Originally Posted by ThreeOhTwo

We are upset because some unelected governmental body, the EPA, is taking away our choice for no reason other than to try to justify their existence and exercise their extensive power. (What good is power if you can't exercise it?) Some of us like larger-displacement naturally-aspirated engines compared to smaller turbo engines for various reasons, mainly increased reliability, mechanical simplicity (although a 32-valve DOHC VVT V8 isn't exactly "simple") and that a larger engine sounds better and runs smoother than a small turbo one.

Originally Posted by edreddy

And exactly what is wrong with the 3.5 ecoboost? I do know the 5.0 is a nice engine too, but seriously, if the Limited only came in Ecoboost, is that such a bad thing?

Personally, I'm waiting for the 6 cyl 4L twin turbo diesel they shelved a few years back.

Originally Posted by rigrat2011

Id rather have a mild v8, than a v6 working Its butt off just to keep up to the v8.

Originally Posted by NASSTY

With the turbos the V6 isn't working it's butt off. Without them it would be.

Originally Posted by rigrat2011

Sorry man.... But heres How i look at it.

More moving parts, more chances for something to go wrong, or breaks.

I prefer natural asperation... And fewer moving parts.

Just having a 6speed auto, was a bit for me.

But, nothing is better than a natural asperation.

Id rather have a mild v8, than a v6 working Its butt off just to keep up to the v8.

Without the turbos, the eco isnt anything... Period.

Originally Posted by geno51

Less moving parts in the Eco

Do research instead of just blindly making something up

Originally Posted by rigrat2011

It seems some would argue that the 5.4 sucks. I would agree... But not as much as the eco would, without Its turbos