PDA

View Full Version : 2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost


Capemay Eagle
10-08-2010, 01:48 PM
I was reading about the new engine choices available in the new F150 and Ford has got some really good engines choices available for the 2011 F150. They have two V6's available with the 3.7 V6 and 3.5 Ecoboost and two V8's with the all new 5.0 V8 and the 6.2 V8.

I am really impressed with the Ecoboost V6, apparently it has a tow rating of 11,300 lbs and a 0-60 time of 6.8 seconds, not bad for a full size equipped with a V6. I posted the link below, good read on the new engine line up, 3 pages.

link
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/first-drive-review-2011-ford-f-150-35-ecoboost-v-6-and-50-v-8.html

BrunoT
10-08-2010, 03:40 PM
It's impressive enough to almost make me want a new truck! But I don't need one now.

Engine technology is really leaping ahead in efficiency now that they are being forced to do it by gas prices and the govn't. You can get a 5200 lb SUV now that gets 27mpg hwy, or a 4,050 lb big sedan that gets 32mpg hwy. My gasser gets 15 on the hwy and our moderate sized car 24mpg. Huge increases will follow.

I would suggest that we all keep future gas price increases in mind when buying. Not just the gas savings, but think about resale value when your truck gets 25% better fuel economy than the others.

Capemay Eagle
10-08-2010, 08:07 PM
It's impressive enough to almost make me want a new truck! But I don't need one now.

Engine technology is really leaping ahead in efficiency now that they are being forced to do it by gas prices and the govn't. You can get a 5200 lb SUV now that gets 27mpg hwy, or a 4,050 lb big sedan that gets 32mpg hwy. My gasser gets 15 on the hwy and our moderate sized car 24mpg. Huge increases will follow.

I would suggest that we all keep future gas price increases in mind when buying. Not just the gas savings, but think about resale value when your truck gets 25% better fuel economy than the others.Yeah the article said that the 150 with the Ecoboost can see 21-23 mpg and the hypermillers can see 30 mpg. Not bad for a fullsize. The wife just got a new Ford Edge and it getting something like 27mpg, I was pretty surprised when I looked on the systems computer and the average was 27, not bad and the thing is fast! The Edge is certainly my favorite SUV I have ever owned, I actually really enjoy driving the Edge.

PROPERTYLAWNSERVICELLC
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
my concern would be longevity with a turbo gas truck .

doubleedge
10-11-2010, 11:39 PM
my concern would be longevity with a turbo gas truck .

Ford anticipated that people would feel the same way, so they are currently performing a durability test that will be shown on the internet.

A 3.7l Ecoboost engine will be randomly selected and then put on a dyno for 150k miles while the engine is constantly being subjected to extreme hot and extreme cold temperatures. Then the same engine will be put into a f150 and be used by a logging company for a couple of weeks. Then it will pull 2 sprint cars on a race track at wide open throttle for 24 hours straight. Finally, then engine will be taken out of the f150 and will be put into a race truck, which will compete in the Baja 1000. After all of that, the engine will be disassembled and the internal components will be shown to the public.

rcslawncare
10-12-2010, 01:41 AM
Thats a damn test!! haha

bradseabridge
10-12-2010, 02:46 PM
holy crap, I can't wait to see the results of this test, but i don't want to see the engine internals, I want to see the turbo internals, hopefully it's oil cooled or it would be a deal breaker for me.

I know a ford engine will run forever, I have had 4 now, two 1990 rangers with the 2.3l that's with i have now, it's indestructible. The last one had about 110k miles on it, the one I have now has about 120k miles. I have a friend with the same engine with over 275k miles on it, NOW THAT'S IMPRESSIVE for a 20 year old engine. My other 4.0 ranger also had about 150k miles on it before I sold, it never gave me a lick of trouble. Dad had the 5.4 in a long bed king cab f150 now that truck was hoss, it was so long omg but it would friggen pull man. Can you tell I like ford?

Capemay Eagle
10-15-2010, 02:14 PM
my concern would be longevity with a turbo gas truck .I think that Ford has beat this engine up and down and they feel confident that it will do what it says. This will be the next engine in my F150. I think I am going to wait for a 2012. I want to hear some of the feedback owners give. As of now I am sold.

bradseabridge
10-15-2010, 03:19 PM
ditto......

Keith
10-15-2010, 04:04 PM
If I were in the market, I would seriously be looking at the EB. Frankly, I don't need an F350, but it is paid off. I only use it for work, and put about 800 miles per month on it. 95% of the time towing. My guess, towing like I do, mostly in town, the EB might see 12 vs. the 9 mpg I get now. Of course if the EB shows stellar towing mpg, I might change my mind.

360ci
10-15-2010, 11:11 PM
I agree. The 3.5Eco is a good idea for those that want a truck but don't plan to work it regularly. There is no replacement for displacement and I'd gladly take the 5.0L V8, a lot more time (and Fords money) went into that engine design than the V6's. rwd base F150 the 3.7L V6 isn't a bad choice even when towing light loads, but it doesn't offer torque down low, where the V8's do. Don't forget either that the 3.5Eco engine should run on 91 octane. Ford says it's not necessary but even knock sensors have an operational lifespan! More for fuel, $2K (Canadian) for the engine option over the V8 alone, makes the 5.0L V8 my top pick. The 6.2 is a bit overkill, as anyone who needs to tow over 8-9K regularly should own a 3/4 ton truck.

Ford doesn't have EPA tests done, but they expect 24mpg highway for the V6 engines. However, the top gears are very tall, which lowers cruising rpm and if you have ANY weight in the truck and tap the gas, you'll be guaranteed a downshift, or two, to maintain speed on grades. The other benefit of a decently sized V8 is allowing added engine braking when you downshift the transmission to save a bit on service brakes and to keep the rotors from warping!

I can climb a 12% grade with my Dodge 5.9L V8 towing 3K on top of it all, while maintaining a steady 1800rpm at 55-58mph. If I had a V6, it would have downshifted or if it was a manual trans, I'd have to downshift to maintain speed.

In the end you get what you pay for and I agree that the Ecoboost V6 is a good, if not solid engine option, but I believe it's geared toward power junkies who don't work their truck but want to save on fuel while driving something that's 'big'.

PROPERTYLAWNSERVICELLC
10-16-2010, 07:32 AM
I think Mahindra trucks have it down over all the midsize trucks.
1deisel
24x4
3 1.25 tonne rated

360ci
10-16-2010, 07:40 AM
I think Mahindra trucks have it down over all the midsize trucks.
1deisel
24x4
3 1.25 tonne rated

Mahindra is a simple work truck! Yes! However, to date it's taken them nearly 4 years to get their engine suited for this continent thanks to emission regs. If VM Motori made engines to our specs, we'd see a lot more diesels!

doubleedge
10-16-2010, 10:06 PM
I believe your argument against the 3.5 and for the 5.0 is flawed:

I agree. The 3.5Eco is a good idea for those that want a truck but don't plan to work it regularly. Why? There is no replacement for displacement Yes there is: a turbo charger. and I'd gladly take the 5.0L V8, a lot more time (and Fords money) went into that engine design than the V6's. What source do you base that off of? rwd base F150 the 3.7L V6 isn't a bad choice even when towing light loads, That is the base engine; the Ecoboost is much more powerful. but it doesn't offer torque down low, where the V8's do. Don't forget either that the 3.5Eco engine should run on 91 octane. Ford says it's not necessary but even knock sensors have an operational lifespan! Again, where are your facts coming from? If Ford says that it will run on regular, it will run on regular. More for fuel, $2K (Canadian) It is only a $750 upgrade in the United States. for the engine option over the V8 alone, makes the 5.0L V8 my top pick. The 6.2 is a bit overkill, as anyone who needs to tow over 8-9K regularly should own a 3/4 ton truck.

Ford doesn't have EPA tests done, but they expect 24mpg highway for the V6 engines. However, the top gears are very tall, which lowers cruising rpm and if you have ANY weight in the truck and tap the gas, you'll be guaranteed a downshift, or two, to maintain speed on grades. All of the f150 engines use the same transmission. Plus, the ecoboost has more torque, a larger power band, and lower peak torque rpm. The other benefit of a decently sized V8 is allowing added engine braking when you downshift the transmission to save a bit on service brakes and to keep the rotors from warping!

I can climb a 12% grade with my Dodge 5.9L V8 towing 3K on top of it all, while maintaining a steady 1800rpm at 55-58mph. If I had a V6, it would have downshifted or if it was a manual trans, I'd have to downshift to maintain speed. Not if that v6 was the new Ecoboost v6.

In the end you get what you pay for and I agree that the Ecoboost V6 is a good, if not solid engine option, but I believe it's geared toward power junkies who don't work their truck but want to save on fuel while driving something that's 'big'.

