Ecoboost vs 5.0
 

Looking at getting a new F150 and I'm torn between the 2 engine options, the power from the ecoboost is great but I've heard mixed results on fuel economy. I've heard that the 5.0 and ecoboost get similar milage, was wondering what you guys with either a 5.0 or ecoboost are getting around town and on the highway around 70+ mph

An ecoboost vs 5.0 thread...


http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/20...1719531250.jpg

Welcome to the forum, I'd suggest going through and searching the many many MANY threads on this topic, tons of great info on hear.

Best of luck with your research :thumbsup:

Drive both, pick your poison

Summarizing all the research I did before purchasing mine:

1) If you will be towing / hauling a lot the ECO is a better choices, the power is available much earlier in the RPM range.
2) They get very similar MPGs, with the ECO getting the slight advantage.
3) More traditional truck sound with the 5.0


Personally, I chose the 5.0. I am not going to do that much towing / hauling and the 'premium' price with the ECO just didn't make sense for me.

They are both great trucks, like anything, each have advantages and disadvantages.

5.0 boy...

http://togif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/goahead.gif


lmao :jester:

My average commuting tank is about 17.5 (60 town/40 freeway). On the freeway, I'll be in the 20-22 mpg range depending on conditions.

No such thing as "better" in this case, but I knew right away which was right for me. One test drive in the EB and my mind was made up!

Seriously I would've gotten either but the truck with options I wanted had the EB

Keep in mind the EB is like Jekyll and Hyde.

Pulls like a beast (6.2) and just as thirsty while pulling so MPGs will plunge.

While not pulling its going to get mpg of the 5.0 or slightly better depending how you drive.

If you tow a lot and need the power, get the EB. If not go 5.0

I pull my 17' boat and a small trailer with my 5.0 and mpg is fine. Couldn't justify the cost of an ecoboost, and I've heard of some issues with the ecoboost. That 5.0 is a proven machine. Just search the forums. There's more information than you can handle.

Awesome!


FYI, the Coyote 5.0 is no more proven than the EB. Both came out in the F150 in 2011. It's not the same 302 from Ford's past.

This is pretty fair. Performance wise the ecoboost wins handily. Add a tune and the ecoboost will win by a LOT. Add a supercharger to the 5.0 and then it wins by a LOT. If you do put care, that's fine. But if you also say I don't rev my engine or race, you may benefit from the ecoboost since it has far greater low rpm torque. But you do pay for the premium engine.....

I think that really it's personal preferance. Both engines get the job done, but with the timing chain issues and some of the others, I think 5.0 may be a little bit safer. I love my 5.0 and have an eco in a lincoln mkt which is starting the noise on start up thing at 66k miles. I really like the eco too, but think if it's a severe duty application I might choose the 5.0 just due to it being less complex. That is just my opinion though so take it for what it's worth which ain't much lol.

I'm not sure the 5.0 is that much less complex. And some 5.0's have knocking issues.

I went with the 5.0 as I like the sound and did not want the turbo charger issues I read about with the ecoboost.

I didnt trust the ecoboost. And being I go out hunting a lot. I didnt want an unreliable engine and I trust the v8 5.0 more so.

Yep some 5.0s knock as do some 5.4s, 4.6 3vs and every other vvt engine from various mfgs. That said they still seem less problematic than ecos (I love my eco in the lincoln mkt but it's starting to make noise at start up now. Thank God its under warranty to 100k) which also have vvt and turbo/cac and cooling issues while towing. I have yet to hear of a 5.0 overheat issue while towing, while a cottage industry has sprung up around cooling ecos. The 5.0 holds two extra quarts of oil has external oil cooling and cooling jets on the pistons, it's complex as any modern engine but less than an eco and built tough to work hard and stay cool doing it.

