Eco-boost or 5.0?

[BigAl]

For what it's worth I'm driving a 2011 ecoboost. Have had it since new. 225,000km on the clock. 46,000 km towing my 31 foot airstream.
Had a timing chain replaced at 142,000 km. New one was heavier duty. I guess they had a problem.
Still runs perfect. Only maintenance is oil changes and one set of plugs.
I'll drive it till it dies.
Usually 10 years for me.
I am very happy with it so far.
Al

[jcl]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Today's sensors are better than before, but they're still problematic. Diagnosing problems is the thing. Maintenance can be ideal and problems fixed promptly, but not everything will show as a fault code. Complexity is an enemy in disguise until time and miles reveal it.

Agree with all that. Just don't see why the 5.0 is different than the 3.5. They are using similar engine management systems.

Originally Posted by slowmover

I work in an industry where vehicle down time is a huge problem when it occurs.

I did too. On highway diesels, utility power generation, marine propulsion and auxiliaries, and mobile mining equipment. Many contracts included guaranteed mechanical availability, ranging to 60,000 hours of operation.

Turbos weren't generally considered a negative reliability or durability factor, even when there were many of them compounded on a high altitude arrangement in a mining haul truck.

Originally Posted by slowmover

Since the EB DOES NOT offer a solid benefit over the V8, that's reason enough for me. Less engine strain. The inherent longevity bias of normally aspirated V8s (which are also naturally balanced, a V6 is not) is proven over more than sixty years. Dividing the power across more cylinders is beneficial. (Drive a V12 and it's obvious).

Efficiency matters. It drives cost per mile.

The longevity bias of V8 engines was earned based on understressed engines of years past.

The V8 has some balance advantages, but not related to cylinders firing (hence the exhaust note that some like). The Ecoboost V6 isn't bad, it is a 60 degree V. A straight six would be better. I like V12 engines as well. Even better is a V16. Never drove one, but sold them into power generation applications, both diesel and natural gas.

I read that Ford published that something like 65% of F150 trucks were ordered with an Ecoboost engine, the rest being split between the 5.0 and the naturally aspirated V6 base engine. Seems like the market is developing an opinion.

[VernDiesel]

Turbos have been powering semi truck engines for a long time with durability being a requirement. Many turbos go a million miles and when they need replaced the engine also needs refreshed. But Joe commuters experience in a turbo automobile or his second hand knowledge often related to the badly designed cooled lubricated early turbos of the 70s & early 80s cars.

Of the EB & the Coyote the one that proves the most reliable over time will be the one that was best designed having little to do with whether or not it has a turbo. A turbo vehicle properly designed takes the requirements of the turbo into account.

BTW 340,000 plus on my lil turbo Ram Ecodiesel under the constant hard loads of towing TTs commercially.

[slowmover]

Turbochargers, per se, aren't the problem (though they're a large expense), its managing the power output against economy and emissions.

The more highly stressed engine is just that.

Others want them, fine.

It's that there's no advantage to having one under the hood, THEN the greater likelihood of (more expensive) repairs somewhere in the future mitigates against it.

What's the list price of a complete engine over the counter? Find that and it backstops the premise.

VernD, what's your cumulative average mph? 46 or 47? The EB powered Fords in typical commuter service might not see 25-mph average . . and you understand this gauge.

I wouldn't have bought my present truck if the overall average had been 27 or less.
.

[dkottum]

Based on our excellent experience with a half-ton diesel, it will be interesting to see the F-150 3.0 turbodiesel soon to be added to the Airstreamer's choices.

[RinconVTR]

Originally Posted by PKI

It is an interesting study. The guy who fixes it daily wants less complex and more reliable. That is understandable. But you got to wonder how much altitude towing these guys do as no one mentioned which one pulls better in the mountains. Also, no one really talked about a specific reliability problem. Got the feeling we were dealing with V8 envy and V6/boost worry.

n. Pat

They cannot talk reliability as a Ford dealer employees being recorded for Youtube.

Of course a gas turbo will loose less power at high elevations, but how often do you tow at an elevation where power loss is severe. And how fast do you need to go at high elevation, when semis are literally crawling up? Reality check, not many towing with pickup trucks are full throttle/full power at these times. Heck, many are afraid of full throttle!

