Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2014, 01:39 AM   #1
Rivet Master
 
ROBERTSUNRUS's Avatar

 
2005 25' Safari
Salem , Oregon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,266
Images: 18
Blog Entries: 51
Ford F-150 5.0L V-8.

Hi, we have discussed the Eco-Boost, but I keep thinking that maybe a 5.0L V-8 might be better for me. Most of what I have read so far is that the gas mileage between the two are very similar. Eco-Boost out pulls the 5.0 but gets worse mileage while towing and better when not towing. Simple comparison of these two and my Lincoln Navigator.

F-150 Eco-Boost......... 365 HP and 420 TQ.
F-150 5.0L V-8............360 HP and 380 TQ.
Lincoln 5.4L V-8............300HP and 355 TQ.
__________________

__________________
Bob

2005 Safari 25-B
"Le Petit Chateau Argent"
[ Small Silver Castle ]
2000 Navigator / 2014 F-150 Eco-Boost / Equal-i-zer / P-3
YAMAHA 2400 / AIR #12144
ROBERTSUNRUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 05:48 AM   #2
Rivet Master
 
r carl's Avatar
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Lin , Ne
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,056
I would want to own the 5.0L after the warranty expires.
__________________

__________________
The higher your expectations the fewer your options.
r carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 10:15 AM   #3
Full time Airstreamer
 
SCOTTinNJ's Avatar
 
2014 30' FB FC Bunk
Anywhere , USA Living.Somewhere.Yonder
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,160
I just went through deciding on what to pull my 2014 25' FC with. After thinking about, driving, and reviewing all types of vehicles I ended up with a crew cab F-150 with the 5.0 V8 and 3.55 rear. Just got back from a 2500 mile trip with it. While we weren't out west we did go up and down the Smokies in VA and TN, for example 40 between Knoxville and Asheville.

Did I desire more power? Sure, but short of a 6.7 liter diesel owner who doesn't??

The 5.0 did fine. Moreover, it's a proven engine with tons in service. I'm happy with the purchase.

Gas mileage for the entire trip was pretty much locked at 12.5 mpg. I think I had a high of 13.5 and a low of 12. Didn't vary much at all.
__________________
SCOTTinNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:07 AM   #4
Rivet Master
 
Soyboy's Avatar

 
1999 28' Excella
Frederick , Maryland
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 661
Images: 41
Personally, I am thinking about the F150 Ecoboost as a replacement for my Duramax (with Max Tow and Likely Max Payload). I may flip on that and stick with a diesel, but the new ones are so complicated that I like the relative simplicty of a gasser, turbo or not. Plus the newer diesel are too quiet LOL. Compared to the early Dmax's like mine, the specs aren't that far apart (300 HP/500Torque for my 2003), so I don't think I would notice much real world difference. The Dmax pulls my '99 28' Safari with ease. Having towed with a gasser V8 prior to the Dmax (different trailer BTW), I like the low end torque of the diesels and turboed gassers. Pulling away from stops, dragging the trailer over mountains is more relaxing when the engine has "lower end" torque. But the V8 will get the job done, no doubt. Having owned a number of turboed vehicles over the past 20 years, I'm not concerned about post-warranty problems any more than I would be with any other engine (although I do understand what you mean about the 5.0 being around for a while). In any event, to each their own. I always enjoy reading folks real world experiences.
__________________
1999 28' Safari
2012 F150 Platinum Max Tow 7650 GVWR 3.73 Elec. Locking Diff.(Prev 2003 Dmax).
Honda EU2000i, Equalizer Hitch
AM Solar Panels 150W - 2 Trojan T 105 6V Batteries
TAC MD-6
AIR 4534

On internet forums, please research and separate the wheat from the chaff (including mine!)
Soyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:14 AM   #5
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
If I owned a mid sized trailer, I would definitely also own a 1/2 ton gasser truck, and it would probably be a V8 engine. Just more comfortable with things I am familiar with. However, because of the seats in the Ford truck, it would be some other brand, but that's my personal problem because of my bad back.
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:21 AM   #6
Rivet Master
 
Road Ruler's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
St. Catharines , South Western Ontario
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,364
Images: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soyboy View Post
I like the low end torque of the diesels and turboed gassers. Pulling away from stops, dragging the trailer over mountains is more relaxing when the engine has "lower end" torque.
I once drove a D-Max but never towed with one. Soyboy, what would be your 0 to 60MPH times with the D-Max towing your 28'? thnxs
__________________
Airstreams..... The best towing trailers on the planet!
Road Ruler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:28 AM   #7
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,043
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around longer than the Coyote 5.0 V8. Considering the complexity of the new heads, I wouldn't see any reason for a Coyote 5.0 to be better out of warranty than an Ecoboost 3.5

I would opt for the turbos, but that is partly due to local mountain passes and an appreciation for maintaining power at higher elevations. I also like the torque.

If the Ecoboost consumes more fuel when towing, given that it is a more efficient engine, then you can always back off the throttle and drive it like the V8

Jeff
__________________
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:34 AM   #8
Full time Airstreamer
 
SCOTTinNJ's Avatar
 
2014 30' FB FC Bunk
Anywhere , USA Living.Somewhere.Yonder
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
The Ecoboost 3.5 has been around longer than the Coyote 5.0 V8.
Fair enough. I was thinking that it basically piggie-backs the generally low tech V8's that have been around forever.

