That assumes that they need peak HP or torque to pull the load, which clearly they do not. I can say this for sure since as I posted earlier, my truck pulls a near max rated load trailer on a regular basis very easily and its just a 5.0 with 3.55s, no tune just a stock truck.

I tow with guys running diesels and they are stunned how well my truck pulls, they have ridden with me and even driven the truck, and none can believe how well it does. Ford should be proud of the eco, its a great engine, but dont sell the 5.0 Short, it is hands down better than the 5.4 apples to apples and is being sold short push eco. There is no doubt in my mind about this. The eco must be in boost to make similar power per RPM to the 5.0 no two ways about that, and boost equals heat soak when towing, no doubt there either. My big doubt about the eco is about cooling it. Heavy towing in high temps exposes this, while my 5.0 keeps chugging along nice and cool. I tow my boat with my eco in the Lincoln as its a sweet ride and the wife likes riding it in it better and so do the kids.When we stop, you can feel the heat coming off the car, more so than the truck when both are working hard(never out of the normal band or even close to top of gauge). My boat is near max load for the MKT, so it works the set up pretty hard heat wise, never a lack of power when towing, but it does build some heat.

There is a lot of room for tuners on 5.0. But ive heard that a lot of ppl with the EB that have put tuners have blew up because they cant handle that extra push. Of course this is just from what ive heard and IMO it makes sense. Both have had problems though but I hear a lot more with the EB.

Thanks. Interesting thread. I'll have to dig into it later. I'm to tired to read all +200 posts tonight. lol

Are you sure? or does that assume more rpm's correlate to harder work? The trick of the ecoboost is to crank in the turbos further compressing the mixture, which causes inefficiency. To me it is harder work worrying about water in the CAC, when the turbos will blow, reducing the spark plug gap and valve coking caused by the turbos heat.

If you look at the new 5.0, the price went up compared to the other engines.

Don't get me wrong I love the 5.0. I plan to get one in my 2016 just cuz I don't tow enough to need the EB. The 5.0 is a awesome engine and a miss the rumble of a 8 banger.

Both engines are capable of a lot more than they rate them. They don't rate them to their limits. I venture to say the EB overheating threads are the exceptions and not a systemic problem. I'm not trying to find fault in your view but the thread you posted (from the first few posts I read) talks about having a towing tune and I'm a firm believer that aftermarket tunes/parts can throw a factory engineered tune out of whack. Things are designed to work in harmony and if you mess with that balance you can stress something out of a safe tolerance. Not saying this is the case but just my initial thought. I'll have to read more...

Yes, I correlate that RPMs = work. More RPMs generates heat and stress on components.

Question I have is compression during boost on the EB vs 5.0 at its peak torque. What are they?

I guess I'm just more trusting of engineering than some of you guys. Not knocking you guys though. I accept that I can be wrong about the EBs long term.

That may be incorrect. HP is a measure of work and so is torque. So that at whatever rpm that is produced, one could point of that the EB is doing more work at a lower RPM and because it is using turbos is also creating more heat at the lower RPM. You might need a basic physics class...like economics, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is my main objection to eb. For some it is definitely the best choice. For most...I don't think so.

For most, yes the Eco is superior. More power, flatter power quiter and calmer experience.

What he means above by work is that an engine spinning at higher rpms is often said to be working harder and it reduces overall engine life. True? Who knows, but that's not a reason for you to be an azz. Maybe you as a newbie needs a class at communicating? Enjoy your 5.0, which you obviously feel the need to support at all costs. :whistling2:

That last post about a need for a communications class was kind of out of line. Up to this point this thread has been the most civil of the many eco vs 5.0 threads I have read. I don't think that BobSchuman is supporting at all costs the 5.0. He admits the eco may be the best for some. Zx-12 you seem to be a Uber supportive of the eco as any of us are for the 5.0, you are jumping in trying to stir the pot. Making this personal is not the way to make a point.

As I have said both are great engines this is about pointing out flaws and things we can adress to make them better. Things like I wish ford would change to make the eco easier to keep cool and give the 5.0 less restrictive exhaust. Both powerplants can be improved no doubt. If we compare and contrast them we learn, and hopefully so can ford,to get us even better engines.

So far this has been a good thread let's not send it off the rails now.

I suppose I should have used the word "effort" instead of work. However, torque is not a measure of work. You're right that HP is a measure of work but it is work measured over time. HP is calculated using torque. Torque is a measure of force.

With that said, I meant the 5.0 has to exert more effort to produce output which means turning more RPM because it's less efficient at producing power. I can see your argument but the EB has the CAC to control heat (whether it's effective or not is another debate) on the intake. If that is functioning properly heat is no more of an issue than in the 5.0. Sure the Turbos will get hot but they are designed to work at high temps and are cooled themselves.

However, turning more rpm is creating more wear and friction. You can't control that by anything less than reduced friction or reduced RPM...or bettering efficiency in example, using forced induction.