Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 

Go Back   Keystone RV Forums > Keystone Tech Forums > Tow Vehicles
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-17-2017, 08:56 AM   #1
jkohler70
Senior Member
 
jkohler70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 235
Ford techs - are you kidding

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.

__________________
2012 Ford Expedition EL Limited
2014 Passport 2510RB
jkohler70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:01 AM   #2
Javi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Waco, Tx
Posts: 5,457
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...
__________________
2015 Ford F350 DRW 6.7 Diesel XL
2020 Avalanche 313 RS
Javi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:10 AM   #3
Racebug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Petersburg, KY
Posts: 276
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.
__________________

2017 Fuzion 417
2018 Ram 3500 Longhorn
Racebug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:21 AM   #4
Javi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Waco, Tx
Posts: 5,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racebug View Post
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...
__________________
2015 Ford F350 DRW 6.7 Diesel XL
2020 Avalanche 313 RS
Javi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:37 AM   #5
sourdough
Site Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: W. Texas
Posts: 18,027
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.
sourdough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:46 AM   #6
B-O-B'03
Senior Member
 
B-O-B'03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racebug View Post
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
__________________
2014 Bullet Premier 22RBPR - let the camping commence!
2013 F150 Platinum - 5.0 - 3.55 ELD + towing package
B-O-B'03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 09:52 AM   #7
Desert185
Senior Member
 
Desert185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,695
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.
__________________
Desert185 🇺🇸 (Retired Chemtrail vendor)
-Ram 2500 QC, LB, 4x4, Cummins HO/exhaust brake, 6-speed stick.
-Andersen Ultimate 24K 5er Hitch.
-2014 Cougar 326SRX, Maxxis tires w/TPMS, wet bolts, two 6v batts.
-Four Wheel 8' Popup Camper.
Desert185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:11 AM   #8
sourdough
Site Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: W. Texas
Posts: 18,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert185 View Post
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.
sourdough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:42 AM   #9
Racebug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Petersburg, KY
Posts: 276
I should clarify, I had a 1996 f-150.
__________________

2017 Fuzion 417
2018 Ram 3500 Longhorn
Racebug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:43 AM   #10
Johnny's Journey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Downey, Ca.
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javi View Post
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 ?"
Johnny's Journey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:45 AM   #11
jkohler70
Senior Member
 
jkohler70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 235
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.
__________________
2012 Ford Expedition EL Limited
2014 Passport 2510RB
jkohler70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:47 AM   #12
JRTJH
Site Team
 
JRTJH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Gaylord
Posts: 27,375
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.....
__________________
John



2015 F250 6.7l 4x4
2014 Cougar X Lite 27RKS
JRTJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 10:55 AM   #13
Johnny's Journey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Downey, Ca.
Posts: 344
^^^^^ Add 6 more years of progress to that. Yes, old thinking is obsolete.
Johnny's Journey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 11:09 AM   #14
Javi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Waco, Tx
Posts: 5,457
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).
__________________
2015 Ford F350 DRW 6.7 Diesel XL
2020 Avalanche 313 RS
Javi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 11:33 AM   #15
JRTJH
Site Team
 
JRTJH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Gaylord
Posts: 27,375
Compare the above to the 1987 F150 5 liter specs: 185 hp 270 lb·ft
__________________
John



2015 F250 6.7l 4x4
2014 Cougar X Lite 27RKS
JRTJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 11:54 AM   #16
sourdough
Site Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: W. Texas
Posts: 18,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkohler70 View Post
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.
sourdough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2017, 04:30 AM   #17
jkohler70
Senior Member
 
jkohler70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 235
DW has a 2.0 EcoBoost in her Escape, and I haven't really noticed much, if any, turbo lag. Certainly nothing like I recall 30 years ago. Of course, 270 lbs.-ft. of torque in that little car is a fun!
__________________
2012 Ford Expedition EL Limited
2014 Passport 2510RB
jkohler70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2017, 05:30 AM   #18
Dave W
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Near Saratoga Springs,
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkohler70 View Post
DW has a 2.0 EcoBoost in her Escape, and I haven't really noticed much, if any, turbo lag. Certainly nothing like I recall 30 years ago. Of course, 270 lbs.-ft. of torque in that little car is a fun!

For sure, especially when I compare our '17 Escape 2.0 compared to the '03 Escape with the 3.0 or the '12 Fusion with the gutless 2.5.

For camper hauling I've used Ford's 460, 351, 4.6. 5.4, 6.8 and now the 6.7 diesel. They all got the job done though some did it with some pain. The 460 in low altitudes did a fine job but even with an RV camshaft, dual exhaust, the 460 with a carb was slow going in the Rockies with black smoke billowing out from unburned gas. The 351 (5.7) did OK while the 4.6 was a dog with the 5.4 not much better hauling a 7K TT. The V10, 6.8 loved high rpm, but hauled a 12K 5er well if you could find enough gas stations. I prefer the current 6.7 diesel. Now, if I were to buy a new truck, had a bit smaller RV, that late 6.2 in an F250 might be a great way to go. An F150 and their choice of engines is just not my way for an enjoyable, comfortable trip regardless of Ford's claims.
Dave W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2017, 07:02 AM   #19
linux3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Western NY
Posts: 586
In 2016 my TV was a Ford Explorer Sport, 3.5 EB.
In 2017 my TV is a Chevy Silverado 5.3L with 3.42 gears.
In theory the Ford had more HP and torque. In the real world, or at least my world, the EB had a pretty bad lag before it really started pulling. The Chevy will haul at a lower RPM and has more apparent torque. Seat of the pants the V8 wins.
Around town and not pulling on the highway I get better mileage by a little bit with the Chevy.
Pulling I would get 9.5 to 10.5 with the EB, I get 11 -12 with the Chevy.
I had an Escape 2.0 EB and the Explorer and I never got anywhere near rated mileage.
I think the mechanics know what they are talking about.
10 years from now which will still be running?
__________________
#####################
Rob
Bereft of TT and looking.
2020 Chevy Silverado 1500 LTZ Z71 6.2L
linux3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2017, 08:26 AM   #20
jkohler70
Senior Member
 
jkohler70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 235
Only one Ford tech mentioned reliability. Most mentioned the "V8 power". In nearly every objective performance spec, the 3.5 EcoBoost is more powerful. If they had focused on reliability, I'd defer to their expertise. Instead they kept mentioning the power of the V8, which makes me wonder how much they really understand about the engines they work on....beyond what the computer tells them.
__________________
2012 Ford Expedition EL Limited
2014 Passport 2510RB
jkohler70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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
Forum Jump

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Keystone RV Company or any of its affiliates in any way. Keystone RV® is a registered trademark of the Keystone RV Company.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.