360ci
10-17-2010, 08:09 AM
I believe your argument against the 3.5 and for the 5.0 is flawed:

its not an argument, just MY opinion. Just as you are entitled toyour opinion. So, if you pulled 7-8k everyday, I don't think you'd be happy with the EB. There really is no replacement for displacement. A turbo or even a supercharger can mimic the power and torque of a larger engine; I could always get a 5.0 and put a blower on that but if you get the right engine for the 'job' then I won't need a displacement aid such as a blower. Don't forget that you can run regular fuel in the EB but from experience with a similar engine from another manufacturer I'd advise running premium, especially for blown applications. Unless of course you plan to hand the truck back before the warranty expires. If all I wanted was a power truck that had the potential of getting good mileage then the EB would be at the top of the list. However my choice remains the 5.0 as an everyday work truck and tow machine.
Posted via Mobile Device

WH401
10-17-2010, 08:17 PM
its not an argument, just MY opinion. Just as you are entitled toyour opinion. So, if you pulled 7-8k everyday, I don't think you'd be happy with the EB. There really is no replacement for displacement. A turbo or even a supercharger can mimic the power and torque of a larger engine; I could always get a 5.0 and put a blower on that but if you get the right engine for the 'job' then I won't need a displacement aid such as a blower. Don't forget that you can run regular fuel in the EB but from experience with a similar engine from another manufacturer I'd advise running premium, especially for blown applications. Unless of course you plan to hand the truck back before the warranty expires. If all I wanted was a power truck that had the potential of getting good mileage then the EB would be at the top of the list. However my choice remains the 5.0 as an everyday work truck and tow machine.
Posted via Mobile Device

So then by your logic, the 7.3 Powerstroke was a whole lot more powerful of an engine then the 5.9 Cummins?, simply because it had larger displacement? Without a doubt the 7.3 PSD was the best diesel engine Ford ever put in a pickup, (well up until now, the 6.7 is gaining quick), but it's definitely no 5.9 in terms of reliability (it's close though), power, and performance. Your theory is nothing more than saying a gas engine is better than a diesel for towing, which we all know isn't true. The key to a diesel being the better tow-er is the torque and the overall stronger build of the engine. The EB V6 is nothing more than a diesel that runs on regular gasoline. It makes almost all of it's torque starting around 2k RPM, something most naturally aspirated gas engine can't achieve until at least 4k or higher. That's certainly going to make a difference in towing ability. Also, the fact that it has a turbo charger and a higher compression ratio is almost certainly going to contribute to it having a strong overall build to it than that of a regular gas engine. If Ford didn't think the EB was suited to tow the max rating that an F150 can, (which just so happens to be the same weight that an F150 with the 6.2 is rated for), they wouldn't have put it in there.

The statement "there is no replacement for displacement", is about as flawed as your theory of the EB. 40 - 50 years ago in the 60's and 70's that theory was correct, but today it's completely useless. There are many cars and trucks running around today with half or less the displacement of most vehicles from the muscle car years and those new vehicles are just as fast or faster.

360ci
10-17-2010, 09:25 PM
No no no. You speak of cars... we can no longer tow a decent trailer with a car, so there's no need for such a large engine, like the old 505ci. It was overkill, even for back then, and it produced moderate power at best , however the strong point here is the torque to weight ratio.

Most newer boosted engines have little to no lag time, but if you get the chance, take say, a new Saab 9-5 2.3 or a Subaru WRX for a spin and if you're wafting along in top gear (Ford Autos are biased toward fuel economy - if it can upshift, it will!), and you put the hammer down what do you have? Nothing. Except extremely slow acceleration and lag because the engines are turning 1500-1700rpm, forcing the driver to downshift (manual) or pushing the pedal down to force a downshift to gain momentum (automatic). So your sacrifice to gain slightly better mileage is offset by having to consistently put more throttle down to get moving.

AGAIN, if I didn't tow anything, or very rarely and decided to buy an F150 just for the size of it, I'd go for the Ecoboost, and yes, it is a ripoff at $2K here in Canada, but it's a decent engineering feat and as my current truck uses 91 octane I can keep that trend going. Unless my dealer offers me some sort of lifetime powertrain warranty on paper for as long as I own the vehicle, I'll run 91 octane in it, as I keep my vehicles until repair costs outweigh the resale value.

Alas, if you were to tune a Ford 7.3 versus the Dodge 5.9L, and all gear and axle ratios were exactly the same right down to the tire size, the 7.3L can out torque the 5.9L based on sheer size, yes. However, I'd take the 5.9L I6 for it's inline design versus a diesel V8.

I never said that a gas engine is better for towing than a diesel. It depends what you want to tow. I said that if you plan to tow over 8K, a F150 isn't the best choice as an everyday tow rig. A F250 would be the optimum choice, whatever engine you choose is entirely up to you. With the current emissions crap on the Ford and GM diesels it made the price push slightly over $10K (Canadian) where as the Dodge can be had for under $10K with auto, and under $9K with manual (my choice!). It might burn more fuel when it does filter regenerations but that's a small price to pay in convenience and maintenance stops as Urea is not yet available outside the dealerships (in Canada, that I know of).

If you really want to know my choices for a 3/4 gas, I'd get the 6.0LV8, for 3/4 diesel I'll take the Dodge I6. For half ton I'd take the ford 5.0L unless GM decides to unleash it's twice shelved 4.5L diesel, I might wait and consider that as I need a vehicle that's not only a DD, but a work vehicle as well. latest 'gossip' mentioned that GM might put the new 4.5L into the 2500HD truck as well, as it puts out the '01 HP and TQ numbers of the old 6.6DMAX. So it should make for some very interesting comparison tests over the next year or two.

joed
10-21-2010, 10:07 PM
No no no. You speak of cars... we can no longer tow a decent trailer with a car, so there's no need for such a large engine, like the old 505ci. It was overkill, even for back then, and it produced moderate power at best , however the strong point here is the torque to weight ratio.

Most newer boosted engines have little to no lag time, but if you get the chance, take say, a new Saab 9-5 2.3 or a Subaru WRX for a spin and if you're wafting along in top gear (Ford Autos are biased toward fuel economy - if it can upshift, it will!), and you put the hammer down what do you have? Nothing. Except extremely slow acceleration and lag because the engines are turning 1500-1700rpm, forcing the driver to downshift (manual) or pushing the pedal down to force a downshift to gain momentum (automatic). So your sacrifice to gain slightly better mileage is offset by having to consistently put more throttle down to get moving.

AGAIN, if I didn't tow anything, or very rarely and decided to buy an F150 just for the size of it, I'd go for the Ecoboost, and yes, it is a ripoff at $2K here in Canada, but it's a decent engineering feat and as my current truck uses 91 octane I can keep that trend going. Unless my dealer offers me some sort of lifetime powertrain warranty on paper for as long as I own the vehicle, I'll run 91 octane in it, as I keep my vehicles until repair costs outweigh the resale value.

Alas, if you were to tune a Ford 7.3 versus the Dodge 5.9L, and all gear and axle ratios were exactly the same right down to the tire size, the 7.3L can out torque the 5.9L based on sheer size, yes. However, I'd take the 5.9L I6 for it's inline design versus a diesel V8.

I never said that a gas engine is better for towing than a diesel. It depends what you want to tow. I said that if you plan to tow over 8K, a F150 isn't the best choice as an everyday tow rig. A F250 would be the optimum choice, whatever engine you choose is entirely up to you. With the current emissions crap on the Ford and GM diesels it made the price push slightly over $10K (Canadian) where as the Dodge can be had for under $10K with auto, and under $9K with manual (my choice!). It might burn more fuel when it does filter regenerations but that's a small price to pay in convenience and maintenance stops as Urea is not yet available outside the dealerships (in Canada, that I know of).

If you really want to know my choices for a 3/4 gas, I'd get the 6.0LV8, for 3/4 diesel I'll take the Dodge I6. For half ton I'd take the ford 5.0L unless GM decides to unleash it's twice shelved 4.5L diesel, I might wait and consider that as I need a vehicle that's not only a DD, but a work vehicle as well. latest 'gossip' mentioned that GM might put the new 4.5L into the 2500HD truck as well, as it puts out the '01 HP and TQ numbers of the old 6.6DMAX. So it should make for some very interesting comparison tests over the next year or two.

Wow, that would be really great if GM could stick in the 4.5L duramax diesel in a half ton. I understand they're coming out with a new design for their 1500 series in 2013 and it will include brand new engines that all use direct injection? How does the 5.3/6 speed combo do for gas consumption in a GM 1/2 ton and the 5.7L Hemi in the dodge 1500? The ecoboost sounds like a nice engine but twin turbochargers is what scares me. If those things ever go, it's going to be a lot of $ to fix. I personally only use my truck for my part-time lawn business. Only carries a few mowers. I actually think the 3.7L might work out well on that Ford for my uses.

360ci
10-21-2010, 10:45 PM
Wow, that would be really great if GM could stick in the 4.5L duramax diesel in a half ton. I understand they're coming out with a new design for their 1500 series in 2013 and it will include brand new engines that all use direct injection? How does the 5.3/6 speed combo do for gas consumption in a GM 1/2 ton and the 5.7L Hemi in the dodge 1500? The ecoboost sounds like a nice engine but twin turbochargers is what scares me. If those things ever go, it's going to be a lot of $ to fix. I personally only use my truck for my part-time lawn business. Only carries a few mowers. I actually think the 3.7L might work out well on that Ford for my uses.