Sigh

It's like the ground hog day movie with these threads

I don't think either one has a measurable advantage over the other for "normal" F150 owners. They both work excellent for normal chores like hauling the boat, etc. I chose the V8 because: I LOVE the sound, it has more than enough power for my needs, and I am of that age group that believes pickup trucks must have 8 cylinders and no turbos. This is my opinion- nothing more.

Find a truck in the color you want and all the options.

Then take whatever engine is under the hood.

I disagree that one motor has no measurable benefit over the other.

Eco has gobs more torque and with a simple tune ridiculous power (and yes having a tune is somewhat common).

5. 0 is measurably cheaper.

I agree they both work, but one IS "measurably" better.

If you and I had the same boat behind us, an Eco would pull that boat up to hwy speed with far more ease and pull a hill the same. That's enjoyable for a "normal" owner. :thumbsup:

My opinion as well. Funny how every manufacturer has this. Folks who don't buy the better engine and then explain why.... Mustang boards, camaro boards, truck boards.

I jumped ship from a tried and true 4.8 liter GM V-8. The low RPM torque of the eco made me do it.

Hey!!!

That's my line, give it back :D

https://www.f150forum.com/f38/2013-5...3/#post3122183

Fixed it for you.

What's "better" for you may not be "better" for everyone.

It's all a matter of usage and preference. One is NOT "better" than the other.

Dont know what im more sick of, these threads or those jokes that people make when they do start. Lol

?!?
 

5.0 ALL THE WAY! I Love the ecoboost, but here is why I choose the 5.0L V8.. First off... IT'S A FRIGGIN' V8, AND THOSE BELONG IN A TRUCK LOL LOL! But more importantly, 4+ years and certainly LESS than 7 from now you will be a happy camper... WHY? Ford is kind enough like anyone else. (Not picking on Ford guys) To ALLOW you to pay for the rebuild or replacement of those turbos and all parts for any thing needed, this is because at 36K your outta luck and warrenty. It's going to put you out at the low end a couple of grand. And remember things get less expensive every year right? Gas got cheaper, new trucks costs way less than ever before, food is definantly less, hell housing is way less expensive than 1970... OHH WAIT!... **** GOES UP, COSTS FOR ITEMS AND PARTS TOO Expect in 2020 that it will be around $5k with core exchange... NOT FOR ME THANK YOU! Any and all are welcome to challenge my thinking, I envite it!

You sound drunk

Inflation is a biotch. Turbos are under $500 each now but in 6 years they will cost around $2500 each.
http://www.tascaparts.com/ford/f-150...e=turbocharger
http://www.tascaparts.com/ford/f-150...e=turbocharger

I've got a curve:

5.0, eco or 3.7/3.5 THE FINAL ANLYSIS

The ecoboost is better for towing. It is a great motor, but there have been issues. The way turbos work, the fuel mixture compression costs mileage. That is why the eco gets less mileage than the larger 3.7. I don't see the eco as a heavy hauler. Just because it could, doesn't mean it should.

The 5.0. I don't see any drawbacks except for the lower tow rating. If you are worried about a little gas, get a prius. If you really want better gas mileage, slow down. You can get 30 miles to the gallon on the freeway going 45 and that has been proven.

The 3.7. Just as good with a little less towing capacity and power.

Here is the big question: Now that 5.0 has upped the power, which is faster the 5.0 or the eco.

Summary: Get the eco for some heavy hauling. The 5.0 has been more reliable and is close to the eco in performance. The 3.7 is competes too. Some people and the epa thing this truck gets the best gas mileage. It does on the freeway. Around town with the natural acceleration, the 3.7 runs higher rpm's and side by side all three of these motors are pretty even where most people do most of their driving.

Neither is any better they are just different. They will all do their intended job.

In the end they are all Ford F150's.

If you are looking for a motor to run for a very long time buy a diesel.

That sounds inflated and irrelevant. Inflation applies to incomes as well.