My own gut check is doing oil changes on two Ecoboosts compared to my Toy 5.7L and one 5.0L Ford. The non-turbo oil not only last longer per Blackstone reports in both engines (I can run over 10k OCI's in mine), but after 5-6k on the Ecoboost motors, when changing out the synthetic oil it stinks up my garage to high heaven.

The non-turbo oil is a nice dark brown, theirs is black as tar. UOA's say they can go a little longer, but they ALWAYS have note about small percentage of fuel showing up. That could be why it stinks more!

None of this means anything really, its just what I've noticed. One Ecoboost has been in the shop for numerous reason, the other not once and they are the very same model year. Just different vehicle types. My 5.7L and the 5.0L have never seen the inside of a shop for any reason except recalls, tires, and alignments.

Diesels have hit the US pretty fast and they will die off fast IMO. Many OEM's and Europe vow they will not continue pursuing this fuel type.

[VernDiesel]

My oil usually goes dark in the 7 to 10k range. I have 6 Blackstone lab reports that show the oil is not diluted dirty or exhausted it's additives at 15k. I use T6 in my diesel.

Diesel's in trucks are not going anywhere soon as long as we actually still live in a free society ruled by the constitution ie the free market. As citizens are buying diesel trucks. If gov for the primary purpose of power & control over the people trick us or force us away from the ICE then we will be subjects & not citizens.

Now if innovation develops better power plants and the consumer chooses them then I am all for that. This is likely to happen in time and perhaps faster if gov over regulation gets out of the way and would truly allow a free market to work. Naturally bureaucrats & tyrannical gov wants no part of that. And yes that would be the global elite, the Democratic leadership and the establishment Republicans.

[jcl]

My BMW 3.0 twin turbo ran 24,000 km between changes. I did them early, as a precaution, several thousand km before the monitoring called for a change. Never had any oil breakdown.

On my naturally aspirated BMW sixes, three of them, I ran similar intervals.

Oil colour doesn't tell you a thing unless it is milky, indicating water.

Won't use Blackstone due to their interpretation reports. Company I worked for had a large oil sampling lab (heavy equipment dealer).

[pteck]

5.0 is the right answer to the wrong question. Service techs are only concerned about one thing which is serviceability. Most of those guys look too young to have even owned a late model Ford. And the older one gave factually incorrect, ignorant answers. None likely have sampling both 5.0 vs. EB flavors in real loaded scenarios.

As truck connoisseur you all are, given the choice between diesel vs gasser, most would pick diesel if cost were no object. Yet most forget that turbo's are a fundamental part of most diesel applications. It's part of what lends diesels their tremendous torque and tractability.

And it does the same for gas motors. Like the dyno that PKI posted, the EB delivers very a immensely broad and flat torque plateau, not unlike diesel.

If I were paying a premium, I want premium power and tractability. Turbo's for me thank you. Serviceability is a secondary concern. No modern truck uses simple subsystems anymore. So long as it's validated and reliable. Unless people want to go back to a late era truck. Technology and capability marches on.

[dznf0g]

I have spent my whole adult life in service departments. Those techs answered in the positive because the choices given were both ford.....for whom they ultimately draw their livelihood. They didn't answer in favor of serviceability, they answered favorably to the engine they feel has less nonsense and greater durability. I guarantee you this. Been in hundreds of conversations, off camera, like this.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

I have spent my whole adult life in service departments. Those techs answered in the positive because the choices given were both ford.....for whom they ultimately draw their livelihood. They didn't answer in favor of serviceability, they answered favorably to the engine they feel has less nonsense and greater durability. I guarantee you this. Been in hundreds of conversations, off camera, like this.

Not sure what answering in the positive means?

Sure, I agree with you on the less nonsense and greater durability. But there's something to be said for more capability and output too - which the EB measurably delivers. We as consumers generally have never shied away from...more power argh argh argh.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by pteck

Not sure what answering in the positive means?

Sure, I agree with you on the less nonsense and greater durability. But there's something to be said for more capability and output too - which the EB measurably delivers. We as consumers generally have never shied away from...more power argh argh argh.

