5.0 or Ecoboost 2.7 - - - What would you recommend?
#21
Sounds to me like... ....your an SUV kinda guy-yes? Stick with that. My wife has an 09 Tahoe, and yes it rides like a car. Hook a trailer on it....and it's a marshmallow. Which is fine if that's what you like. My 14 F150 XLT 4X4 rides descent, for a truck. So I'm not sure what the problem is, but I've owned several different brands of trucks....business and personal. The F150 is a very well built truck, especially coming from a Titan. I don't care what brand you choose,.....a truck has different characteristics. In my opinion the TT 3.5 is one hell of a motor. Would I take a 5.0, 3.7, or 6.2(soon to be extinct)-absolutely.
Their all great power plants - period. Plus every single engine can and will need some type maintenance.
Their all great power plants - period. Plus every single engine can and will need some type maintenance.
#24
Senior Member
I think the $ to HP ratio favors the 5.0.
#28
Senior Member
Back in 1968 they really didn't use the liter designation for engine size. They used cubic inch displacement. Engines such as 302, 351, 390, 427, 428, and 429 were part of the Ford lineup in the late 60's.
At some point in the late 70's/early 80's engine designation switched from cubic inch displacement to liter's. I don't know why but they did. Most old school car guys like myself tend to talk in cubic inches. I have a 502 cubic inch big block in my 72 Z/28. I don't walk around telling people I have an 8.0 liter engine because that's just gay.
As for the difference between the 5.0 truck motor and the ecoboost motors, I can tell you this, most bigger V8 motors tend to have a lower torque curve than an motor with a power adder like a turbo or a supercharger. Meaning the V8 should have more low end grunt where the power adder motor needs a few RPM's to get there.
I admit that I know this about older motors and my experience with newer motors is limited because frankly I don't care about them.
At some point in the late 70's/early 80's engine designation switched from cubic inch displacement to liter's. I don't know why but they did. Most old school car guys like myself tend to talk in cubic inches. I have a 502 cubic inch big block in my 72 Z/28. I don't walk around telling people I have an 8.0 liter engine because that's just gay.
As for the difference between the 5.0 truck motor and the ecoboost motors, I can tell you this, most bigger V8 motors tend to have a lower torque curve than an motor with a power adder like a turbo or a supercharger. Meaning the V8 should have more low end grunt where the power adder motor needs a few RPM's to get there.
I admit that I know this about older motors and my experience with newer motors is limited because frankly I don't care about them.
#29
On more meds than ymeski
Odd, I owned a 7 litre galaxie.
As for the rest of the eco vs. bulls#=+, this thread is heading in the inevitable direction and may take some with it. Fair warning.
As for the rest of the eco vs. bulls#=+, this thread is heading in the inevitable direction and may take some with it. Fair warning.
The following users liked this post:
sunset (03-21-2015)
#30
FX4RoadWarrior
Back in 1968 they really didn't use the liter designation for engine size. They used cubic inch displacement. Engines such as 302, 351, 390, 427, 428, and 429 were part of the Ford lineup in the late 60's.
At some point in the late 70's/early 80's engine designation switched from cubic inch displacement to liter's. I don't know why but they did.
At some point in the late 70's/early 80's engine designation switched from cubic inch displacement to liter's. I don't know why but they did.
Outside the usa the rest of the world uses Metric system.
I'm pretty sure it makes it easier on the manufacturer that way as well.
You might find the odd car marketed for an american consumer like "Boss 302"
One day america should wake up and join the rest of us and go metric!