Oldsmuggler!
I don't drink AT ALL never have, and never will hate the smell, and for the record I am spot on about what I said. The cost will not be worth it in the end. But hey what do I know. Dad work for Ford for 41 years, I couldn't posibly know anything about these things. That's also why no 2.7L ecoboost for me either. Great CONCEPT in a powerplant, but Ford has been SUED because of the 3.5L eco issues... AND THAT'S DOCUMENTED. I also got Sh#$%^ on another post about humidity in areas such as Texas, Florida and others. Na sayers said turbo diesels have had no issues with humidity for 50+ years... YEP DIESELS, this is a GASSER motor, and water vapor will cause poblems with any motor... YOU CANNOT COMPRESS WATER... that is why.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/05...liter-v-6.html
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/...ine-defective/
http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/...t-engines.aspx

I can get 100's of these articles, point is I still love my F150, other trucks are great too. But I wanted this truck and I am generally happy with it. BUY WHAT YOU WANT... IT'S YOUR MONEY~! I have always said that, that includes ANY purcheses in life... My two cents..
BTW I have a standard cab V6 3.7L I will not have ecoboost issues and that my motor is strong. I love it!

RRSkinner??

A pick-up should have a V-8. Get one while you can, in a few years you might not be able to.

I actually didn't even test drive a 5.0. All the FX4's I looked at had the Ecoboost. I did test drive a Ram Laramie with a 5.7L Hemi though. No contest. The Ecoboost blew it away.

Test drive? What's that. It's an F150. No test drive required.

I didn't even consider an egoboost. You couldn't even give me one. .... Well, you could, but, I'd sell it and get a 5.0.

After reading about all of the knocking, ticking and oil consumption issues I didn't dare to buy a 5.0 so I went the safe route and got the Ecoboost. :jester:

Theres nothing like that v8 sound. 5.0 got my vote

I was a hardcore V8 guy, but after test driving an Eco and 5.0 back to back, the choice was easy. I went with the Eco. I have 61k trouble free miles so far and it tows my boat and car trailer like a champ!

I like my EB, it's powerful and smooth. I'm not completely sold on the 5.0, not because of reliability issues but because it's a complicated engine. I think GM has the upper hand on the V8's. If the money god's rain on me I might just twin screw my Chevy 5.3.

Since you can see the future, you should take your crystal ball and put some money on the games this weekend. That way, you won't have to worry about the core charges -- you'll be able to afford it!

Seriously, though, I'm on my 3rd consecutive turbo charged vehicle -- '02 VW Passat 1.8, '06 Chevy Duramax, and now the EB (had a Subaru in there for a year somewhere that I don't like to talk about ...). Both of the priors ran perfectly until I sold them around 130-150k miles. No turbo issues in my personal vehicles, and no turbo issues reported on the forums I frequented. I mean, sure, you'd hear about the random turbo replacement and plenty of issues w/ people modifying their vehicles (both of those vehicles were subject to a lot of modifications).

So, assuming I still have this truck in 7 yrs (unlikely), what makes the EB turbos likely to fail in large quantities compared to these other vehicles, or the other dozens of models of vehicles that have been running turbos for many years?

what!?! Somebody better tell my boss that!!!!!

Cost for parts usually goes down as the vehicle gets older. Go to Autozone and check prices for previous generations F150s parts

Also the same "too complicated & less reliable" argument was made when fuel injection, overhead cams, electric shift on the fly 4x4, automatic transmissions, etc

Now look what's in cars these days as standard equipment

That is true. However, the diesel costs more and is more to maintain. So the real advantage to the diesel is towing. The gas engines of today will go 200k if taken care of and beyond.

5/60,000 powertrain warranty, that should include turbos.

Just think you're traveling somewhere in BFE and you began having some sort of check-engine, drop into limp mode etc. issue. What do you think Wallies Goodyear is going to do with your Eco-Boost?

Ninety some odd percent of Ecoboosts don't have this issue so very few would even have a reason to worry about it.

Same thing they would with a 5.0. Diagnostic and order parts. Turbo charging is not rocket science

Thats why theres a lawsuit against ford.....