Answering "in the positive" means the techs can't badmouth either one..as if they were comparing a competitor's engine against the 3.5, for instance. As a Ford dealer, they're not going to publish any negative words about one over the other, just a tech's preference. It's what they are not saying which is more telling to me, than what little they are saying.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by pteck

Not sure what answering in the positive means?

Sure, I agree with you on the less nonsense and greater durability. But there's something to be said for more capability and output too - which the EB measurably delivers. We as consumers generally have never shied away from...more power argh argh argh.

Where's the greater capability?

The EB is a successful lightweight engine with a great power to weight ratio.

The other measure is the cooling system. Some (if not all) of today's one ton diesel pickups have two separate cooling systems. That's not consistent with being "capable"; it's a band-aid to prevent catastrophic failure.

Cooling system neglect plus poor repair and maintenance is what ruins more over the road Diesel engines than those lubrication oil related.

Greater output per displacement is great until the various bits of electronic info no longer communicate as well as when new. Finding the actual problem is the bugabear. Hear about this all the time.

I'll never forget the one about a guy with a new downsized Eldorado with multiple computers back in the 1980s. After countless trips to the dealer and factory service reps scratching their heads it was determined that a wire in an interior harness crossing the transmission -- once the car got hot (AND in a high ambient temp area) -- was exhibiting increased resistance to the tune of one-half a millivolt. That was enough to set off a series of cascading problems down several streams.

For the want of a nail . . . .

If others want an EB, I'd imagine they'll enjoy it. But I've had my share of tightrope-walk systems problems.

.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Where's the greater capability?

The EB is a successful lightweight engine with a great power to weight ratio.

<snip>

slo, I don't disagree with much of what you say about the importance of maintenance, and the challenges of more complicated powertrains. I think that despite the increased complexity, today's engines are more reliable than ever, but leave that aside for a moment.

What I don't understand, in a discussion about choosing the 5.0 Coyote vs the 3.5 Ecoboost, is why those factors matter.

Both engines have advanced engine management systems, twin independent variable valve timing, and other features that fit in the category of complex. As of 2018, the Coyote will have direct injection, same as the Ecoboost.

Both use multiple cooling systems (including oil coolers and piston cooling jets).

Both are lightweight. The 5.0 is a descendent of the modular engine family (4.6, 5.4, etc) and so the block is very compact due to tooling requirements. It is reinforced with webbing to handle the stresses.

I don't know the engine weights as installed in the F150, but the crate engines offered give a ballpark. A 3.5 Ecoboost is listed at 417 lbs. A 5.0 Coyote (Mustang configuration) is listed at 445 lbs. The F150 has different exhaust manifolds, which likely add some weight. But the two are very close, and the bore spacing limitation and the resultant attention to detail on reinforcement on the 5.0 suggests it is built to handle significant stresses. Seems pretty much a wash to me.

If there is a tightrope walk going on, seems they are both on the same tightrope.

Perhaps because of the Coyote 5.0 having a 302 cubic inch displacement, some posters equate it to the traditional Ford 302 Windsor engine. They assume reliability models based on that engine.

I don't agree with that that.

I think that both are good engines, well developed, reliable, and so on. I just don't think there is something to pick between the two on durability or reliability, absent statistics to support the claim.

So for me it comes down to efficiency, and wider power band. I also travel at altitude fairly often, but that may not apply to all.

[pteck]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Where's the greater capability?

The EB is a successful lightweight engine with a great power to weight ratio.

The other measure is the cooling system. Some (if not all) of today's one ton diesel pickups have two separate cooling systems. That's not consistent with being "capable"; it's a band-aid to prevent catastrophic failure.

Cooling system neglect plus poor repair and maintenance is what ruins more over the road Diesel engines than those lubrication oil related.

Greater output per displacement is great until the various bits of electronic info no longer communicate as well as when new. Finding the actual problem is the bugabear. Hear about this all the time.

