying and often cost prohibitive to repair.

Oh and to clarify, I am not on a farm. Short commute to work, middle aged family man with an engineer degree and tool and die papers.

LSchicago

Motor trend just tested one. Pretty quick for the base engine. Said it towed 5,000# with ease. See: http://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-...k-of-the-year/

WildernessLVR

[QUOTE=STeXy;5581733 (...) I will trade both of my EB vehicles in for the 3.3 that you are advocating as superior. [/QUOTE]

I've read through the whole thread and don't recall anyone mentioning superiority of any engine at all... Your screen must be loading at such a low rate you have to guess words to fill in the blanks... Regardless of that. "Superiority" is relative... David defeated Goliath, according to the books.

To the OP, you clearly show that you have some general knowledge and common sense and I'm pretty sure that will be your help for a better judgement of your need, granted some help from outside is always welcome.

Unfortunately I can't comment on the engine, but I clearly agree with some that it has been pointed out as having the capability for the every day use you plan for it.

You mentioned that it might not be a farm use that you intend it for (where I'd say there's always that situation that you could need it) so, with a locable RWD and good winter tires I think you could pass on 4x4 (I think, since I rarely use mine as I use good winter tires).

Now, I went to the Ford website and noticed that an XLT with the 3.3 & RWD you can only have 5.5' bed on a Crew cab and 6.5' on Scab. Didn't check other configurations since you know better what to research for, but just wanted to help with something... So Ford limits you on these variables. I advise you to play with the build-up website in case you haven't yet and get some more info on options to fit your wants/needs and budget.

Good luck!

2018 reg cab

Driving mix 80% interstate 20% town.3.55 rear gear. Non ethanol at a few stations, I have not tried it in this truck. There is a mid blend 89 I have thought of trying. According to my two apps on 87 cost per mile is .10 cents, on 91 12 cents.

javelina1

OP - I recently purchased a Regular Cab, 4x4 sport setup, with the 3.3, 6spd, and a 3.55 rear locker. Exactly what I wanted! With this setup, I'm more than happy with what I got. Glad to subscribe to this thread, to hear what other 3.3 owners will end up posting.

SNOW.

Had a '18 3.3 4x4 as a rental last week.
Good off the line in first couple of gears. Runs out of steam quick on the on-ramp. Lack of torque going up a slight hill forcing downshift. Was happy to go back to twin-turbo land.

javelina1

Interesting data point. I've no issue with a down shift when going up hill. What was it doing, dropping from 6th to 4th? This weekend, we plan to take ours through some of the mountains here in AZ. I fully expect plenty of downshifts. :-) (We have a 2006 Jeep TJ, with a 4spd auto, and 33" tires. Always downshifting on the climbs. But understand that's not relevant here). Just wondering what you call slight uphill. all good brother... keep on trucking...

Ricklee4570

The 3.5 na was bulletproof, you never hear of anyone having problems and with the 3.73 gears they did great at low speeds. I owned one for 6 months before trading for a 2.7. I liked mine and I think it will fill your needs just fine.

tdog02

Is it safe to come back?