Question of the Week: Which 2015 Ford F150 Engine Would You Pick? - Page 4 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums



2015+ F150 Discuss the 2015 Ford F150 SPONSORED BY:

View Poll Results: Which 2015 F150 engine would you pick?
Naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 6 2.02%
5.0L V8 135 45.45%
2.7L EcoBoost V6 43 14.48%
3.5L EcoBoost V6 113 38.05%
Voters: 297. You may not vote on this poll

Question of the Week: Which 2015 Ford F150 Engine Would You Pick?

Closed Thread
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #46  
Old 08-15-2014, 05:32 PM
bfloyd4445 bfloyd4445 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Drain Oregon and Sacramen
Posts: 1,056
bfloyd4445 is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
  #47  
Old 08-15-2014, 09:39 PM
Aussieowner Aussieowner is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Aussieowner is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
  #48  
Old 08-15-2014, 09:44 PM
Byooty's Avatar
Byooty Byooty is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Melbourne Au
Posts: 84
Byooty is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord's-Fords View Post
I want the V8 sound in my truck. My brother and friends have the ECOBOOST and I am unimpressed. Sounds like an irrigation pump!
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
  #49  
Old 08-15-2014, 11:16 PM
BFTUFF BFTUFF is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 462
BFTUFF is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
  #50  
Old 08-17-2014, 07:49 PM
Terry Holzhausen Terry Holzhausen is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3
Terry Holzhausen is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick R. View Post
If you were ordering a 2015 Ford F150 today, which of the four engine options would you pick...and why? Select your ideal engine in the poll above and tell us why you would go that route in the comments below!
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
  #51  
Old 08-18-2014, 04:16 AM
BFTUFF BFTUFF is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 462
BFTUFF is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
  #52  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:02 AM
seventyseven250's Avatar
seventyseven250 seventyseven250 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 4,793
seventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud ofseventyseven250 has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFTUFF View Post
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.
  #53  
Old 08-18-2014, 01:52 PM
troverman's Avatar
troverman troverman is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NH
Posts: 3,686
troverman has a very good reputation on FTE.troverman has a very good reputation on FTE.troverman has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventyseven250 View Post
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.
  #54  
Old 08-18-2014, 09:32 PM
BFTUFF BFTUFF is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 462
BFTUFF is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troverman View Post
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.
  #55  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:28 PM
Tom's Avatar
Tom Tom is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Braham, MN
Posts: 21,368
Tom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputationTom has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFTUFF View Post
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.
  #56  
Old 08-18-2014, 10:35 PM
CPL_Guimonster CPL_Guimonster is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 21
CPL_Guimonster is starting off with a positive reputation.
The ECO Boost pulls 11000 lbs?

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)
  #57  
Old 08-19-2014, 06:48 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins tseekins is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 25,164
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
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.
  #58  
Old 08-19-2014, 06:01 PM
BFTUFF BFTUFF is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 462
BFTUFF is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
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.
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.
  #59  
Old 08-19-2014, 08:57 PM
TheStuffz's Avatar
TheStuffz TheStuffz is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Estevan, Saskatchewan
Posts: 587
TheStuffz is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.TheStuffz is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
2.7 ecoboost with the start and stop technology just wont cut it for me. Need 3.5 for towing!
  #60  
Old 08-19-2014, 09:07 PM
RigTrash601's Avatar
RigTrash601 RigTrash601 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Hattiesburg, Ms.
Posts: 4,202
RigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputationRigTrash601 has a superb reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStuffz View Post
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......
 
 
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question of the Week: New Raptor or New Lightning? Patrick R. 2017 Ford SVT F150 Raptor 10 08-08-2015 09:54 PM
Question of the Week: Would you buy a 2014 or 2015 F150 right now? Patrick R. General Automotive Discussion 5 04-27-2015 11:05 PM
2015 Ford F-150 OR 2015 GMC Sierra 1500, SUGGESTION NEEDED! sunlow 2015+ F150 19 04-27-2015 06:14 PM
Question of the Week: Should Ford have kept the 6.2L V8 for the 2015 F150? Patrick R. 2015+ F150 42 03-31-2015 10:23 PM
Question of the Week: Should Ford have used the Lincoln Navigator EcoBoost in the F150? Patrick R. 2015+ F150 8 12-21-2014 05:53 AM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums >

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 AM.


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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.