Ford techs - are you kidding

[jkohler70]

Stumbled across this video surveying Ford techs about what engine they would choose in an F150. The majority chose the 5.0, but few because of reliability. Some of the answers are that the 5.0 has more power, or another who thinks you'd have to "get on" the ecoboost to get all of the power.

Ford should be embarrassed that their own techs don't understand the basics of the engines they work on. Sheesh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nUCx5IQZro

[Javi]

Actually, looking at the power curve the 5.0 makes it HP & torque at a lower rpm.... given the same gearing it will pull better at normal towing speeds... lock the 3.5 out of a couple of gears and then it'll win...

[Racebug]

hahaha. I had a f150 with the 5.0 for about 10 years. it could hardly pull a log splitter!! ok not that bad, but if you put 4000 lbs behind it, might as well leave it in 3rd gear cuz it wont pull 4th and forget about 5th. it didn't like 5th empty.

[Javi]

Originally Posted by Racebug

hahaha. I had a f150 with the 5.0 for about 10 years. it could hardly pull a log splitter!! ok not that bad, but if you put 4000 lbs behind it, might as well leave it in 3rd gear cuz it wont pull 4th and forget about 5th. it didn't like 5th empty.

Well, I briefly (5000 miles) pulled a 7200 lb 28.9' bumper pull with my '12 F150 with 5.0 and power was not the reason I traded it off... the tail wagged the dog... but it would pull all day long... 6th on flats 5th & 4th up hill... 60 mph

BTW... the 5.0 COYOTE ENGINE didn't come in an F150 until 2011... just saying...

[B-O-B'03]

Originally Posted by Racebug

hahaha. I had a f150 with the 5.0 for about 10 years. it could hardly pull a log splitter!! ok not that bad, but if you put 4000 lbs behind it, might as well leave it in 3rd gear cuz it wont pull 4th and forget about 5th. it didn't like 5th empty.

I pull our 4600 LB (dry) trailer just fine with a 2013 F150 5.0, with a 3:55 rear gear and average 10 - 12 MPG doing it.

It regularly shifts into 6th.

I am pretty sure the engines available in F150s were the 4.6 and 5.4 until fairly recently, when the 5.0 DOHC Coyote was intorduced.

-Brian

[Johnny's Journey]

Originally Posted by Javi

looking at the power curve the 5.0 makes it HP & torque at a lower rpm.... given the same gearing it will pull better at normal towing speeds...

Right there "Tortes or the Hare ?"

[madmaxmutt]

Originally Posted by Javi

Actually, looking at the power curve the 5.0 makes it HP & torque at a lower rpm.... given the same gearing it will pull better at normal towing speeds... lock the 3.5 out of a couple of gears and then it'll win...

I think you are going to have to read the charts again. You have this this exactly backwards. The EB torque is almost completely flat from 2k to 4k RPMs. The EB HP comes on sooner and rises faster that the 5.slow.

[sourdough]

I think the video shows that the folks that have to work on the EcoBoosts wouldn't want one for their own - at this location.


The guy that said you had to "put your foot in it" basically is right. A turbo has to spool up to augment the power. Overall, I think it's just as the one guy pointed out; with the V8 you have built in power and torque, not expensive add ons trying to augment a weaker engine, plus, as he also pointed out, the turbos are very expensive to repair. Plus, a couple of them mentioned "it's a V8" obviously implying it's not a 6. I do think it's telling that virtually all of the "mechanics" chose the 5.0 which makes me wonder about the longevity/reliability of the EcoBoost.

[Desert185]

The variable that kills a non-turbocharged vehicle is elevation. I live at 5400' and would not want a non-turbo vehicle, gas or diesel. Having had turbocharged vehicles since 1980 without turbo issues, I wouldn't go back.

Smaller engine cruising off boost...good mileage. Add boost...adequate power.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Desert185

The variable that kills a non-turbocharged vehicle is elevation. I live at 5400' and would not want a non-turbo vehicle, gas or diesel. Having had turbocharged vehicles since 1980 without turbo issues, I wouldn't go back.

Smaller engine cruising off boost...good mileage. Add boost...adequate power.