And there's a lawsuit for Cruise Control issues too but I don't see anyone saying Cruise Control is junk

No there ain't. 95 complaints vs over 600k Ecoboost F150s on the road wasn't enough resaon to justify a law suit.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...oss-issue.html

95 cases and suddenly they're are all a POS

Lmao

At a conservative 550k sales of EB, that roughly 0.016% have had the CAC issue

Maybe not recorded but theres wayyy more than 95 with issues

Says the EB hater...

What's "way more"? 200, 1000, 3000?

If it were 5500 of 550k it would still only be 1%

If it were 27,500 it would be only 5%

I dont hate the ecoboost. Just for me, because im off the main roads a lot I tried to pick the most reliable engine IMO and my own research. The ecoboost pulls like no other tho.

Well guys I bit the bullet.....just not on a new F150. Instead I got a 08 ram 2500 cummins, can't beat the power and economy of a diesel. Thanks for the info...

Either engine is good. I'd make my choice on need more than anything.

The whole theory that because it's turbo, it's unreliable is garbage. Turbo diesels have been used for years in all types of HD, tractor trucks, and cars because they are reliable. So having more moving parts means nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Uh oh, you got a turbo. Must mean it's not reliable! [end sarcasm]

Hey, Congratz and enjoy your ride!

Yeah really it comes down to whatever fits your needs and doing your own research to find our which you would rather buy.

Oh no you bought a 6 cylinder, real trucks have 8 cylinders. J/K :D
Congrats and good luck with it. The Cummins is a great engine.

This may be your only requirement. I drove both and thought about what I use a truck for. The 5.0 and eco are very close--except in towing which might call for a diesel. The decider for me was the immediate v8 response and the reliability of not adding turbos and the system Ford has implemented. Someone wrote the same argument was used on other systems. The flaw in the argument doesn't account for the fact that the turbo system is added and unnecessary. I am not looking for a pickup to save gas though; I use it for work.

You are correct. I don't know why anyone would even think, let alone write that. The have more than 95 completely baseless complaints from people who are lost and helpless. "95" is the real reason to :eek:

Nobody said there was only 95 people that had the issue. It was stated that there were 95 complaints to the NHTSA.

Why do so many people think Turbos are not reliable??? Turbos have been used on planes for nearly 100 years. Talk about needing reliability. And furthermore, they are so "unreliable" that Ford and other major manufacturers decided to put them in many of their vehicles and stake their reputations on them?

Ignorance is bliss.

ok ill chime in lol...i work for a ford dealer..i drive both the eco and 5.0...while i own a 5.0 i wouldnt hesitate to buy a 3.5 eco...we just didnt have an eco in the color combo and options i wanted

It's not just the turbo itself in question. It's whether the engine can stand up to the stress from the extra power the turbo adds.

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been lock yet. All eco vs 5.0 eventually get locked.

If there is a weak link in a compressed engine it's the injectors. I'm no mechanic but would hazard a guess that these fail more regularly than the turbo.

Fair enough but the same still applies. Why would Ford, who is staking its reputation on the EcoBoost for all applications, build the rest of the engine subpar and unable to withstand the use of a turbo? It's a purpose built Turbo engine. Engineers know what is required to have an engine last with forced induction. It's not like they took a engine out of a Escapes and throw on s turbo and inter cooler as an after thought like some high school kids with a civic.

Try not to confuse the issues or make false analogies. As a plane goes up, pressure goes down. Turbos bring the pressure back up. Much like diesel engines, the pistons are much larger. A typical 6 cylinder engine is 540 ci, which is a large v8 for a car. Planes are also designed to run 75% of peak power for the life of the engine, which is 2000 hours. Many planes with turbos don't make it nearly that far either because turbos do shorten engine life. You pointed out falsely that planes need "reliability". That is true, but the rayjay turbos cost thousand of dollars and don't cause engine failure. When the turbo goes out, performance goes down--that plane can fly without it.