And for the record, I have driven Saab turbos for years. Love them. Just didn't want to go that route for a truck just yet.
__________________
SCOTTinNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 11:51 AM   #9
2 Rivet Member
 
Denver , Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 62
I chose the Ecoboost over the V8 largely because I live in a high altitude environment (Colorado), the slightly better gas mileage, and the power curve. The peak measurements that are shown above do not capture what is happening at various times in the engine. I do wonder about its longevity and its higher initial cost...
__________________
ukulele2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 12:05 PM   #10
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
1976 Argosy 28
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,400
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTTinNJ View Post
~~

The 5.0 did fine. Moreover, it's a proven engine with tons in service. I'm happy with the purchase.

Gas mileage for the entire trip was pretty much locked at 12.5 mpg. I think I had a high of 13.5 and a low of 12. Didn't vary much at all.
Quote:
Fair enough. I was thinking that it basically piggie-backs the generally low tech V8's that have been around forever.
Let me say first off that I don't think there's anything wrong with the new 5.0. Reports are that it's a fine engine. However, it's no more proven than the 3.5L Ecoboost. The 3.5L Ecoboost was introduced in 2010 on the Taurus and Flex and offered on the F-150 starting in 2011, the modular 5.0L was introduced in 2011 in the Mustang and F-150. Reports are that the Ecoboost outsells the 5.0, so including the Mustang (which is not quite the same as the truck engine) there should be a similar number of each engine in the field. The modular 5.0 doesn't bear much resemblance to the old 302.

[On edit: I started my post earlier and got distracted by work... when I started there wasn't already a post saying essentially the same thing.]
__________________
David

Zero Gravitas 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | Il Progetto 1976 Argosy 28 Center Bath | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 04:22 PM   #11
Rivet Master
 
kscherzi's Avatar
 
2013 27' FB International
El Dorado Hills , California
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,136
Images: 24
Quote:
F-150 Eco-Boost......... 365 HP and 420 TQ.
F-150 5.0L V-8............360 HP and 380 TQ.
Lincoln 5.4L V-8............300HP and 355 TQ.
2015 F-150
F-150 Eco-Boost 2.7L....325 hp and 375 TQ.
F-150 Eco-Boost 3.5L....380 hp and 460 TQ. (New for 2015 Lincoln Navigator)


Maybe the F-150 will get the same version of the engine as the Navigator. Requires premium fuel though.
__________________
kscherzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 07:15 PM   #12
4 Rivet Member
 
Nomad518's Avatar
 
2001 25' Safari
Vancouver , Washington
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 264
I was really tempted by the performance stats on the Eco-Boost 6 engine, but I bought the 5.0L 8 with the towing package, integrated brake, and higher ratio rear end instead. I guess I'm just old school and found more comfort in the more traditional V8 than with the turbos on the 6. I've been happy with my decision as this is the best TV I've owned. But, I'm always interested in talking to those who made the other decision and selected the Eco-Boost engine. I think they're both good options. We just completed an 800 mile round trip towing the AS through the mountains of Northern California and Southern Oregon. The truck performed great! When towing on the flat stretches we were getting almost 14 mpg. And, average mpg through the mountain stretches was in the 12-13 range. I love my truck.
__________________
Nomad518 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 09:11 PM   #13
2 Rivet Member
 
SilverBuddha's Avatar
 
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
Prescott , Arizona
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 65
Another Happy Camper With The 5.0L V8

I spent a full day at my local Ford truck dealer test driving several F150s' and selected the 5.0L V8. I must admit I was impressed with the Eco Boost when it took off like a Rocket Sled however, I didn't enjoy the loud sound of the turbos, especially if I was towing for several hours (IMHO).

Fortunately for me (and my pocket book) my truck stays parked in the garage except for towing and visits to the home improvement stores.
If I were using the vehicle for everyday commuting, I would have considered the Eco-Boost however, I have several friends who own the Eco-Boost F150 and don't get any better mileage than I do.

I towed a 25' FC AS through the Pocono mountains and didn't have any trouble.
I'll be curious about the performance at higher elevations (I.e. Rocky Mts.).

Good luck with your decision. Hint: a Black color F150 with shiny chrome looks really sharp pulling an Airstream!

Cheers
__________________
SilverBuddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 09:58 PM   #14
Full time Airstreamer
 
SCOTTinNJ's Avatar
 
2014 30' FB FC Bunk
Anywhere , USA Living.Somewhere.Yonder
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBuddha View Post
Hint: a Black color F150 with shiny chrome looks really sharp pulling an Airstream!

Cheers
Like this?

__________________

__________________
SCOTTinNJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2005 Ford F-150 and 25 ft Safari??? jawbreakerms Tow Vehicles 4 01-31-2008 05:14 PM
Ford 150 Over Drive woodedareas Tow Vehicles 20 07-29-2007 03:42 PM
Ford F-150 4x4 Crew Cab TV? Buzzy4 Tow Vehicles 4 07-17-2005 08:54 PM
Ford F-150 As a Tow Vehicle Cstar Tow Vehicles 16 05-02-2004 08:24 AM
Ford E 150 brunoffrance Tow Vehicles 23 10-27-2003 06:55 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.