If you want to run a reg cab, or ext cab 2wd, the base V6 will be more than adequate for that load.

I can't speak for mileage as I don't own either truck. I'd take the GM over the Dodge, only because the Dodge still offers the 5 speed auto versus GM's 6 speed unit. First gear is lower for more off the line torque when towing/hauling on a regular basis. For everyday driving I can imagine you'd see better mileage with the GM, mainly because it has an extra gear, is lighter (in nearly every configuration when compared to a similar Dodge variant).

Weight, gearing, tire size, engine size, altitude, driver input, all depend on if you get good, bad or decent mileage under any given driving condition. Hence the EPA states "your mileage will vary".

Another thing to consider is maintenance. Dodge has 30-40K between spark plug changes, where as GM has up to 100K as they use iridium plugs which last twice as long, and then some. The 4.7 and 5.7L Dodge engines also require 2 spark plugs per cylinder, so factor in a $200-250 tune up every 30K versus a $170 tune up every 80-90K for a similar GM truck.

There are a lot of factors to consider. As the GM should be the better mileage runner due to lighter weight, more gears, taller final drive (3.42 versus Dodge's 3.55) SHOULD net better mileage as well as be lighter in maintenance costs down the road.

Another key is buying price. If I could buy a similar Dodge truck for $3-5K less, I'd take it because the possible mileage deficit and slight increase in maintenance costs will still make it the better deal over the next 10-15 years depending on total miles driven. Then again, the GM will hold slightly better resale value, but not so much that it would make a huge difference.

I've had good luck with my Dodge Durango over the last decade and I'm hesitant to trade up for anything new as it still runs excellent. Which is saying a lot as I abuse it regularly! Ultimately it comes down to what you can afford, and your own personal preference on what YOU want to drive that is equally capable of doing the work you ask of it.

joed
10-22-2010, 09:49 PM
If you want to run a reg cab, or ext cab 2wd, the base V6 will be more than adequate for that load.

I can't speak for mileage as I don't own either truck. I'd take the GM over the Dodge, only because the Dodge still offers the 5 speed auto versus GM's 6 speed unit. First gear is lower for more off the line torque when towing/hauling on a regular basis. For everyday driving I can imagine you'd see better mileage with the GM, mainly because it has an extra gear, is lighter (in nearly every configuration when compared to a similar Dodge variant).

Weight, gearing, tire size, engine size, altitude, driver input, all depend on if you get good, bad or decent mileage under any given driving condition. Hence the EPA states "your mileage will vary".

Another thing to consider is maintenance. Dodge has 30-40K between spark plug changes, where as GM has up to 100K as they use iridium plugs which last twice as long, and then some. The 4.7 and 5.7L Dodge engines also require 2 spark plugs per cylinder, so factor in a $200-250 tune up every 30K versus a $170 tune up every 80-90K for a similar GM truck.

There are a lot of factors to consider. As the GM should be the better mileage runner due to lighter weight, more gears, taller final drive (3.42 versus Dodge's 3.55) SHOULD net better mileage as well as be lighter in maintenance costs down the road.

Another key is buying price. If I could buy a similar Dodge truck for $3-5K less, I'd take it because the possible mileage deficit and slight increase in maintenance costs will still make it the better deal over the next 10-15 years depending on total miles driven. Then again, the GM will hold slightly better resale value, but not so much that it would make a huge difference.

I've had good luck with my Dodge Durango over the last decade and I'm hesitant to trade up for anything new as it still runs excellent. Which is saying a lot as I abuse it regularly! Ultimately it comes down to what you can afford, and your own personal preference on what YOU want to drive that is equally capable of doing the work you ask of it.

Thanks 360ci for the response. I appreciate your input. I need to get a new truck in the next little while. I currently own a 2000 GM 3/4 ton with a 6.0L gas engine. I'm giving this truck to my dad as his truck is getting too old and broken down. I'd love to get a duramax/allsion combo or a cummins/dodge combo but they're too expensive for my budget. I only do part-time lawn care so I figured getting a more fuel efficient 1/2 ton might be alright for me. The Ford F150 is an excellent truck but I don't like the height on it; too tall. However, this new ecoboost engine has me thinking about it. Yet, 2 turbochargers sounds like trouble down the road. The Dodge Ram 1500 is nice too but I don't know much about the truck nor the 5.7L Hemi engine and whether it's reliable and fuel efficient. The 5.3/6 speed combo on the GM is the most fuel efficient on paper, not sure about real life stuff but the GM truck is outdated. It won't be redesigned until 2013. It's too bad they shelved the plans to stick a 4.5L duramax in the 1/2 ton. So, I'm stuck as to which one to go with.

360ci
10-22-2010, 09:58 PM
Thanks 360ci for the response. I appreciate your input. I need to get a new truck in the next little while. I currently own a 2000 GM 3/4 ton with a 6.0L gas engine. I'm giving this truck to my dad as his truck is getting too old and broken down. I'd love to get a duramax/allsion combo or a cummins/dodge combo but they're too expensive for my budget. I only do part-time lawn care so I figured getting a more fuel efficient 1/2 ton might be alright for me. The Ford F150 is an excellent truck but I don't like the height on it; too tall. However, this new ecoboost engine has me thinking about it. Yet, 2 turbochargers sounds like trouble down the road. The Dodge Ram 1500 is nice too but I don't know much about the truck nor the 5.7L Hemi engine and whether it's reliable and fuel efficient. The 5.3/6 speed combo on the GM is the most fuel efficient on paper, not sure about real life stuff but the GM truck is outdated. It won't be redesigned until 2013. It's too bad they shelved the plans to stick a 4.5L duramax in the 1/2 ton. So, I'm stuck as to which one to go with.

The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!

joed
10-22-2010, 10:10 PM
The plans aren't shelved yet, they're back on but not at full speed yet. It'll take a while before the 4.5 diesel is approved by the EPA. I'd get a Ram if the price was right over the other 1/2 tons. I refuse to get a Tundra only because in 4x4 models, the max payload is a mere 1200lbs, when compared to the 1600-1800lb payloads in similarly spec'd domestic trucks. The HEMI is a good engine. It had some earlier problems with valve lifters wearing out before 100K, but it's been remedied since then. The only thing that turns me away from newer Dodge models are the short and double the price maintenance intervals, when compared to Ford and GM.

I'd rather get a 3/4 ton for the added capability despite the mileage penalty over the 1/2 ton trucks. But that's me!

The maintenance issue on the Dodge is one reason I'm not sure I want to get that truck. Which is the better engine: the 5.7 Hemi or the 5.3 Vortec on the GM?

360ci
10-22-2010, 10:50 PM
Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.

joed
10-23-2010, 07:58 AM
Both are on par. However, I've always been a fan of Dodge products. My buddies were either Ford, or GM guys. As I didn't want to get into a battle with no outcome, I bought my Durango R/T. It's treated me well, however, it has the 5.9L block that dates back nearly four decades - so it's a proven design. Similar to GM's 5.7L if you will.

It really comes down to personal preference. As I'd get a 3/4 ton truck, I'd get the GM 6.0L 6 speed over the 5.7L 5 speed even though both are similar performers, but the GM when towing up grades will pull using less rpm (4th gear is taller than Dodge's 4th gear). I test drove a 2500 Suburban last fall and the only downside was the price. I can get a 2500 crew 4x4 for $10K less similarly equipped minus the third row seat.

My Pontiac G6 GT has the 3.5L engine, and I must say, it's by far the BEST engine to do maintenance on. Oil filter is vertical, not on some weird angle where it's hard to access like my Durango (through the wheelwell or around the front suspension!). I also have a '99 Taurus and the oil filter is horizontal! Making it harder to fill slightly before installing, and it's not in an easy to reach location either. I haven't seen under the 5.7L engine in terms of accessibility for routine maintenance items, but the GM 6.0L looks wonderful to work on! I can't say the same for the 5.3 1500 but I hold it in high hopes.

I do as much of my own maintenance as I can mostly to save on time, not necessarily costs. I can work all day, then work on the truck throughout the night so it's back on the road for the next day. Instead of taking it into a shop, getting a rental unit...etc...

Anyway, whichever engine you choose is up to you. You might even be able to haggle (if you buy new) with a dealer to include maintenance costs such as oil changes, etc, for a certain period. Anything and everything can be negotiated within reason if you think you can outsmart the salesman, or if the salesman is decent, they'll provide you with some options and then you can better one of those option in particular to see what else you can get from it.

How good is the 6.0L for fuel on the new 3/4 tons? I saw a 2011 3/4 ton last weekend and it looks like a really good truck but the price is over what I can spend. My current 6.0L averages about 22L/100km in the city and around 17 or 18 on the highway. I was hoping a 5.3L/6 speed combo, a 5.7L/5 speed combo or perhaps the 3.5L ecoboost/6 speed combo would significantly reduce the fuel consumption.