Ok, and...

I hope you can see where one may not follow you on this one...


I still fail to see why turbos in planes are more viable than in cars/trucks?

I'm a tech at a ford dealership eco is good for towing, as far as mph little difference maybe 5 mph more at most for ecoboost. You won't get the same sound out of a ecoboost as you would the 5.0 if you plan on replacing the exhaust. Also I've known the ecoboost to have issues with leaks from a believe the oil cooler. I have the 5.0 no complaints ��

Mpg*

As long as the 3.5 can last 150,000 miles I should be OK. I've had one vehicle that's had more than 200K on it and it literally rusted apart.

They are both very close.
5.0 E-85 or regular or 91.
3.5 Eco. Reg.unleaded or 91.
Good Luck
After driving a 2001 Off Road with a 5.4
After driving a 2012 FX-4 with the Ecoboost,
After driving a 2013 ford Edge with the Ecoboost,
After driving a 2014 with the Ecoboost,
I wouldn't go back to anything but an Ecoboost. The additional power & torque is worth it to me.
In High Altitude, up to 14,130 ft., the turbos run with the same power as they run here in Elv. 5280 Ft.
Either one is a good choice. I like the power of the Ecoboost.
I've had both the 3;73 7 the 3:55 rear end. Fx-4's have the 3:73. they are very close in mileage. the 3:73 may be a tad quicker off the line.
I haven't head of any leaks with the Ecoboost. This is my third one.
I'm also not a tech. My truck is Recall Free right now.

tried to go fast, and was found to be truly slow.

my brother had one of those gutless wonders. good riddance on that one. :thumbsup: LQ9 swap and his truck actually moves now

I love my 3.5L. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm with you on this one. It's funny how people seem to have no questions regarding the durability of turbo charged diesel engines, but express fears about gas powered ones. If Ford can build a diesel engine block and heads to hold up to those pressures for 300,000 miles, why does anyone doubt the same could be done for a gas powered one? I think a lot of older members recall the days when turbos were just bolted to regular off-the-shelf engines and they hoped for the best!

For a little perspective from full-race.com

You might be missing part of reality on that. For example, If the ecoboosts don't last over 200k, and the 5.0 is blowing into 300k, which do you think people will pay more for used? I am not saying that is going to happen. It is however, my opinion.

This is probably the worst argument on this issue. The difference between gas and diesel engines is like apples and oranges (both are fruit and both are engines with turbos). They are more different than similar after that. I suggest you research your comparisons before posting.

Aside from you not liking the Ecoboost, what makes you think it won't last? I've been playing around with turbo V6's for 28 years and my Ecoboost is built a lot more stout than my Grand National, 6 bolt mains vs 2 bolt mains.

The assumption by the skeptics is that the little 3.5 V6 is not as robust as the big bad 5.0 V8.

5.0 V8:
•4-bolt main
•Powdered metal connecting rods
•10.5 : 1 compression

3.5 V6 Ecoboost:
•6-bolt main
•Forged Steel connecting rods
•10 : 1 compression

It can't. The reason the TBO (to be overhauled) on aircraft engines is lower, except on turbo normalized, which does not apply to land vehicles, is because they are not expected to last as long. So you know, it is not a matter of "not liking" it is just my opinion which I support.

Oh well, everybody has one.

As does the EcoBoost

Correct sir but I don't see too many threads with titles like how to cool a 5.0, or 5.0 overheats while towing. I like the eco and own one in a Lincoln MKT. I just don't feel and based on the experiences described in multiple threads on this and other forums that the eco holds up well to heat whIle being worked hard, and we all know heat kills engines. If it is the heavy duty engine why only a 6qt oil pan the same size as my old 4.2 and less than my 2v 4.6 took to fill.

They are both good engines and it's really up to preferance, but I stand by my opinion that the 5.0 is going to be in the long term more durabe and less prone to break down on average.