I'll never forget the one about a guy with a new downsized Eldorado with multiple computers back in the 1980s. After countless trips to the dealer and factory service reps scratching their heads it was determined that a wire in an interior harness crossing the transmission -- once the car got hot (AND in a high ambient temp area) -- was exhibiting increased resistance to the tune of one-half a millivolt. That was enough to set off a series of cascading problems down several streams.

For the want of a nail . . . .

If others want an EB, I'd imagine they'll enjoy it. But I've had my share of tightrope-walk systems problems.

.

slowmover, I do appreciate and enjoy your POV. Majority of the time, I don't disagree with you. But at the same time, your assumptions and anecdotes miss the mark, because you fail acknowledge there's other legitimate perspectives. You can say all you want that power is a non-starter, and I understand what you're getting at, but that's your perspective. Some would say that power itself can offer safety, and in certain situations, that certainly is correct too.

There's no right and wrong answer here between the 5.0 vs EB. It's a preference! And I still don't get dznf0g's point, because neither option is in the "negative", hence my question.

If there is a real answer, and this might tweak some, yet it's a totally legitimate perspective to some... Toyota 5.7L is the right answer

[VernDiesel]

But pteck we want to use the truck to pull our TTs not a fuel trailer.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by jcl

slo, I don't disagree with much of what you say about the importance of maintenance, and the challenges of more complicated powertrains. I think that despite the increased complexity, today's engines are more reliable than ever, but leave that aside for a moment.

What I don't understand, in a discussion about choosing the 5.0 Coyote vs the 3.5 Ecoboost, is why those factors matter.

Both engines have advanced engine management systems, twin independent variable valve timing, and other features that fit in the category of complex. As of 2018, the Coyote will have direct injection, same as the Ecoboost.

Both use multiple cooling systems (including oil coolers and piston cooling jets).

Both are lightweight. The 5.0 is a descendent of the modular engine family (4.6, 5.4, etc) and so the block is very compact due to tooling requirements. It is reinforced with webbing to handle the stresses.

I don't know the engine weights as installed in the F150, but the crate engines offered give a ballpark. A 3.5 Ecoboost is listed at 417 lbs. A 5.0 Coyote (Mustang configuration) is listed at 445 lbs. The F150 has different exhaust manifolds, which likely add some weight. But the two are very close, and the bore spacing limitation and the resultant attention to detail on reinforcement on the 5.0 suggests it is built to handle significant stresses. Seems pretty much a wash to me.

If there is a tightrope walk going on, seems they are both on the same tightrope.

Perhaps because of the Coyote 5.0 having a 302 cubic inch displacement, some posters equate it to the traditional Ford 302 Windsor engine. They assume reliability models based on that engine.

I don't agree with that that.

I think that both are good engines, well developed, reliable, and so on. I just don't think there is something to pick between the two on durability or reliability, absent statistics to support the claim.

So for me it comes down to efficiency, and wider power band. I also travel at altitude fairly often, but that may not apply to all.

All apt points.

All the gas motors are pretty light these days. It's impressive. As with available power.

So I'd still say that the one which relies on displacement versus forced induction to produce said power would be my choice.

It's more difficult to maintain performance over a long period of time with the latter. Computers don't change that. They've simply made it easier to get past the warranty periods with all intact.

I haven't said, and will repeat, that I don't think the EB a bad choice for most.

I keep vehicles longer than most. There weren't too many folks cruising around in the late 90s and early oughts as I was in a thirty year old Chrysler. Third family member to buy it. Had 38k on it when I acquired it at its 24th birthday. Age alone caused me to rebuild most of it.

So my soon-to-be fourteen model year old turbocharged diesel truck seems maybe middle-aged. But it's built to a higher specification than a light duty diesel pickup engine as offered by the competition. And has reasonable power levels versus today's unreasonably powered descendant.

A gas motor in a tow vehicle ought to last 200k these days (trucks and/or tow vehicles; some car engines last longer as I'm aware). It's not an easy life as it requires careful maintenance to keep original cylinder pressures as long as possible.

The high heat area in which I live makes me cautious. Experience says the same.

There's always a price for complexity. For me, that's these automatic transmissions with a bajillion gears. I believe it trumps the engine choice. That's quite enough to fill my plate.

I'll put it this way. An Expedition is a better choice than the pickups. Were it not available with the V8 I'd still choose it over the pickup as it's the superior suspension design. Engine power is itself no longer an adequate reason to debate. All possible TVs are overpowered. Sort of like 4whl disc brakes no longer making one vehicle a better choice than one without. AFAIK, all are now disc

.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by pteck

slowmover, I do appreciate and enjoy your POV. Majority of the time, I don't disagree with you. But at the same time, your assumptions and anecdotes miss the mark, because you fail acknowledge there's other legitimate perspectives. You can say all you want that power is a non-starter, and I understand what you're getting at, but that's your perspective. Some would say that power itself can offer safety, and in certain situations, that certainly is correct too.

There's no right and wrong answer here between the 5.0 vs EB. It's a preference! And I still don't get dznf0g's point, because neither option is in the "negative", hence my question.

If there is a real answer, and this might tweak some, yet it's a totally legitimate perspective to some... Toyota 5.7L is the right answer

I think I've now mentioned three or four times that my decision is personal, and that the EB is probably fine for most.

I've also said it probably doesn't matter for those who trade often (5-7 years or under 200k).

For those of us who don't, repair diagnosis is a legitimate concern. And turbo'd engines are NOT simple. A few more HP with a tradeoff of increased complexity. Hmmm, find me consistent advantage to that choice. Mile after mile.

The comment about power being a nonstarter is that every possible TV is now overpowered.

As to the understanding of how to safely use power, I'll be a believer when I'm not getting passed at my 33-mph upgrade speed with this tanker and I'm looking to move a lane closer to get around a guy even slower AND I'm not being passed at 30-40/mph faster than I (and every other truck) is moving.

Where were you guys when your Dad or Grandad told you to NEVER pass at such a high speed discrepancy? Some of the worst accidents possible are the result. "Traffic flow" and "Conditions" mean just that. The speed limit sign is meaningless in those instances. 15/mph faster is fine unless you have more than a lane of barrier. And then it still doesn't mean haul ass.

Someone signaling a lane change isn't asking permission. Ease up, and look for this. Being faster in an inner lane doesn't confer ROW. Do NOT make this assumption with these big speed discrepancies if you want event-free travel.

Here a clue. 0-60/mph in 30-seconds is fine while towing. In twenty seconds is considered ideal. Faster is bad vehicle spec for the most part.

Driver skill is the issue. Take it for granted that a vacationer has no real skill. All four seasons and every climate and terrain. City and countryside. Takes awhile. Won't be done on an annual two week all is sunny vacation. So, again, ease up.

Only thing I see "power" do is to run the idiot into something worse. A traffic jam or an accident he can't see.

Allow me to recommend you put that trained mind to antilock trailer disc brakes, pteck. Cart before the horse isn't the way to go despite its huge popularity.

The excitement of "buying a tow vehicle" isn't matched in safety/stability terms as those.

As I've said, this thread and the ones like it are about buying appliances. Where color and unnecessary features trump important design differences directly related to risk avoidance.

.

[KrisE MN]

It runs great. Got a catch can to eliminate fuel and oil into the engine and watch the timing chain, which will be replaced next week just before warranty is out.

I love my truck, but there are a few things to watch for. Had a V8, loved that too but this truck is great at towing and gives me about 19 per mile daily driving.

[mikeinca]

The power difference between the EcoBoost and the V8 isn't just a "few horsepower". Even though the V8 has been upgraded for 2018, it's still shy of the EB by 70 lb/ft of torque and the EB delivers that additional power at lower RPM and at altitude where the V8 begins to run short of breath.

I'm not interested in winning speed contests on the road, but responsiveness and added power from my TV in the widest possible range of situations makes towing a safer and more enjoyable experience.

As for maintenance issues, the standard power train warranty for an F150 is 5 years/60K miles and an extended warranty contract is available at a reasonable price for up to 8 years. Thus, for me, servicing concerns don't really factor into the equation. For those who keep their vehicles longer perhaps maintenance issues can weigh more heavily, but years of objectively superior performance versus the possibility of future engine problems still seems to make the choice of EB or V8 an easy one.