360ci
10-23-2010, 03:59 PM
I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.

joed
10-24-2010, 08:30 AM
I don't have a 3/4 so I really can't do much other than guess based on what a friend of mine gets, but he has an older 4 speed trans and 4.10 gears. I'm not sure if I'll get the 3.73 or 4.10 gears yet but his truck gets similar mileage as you, about 19L/100 average mostly highway driving.

It's 1000lbs less weight, but my full time 4wd Durango R/T with 30" tires, 3.92 gears and 4 speed auto averages about 17L/100km, so I'd assume that I'd get similar mileage with the newer modern GM 2500 with the 2 extra gears. Keep in mind my highway speeds rarely exceed 65mph. If you're used to cruising at 70+, then you'll get worse mileage.

I test drove a 3.73 geared truck with the 265/70R17 tires ( stock are 245 width) and the engine churned over about 1800rpm at 100km/h. I'll guess again, and say that the 4.10s will bring that up to a good 2K rpm, which is what my Durango runs with the shorter diameter tires.

Keep in mind that the Ford EB3.5L will demand a premium price as it's an all new power train combo. As the GM models are the oldest, they should command more rebates than a similar Dodge.

Also, I had an old cube van 3500 with a 5.7L and ran it mostly highway and even with proper regular maintenance I was hard pressed to get anything better than 26L/100km not going over 105km/h (box on wheels). If I ran with a diesel engine on a skid in the back, I'd get in the 30-32L/100km range. It had no tach but I retired it after 328,000kms as the frame was rusting through and wouldn't pass safety in 2004.

Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?

360ci
10-24-2010, 09:45 AM
Thanks for the input 360. I think I'd like to take a look at the ecoboost in the f150 when it comes out in January or so and then make my choice. Do you have any experience with the duramax/allison combo or the cummins in the dodge? What's the fuel economy on those?

I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.

joed
10-24-2010, 09:33 PM
I had a 2003 GMC 2500 diesel and it was OK, but around 215,000kms I started to have some engine woes and electrical gremlins. I had an older Dodge (1989) after it could no longer pass the safety without requiring extensive work I kept it at the farm. It had 542,000kms when I sold it five years ago. I really didn't look too much at mileage, as both trucks were purchased used. I know I could get a good 650km out of each truck.

I'd prefer a new 6.7L TD, but I really don't need that engine for what I do. Us Canucks get whipped big time with diesel prices on new vehicles. $12-13K for GM and Ford. At least the Dodge can be had with a 6 speed manual so I can save $1400 and the diesel engine alone is just over $8.5K, which is a relative bargain. I6 design, manual trans, lowest price by over 2K... can't top that.

If you go on the MotorTrend website, they have an article on a long term 2500 Dodge diesel. With 5500miles on it they mentioned it averaged 15.3mpg, and most of the time the press vehicles are abused, so I'd expect an average in the 16mpg range.

If GM decides to get the 4.5L TD rolling and put it into the 2500 truck, I think they'll have a winner on their hands there. I'd guess (depending on gearing) upwards of 19-21mpg highway, which is VERY good for a 3/4 ton truck. It's all speculation of course, but the best thing to do is to match a truck to the job(s) you want it to do. A lot of folks think going big right away is the best course, but it brings ten times more debt after they've locked themselves into a lease, or payments they later realize they cannot afford.

I had good luck with my old '90 C1500 GMC with the 5.0L V8 and I'd gladly pick up a new 2500 HD GMC 6.0L V8 gas to replace my aging Durango. However, the Durango still runs like a top, ha.

I went out and looked at the Ford, Dodge, and GM diesel trucks today. Wow, the price is insane. For a double cab 4X4, they all want about $60K + HST. That's insane. All 3 trucks look excellent. The GMC looks incredible.

I also saw a new 2011 Dodge. The hemi has been improved for fuel economy to 15.8L/100km in the city. I guess that mean in real life it should get about 18 or so. Can't wait to see what the ecoboost or 3.7L get in the Ford. I think the 5.3 in the GM will also get a boost in hp and fuel economy. Very tough decision to make. If GM would redesign their trucks quicker, I'd take theirs. I also don't know why the 4.8 engine isn't offered with a 6 speed tranny.

lyube
10-24-2010, 09:49 PM
Yeah the article said that the 150 with the Ecoboost can see 21-23 mpg and the hypermillers can see 30 mpg. Not bad for a fullsize. The wife just got a new Ford Edge and it getting something like 27mpg, I was pretty surprised when I looked on the systems computer and the average was 27, not bad and the thing is fast! The Edge is certainly my favorite SUV I have ever owned, I actually really enjoy driving the Edge.

The edge is built on the Crown Victoria body. It's enormous inside.

The shuttle van that took me to Parris Island on a cold January many years ago had 688k miles on it. I was shocked... that old guy ran it at 85 the entire trip out there.

Ford builds a good truck.

360ci
10-24-2010, 10:06 PM
Airways Transit group here in Ontario has older 3500 Dodge vans with the 5.9L engine with over 750,000kms on them, and they still run them at 75mph on the highways here!

Still, if towing isn't an everyday thing for you, it'd be worthwhile to check out the 3.5EB. I know I would, but I tow regularly so a small engine will be overworked. If I wanted a blower, I'd throw one on my Durango and easily push out over 400hp and oh-my-gawd torque numbers, but I don't need that. Even then, mileage would be worse. Speed (or HP) equals money, and the question is how fast can you go financially?

I agree, the 4.8L engine would be well matched to the 6 speed auto for GM, however I think the transmission would hunt quite a bit unless GM adds the 3.42 ratio and gets rid of the ridiculous 3.21 axle ratio!

Knight511
10-25-2010, 09:11 AM
There really is no replacement for displacement.

This is an antiquated argument that really needs to be put to bed. The current trucks line up looks like this:

Ford 6.7L: 400HP... 800ft/lb
GM 6.6L: 397HP... 765ft/lb
Dodge 6.7L: 350HP... 650ft/lb

Ford 3.5L: 365HP... 420ft/lb
Dodge 5.7L: 390HP... 407ft/lb
Toyota 5.7L: 381HP... 401ft/lb
Nissan 5.6L: 317HP... 385ft/lb
Ford 5.0L: 360HP... 380ft/lb
GM 6.0L: 322HP... 380ft/lb
GM 5.3L: 315HP... 335ft/lb
Dodge 5.9L: 245HP... 335ft/lb (2002)
Dodge 4.7L: 310HP... 330ft/lb
Chevy 5.7L: 255HP... 330ft/lb (1997)
Toyota 4.6L: 310HP... 327ft/lb
GM 4.8L: 302HP... 305ft/lb
Ford 3.7L: 300HP... 275ft/lb

If the argument is that you need displacement to pull a trailer, then you are dead wrong. Technology can AND will replacement displacement. You can see Dodge's and GM's largest engines (5.9L and 5.7L) have been WELL replaced with more modern designs. You will also notice that the largest engine (GM's 6.0L) is eclipsed by 5 engines with less displacement. On the diesel side of things, the larger engine does not necessarily make more power/torque.

And before you say something about the turbo engine not being good due to turbo lag... remember, the big, bad diesels have all been running turbo for a long time... you won't see a normally aspirated engine pulling a 50K pound trailer down the highway ;)

As emission and mileage requirements go up, you will see all the manufacturers finally put to rest the idea of "no replacement for displacement" and join what foreign car makers have known for a long time... technology and boost are the ways to go. With Ford dtepping up their product line and making an engine like the EB for a truck, the other makers will now have to step up. Once people start seeing the joy of getting 20+mpg out of their work trucks and the cost savings associated, fleets will start changing over to them and if GM and Dodge don't keep up, they will get left behind.

Disclaimer: I ma not a Ford lover. Quite the opposite, I grew up in a GM family... but now with the new engines from Ford, I would NEVER buy one of GM's antique-like 5.3/4.8L engines.

360ci
10-25-2010, 09:49 AM
You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable.

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries.

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada, I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder, and more than likely cost me more in the long run as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).

doubleedge
10-25-2010, 05:34 PM
Could you provide a couple of sources? My comments are in red.

You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement. There is no reason to have the extra displacement if the engine is turbocharged. You aren't giving a reason why there is no replacement for displacement, you are just saying that displacement is volume.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. Prove it. What sources do you base this on? 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. You aren't considering that the engine has less friction and doesn't need to produce 350 hp all of the time. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable. Have you heard of Ford's ecoboost durability test? Perhaps you should read up on it. Again, why don't you provide any proof?

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads. We aren't talking about substituting a boosted engine with an engine that has even more boost; the ecoboost replaces a naturally aspirated engine and has two small turbochargers, designed to reduce lag, not produce ridiculous amounts of boost.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries. So you would like a small turbocharged diesel engine but not a small turbocharged gas engine?

