User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 12:25:25 PM EDT
[#1]
I think the intercooler condensation issue is overstated. You see a lot of complaining about it on forums, but I've never met anyone in person that had a problem with their Ecoboost. Every EB owner I've talked to loves their truck.
Personally, if I were choosing between the 5.0L and the EB, I would take the EB. It has much more torque and the powerband is right where you want it. My truck is the 6.2L, and I love it, but if you're worried about gas mileage at all, go with the EB. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 1:28:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I have one and love it, just wish it sounded like a big V8.
The power down low is what really makes the engine, my 3.73 gears don't hurt either. I'm a pretty aggressive driver and have not had any issues at all. I also just towed our 6K lb boat / trailer combo 150 miles on hilly MO highways at 70-75 and really saw the engine perform well. With my gears, I doubt I'm getting too much better MPGs than the 5.0, but I wouldn't want to give up that low end torque....maybe for the 6.2L. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 2:51:44 PM EDT
[#3]
if you tow a trailer often, then get the 5.0 if you only tow a trailer 1 a month or less the v6 is the way to go. I have about 15000 on my ecoboost. No problems for me, It runs and rides great. The mpg drops down when you tow, but that is to be expected. If I was going to do it over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Well, maybe a different color, or maybe not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 3:48:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
if you tow a trailer often, then get the 5.0 if you only tow a trailer 1 a month or less the v6 is the way to go. Why is that? I would say the exact opposite. The EB has way more torque and it's makes all it's power in the lower RPMs, both of which are benefitial when towing. The 5.0L has all it's power higher up in the RPM range, and it's max torque is lower. If you're towing on a regular basis, a forced induction engine is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 3:49:36 PM EDT
[#5]
If you arent getting the 6.2, the EB is the only option. Skip the 5.0. Not great in the 1/2 ton.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2012 5:47:23 PM EDT
[#6]
How long do you plan on keeping it?
I like the EB, but my concern is the complexity of the engine, and possibility of replacing turbos down the line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 4:10:51 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:28:47 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I like the EB, but my concern is the complexity of the engine, and possibility of replacing turbos down the line. I wouldn't be worried about that at all. How many turbo-diesels are out there with 300k+ miles on them right now? Quite a few. The turbos on the EB engine will last longer than the engine itself without any maintenance. Beyond that, it's not really any more complex than the 5.0L, so I wouldn't expect the long term cost of maintenance to be much worse than a V-8 of the same generation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:32:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like the EB, but my concern is the complexity of the engine, and possibility of replacing turbos down the line. I wouldn't be worried about that at all. How many turbo-diesels are out there with 300k+ miles on them right now? Quite a few. The turbos on the EB engine will last longer than the engine itself without any maintenance. Beyond that, it's not really any more complex than the 5.0L, so I wouldn't expect the long term cost of maintenance to be much worse than a V-8 of the same generation. Valid point. I like them, and I currently have a problem free 2005 F250 6.0L, but am looking for something that is a crew cab, and a bit more driveable for my wife. That's why I began looking at the EB, and the towing capabilities are pretty good to the Diesels while enjoying metter MPG's and more SUV like drive. My problem is the almost $50K price tag for one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 9:53:28 AM EDT
[#10]
I am pulling the trigger on a 2013 EB SCREW F-150 FX4 next month if not next week. I am replacing a 2001 Ford F-250 7.3 with 226,000 miles on it. I only tow a trailer 4 or 5 times a year, so it's time for a change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 2:46:51 PM EDT
[#11]
I have the 5.0 my friend got the EB. The 5.0 sounds bad ass, the EB is a bit better on gas...its really a toss up. Ford also offers a bumper to bumper to 125k miles too.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2012 5:14:24 PM EDT
[#12]
I have an 2011 crew cab ecoboost 4x4 with a 3.55 ls rear. I have tuned it, leveled with bilstiens, and put on some 285/60-r20 duratracs. With all of the mods I get 17 combined and currently have 19000 on it without any problems. Truck is fast and powerful. Other than the lack of good sounding exhausts I love it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2012 2:58:27 AM EDT
[#13]
Did they fix/figure out the intake valve deposits with the direct injected 3.5L V6? Even Audi/VW still has this issue on their FSI engines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 1:14:19 AM EDT
[#14]
I'm looking at a 2013. Anybody know the cliff note differences between FX4 and Lariat besides the grill?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 4:39:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