My Chevy 5.3 seems to run fine with only 5 quarts of oil. I think the smaller 3.5 with an extra quart should be fine.

Not saying it won't it's just that larger oil capacity is one way to help combat heat in an engine and extend life under hard use.

The reason heat could be an issue for the EB is its forced induction. Though, I have not seen many threads on overheating issues for the EB, I'll take your word on it. However, I don't think it's a widespread epidemic or anything to be too concerned about.

I think people should be allowed to be skeptical. You can run a dragster down the strip at 300 mph and the engine will last about 1 minute. What you can't do is crank extra power out of a smaller engine and have it last as long. It defies the laws of physics and common sense.

There is a large long thread on the problem in the towing section and it's mostly related to towing in hot humid climates where the CAC is not large enough to handle the heat soak put on by sustained boost induced heat. There are at least a few aftermarket CAC products now to address the issue. I hope they addressed it for the 2.7 as I see it being in boost even more than the 3.5 especially when towing. Even the article quoted earlier in this thread mentioned the size of the CAC being too small for adequate cooling under load.

Heat is an issue for all engines and turbos generate heat. Ford may be on the way to solving it.

I sure hope so. I tow heavy loads with my trucks and that is why I have steered clear of the eco for now in the trucks.

Well, yeah heat is an issue on any engine but especially in forced induction. It's not the engine overheating that hurts these as much as pre-detonation on the pistons compression stroke. High compression causes the air to heat and if you are using low octane fuel, combustion will happen like a Diesel engines (before TDC and ignition) This is why in the owner's manual Ford recommends using high octane fuel when doing heavy towing with the EB.

I didn't say you couldn't be skeptical. I was referring to people who are skeptical without basis and relying on misinformed generalizations.

I believe a small engine can crank out power and last if it's built for that purpose. I disagree with it being physics and common sense. Internal combustion engines are very inefficient by nature, especially NA engines.

Technology is not static. Engineers are always finding better ways to do things. One example is the fact 87 octane can be used in either the 5.0 or EcoBoost. In the past high compression engines had to run high octane, especially forced induction engines but technology and engineering has found a way.

Well I'm not misinformed and I don't generalize. While I'll agree that in the short term, a purpose built small, forced induction engine is as good as a larger NA engine for a specific task. I do not agree however with the insinuation that the little engine will last as long or longer. Forced induction relies on many highly variable components being controlled in a relatively static state. What is the chances of these conditions remaining static for 20 or more years? NA engines are much more forgiving of changes in environment, fuel, humidity, etc. Think about this: you can drag an old '79 corvette out of your grandpa's garage- change the battery, oil, belt's, and pour some gas down the carb and it will start. Would you like to try the same thing in about 30 years on a '11 Ecoboost F150 that has 150,000 miles on it? You could say the V8 version might not start either, but the turbo's wouldn't be rusted up and there wouldn't be critters living in the CAC. For day to day use, by folks that keep their trucks for a few years and trade them, Ecoboost's are just fine! Keep that sucker for more than ten years and/or about 120,000 miles and I guarantee it will eat you out of house and home.

Neglect will kill any engine. We are talking wear and tear.

Ok, since I brought up generalizations, let's get more in detail in our cordial discussion/debate.

What components specifically are you guys concerned with in the EcoBoost not being durable enough for a Turbo application?

Idk making a v6 even tho it has the turbos produce as much power as a v8 just doesnt sound good. The 5.0 doesnt even work that hard and I think the 5.0 will last a lot longer IMO but only time will tell.

I don't think I would say the EB is working harder, it's just more efficient power-wise. I get what your saying though. Its reasonable to think that.

Now, if we are talking about whether Ford is capable of building a reliable FI engine, or whether they can build reliable FI engines for a reasonable cost, is another topic.

Im just wondering what specifically everyone is scared of? The turbos longevity itself? Bottom end? Intercooler? Bearings?