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada Is that 2k above the 3.7 or the 5.0? It is a $750 upgrade over the 5.0 in the United States., I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder Please give some proof., and more than likely cost me more in the long run It should get better fuel economy. as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 Based on what? It has 140 ft lbs less torque. but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 There is no reason why it can't. and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. But has less torque and the torque peaks at higher rpm. The ecoboost peaks at diesel like rpms. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. What about "there is no replacement for displacement"? And you gave price as a reason why you didn't want the ecoboost; supercharger kits cost $5k+ As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6. It can have the 5.7 hemi. The platform is unibody and has independent suspension but can still tow 7k, I believe. And it has good ride quality too.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).It still has less power/displacement.

joed
10-25-2010, 09:18 PM
You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable.

If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads.

My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries.

Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada, I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder, and more than likely cost me more in the long run as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6.

Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).

360CI
Ford is not putting the 3.7 in the 4WD model? That's terrible. How will the 5.0L V8 be for fuel economy? Any news yet on fuel economy for the ecoboost? We'll have to see if the increased fuel economy justifies the extra upfront cost and likely the extra upkeep cost for things such as the turbochargers.

360ci
10-25-2010, 09:59 PM
Could you provide a couple of sources? My comments are in red.

It still has less power/displacement. Yes it does, but that doesn't mean it's any less capable, Mr. GM guy.

It can have the 5.7 hemi. The platform is unibody and has independent suspension but can still tow 7k, I believe. And it has good ride quality too. Yes, but I bought my Durango originally as a hunting/trail vehicle as well as a tow machine. I need a low range. Fewer vehicles are offering it now, as they're going car based for a more compliant ride as you mentioned. If I got the new Durango I'd stick with the base V6 as it would be sufficient in everyday driving. Lifting and going with lower gears will also be hard unless the aftermarket finds that there is enough demand to warranty 'off road' performance mods.

But has less torque and the torque peaks at higher rpm. The ecoboost peaks at diesel like rpms. Yes, but at maximum boost you'll use just as much fuel, if not more depending on if you're towing anything than a N/A V8. Diesel burns more efficiently in terms of BTU output per X amount of fuel used for each engine.

What about "there is no replacement for displacement"? And you gave price as a reason why you didn't want the ecoboost; supercharger kits cost $5k+ As I said, performance costs money, and the question is How fast do you want to go? Not very, I buy trucks for what they are - workhorses. As for S'charge kits I have my connections to get them at cost, in line to the EB3.5 option here in Canada which is $2K over the 5.0L by the way. However, to get the max towing package you have to get the 3.5EB, which would have me going with a 3/4 ton if I planned to do any towing, because at that point I'm already well into 3/4 ton pricing. The EB cannot be had on XL or XTR trim, XLT and higher only.

There is no reason why it can't If it was a big V6, like the old 4.9L I6, that engine could do a lot of work that the V8 could with more reliability at the expense of noise vibration and harshness with similar fuel economy numbers as the V8.

Based on what? It has 140 ft lbs less torque Yes, but the 3.7 still makes decent torque for the engine size, and on base models where the EB cannot be optioned, you save over $5K. The old 4.2L V6 pumped out 202hp and was a decent base engine for the time also, as it was in line with Dodge's 3.7L at 215hp and GM's venerable 4.3L with 195hp.

We aren't talking about substituting a boosted engine with an engine that has even more boost; the ecoboost replaces a naturally aspirated engine and has two small turbochargers, designed to reduce lag, not produce ridiculous amounts of boost. You missed my point, as I was getting at reducing displacement. The EB does produce high boost to achieve the HP numbers on paper. Last I read it high on the two digit mark. Most boosted engines run mid to high single digits so as not to have a negative effect on engine durability.

You aren't considering that the engine has less friction and doesn't need to produce 350 hp all of the time. When you tow, you more than likely will as the 3.5L V6 will require more rpm to pull a trailer due to the small displacement where a larger engine can literally lug along in a lower gear although it's not healthy on the transmission. My 5.9L V8 produces stock 250hp at 4200rpm. It's rarely producing that amount of power. Generally I'm lucky to need more than 150hp even when towing on the highway as the engine cruises just under 2000rpm and at that speed I have all the torque I need RIGHT when I want it without the need to downshift, it just pulls.

There is no reason to have the extra displacement if the engine is turbocharged. You aren't giving a reason why there is no replacement for displacement, you are just saying that displacement is volume. Exactly, displacement is volume. We're not changing the volume of the engine because in the end, boosted or not the EB3.5 is still 3.5L. You're saying that large engines don't require turbos? You're right. They don't, unless the owner is a performance freak and wants the added power boosting brings. To each their own.

360ci
10-25-2010, 10:01 PM
360CI
Ford is not putting the 3.7 in the 4WD model? That's terrible. How will the 5.0L V8 be for fuel economy? Any news yet on fuel economy for the ecoboost? We'll have to see if the increased fuel economy justifies the extra upfront cost and likely the extra upkeep cost for things such as the turbochargers.

Not for the first year was my understanding, as I can't build one online, but that might change, or be a mistake. If anything I'd guess that Ford thinks the 3.7L too weak when compared to other base half ton models in terms of peak torque to weight ratio perhaps?...

Knight511
10-26-2010, 05:45 PM
Basic engine dynamics... air + gas = go.

The reason the cliche "no replacement for displacement" even exists is because bigger displacement means the engine could ingest more air and therefore burn more gas. The more gas burned, the more power made. (not adjusting for thermal efficiency of said engine).

If 1L sucks in 100% of its volume, a normally aspirated engine sucks in 1L of air. If 1 liter is turbo charged to 7psi, that same engine can take in 1.48L of air.... and so on. I am sorry if you still live in 1969 when carburetors ruled the earth, but the cliche is now dead and the manufacturers are going to put it to bed. There is a reason why Ford dumped the 7.3L Powerstroke in favor of the current engine.... and why GM dumped the 5.7L for its 5.3L... it is evolution... the days of monster sized engines is dieing.

360ci
10-26-2010, 07:12 PM
Basic engine dynamics... air + gas = go.

The reason the cliche "no replacement for displacement" even exists is because bigger displacement means the engine could ingest more air and therefore burn more gas. The more gas burned, the more power made. (not adjusting for thermal efficiency of said engine).

If 1L sucks in 100% of its volume, a normally aspirated engine sucks in 1L of air. If 1 liter is turbo charged to 7psi, that same engine can take in 1.48L of air.... and so on. I am sorry if you still live in 1969 when carburetors ruled the earth, but the cliche is now dead and the manufacturers are going to put it to bed. There is a reason why Ford dumped the 7.3L Powerstroke in favor of the current engine.... and why GM dumped the 5.7L for its 5.3L... it is evolution... the days of monster sized engines is dieing.

Another reason not to trade in!

Knight511
10-26-2010, 11:39 PM
Another reason not to trade in!

You will eventually be forced to as fuel prices become cost prohibitive. :) Hell my full-time job calculates full savings down to how we can save 0.5mpg due to the size of our fleet... I think the day is coming that all us NORMAL people end up doing the same thing.

360ci
10-27-2010, 07:24 AM
You will eventually be forced to as fuel prices become cost prohibitive. :) Hell my full-time job calculates full savings down to how we can save 0.5mpg due to the size of our fleet... I think the day is coming that all us NORMAL people end up doing the same thing.

It's inevitable. Fuel prices are what they are. We'll still require vehicles to do 'work'. People that buy a truck just to haul their lardness around are the ones who should face tax premiums on fuel, etc. Obviously that can't be regulated yet (seats that weigh the driver before the vehicle starts, ha!), but I'm sure its in the works. A 400lb person puts twice the strain on asphalt that a 200lb person does, afterall.

Europe has had road tax, engine displacement tax, and emission tax for eons and I'm still rather shocked that we don't...yet.

Knight511
10-27-2010, 08:20 AM
It's inevitable. Fuel prices are what they are. We'll still require vehicles to do 'work'. People that buy a truck just to haul their lardness around are the ones who should face tax premiums on fuel, etc. Obviously that can't be regulated yet (seats that weigh the driver before the vehicle starts, ha!), but I'm sure its in the works. A 400lb person puts twice the strain on asphalt that a 200lb person does, afterall.

Europe has had road tax, engine displacement tax, and emission tax for eons and I'm still rather shocked that we don't...yet.

Shhhh.... don't give this administration any ideas on how to get more money to spend on BS things.

I bet there would be a lot fewer fat-ass drivers out there if they were taxed everytime they "weighed in" when they started their trucks.

The other disappointing thing to me... I have been "hearing" for years that the big three should be coming out with light duty diesel trucks (like a C1500 with a smaller diesel). Honestly, very few companies actually NEED to be running the big guzzlers that they are and could benefit from smaller more efficient diesels... but they have done nothing to this. I like that Ford has placed some emphasis on fuel economy while still keeping their trucks work worthy... now it is just a matter of a couple of years to see how the other two answer this challenge.

I remember my first car had a GM 3800 series 2 in it making 200HP... I thought that car had lots of power.... and now GM has 312HP V6s running around.... back when I was 16 the Z28 only had 275HP... it brings a smile to my face to see cars advancing so quickly... too bad it didn't happen back when I was paying $0.89 a gallon and could afford to drive something that was "less fuel efficient." :laugh:

360ci
10-27-2010, 05:02 PM
Shhhh.... don't give this administration any ideas on how to get more money to spend on BS things.

