Trade in 13 Eco for 14 5.0?
12-10-2013, 04:26 PM
#11
SuthernF150
i got 20mpg avg 80mph over 200 mile drive in FL at 82 degrees out, and average 18.6 around town... also i dont drive lightly espo since i vented my bov to atmosphere and like hearing the pshhh.
12-10-2013, 04:30 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I'm thinking about doing this venting thing as well? Unfortunately it has been cold and snowy the last several days, will probably wait until I get back from overseas to mess with it?
12-10-2013, 04:31 PM
#14
Owning both engines: 2013 5.0 FX4 and 2013 ECO XLT 4x4 - I prefery our 5.0 FX4 any day over the ECO. Gets better gas mileage and just feels like a much better ride in my own opinion.
12-10-2013, 04:32 PM
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I will give you an honest answer- to your sarcastic question. I had a 2011 5.0 now a 13 EB. both identical trucks except EB is a 6.5' box. Pulling a 3500lb boat at 75 mph the 5.0 did just as good as the EB. The EB was a tad quicker to 40mph. other than that no difference. The 5.0 got a lot better mpg's towing and driving. To say the EB has a lot more power would not be true... it has a little more power is more like it. motor wise I would pick the 5.0 again over the EB.
if you want an honest answer to any questions let me know!
if you want an honest answer to any questions let me know!
Last edited by medicff0879; 12-10-2013 at 04:35 PM.
The following users liked this post:
gillysmi (12-10-2013)
12-10-2013, 04:33 PM
#16
12-10-2013, 04:34 PM
#17
Five-0 Ret.
LOL!! Now that's funny right there!! I just wanted to make a quasi-sarcastic, yet humorous post in regards to this topic that has been beatin to death. Quite honestly, I never even test drove a 5.0, and kind of curious as to what it's like realistically compared to the ECO? I griped and complained hardcore about the lack of good MPG out of my first ECO, and still can't say that I am overly impressed with 14.6 overall. With that said, I think I can honestly feel a difference when jumping onto the interstate, between the acceleration of the ECO with the 3.55, vs the Max tow 3.73's that were in my 2011? Could be all in the mind, but seems a little less responsive, and the MPG stayed just about the same (if not worse) than the 2011?
I don't understand it either medic. My 5.0L w/3.31 gears is a tad over 17 at 8000+ miles. But, that mileage has zero miles towing with approx. 60% city 40% highway. The only thing I can think of is the 3.5 has to use more power (+gas) without the turbos to get the truck moving from a dead stop. The only reason I'm thinking this is my previous 3.7L SCREW was worse overall by approx. 1 mpg than my 5.0. It's just a big guess though.
12-10-2013, 04:34 PM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
On the same note, this is pretty much the new 2014 Chevrolet SS, except I honestly liked the more aggressive look of the Pontiac, over the more sedan style family car of the Chevy.
12-10-2013, 04:38 PM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
When we all go to nuclear hydrogen powered motors with "hyper-hamster" technology sometime down the road, gasoline will be something that stories of the "good ole days" will be talked about between grandfathers and grandsons LOL!!
12-10-2013, 04:40 PM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I don't understand it either medic. My 5.0L w/3.31 gears is a tad over 17 at 8000+ miles. But, that mileage has zero miles towing with approx. 60% city 40% highway. The only thing I can think of is the 3.5 has to use more power (+gas) without the turbos to get the truck moving from a dead stop. The only reason I'm thinking this is my previous 3.7L SCREW was worse overall by approx. 1 mpg than my 5.0. It's just a big guess though.
The following users liked this post:
Wanted33 (12-11-2013)