^^^this is something that I never worried about. Our mountain home is at 9000 ft. and my 6.4 seemed like it never knew it. Took the truck to CO and went over Wolf Creek Pass (approx. 11,000') many times and EVERY time it felt like someone pulled the plug on engine power. At first I thought it was my imagination but after multiple trips and toying around with it there IS a noticeable degradation of power at that elevation - one of the considerations I'm taking into account as I look for another truck.

[Racebug]

I should clarify, I had a 1996 f-150.

[JRTJH]

Years ago (long before computers) you had to change carb jets, adjust fuel/air mixtures, timing and shift points on automatic transmissions to "keep power up" when climbing to higher altitudes. This is what I'm seeing in some of the comments above. Then, in the mid 90's, along came computer driven technology that did the adjustments automatically. This is what I'm seeing in some of the other comments above.

What I'm saying is that there's two different concepts of engine power management, some people are talking about one, some others about another and then we add "turbo augmentation" to the mix, but only with the computer controlled engine/transmission power plants. Heck, prior to 1987 Ford didn't even offer "computer controlled "multiport" sequential fuel injection, that "modern feature that uses injectors at each cylinder. Prior to that, "fuel injection" meant using an injector at a central point (like a carburetor).

Trying to compare a 1987 Ford 5 liter engine (302 cuin) to the 2011-current 5 liter engine is like trying to compare a model T engine to the space shuttle. There just ain't no comparin' em, then if you add the improvements in automatic transmissions since that generation of truck, it's even more distant in technology...... About the only similarity that remains is the steering wheel location.....

[jkohler70]

I found a site that dyno tested the two engines in 2011. Modern turbo engines do not have the lag of old. The dyno test shows the 5.0 produced a maximum of 284.9 lbs-ft at 4,290 rpm. The ecoboost produced 360.7 lbs-ft at 2,900 rpm....but there's something more telling. The ecoboost produces over 300 lbs-ft of torque from 2,500 rpm to 5,200 rpm.
The 5.0 stays over 250 lbs-ft of torque from 2,500 rpm - 5,800.

If these guys had opined on reliability, it would have been worthwhile, but their statements about power are factually incorrect. They should know better.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by jkohler70

I found a site that dyno tested the two engines in 2011. Modern turbo engines do not have the lag of old. The dyno test shows the 5.0 produced a maximum of 284.9 lbs-ft at 4,290 rpm. The ecoboost produced 360.7 lbs-ft at 2,900 rpm....but there's something more telling. The ecoboost produces over 300 lbs-ft of torque from 2,500 rpm to 5,200 rpm.
The 5.0 stays over 250 lbs-ft of torque from 2,500 rpm - 5,800.

If these guys had opined on reliability, it would have been worthwhile, but their statements about power are factually incorrect. They should know better.

The modern Ford EcoBoost turbos DO have turbo lag. I just rented a 2017 2.7 EcoBoost Edge for 3 weeks and the turbo does lag as in the old days....just a smoother kick in. The 3.5 does the same. Reviews of the engines speak to this;

"The 2016 Ford F150 with the 5.0L V8 and the 2016 Ford F150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 are both very quick trucks. When you stomp the gas pedal from the stop, both trucks get away from the line with some urgency, although the naturally aspirated V8 and the twin turbocharged V6 offer that low-end power very differently. I wouldn’t call the EcoBoost V6 “laggy” as twin turbo engines go, but the V8 does offer a little more of the crisp, snappy acceleration right from the stop. However, where the V8 has a slight advantage in how hard it pulls when you first leave the line, the EcoBoost engine pulls harder up into and through the midrange – once boost has reached its peak levels." TorqueNews

This tester said he wouldn't call the lag...."laggy", but the cause of the more powerful engine to be sluggish from the gitgo is.....lag. Not a show stopper for some but there never the less. Just different ways to skin a cat.