I bet there would be a lot fewer fat-ass drivers out there if they were taxed everytime they "weighed in" when they started their trucks.

The other disappointing thing to me... I have been "hearing" for years that the big three should be coming out with light duty diesel trucks (like a C1500 with a smaller diesel). Honestly, very few companies actually NEED to be running the big guzzlers that they are and could benefit from smaller more efficient diesels... but they have done nothing to this. I like that Ford has placed some emphasis on fuel economy while still keeping their trucks work worthy... now it is just a matter of a couple of years to see how the other two answer this challenge.

I remember my first car had a GM 3800 series 2 in it making 200HP... I thought that car had lots of power.... and now GM has 312HP V6s running around.... back when I was 16 the Z28 only had 275HP... it brings a smile to my face to see cars advancing so quickly... too bad it didn't happen back when I was paying $0.89 a gallon and could afford to drive something that was "less fuel efficient." :laugh:

Exactly. If we had a displacement or engine size tax it would 'force' people to put their money down more efficiently, however I can't see it happening as people will rise against the government trying to regulate their freedom of choice.

The 3.8L V6 is still a fine engine, although outdated when compared to alloy 24V blocks now. Manufacturers mean well but I wouldn't call it as much advancing as it is getting out of hand. The economy will remain in poor condition for some time. Having people buy $80-120K trucks SUVs and the like don't help matters. Yes, they add to the overall cash flow, but it proves that manufacturers can make a $200K truck, and people WILL BUY IT even though the dealer will make $25K and the manufacturer will make a good $25K as well. The GM Tahoe & Yukon were plated as GM's "cash cows" because of this.

Anyway, pushing high horse out of a small engine is a good idea on paper, and used for automotive marketing purposes to help sales. I'd much rather have a 3800 V6 than say a new 2.0L Turbo Hyundai Sonata (274hp) in a front wheel drive application. I drive 5-6 months in the snow, and a turbo FWD will cause more problems than what it's worth.

Same goes for the F150 EB, it better come with a standard full time AWD system of sorts, as in 2wd in the winter...it'll barely move. When it does gain traction at low rpms, boost will kick in allowing you to lose traction once again.... Or traction control will cut power nearly entirely which can just as well hamper any forward momentum. Ick. I can't wait for some real world test results!

doubleedge
10-28-2010, 12:49 AM
Same goes for the F150 EB, it better come with a standard full time AWD system of sorts, as in 2wd in the winter...it'll barely move. When it does gain traction at low rpms, boost will kick in allowing you to lose traction once again.... Or traction control will cut power nearly entirely which can just as well hamper any forward momentum. Ick. I can't wait for some real world test results!

Why would a turbocharged gasoline engine be different than a diesel engine in this respect? I don't read about this problem with diesel engines. Are you suggesting that the turbo gas engines have more torque off the line and more turbo lag than a diesel engine?

360ci
10-28-2010, 04:41 PM
Why would a turbocharged gasoline engine be different than a diesel engine in this respect? I don't read about this problem with diesel engines. Are you suggesting that the turbo gas engines have more torque off the line and more turbo lag than a diesel engine?

Diesel would be similar depending on engine management software, driving nanny's (traction control), etc, all play a part if tractability off the line in snow, or on ice. Each manufacturer programs their own computers for the most part. If it's programmed correctly it won't cut more than a small percentage of power so you don't lose momentum, when say trying to climb a hill covered in snow from a stop. The Sprinter van/wagon as a good example of traction control done right. So far it's the only vehicle I've driven (and owned) with a traction control system. Yes, the system can be completely shut off so you can use it on a farm or another area that has a bad mudded road for instance, and not worrying about getting stuck. Not all systems can be shut off.

As for turbo lag, it's all in the engine management programming and engine parts used in construction of the engine. Most vehicles built in the last few years have virtually eliminated lag, which means you'll have a full onslaught of power and torque when you push the pedal down. If you're used to driving say an older turbo charged engine, the throttle input on a newer vehicle will take some getting used to, and chances are good that your older vehicle doesn't have any electronic nanny's, or traction control aids which can also hamper your forward momentum in some circumstances.

Most automatics built over the last few years also come with a 'hill holder' feature. It's always on, if you will, so if you take your foot off the brake the vehicle won't roll back. This helps, especially if you can't gain traction and start fish tailing, then chances are decent that you won't go back into the front of another vehicle. Obviously on a slick surface anything is still possible.

doubleedge
10-28-2010, 06:55 PM
Diesel would be similar depending on engine management software, driving nanny's (traction control), etc, all play a part if tractability off the line in snow, or on ice. Each manufacturer programs their own computers for the most part. If it's programmed correctly it won't cut more than a small percentage of power so you don't lose momentum, when say trying to climb a hill covered in snow from a stop. The Sprinter van/wagon as a good example of traction control done right. So far it's the only vehicle I've driven (and owned) with a traction control system. Yes, the system can be completely shut off so you can use it on a farm or another area that has a bad mudded road for instance, and not worrying about getting stuck. Not all systems can be shut off.

As for turbo lag, it's all in the engine management programming and engine parts used in construction of the engine. Most vehicles built in the last few years have virtually eliminated lag, which means you'll have a full onslaught of power and torque when you push the pedal down. If you're used to driving say an older turbo charged engine, the throttle input on a newer vehicle will take some getting used to, and chances are good that your older vehicle doesn't have any electronic nanny's, or traction control aids which can also hamper your forward momentum in some circumstances.

Most automatics built over the last few years also come with a 'hill holder' feature. It's always on, if you will, so if you take your foot off the brake the vehicle won't roll back. This helps, especially if you can't gain traction and start fish tailing, then chances are decent that you won't go back into the front of another vehicle. Obviously on a slick surface anything is still possible.

So, you are basically saying that your previous comment about a turbo gasoline engine being terrible in winter is false? I am very confident that a high volume consumer vehicle would have a similar or better traction control system than a relatively low volume commercial van.

bradseabridge
10-28-2010, 07:23 PM
All of this is pointless anyway, we are talking about 2-3 months out of the year when you might have traction problems, and that's like 5-7 times out of the year where you would actually drive on bad snowy roads. That's also if you absolutely have too and can't wait until the next day when the roads are clear (assuming most counties live in the 21st century and can get roads clear fairly effectively). IF you still need to drive in the snow and it's slick or deep that's what they make tire chains for.

I'm not going to base my truck buying decisions off of 2-3 months out of the year or because we MIGHT get snow. Like I said if we get snow too bad for the 4wd then I put the chains on, and I go anywhere and do anything with those on.

Knight511
10-28-2010, 08:30 PM
HA! Way down here it is only that way 1-2 DAYS out of the year.... but 360 is really pretty far north (Canada... aye?) so I can see how it would be of more interest.

The interesting thing about the Sprinter van... it wasn't "American." It was a Mercedes design sold through Freightliner and then Dodge.... that just means MERCEDES probably has a good nanny for snowy driving... :) too bad they don't make a pick up.

bradseabridge
10-28-2010, 08:32 PM
HA! Way down here it is only that way 1-2 DAYS out of the year.... but 360 is really pretty far north (Canada... aye?) so I can see how it would be of more interest.

The interesting thing about the Sprinter van... it wasn't "American." It was a Mercedes design sold through Freightliner and then Dodge.... that just means MERCEDES probably has a good nanny for snowy driving... :) too bad they don't make a pick up.

They do, it's called a UNIMOG look it up. It's my dream truck, portal axles UHH IM DROOLING!!

360ci
10-28-2010, 11:20 PM
So, you are basically saying that your previous comment about a turbo gasoline engine being terrible in winter is false? I am very confident that a high volume consumer vehicle would have a similar or better traction control system than a relatively low volume commercial van.

Not at all. More power and torque at low rpm make it harder to gain traction in poor weather conditions. Which is why it'd be nice if Ford has it's own AWD 4x4 system like GM and Dodge have for better tractability. LSD is optional on all F150's but the FX4 here in Canada. EB3.5 with open diff and rear wheel drive = no thanks. I'd have better luck with the 5.0L V8 2wd. It comes with an open diff as standard equipment as well. It's at least a cost savings to folks that plan to add a box with tools on the back, etc, where winter traction won't be too bad, but if I wanted storage space for tools, I'd get a cargo van. If anything, Ford should add the 3.7L V6 to the E Series, at the very least.

Sprinter is only a low volume van in North America. Worldwide there are more variants of the Sprinter on the road than the E series van. They make an excellent buy, used! My 3500 Sprinter cube eats 14L/100km combined city/highway driving. The old and crude but solidly running GMC 3500 cube van that I had before it with the 5.7L engine ran 26L/100km in combined driving. Nearly a 50% savings in fuel costs, longer distances between oil changes (as mine's a 2006; pre 2007 emissions!) puts $10-12K back into my pocket each year. No major problems, just brakes and a few light bulbs over the 212,000kms that's been put on it. The only downside that I'm starting to see is that it's not made for the salt on the roads here. Corrosion is starting already from the pre season spraying. That's one way I can tell it was more biased toward weather in Europe.

