Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009 - 2014 F150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


2009 - 2014 F150 Discuss the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ford F150 SPONSORED BY:

Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #31  
Old 04-07-2011, 07:13 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Smedley123 View Post
Your kidding right? This is with a intake and a 5 star tune on 87. The list is near endless when you see the mods already in place on the 5.0 mustangs

You are correct. I know because i own a 2011 Mustang 5.0. I know very well how the engine performs.



My guess is that with a custom tune on both engines the 3.5l will gain even more hp and ground on the 5.0. Pretty easy to add PSI when the turbos are there.






And with the other statements that theres more left on the table. Adding TT to the 5.0 and what not. You are getting way way out there. You could add TT and a roots and n20 to the 3.5l and it will make more hp. I guess i dont know where you draw your debate line at?

Either way both engines look promising. Im not pro 5.0 or pro 3.5. I just dont like seeing the ecoboost get a bad rep from people that have no idea what they are talking about. Contrary to what said people will tell you.


I havent decided which engine will be in my new truck as of yet, im still kind of waiting for some real world numbers on MPG on each of the engines, including the 6.2.
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-07-2011, 08:16 AM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
You are correct. I know because i own a 2011 Mustang 5.0. I know very well how the engine performs.



My guess is that with a custom tune on both engines the 3.5l will gain even more hp and ground on the 5.0. Pretty easy to add PSI when the turbos are there.






And with the other statements that theres more left on the table. Adding TT to the 5.0 and what not. You are getting way way out there. You could add TT and a roots and n20 to the 3.5l and it will make more hp. I guess i dont know where you draw your debate line at?

Either way both engines look promising. Im not pro 5.0 or pro 3.5. I just dont like seeing the ecoboost get a bad rep from people that have no idea what they are talking about. Contrary to what said people will tell you.


I havent decided which engine will be in my new truck as of yet, im still kind of waiting for some real world numbers on MPG on each of the engines, including the 6.2.
At least we finally get to argue over which engine is better instead of which is worse, which IMO would be the argument of past Ford offerings. I am interested in seeing which motor will produce better MPG figures when towing under 2500 lbs at low rpm mixed driving. It appears the 5.0 has enough low end torque to keep the engine speeds down , but what happens with a small displacement engine before and after the turbos spool. Will power be insufficient before spooling and MPG suffer after?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:04 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
Agreed, we have a good problem on our hands here. Which is best for what job, not which will we regret.

Im not sure of the size of the turbos being used, but i would assume they arent to large. Therefore im betting there is no turbo lag if thats what your talking about. Some people have complained about turbo lag during testing but id be willing to bet money that has more to do with te Fly by wire delay that is in all new trucks. Its my beliefe that custom tuning will yield some very impessive gains for the 3.5l engine.

My bet is that the 5.0 will more than atiquate for 90% of what people need. Heck the 5.4l did what more than 90% of people needed. If it wasnt for the compeition stepping up the HP wars then the 5.4l would still look very tuff. It makes 320hp/390ft lbs. Only because there was a 385 hp hemi, and 400 hp tundra does it look slow. Most 90's half ton pick ups only made 245hp/350 ft lbs and got worse gas milage doing it, and they where really slow. Its just escalation of expectation. People want there cake and want to eat it to. Its gotten way past what can the truck actually tow.

So with that said the 5.0 making 360/385 it will be able to tow what ever you need without issue. Heck my 99 5.4l with maybe 300 hp tows my 7500lb 24ft enclosed race trailer @75mph on the interstate every weekend with out issue.

Im expecting that towing 2500 lbs will be in the 12-13.5 range for mpg pending wind resistance. Just a guess based on what i have seen.
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-07-2011, 06:27 PM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
Therefore im betting there is no turbo lag if thats what your talking about.

