The first letter of this thread start with a statement by the writer of not liking high revving motors, turbo or not. So what exactly does this have to do with the Eco-boost?

The power curve of the engine is above that of the 5.0 and the 6.2 all the way to 5000 RPM. In short, it makes more power then both engines all the way to about 5200 RPM where it's curve drops off more sharply then the 6.2.

I drove one yesterday, and I live at 6000 ft. The performance had absolutely nothing in common with my Silverado. It was more in line with my V8 equipped Audi. Absolutely incredible, and it didn't have to rev to do so.

It was the dealers personal vehicle, an FX4 Super Crew with trailer package, so 3.73 gears and about 1200 miles. I drove it up a grade to 7000 ft. Went past the obligatory Deputy in the radar trap doing 65, and briskly accelerated to 90, going up hill in top gear. No revving at all. Just a strong pull, like my Audi. I can't imagine what this thing would be like at sea level. Yes I know, it hasn't lost the 20% of power a non turbo would lose up here, but it still would lose some performance.

And very quiet. My Silverado has a glass pack so I constantly have that motorboat V8 sound. Gets a little old, probably because I am as well. This Ford was more quiet then my Audi. No question about that.

I've read the reviews people have written the last few months on the new F150 and the Ecoboost, but until I drove this rig, I had trouble believing what it could do. It felt like it could blow away any of the 3 GTOs I had back in the good ol' days.

 

less hp and torque is no good for a guy like me that uses his truck, for all of the rest, they need a 4 banger ranger ecoboost anyway.

 

That's the problem, 80% of truck owners rarely use there trucks as trucks and are just daily drivers. Those people make the overall CAFE rating drop because if they bought a higher mpg vehicle like a Fusion, the fuel demand would drop considerably and gas prices would drop. People that need a truck and would use it say 70% of the time as a truck should drive a truck.
I personally would not have a heavy truck with a ecoboost because long term maintenance/replacement parts will be much more costly than a good ole American V8. direct injection has yet to be perfected for long term issues with intake valves as mentioned above and turbo's and such are quite pricey. That's my personal preference and I know that some will disagree and I'm OK with that because this is America and thanks to the men and women in uniform, I have the freedom to voice my opinion and those who disagree have the right to do so without being shot

 

Very well stated! I agree wholeheartedly

 

Hey Bro' I am sorry to say I am one of the ones that will disagree. As a mechanic in the Army I have come to love turbos on engines. I have seen the stupid things survive in 150 degree days (only once) in Iraq. With lesser heat, but extreme dust storms. And none of this tech is truly new stuff. I can't talk too much though as I have to wait 3 years before I can get a new one. But I can tell you all what I have done with trucks.

 

Anyone else remember that the 5.0 was designed with Ecoboosting in mind for the future? The engineers stated that it was made specifically with Direct Injection and turbo charging in mind later on down the line... Can you imagine? A 5.0 Ecoboost! That'd kick serious @$$!

 

A 5.0 EcoBoost would rule the Roost!!!

 

Even towing 9k up 5-6% grades in Arizona? Just kiddin'!

 

Give me half the horsepower and twice the fuel economy and I would be very happy. 29-30mpg was done in a full size half ton 30 years ago. (considering that many today would consider those trucks woefully underpowered - we did not starve - Groceries were picked up, rocks were hauled, loads were moved, tows were made - but just a little bit slower, but still, the "tool" got the job done)

50mpg is certainly attainable today, and frankly speaking, the sooner we do that the faster we stop the wealth transfer to other countries that at best tolerate us because of our money.

I for one, just need a proper working tool to perform a job. With a max speed limit of 60 mph towing and a mnimum speed of 45 mph on the freeways (60 mph max towing limited) in my state (70 mph max non towing on ANY road) - I have absolutly ZERO use for a truck that has enough horsepower to go 120+ mph.

Big deal if you have to slow down on the hills, guess what, my fellow truck drivers have been doing that for years. Move right and just keep the load moving! The few minutes that you lose hill climbing is more than made up by not having to stop for fuel as often.

My thoughts as to the direction Ford should take!

David

David

 

With proper maintenance (regular oil changes with good quality oil/filters) and good air filtration, water-cooled turbochargers will last as long as the engine they're bolted to.

This isn't new technology by any means. It has been used for decades on larger engines (read: locomotives, BIG trucks, marine engines, radial aircraft engines, etc..) reliably. It has more to do with building the engine to withstand the boost and designing an adequate cooling system to keep the engine and turbo cool under all operating conditions. Heat is the biggest enemy to turbocharger longevity.

 

True, but these are diesel engines (except the radial aircraft engines) and a totally different and much stronger animal as well as limited to around 2500rpm. I have put many a water cooled turbos on the 80's TurboCoupe T-Birds back in the day and they weren't stressed near as much as as a 6000lb truck towing up to 10k of load behind it.
Just sayin.

 

Ford doesn't seem to have a problem with selling trucks to commuters and lowering their overall CAFE obtain ability. If these trucks were really designed for workers then they wouldn't have more gizmos and gadgets than a late model Lincoln.

These trucks are Ford's bread and butter and they seem to be selling quite well. Because of Ford's innovation and quality build techniques, they are outselling the GM twins combined this year.

Embrace the technology. I'd gladly go back to my 1986 F-150 4x4 with the 300, M4OD and 3.08 axles. Easy to work on and maintain and very reliable. But, she was lucky to get 17 mpg's down hill and she couldn't pull a wet paper in 4x2 drive mode.

Future technology looks better all the time.

 

The new 5.0 liter technology is not as proven or as old as the ecoboost technology. EB has been around longer and tested more.

 

Looks like I'm gonna drive my 2011 5.0L forever too - maybe longer?

 

Still waiting for the eco-boost 4 cylinder, 4x4, regular cab, standard bed Ranger to relace my well worn and highly loved 1995 Ranger XL, 4 cyl, 4x4, regular cab, standard bed. Maybe 28-30 mpg? I'd even consider a diesel.