I'm looking at a 2013. Anybody know the cliff note differences between FX4 and Lariat besides the grill? If you go here and expand the key standard & optional features it will give you an idea. http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 4:44:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I think the intercooler condensation issue is overstated. ...I've never met anyone in person that had a problem with their Ecoboost. I realize I'm on the forums as well, but my boss has an EB with the intercooler problem. He's been waiting on parts for 2 weeks now. He averages 16 mpg and has said if he were to do it again he would have just gotten the V8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 4:57:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
I'm looking at a 2013. Anybody know the cliff note differences between FX4 and Lariat besides the grill? They're very similar as far as features and options go. Lariat has the chrome grill and bumpers (unless you get the 2 tone). FX4 has the black grill and color matched bumpers. FX4 interior is carbon fiber trim, Lariat interior is faux wood grain. Lariat comes standard with climate control, it's an option on the FX4. FX4 comes with the flow through console standard, optional on the Lariat. FX4 comes standard with the electronic locking diff, whereas it's an option on the Lariat. Either truck can be optioned out to be nearly identical to the other in terms of options. It's basically just cosmetic differences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 4:17:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm looking at a 2013. Anybody know the cliff note differences between FX4 and Lariat besides the grill? They're very similar as far as features and options go. Lariat has the chrome grill and bumpers (unless you get the 2 tone). FX4 has the black grill and color matched bumpers. FX4 interior is carbon fiber trim, Lariat interior is faux wood grain. Lariat comes standard with climate control, it's an option on the FX4. FX4 comes with the flow through console standard, optional on the Lariat. FX4 comes standard with the electronic locking diff, whereas it's an option on the Lariat. Either truck can be optioned out to be nearly identical to the other in terms of options. It's basically just cosmetic differences. Thanks, I just picked up a black fx4. Man the ecoboost has some great torque. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 9:27:55 PM EDT
[#19]
This is my rig with the v8
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2012 11:11:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Are you able to get the 19 mpg highway that it's rated for? I am always skeptical of the EPA ratings. The Ecoboost is supposed to get 21 MPG highway for the 4x4 option, but the difference between 19 and 21 MPG is only a hundred and fifty or so dollars per year depending how much you drive. If I can get a 5.0 V8 much cheaper than an Ecoboost, I may just do that. Plus there's nothing like the sound of a V8 anyways 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 7:28:45 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Are you able to get the 19 mpg highway that it's rated for? I am always skeptical of the EPA ratings. The Ecoboost is supposed to get 21 MPG highway for the 4x4 option, but the difference between 19 and 21 MPG is only a hundred and fifty or so dollars per year depending how much you drive. If I can get a 5.0 V8 much cheaper than an Ecoboost, I may just do that. Plus there's nothing like the sound of a V8 anyways It is increasing, but only has about 150 miles on it. Right now I am at 13MPG. Most new vehicles you have to wait until after the first oil change or around 4,000 miles before you know what kind of MPGs you're going to get. I should add all that has been all city driving. This Saturday I will get a bunch of highway miles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 8:03:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Your post wasn't directed towards me but I have an '11 5.0 SCAB w/the 3.55's and consistently get around 19. The gauge right now indicates 19.2mpg and when I have hand calculated, it was on the money. The drive for me consists of somewhat hilly countryside but for about 3 weeks I was driving highway right around 70 and averaged 18.6mpg. The truck currently has 28,000 miles at the moment and no towing miles.
Quoted:
Are you able to get the 19 mpg highway that it's rated for? I am always skeptical of the EPA ratings. The Ecoboost is supposed to get 21 MPG highway for the 4x4 option, but the difference between 19 and 21 MPG is only a hundred and fifty or so dollars per year depending how much you drive. If I can get a 5.0 V8 much cheaper than an Ecoboost, I may just do that. Plus there's nothing like the sound of a V8 anyways |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 9:07:55 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Your post wasn't directed towards me but I have an '11 5.0 SCAB w/the 3.55's and consistently get around 19. The gauge right now indicates 19.2mpg and when I have hand calculated, it was on the money. The drive for me consists of somewhat hilly countryside but for about 3 weeks I was driving highway right around 70 and averaged 18.6mpg. The truck currently has 28,000 miles at the moment and no towing miles. Quoted:
Are you able to get the 19 mpg highway that it's rated for? I am always skeptical of the EPA ratings. The Ecoboost is supposed to get 21 MPG highway for the 4x4 option, but the difference between 19 and 21 MPG is only a hundred and fifty or so dollars per year depending how much you drive. If I can get a 5.0 V8 much cheaper than an Ecoboost, I may just do that. Plus there's nothing like the sound of a V8 anyways If you could do it over again, would you still go with the 5.0 over the ecoboost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 9:13:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Have the 2012 fx4 with the 5.0. It is awesome and no worries about turbo problems in the future.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 10:12:14 AM EDT
[#25]
For me definitely. I have no regrets.