I'm expecting that towing 2500 lbs will be in the 12-13.5 range for mpg pending wind resistance. Just a guess based on what i have seen.
That is not what I was talking about. I was wondering which engine would tow light to medium loads more efficiently. Obviously at a certain point the turbos have to spool to move weight, when they do does any economy advantage the Ecoboost have disappear. So far I have been getting 15.5-16 mpg towing 2500 lbs in mixed driving with a 5.0.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-07-2011, 08:49 PM
bigal1234 bigal1234 is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29
bigal1234 is starting off with a positive reputation.
How much of your annual mileage is towing? If it is only a small percentage of the total then it doesn't matter much. I only tow about 5000 miles a year out of 30000 miles total. So if I get better fuel economy the majority of the time that is all I care about.
All things being equal I don't think there will be much difference in fuel economy.
But, the ecoboost develops more torque and more horsepower at a lower rpm than the 5.0 so I suspect it will be a nicer towing experience.
I'll find out in a few weeks when mine comes in. And I'll give a report on what I find.
My trailer is about 8300 lb.
Al
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:13 PM
Fred Smedley123 Fred Smedley123 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Fred Smedley123 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigal1234 View Post
How much of your annual mileage is towing? .
Al
97%..................
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:20 PM
Power Kid Power Kid is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 803
Power Kid is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
Agreed, we have a good problem on our hands here. Which is best for what job, not which will we regret.

Im not sure of the size of the turbos being used, but i would assume they arent to large. Therefore im betting there is no turbo lag if thats what your talking about. Some people have complained about turbo lag during testing but id be willing to bet money that has more to do with te Fly by wire delay that is in all new trucks. Its my beliefe that custom tuning will yield some very impessive gains for the 3.5l engine.

My bet is that the 5.0 will more than atiquate for 90% of what people need. Heck the 5.4l did what more than 90% of people needed. If it wasnt for the compeition stepping up the HP wars then the 5.4l would still look very tuff. It makes 320hp/390ft lbs. Only because there was a 385 hp hemi, and 400 hp tundra does it look slow. Most 90's half ton pick ups only made 245hp/350 ft lbs and got worse gas milage doing it, and they where really slow. Its just escalation of expectation. People want there cake and want to eat it to. Its gotten way past what can the truck actually tow.

So with that said the 5.0 making 360/385 it will be able to tow what ever you need without issue. Heck my 99 5.4l with maybe 300 hp tows my 7500lb 24ft enclosed race trailer @75mph on the interstate every weekend with out issue.

Im expecting that towing 2500 lbs will be in the 12-13.5 range for mpg pending wind resistance. Just a guess based on what i have seen.

Full disclosure: "It makes 320hp/390ft lbs" on e85 which no one uses.

310/365 would make more sense.

Heck I just heard last week that Ford says EB makes 450/460 ft lbs on premium...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-08-2011, 12:11 AM
81beast 81beast is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 99
81beast is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Power Kid View Post
Heck I just heard last week that Ford says EB makes 450/460 ft lbs on premium...
Really? Where did you hear that?
__________________
2005 F250 CC 4x4 V10
1998 B2500
1986 Thunderbird 302 T56 400rwhp
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-08-2011, 12:31 AM
Power Kid Power Kid is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 803
Power Kid is starting off with a positive reputation.
Oh Crap I read in on a forum. Now try to recall which one!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:27 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Power Kid View Post
Full disclosure: "It makes 320hp/390ft lbs" on e85 which no one uses.

310/365 would make more sense.

Heck I just heard last week that Ford says EB makes 450/460 ft lbs on premium...


Says you..... In the mid west we all use it if we can. Its cheaper and if you can make more power.....kinda a no brainer.
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:58 AM
NumberDummy's Avatar
NumberDummy NumberDummy is offline
Ford Parts Specialist
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hacienda Heights CA
Posts: 56,197
NumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputationNumberDummy has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1oldBronc View Post
Personally its not changing my mind...I'm dead set on the 5.0L V8. I'm sure the Ecoboost is great and the one I test drove was plenty powerful. But the 5.0L is the one for me.