Knight511
10-29-2010, 08:20 AM
They do, it's called a UNIMOG look it up. It's my dream truck, portal axles UHH IM DROOLING!!

And so I did..... I was thinking more in lines with "normal" pick ups :laugh:

bradseabridge
10-29-2010, 01:04 PM
And so I did..... I was thinking more in lines with "normal" pick ups :laugh:

Isn't it awesome?!

Knight511
10-29-2010, 05:28 PM
Isn't it awesome?!

I am not a truck person so much as others may be... I wouldn't call it awesome... it is kind of like a Raptor, it would be GREAT if I had some where to really play with it. :)

joed
10-30-2010, 08:23 PM
Has anyone found any feedback on the 3.5L Ecoboost engine on the Ford F150. I thought Ford was putting one of their trucks, equipped with this engine in some sort of race to see how well it holds up?

Knight511
10-31-2010, 11:10 PM
The engine is not available yet...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/23/ford-to-campaign-f-150-ecoboost-in-baja-1000/

trailmaker
12-19-2010, 09:43 PM
And so I did..... I was thinking more in lines with "normal" pick ups :laugh:

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt149/trailmaker_photos/images.jpg

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt149/trailmaker_photos/c134feed3b.jpg

Oberaigner makes this truck based on the Sprinter.Unfortunately vehicles this cool are forbidden in the U.S.

Lovingreen
12-24-2010, 12:43 PM
I am looking forward to the next few years....we should see how the 3.5l EB performs in the real world....and see what the competition comes up with. I am eager to put my 8mpg Dodge into retirement...I have added a line to my budget...Truck fund.

Knight511
12-25-2010, 10:16 AM
and see what the competition comes up with.

I think this is what makes me most happy about the EB. Shake things up and force the others to compete for better gas mileage instead of just adding stiffer springs to be able to tow more... :)

Justin
12-25-2010, 01:11 PM
trailmaker, I know the feeling. We miss out on alot of rigs from over seas just like they miss out on what we have.
Knight, I would really like to try out the ecoboost. I just don't really care for the styling on the front end besids the raptor. Along with the price tag. You can get into a f250 for what some F150's cost. I wish it would go back to the good old days not to far back when you could buy a decked out 7.3 cc for 38. Now that same truck is 61.:dizzy:

Knight511
12-26-2010, 04:22 PM
You can get into a decked out F250 for what some F150s cost... but that has been true for a VERY long time when looking to the higher models (Raptor, HD, Platinum).... Of course spending any where near that for a work truck that is going to get beat up is just stupid.... IMHO. ;)

Capemay Eagle
01-29-2011, 10:19 AM
Has anyone found any feedback on the 3.5L Ecoboost engine on the Ford F150. I thought Ford was putting one of their trucks, equipped with this engine in some sort of race to see how well it holds up?
This engine is holding up pretty well. They had one test engine #448AA and they beat the engine for something like 160K miles. Here are some vids, there are quite a few more!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fCzBHVFTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0yTTvh_Ikg&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxN3JnQ47b0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_bbzRLdDM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG6xZ3e4_pI&feature=channel

Capemay Eagle
01-29-2011, 10:26 AM
when you could buy a decked out 7.3 cc for 38.
Not to mention the 7.3, that was a heck of an engine.

GravelyGuy
01-29-2011, 10:49 AM
Where was the Tundra in that up hill test?

bobcat_ron
01-29-2011, 12:43 PM
Give me the Raptor F150 with an EcoBoost engine please.

lawnboy dan
01-29-2011, 05:20 PM
i would wait a year to buy this engine and see how it holds up

Capemay Eagle
01-30-2011, 09:48 PM
Where was the Tundra in that up hill test? Is that a Ford Power Stroke in you Avatar? What happened to the Tundra? I am proud to see the change.

Capemay Eagle
01-30-2011, 09:50 PM
i would wait a year to buy this engine and see how it holds up The engine has been in production for a year or so in the Flex and Lincoln MKS. Seems to be just fine. Note it is the same engine with different components for the 150

GravelyGuy
01-30-2011, 10:34 PM
Is that a Ford Power Stroke in you Avatar? What happened to the Tundra? I am proud to see the change.

I traded it because I wanted a diesel. You aren't going to see me talk bad about it though. That truck was a hoss and it is still the best half ton. I had it overloaded the entire 41K I had it and it never complained.

S man
05-30-2011, 09:15 PM
I know this is an older thread but is relevant to my situation. I was debating getting the 3.7l or 5.0 in an 2011 f150 and had my eye on one I really wanted. It had the 3.7 v6. The truck is nice but with a larger landscape trailer I bought I'm feeling like I should have went with the 5.0. My gas milage with the 3.7 is not very good towing or not. And feeling your trailer behind you is something I was trying to get away from. I don't feel like moving up to a 250 but am in need of more power. And the wonderful folks at the truck dealership would gladly take my "new" truck with 2k on it and give me the one I want with the 5.0 for toooo much money. What to do.

Just had to vent.

360ci
05-30-2011, 09:25 PM
I know this is an older thread but is relevant to my situation. I was debating getting the 3.7l or 5.0 in an 2011 f150 and had my eye on one I really wanted. It had the 3.7 v6. The truck is nice but with a larger landscape trailer I bought I'm feeling like I should have went with the 5.0. My gas milage with the 3.7 is not very good towing or not. And feeling your trailer behind you is something I was trying to get away from. I don't feel like moving up to a 250 but am in need of more power. And the wonderful folks at the truck dealership would gladly take my "new" truck with 2k on it and give me the one I want with the 5.0 for toooo much money. What to do.

Just had to vent.

If you have the 3.73 gears (versus the base 3.55), you can always upgrade to 4.10's!

LibertyFarmLandscaping
05-30-2011, 10:46 PM
I know this is an older thread but is relevant to my situation. I was debating getting the 3.7l or 5.0 in an 2011 f150 and had my eye on one I really wanted. It had the 3.7 v6. The truck is nice but with a larger landscape trailer I bought I'm feeling like I should have went with the 5.0. My gas milage with the 3.7 is not very good towing or not. And feeling your trailer behind you is something I was trying to get away from. I don't feel like moving up to a 250 but am in need of more power. And the wonderful folks at the truck dealership would gladly take my "new" truck with 2k on it and give me the one I want with the 5.0 for toooo much money. What to do.

Just had to vent.

The 5.0 is only a 1k more add on. That doesn't seem like much difference on a 20k plus truck.

S man
05-31-2011, 12:23 AM
The 5.0 is only a 1k more add on. That doesn't seem like much difference on a 20k plus truck.

I agree if I bought the truck with the v8 in the first place. This one supposedly depreciated some already and the new v8 truck on the lot would cost more. Basically 4-5k extra. I'm torn between modding this one or spending the cash to get one with the v8.

LibertyFarmLandscaping
05-31-2011, 06:27 AM
I agree if I bought the truck with the v8 in the first place. This one supposedly depreciated some already and the new v8 truck on the lot would cost more. Basically 4-5k extra. I'm torn between modding this one or spending the cash to get one with the v8.

Ok, I thought they would let you return it with none taken off the price.

Knight511
05-31-2011, 10:17 AM
Modding it would be sinking more money into it. How much are you going to spend trying to fix something like this? $1000? $2000? You may be better off swallowing deep and getting a 5.0 with the 3.73 gears... you will never mod the 3.7 to do as well as the 5.0 and can (in the long run) end up dumping more than 4-5K in it trying.

Poontamer
05-31-2011, 08:38 PM
My dad just bought one to tow his 24ft Everglades boat. It is very fast and great mpg it gets 17mpg when towing the boat! At 70 mph it is only running at 1900rpms when towing to,and I took it to the drag strip and ran a 14.1@102mph bonestock ecoboost extended cab. Put it this way I beat my friends 5.4triton while towing my rig(lawn setup)
Posted via Mobile Device

360ci
05-31-2011, 08:48 PM
I concur. The base F150 can be had with the 5.0 for $1K more. If you want the 35EB engine, you have to step up to the XLT trim and a cab other than regular to get it. That engine is still a $2K addition to the MSRP, at least it is here in Canada.

The V6 looks nice on paper, but if I towed more than 3-4K on a regular basis, I'd definitely opt for the V8. My small utility weights no more than 3K when FULL, so the V6 would still work and I wouldn't tow with it every day.

S man
05-31-2011, 11:54 PM
Ok, I thought they would let you return it with none taken off the price.

That would be great. But they want to rip you off. I'd be better off waiting till the end of the year to get one.

Knight511
06-01-2011, 12:22 AM
I concur. The base F150 can be had with the 5.0 for $1K more. If you want the 35EB engine, you have to step up to the XLT trim and a cab other than regular to get it. That engine is still a $2K addition to the MSRP, at least it is here in Canada.

I can't speak for CAN but south of the border (USA) you can get the EB in a regular cab/long bed and the engine is a $750 upgrade over the 5.0. I am in a holding pattern on a new vehicle, but I have my eyes on a F150 crew cab FX2 with the EB. Of course, its main duty would be my daily driving truck, not so much a work truck. :)

Keith
06-01-2011, 12:40 AM
Yeah, it sucks that you have to buy at least an XLT to get the EB. Well technically you can get it in an XL, but you have to get the 8' bed to do it. Which means no super crew. I have to admit, I liked the XLT that I drove for a week. But for a pure work truck, it would not really work for me.

Invoice price on a 5.0 in a truck that comes standard with the base V6 is about $830 USD and the EB is about $1450. Since most are paying pretty close to invoice on the truck, that is the number that is important.

pinto n mwr
06-02-2011, 07:05 PM
Just bought a 2011 f-150 w/5.0, ext cab, xlt, 3.55 gears. Two months old and a WHOPPING 12.6 MPG. Love new technology. It does have a lot of power though. Night and day difference between my 06 and the new 2011.

lyube
06-02-2011, 08:35 PM
I'll probably still stick with a Tacoma.

LibertyFarmLandscaping
06-02-2011, 10:21 PM
Just bought a 2011 f-150 w/5.0, ext cab, xlt, 3.55 gears. Two months old and a WHOPPING 12.6 MPG. Love new technology. It does have a lot of power though. Night and day difference between my 06 and the new 2011.

I take it that is towing mileage? If not you need to take it back to the dealer and get it checked out. My 4.6L 2010 F150 gets that mpg towing a 16 ft with 2 Ztrs push mower and all the other stuff. It gets around 18 with mixed hwy and city driving. 20 to 22 straight hwy.

pinto n mwr
06-02-2011, 11:01 PM
not towing mileage, baby foot non tow mileage. Last f-150 with the 5.4 was anything to dream about either. Old mans 2010 4.6 3v gets about 17mpg. I have had three f-150's dating to 2005 and none of them have achieved more than 15mpg, even with 30000 plus miles. Guess I shouldve brought those to the dealer also!

LibertyFarmLandscaping
06-03-2011, 10:33 PM
not towing mileage, baby foot non tow mileage. Last f-150 with the 5.4 was anything to dream about either. Old mans 2010 4.6 3v gets about 17mpg. I have had three f-150's dating to 2005 and none of them have achieved more than 15mpg, even with 30000 plus miles. Guess I shouldve brought those to the dealer also!

Umm. No you should have driven Chevrolet or GMC 1500 then. Ford's mpg's have always been less than GM until the 3v was put in the Ford in 09'.

My wife also has the F150 4.6 3v Super Crew and it avg the same 18 mpg's. So that is what I was basing the fact that you need to take it back to dealer on. Maybe the 5.0 is just a gas hog though.

Poontamer
06-07-2011, 06:02 PM
I have a 2009 Ford F-150 4.6 3v 6speedAuto and I get around 20 city 23 highway 17 towing (16ft trailer)
Posted via Mobile Device

dishboy
06-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Just bought a 2011 f-150 w/5.0, ext cab, xlt, 3.55 gears. Two months old and a WHOPPING 12.6 MPG. Love new technology. It does have a lot of power though. Night and day difference between my 06 and the new 2011.

To bad , my 5.0 got 18.3 mpg on my 60 mile loop today 40 hwy 20 in town with a 3000 lb trailer. . I get 21-24 at 60-65 empty, 18 in town .:usflag:

dishboy
06-08-2011, 11:24 PM
This is an antiquated argument that really needs to be put to bed. The current trucks line up looks like this:


If the argument is that you need displacement to pull a trailer, then you are dead wrong. Technology can AND will replacement displacement.
And before you say something about the turbo engine not being good due to turbo lag... remember, the big, bad diesels have all been running turbo for a long time... you won't see a normally aspirated engine pulling a 50K pound trailer down the highway ;)

As emission and mileage requirements go up, you will see all the manufacturers finally put to rest the idea of "no replacement for displacement" and join what foreign car makers have known for a long time... technology and boost are the ways to go. With Ford dtepping up their product line and making an engine like the EB for a truck, the other makers will now have to step up. Once people start seeing the joy of getting 20+mpg out of their work trucks and the cost savings associated, fleets will start changing over to them and if GM and Dodge don't keep up, they will get left behind.

.

All your high tech theorizing is wonderful, but in the real world a EB towing will see high exhaust temps , the computer will then pull back timing and fatten up the A/F and the mileage will be in the crapper. The 5.0 is a better engine for towing if you want MPG.

pinto n mwr
06-08-2011, 11:24 PM
To bad , my 5.0 got 18.3 mpg on my 60 mile loop today 40 hwy 20 in town with a 3000 lb trailer. . I get 21-24 at 60-65 empty, 18 in town .:usflag:

i think i would get that too if i coasted downhill. It does go into the shop tomorrow though but not for mileage. Frustrated that it gets poor gas mileage but not that frustrated as gas is not a factor of why i bought it.

Knight511
06-12-2011, 11:56 AM
All your high tech theorizing is wonderful, but in the real world a EB towing will see high exhaust temps , the computer will then pull back timing and fatten up the A/F and the mileage will be in the crapper. The 5.0 is a better engine for towing if you want MPG.

The irony of you telling me my theorizing is wonderful when you fire back with theorizing is excellent. ;)

The only test that I have found that would be "real world" comes from Pickuptrucks.com and the reviews do not cover the same roads traveled.

The Ecoboost averaged 8.5mpg during their crossing of the Rockies while towing a 9000 pound trailer. The 5.0L averaged 9.42mpg over a much shorter 226 mile test. So I don't think many would consider 1mpg as being "in the crapper" considering the testing conditions for the Ecoboost were certainly more rigorous than driving a landscape trailer around town. ;)

dishboy
06-13-2011, 01:37 PM
The irony of you telling me my theorizing is wonderful when you fire back with theorizing is excellent. ;)

The only test that I have found that would be "real world" comes from Pickuptrucks.com and the reviews do not cover the same roads traveled.

The Ecoboost averaged 8.5mpg during their crossing of the Rockies while towing a 9000 pound trailer. The 5.0L averaged 9.42mpg over a much shorter 226 mile test. So I don't think many would consider 1mpg as being "in the crapper" considering the testing conditions for the Ecoboost were certainly more rigorous than driving a landscape trailer around town. ;)

No theory involved. Fords engineer as reported in the PUC dyno tests and written up by Mike Levine stipulates that when loaded the ECO backs the timing and A/F ratios down due to high exhaust temps in 3+ gears. There goes your fuel mileage and this is why Ford recommends Premium fuel in high temps or when towing with the 3.5. I actually own and tow with a 5.0 and the guy who sold me mine also owns a Eco-boost as well as is a LCO. When towing similar loads in similar conditions the 5.0 consistently gets better fuel mileage. For towing daily with loads suited for a 1/2 ton the 5.0 is a better choice for fuel mileage. Regarding towing 9000 lb loads, wrong truck for that application.

Capemay Eagle
06-19-2011, 10:41 PM
To bad , my 5.0 got 18.3 mpg on my 60 mile loop today 40 hwy 20 in town with a 3000 lb trailer. . I get 21-24 at 60-65 empty, 18 in town .:usflag:
I get the same mileage with my 5.4, I usually get about 13mpg's when I tow 7K. But I mostly average 15 mpg around town unloaded.

Ramairfreak98ss
06-20-2011, 06:08 PM
I asked this same question only on plowsite a few weeks back. We were set to do a 0% for 60mo deal on at least one new truck and then to find out, all 2011s have electric hydraulic assist pump steering and are NOT recommended for plowing. A. b/c its not strong enough, not as much as the normal steering pump by the access. belt, and B. The power draw while raising or turning the plow AND turning your steering wheel Fords bulletin said could stall the truck or cause severe power draw, so much for f150s and plowing, we'll continue to use our old 91, 03 and 06s i guess. I literally was a few days away from signing at a dealer before the 0% ended... boy that would have been culture shock when we mount plows on for this winter and they cant plow lol

Aside from that, they seem like awesome engines and i definitly would have gone 3.5TT , 6.2L or 5.0L yet heard the 6.2L only avail. in the C/C shorbed models :/

bobcat_ron
06-20-2011, 10:08 PM
I asked this same question only on plowsite a few weeks back. We were set to do a 0% for 60mo deal on at least one new truck and then to find out, all 2011s have electric hydraulic assist pump steering and are NOT recommended for plowing. A. b/c its not strong enough, not as much as the normal steering pump by the access. belt, and B. The power draw while raising or turning the plow AND turning your steering wheel Fords bulletin said could stall the truck or cause severe power draw, so much for f150s and plowing, we'll continue to use our old 91, 03 and 06s i guess. I literally was a few days away from signing at a dealer before the 0% ended... boy that would have been culture shock when we mount plows on for this winter and they cant plow lol

Aside from that, they seem like awesome engines and i definitly would have gone 3.5TT , 6.2L or 5.0L yet heard the 6.2L only avail. in the C/C shorbed models :/


Give it some time, someone will have an aftermarket kit ready, that's always the case, everyone else is ahead of the curve inventing something better.