While it is probably paranoia, part of my decision relied on the fact that I live in an apartment and I was concerned during the winter about the turbos. A block warmer is not an option since I have no outlet to plug in to and was concerned about how quickly the oil would circulate to them. Now the old man has the Ecoboost in his '11 Platinum (3.73) and it is definitely a nice rig. I think he has some regrets on the Ecoboost but that is because he has yet to see decent mileage out of his truck -no where near my mileage. IIRC I think his best has been 16-17mpg. To say what the cause is I couldn't begin to speculate. Too many variables (location, fuel, setup, mileage, etc). I do see several posts on other F150 forums debating the EB and it seems that you either have great fuel mileage or terrible but hell it's the internet. If you haven't already, check out some of the more popular F150 forums as there are plenty of threads on the EB's and 5.0's. 
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip If you could do it over again, would you still go with the 5.0 over the ecoboost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 11:12:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
If you could do it over again, would you still go with the 5.0 over the ecoboost? Yup, especially since the 5.0 is cheaper |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2012 2:35:07 PM EDT
[#27]
My 2012 Supercrew 4x4 5.0l with 3.55 just got back from a pheasant hunting trip to SD. In the more or less 1800 total miles I averaged 18.4mpg hand calc'ed. Truck carried 4 guys, 2 dogs, and a bunch of bags/guns/gear. Unloaded adds 1 to 1.5 mpg on long highway runs. I got the xlt package with sync, backup cam and sensors, power back glass, and upgraded wheels/ trim for less than $30k.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 12:09:17 PM EDT
[#28]
I've got a 2012 supercab with the 5.0
On a trip to the beach I hit 21.5 mpg. 4 adults and my 19 month old and a bed full of luggage and beach stuff I just broke 4k miles It's my daily driver. I have a 7 mile round trip commute to work 5 days a week. I'm averaging anywhere from 15.5 to 17 mpg. This does include some highway driving when I go into to town and back |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2012 7:57:50 PM EDT
[#29]
Got this one Wednesday. Very nice truck. Even has A/C in the seats! lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2012 10:11:07 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Have the 2012 fx4 with the 5.0. It is awesome and no worries about turbo problems in the future. this is the way I went. Also keep in mind: I have heard of a lot of people with tuners burn up the turbos in the ecoboost jacking with the setting, trying to get "just a little bit" more boost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2012 7:24:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have the 2012 fx4 with the 5.0. It is awesome and no worries about turbo problems in the future. this is the way I went. Also keep in mind: I have heard of a lot of people with tuners burn up the turbos in the ecoboost jacking with the setting, trying to get "just a little bit" more boost. That's hear say. Granted I'm sure there are a few cases of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2012 5:00:00 AM EDT
[#32]
It may be hard to say at this point but what is the anticipated maintenance and longevity differences of the 3.5E, 5.0 and the 6.2? I really like my 2004 3 valve 5.4 Triton it seems that all these new motors are even more impressive. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2012 5:27:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: It may be hard to say at this point but what is the anticipated maintenance and longevity differences of the 3.5E, 5.0 and the 6.2? I really like my 2004 3 valve 5.4 Triton it seems that all these new motors are even more impressive. Thanks! The 3.5L V6 by itself is very stout, it is the Duratec family. The 3.0L DOHC was used in a large variety of vehicles like the Escape, Fusion, etc... and then it progressed into the 3.5L DOHC V6 and the Mazda developed 3.7L DOHC V6 used first in the Mazda CX-9, followed by the Edge Sport, Mustang V6, etc... With the direct injection and turbocharger, it remains to be seen honestly. Considering OEMs like VW, Ferrari, and BMW have not solved the intake valve deposit issue with direct injection, Ford isn't likely to have solved it either. From the looks of things, there is no solution other than to pull the heads and physically clean the valves: http://www.bgfueltest.com/ The oil separators seem to help somewhat but there's still a lot of blow by, and VW has been using direct injection for well over 10-15 years. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