I spent 3 hours drag racing the 3.5 and the 5.0 at the factory sponsored drive event last year at Fontana Raceway. Over about 10 runs the E.T.'s were very close, usually a toss up. Although very impressive in the 6,000 lb. trailer tow, the 3.5 doesn't leave much room for improvment as the 5.0 will. Also, the main push of the event was the Eco-boost and we'll never know what the engineers programed into the motors.

I chose the 5.0 and am glad I did. If I ever need a little more power, it will be cheap and easy to get with the coyote.
I too chose the 5.0L after attending the same event at AutoClub Speedway in Fontana (think it was 11/13/10). Roger Penske built the track, the name was changed recently.

Dunno if this is relevant or not. Several years ago, Edmunds tested all the new full sized pickups (Ford, Chebbie/GMC, Dodge, Titan, Tundra). The 305 HP 5.4L when dyno'd: 242 HP
__________________
Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager / SoCal Chapter Member / Part number research: 1928/2001 trucks & 1928/89 passenger cars.

2013 Escape FWD 2.0L Eco-Boost
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-13-2011, 12:14 AM
RoyalFord RoyalFord is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 866
RoyalFord is starting off with a positive reputation.
3.5 > 5.0

oh wait... ?
__________________
1998 F150 5.4L Lariat 3.55 E4OD 4x4 OffRoad xcab - 249k miles @ Dec 23, 2012
2006 F150 5.4L FX4 3.73 LS 4D - 68k miles @ Dec 23, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-13-2011, 11:32 PM
Power Kid Power Kid is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 803
Power Kid is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BURNSTOUGHFORD View Post
Says you..... In the mid west we all use it if we can. Its cheaper and if you can make more power.....kinda a no brainer.

OK... Hey look I'm a corn grower myself, But much of the mid west, you can't even find E85, and its not a "no brainer". Only has 2/3 the energy of reg gas. So unless its 2/3 the price... it costs you more, and you get 2/3 the range regardless of price.

And everyones looking to get less out of a tank right now...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-14-2011, 07:20 AM
BURNSTOUGHFORD's Avatar
BURNSTOUGHFORD BURNSTOUGHFORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,483
BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.BURNSTOUGHFORD has a good reputation on FTE.
Im not going to start an E85 debate, because honestly i would love to, because there are several miss conceptions about e85, but it is going to take us to far off topic.

So....

FORD FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
2012 F-150 SCREW 3.5TT FX4 3.73
2010 Taurus SEL
1999 F-150 SCAB 5.4l Lots of Mods
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-14-2011, 09:26 AM
David Gordon David Gordon is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 48
David Gordon is starting off with a positive reputation.
I drove the ecoboost and the new 6.2 back to back yesterday and the ecoboost is not even close to the 6.2. At least not off the showroom floor. I went to buy a ecoboost and after driving both i went home to rethink it.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 09:26 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Road Test Review: 2011 Ford F-150 XLT 5.0-liter V-8 - PickupTrucks.com News Fomoko1 Manitoba / Saskatchewan Chapter 25 11-02-2013 11:00 PM
Fastlane tuned EcoBoost F-150 powerstroke72 EcoBoost (all engine sizes) 2 05-13-2011 09:55 AM
Good offer from pickuptrucks.com powerstroke72 EcoBoost (all engine sizes) 2 05-07-2011 08:59 PM
(2011 F-150 Ecoboost Full Review Towing Included) 640 CI Aluminum FORD EcoBoost (all engine sizes) 7 04-17-2011 12:04 AM
16/22mpg Ecoboost Figures out jpeters1 2009 - 2014 F150 36 01-11-2011 03:37 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009 - 2014 F150

Tags
150, 2003, 2011, 50l, coyote, curve, dyno, dynos, ecoboost, engines, f150, ford, harley, lubbock, truck, tx

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup