I voted for the 2.7 for better fuel economy. In the past little engines have always been a mistake but this one with dual turbos and tons of hp as well as fuel economy is like having your cake but eating it too.

 

You can't beat a V8 for longevity. To put anything but a V8 in an F truck is sacrilege. A super charged 5.0 would be the ultimate.

 

Maybe you could put a lolly stick in the back wheel like we did as a kid to make more noise on our bicycles....lol

 

The 5.0L. It's the easiest to work on and will be the most cost effective to repair in the future. Also, add-on aftermarket mods are numerous if needed. I would say it's the most dependable because of it's traditional design and reliability.

 

I would choose the 3.5 Eco Boost. I now have a 2011 3.5 Eco Boost and it has great power and good gas mileage, so with 700 lbs. less I can only think of the power to weight and the mileage to be much better.
Terry

 

I doubt that Ecoboost with the turbo is much lighter than the 5.0L. Anytime you pack more power into a smaller engine you will sacrifice engine longevity.

 

I know this "feels" true, but let's inspect this idea for a minute.

There are serveral things that may effect wear in an engine:
1) hours running
2) total revolutions
3) how "hard" it works.

1) In an apples-to-apples comparison, the ecoboost will run the same number of hours as any V8, so that's a wash.
2) In my truck, the ecoboost runs at much lower RPM's than my old 5.4L V8, so it should come out well ahead here.
3) this is a bit of an intangible. I know of no numerical way to measure this.

My guess is that you won't be able to estimate reliability by any of the old rules of thumb. I have seen no hard data to say that the new 5.0L is any more reliable than the EcoBoost.

 

I think the 'how hard it works' is important. Higher compression engines are placing more 'stress' on heads, blocks, valves, cams, etc., etc. I'm guessing off-boost the 3.5TT is lower compression than the 10.5:1 V8. On boost, however, it probably works harder. Higher compression engines may lose compression quicker, or are more likely to have oil consumption problems later on in life. Lets not forget the the TT V6 engines are direct-injected, meaning no fuel is cleaning the back of the intake valves...At some mileage point carbon will probably build up to the point where the valve doesn't close properly...and will need to have work done to de-carbon the intake / valves. This has been a problem in DI-VW engines for years now. Also, turbos require good lubrication and cooling...this is an area where the TT may not be as forgiving on oil change interval as the 5.0L.

5.0L gives you V8 tone, solid power, low maintenance, and good fuel economy. That'd be my choice.

 

Exactly, your asking 6 cylinders to do the work of 8. All things being equal oil, load, temp etc... Your spreading out that work and load over 8 cylinders, sets of bearings, valves, and cams. I'd hate to see the bill to fix a blown turbo on an Eco-Boost V6, no thank you. Besides, if you really wanted more power, you could just add a supercharger. Otherwise we're talking about a 5 hp diff.

 

A turbo for the EcoBoost engine is less than $600, and they don't take much time to replace. And you really think adding a supercharger for an engine never designed for forced induction isn't going to hurt longevity?

Not trying to start a debate, but there's a lot more to this than I think you are trying to understand. A boosted engine designed to be put into a pickup truck is built a lot different from a naturally aspirated engine. You are aware that just about every single semi truck on the road is powered by a six cylinder engine, right? Yeah I know, apples and oranges, but those turbocharged six-bangers are known to last a million miles moving up to, and sometimes over, eighty thousand pounds. There is a LOT more to longevity than cylinder count.

 

The ECOBoost can pull a travel trailer of 8000lbs?
I posted a question about my intent to pull 8000lb travel trailer and a 700lb golf cart in my future 2014-2015(have not made my mind yet)

 

The EB and the 5.0L share a 10.1 compression ratio. They have nearly an identical bore and stroke. The EB has 4 main bearing supporting six cylinders while the 5.0L has five mains supporting eight cylinders.

The biggy here for me is that the EB makes it's peak TQ of 420 ft/lb at 2500 RPM's while the 5.0L must rev up to 4500 to achieve it's peak tq.

The EB is a truck engine that has been detuned for use in sedans and crossovers.

 

Speaking generally, my point was more about the cylinder count than adding SC'd HP latter. I know you have to lower the compression ratio when installing a sizable supercharger. It all depends on how much boost your going be adding as to what compression ratio (pistons shape) cc's you'll need. I believe they make or used to make superchargers that will bolt on and work with many stock engine configurations. Today they're making more engines with higher compression ratios, tighter clearances on most everything to squeeze all the power, milage/efficiency out of them. The basic precept of spreading the engines workload, cylinder wise still favors the 5.0L. Of coarse, there are a lot of variables that can affect the comparison. So why don't they make a 5.0 L EB for say an upcoming SVT lightning or to take the place of the 6.2L 2v ? Maybe they are.

 

2.7 ecoboost with the start and stop technology just wont cut it for me. Need 3.5 for towing!

 

If the 2.7 does what they say it does, it'll be great. But, with all the changes to the truck as a whole, plus the all new engine (2.7L) with all the different technology, I think they're going to have some growing pains. No doubt they will get them worked out, but no thanks......