[vampress_me]

Originally Posted by sourdough

The modern Ford EcoBoost turbos DO have turbo lag. I just rented a 2017 2.7 EcoBoost Edge for 3 weeks and the turbo does lag as in the old days....just a smoother kick in. The 3.5 does the same. Reviews of the engines speak to this;

"The 2016 Ford F150 with the 5.0L V8 and the 2016 Ford F150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 are both very quick trucks. When you stomp the gas pedal from the stop, both trucks get away from the line with some urgency, although the naturally aspirated V8 and the twin turbocharged V6 offer that low-end power very differently. I wouldn’t call the EcoBoost V6 “laggy” as twin turbo engines go, but the V8 does offer a little more of the crisp, snappy acceleration right from the stop. However, where the V8 has a slight advantage in how hard it pulls when you first leave the line, the EcoBoost engine pulls harder up into and through the midrange – once boost has reached its peak levels." TorqueNews

This tester said he wouldn't call the lag...."laggy", but the cause of the more powerful engine to be sluggish from the gitgo is.....lag. Not a show stopper for some but there never the less. Just different ways to skin a cat.

Totally agree. Just drove my moms new 2017 Explorer around for a few days with the ecoboost engine. Definite lag. I was surprised because I expected it to pick up and go when you would step on the gas, such as when passing. Nope. There was a noticeable hesitation every time. I like the car, we would like to get one for the third row seating, but not that engine. Our 2012 V6 Escape has more immediate get up and go (of course, it's lighter weight, I assume).

[JRTJH]

From my research (I am not an engineer) every "boastful claim" about any engine includes a "power band chart" that shows how the engine produces power. Advertisers (Ford included) use those charts to show how superior their engine is.... What they fail to do is relate that chart power band to the "practical use of the vehicle".... In other words, what speed is the vehicle travelling when max power is produced? How is that power used (transmission) to tow a load? Is the economy "maximized" to meet CAFE standards or is the power "maximized" to perform work? Or is there a compromise: Try to please everybody and in the process, please nobody...
It doesn't help with performance if the maximum torque is produced at 5800 RPM and you have to be "screaming up the hill" in second gear and it doesn't help if the maximum torque is flat and you can't get into 4th gear because the transmission won't upshift (perceived power loss).

So, when you're climbing a hill, punch the accelerator and get an increased RPM with the associated increased torque, the "pants feel power"... When you're producing maximum torque (and burning maximum fuel) from 2400 RPM to 5400 RPM, when you punch the accelerator, you don't get a "pants feel the power" sensation, you just "keep climbing at max fuel and max torque"... So, no acceleration, no sensation of "we're making progress"....

I don't like the "drive sensations" in the Explorer and have commented several times to my DW that our next one won't be an EcoBoost, so we're waiting for Ford to offer either a diesel or a conventional "big V-6" or small V-8 in the Explorer, till then we'll keep the "old Escape" with its "antiquated engine" without the turbos.

[B-O-B'03]

Originally Posted by JRTJH

... so we're waiting for Ford to offer either a diesel or a conventional "big V-6" or small V-8 in the Explorer, till then we'll keep the "old Escape" with its "antiquated engine" without the turbos.

I am afraid the days of gas V8s, with the cafe rules, are numbered, much to my chagrin.

I have always been a V8, rear wheel drive guy, but my options for that, going forward, are likely to be slim to none.

Oh and I love the instant torque and power from the positive displacement supercharger in my Cobra... Weeoh.

409 HP/392 FtLb @ the rear wheels, from a stock, 15 year old mustang

-Brian

[Johnny's Journey]

^^^^^ Add 6 more years of progress to that. Yes, old thinking is obsolete.

[Javi]

2018 Specs...


2.7L EcoBoost V6

The “baby” EcoBoost V6 maintains 325 hp @ 5,000 rpm, but it boosts torque an impressive 25 lb-ft to a total of 400 lb-ft @ 2,750 rpm. The previous version of the 2.7L turbocharged six proved itself as a very quick truck in our 0-60 MPH testing. Now, the truck could be even faster. We cannot wait to test it.

5.0L Coyote V8

We are thankful that the V8 engine remains in the F-150 lineup. Now, it’s even sweeter. Maximum horsepower is 395 hp @ 5,750 rpm (up 10 hp when compared to the 2017 version), and total torque output is now 400 lb-ft @ 3,850 rpm (which is 13 lb-ft more).

[JRTJH]

Compare the above to the 1987 F150 5 liter specs: 185 hp 270 lb·ft