It's been so long since I voted, I'm forgot which one I chose! 5.0 is italicized, so does that mean the engine I chose? Anyway, in keeping with my traditional nature, I'd vote 5.0 again. But, man, these are hard choices! I'm going to drive that 2.7! And both 3.5s.

 

I would have to choose the 5.0 by default. I've spent enough seat time in a 3.5 Eco to know i don't like it one bit. Sure it moves pretty well but i don't like how the power comes on, don't like the sound, MPG's are not that much higher if any.

I've test driven the 5.0 and enjoyed it, does not have the same punch my 6.2 does but it is okay. I bet with a super charger on it she would really come alive!

 

The 5.0L is a most impressive motor. That being said, the 3.5L TT has the faults you mention but the thrust of that motor typically makes me forget about its issues...

 

I'm guessing the actual take rates will be pretty close to the poll results so far.
3.5NA - 5%
5.0L - 45%
2.7 EB - 15%
3.5 EB - 35%

Anyone have the figures handy for the last couple of years?

 

I think the 2.7L take rate will be higher than 15%...but I think it will mostly steal from 3.5L EB sales. Right now my understanding is that the 3.5L is the best selling engine for this 2011-2014 gen truck.

 

All that sounds good. I predict in the future there will be 2 kinds of truck owners. Those who have an EcoBoost and those who wish they had an EcoBoost. An EcoBoost 5.0 would solve all the problems.

 

If I order myself a new F150, which I am considering.
It will be the V8 engine that I choose.
Its simple, and just plain works.

 

You might be surprised that this V8 is not all that simple. DOHC with twin-independent variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust cams is not simple.

The Ecoboost engine is basically the same type of engine with 2 fewer cylinders, but adds the additional complexity of direct injection and the two turbochargers. But really, they aren't that complicated. Turbos, explained very simply, are just fan blades in a steel housing which spin on bearings as exhaust gasses pass over them. The shaft of these fan blades spins another set of fan blades in a separate steel chamber with the purpose being to generate higher-pressure fresh air flowing into the intake manifold. Because the blades are 'compressing' the air and due to the turbo unit being hot from spinning and exhaust, the compressed air is run through an intercooler, which is like a reverse radiator. This cools the air temperature down to the level of the engine coolant, which combined with the pressure, creates more horsepower. Direct injection basically means better quality fuel injectors which spray fuel at much higher pressure directly into the combustion chamber. Think of the injectors as being located much like a spark plug. The higher pressure atomizes the fuel better and forces the fuel into the cylinder against potential compression. Aside from the better injectors, a high pressure pump is required, usually a mechanical pump powered by one of the engine cams.

But all of these systems are mechanical in nature, and should be very reliable. Typically, turbos would fail in the past due to bearings which overheated. Modern turbos have much better cooling and oiling systems, and really shouldn't fail for 200k. Even if they do, they are basically easy to replace and not terribly expensive.

Direct injection provides more power, or at least torque, and helps control cylinder temperatures better. It also lowers emissions and delivers better fuel economy because the fuel can be delivered with more precision. The direct injectors themselves are extremely reliable, but the system has two potential downsides in the long run: carbon can build up behind the intake valves due to recirculated crankcase and exhaust gasses that are not being cleaned out by the normal spray of fuel from a "port" fuel injector. However, even removing the intake manifold after 70-100k miles for cleaning isn't the end of the world. The other potential problem is the mechanical high pressure pump wearing the lobe extensions on the end of the drive camshaft. This would be a long-term problem after many miles (and certainly out of the warranty period) and would need to be remedied by replacing that particular camshaft (not easy or cheap). However, I'm guessing Ford learned from these problems experienced by early adopters of direct injection (VW/Audi has been using since 2002) and has very reliable systems. Therefore, I would have no problem with the EB engines.

 

Thanks Troverman.............I being old school and liking a V8 will likely still buy one, but your post is very helpful, and muchly appreciated.


Paul

 

Interestingly, the Ecoboost actually has less moving parts than the 5.0.

 

Perhaps. But, with the exception of cam phasers, the moving parts in the 5.0L are of similar variety to those used in engines for decades. The majority of the engine is relatively mature technology that's been proven over and over again.

But direct injection and turbocharging are relatively new to gasoline engines. Much of the skepticism over the EcoBoost has to do with some of the difficulties diesel engines experience. And moving parts aside, there is a LOT more plumbing in the engine bay of an EcoBoost than a 5.0. Not only do you have a conventional cooling system, but you have oil and coolant lines going to each turbocharger as well as a very complex intake system. You're taking air from an air filter, splitting it to two turbochargers, forcing it through a charge air cooler, and then back to the throttle body.

Moving parts are one thing, but the EcoBoost is a complex animal that looks like a science project in comparison to a N/A engine. Not that I think this is a bad thing, but I don't really buy the argument that it's simpler. It's not, by a long shot. And I've had vehicles with both 5.0L and EcoBoost engines.

 

I would buy the V8 just for the sound alone

 

The patent for Turbo Charged gas engines was filed in 1885 (129 years ago) and direct injection was in use by 1902 (112 years ago). In 1989 (25 years ago) I purchased my first factory turbo charged car. These technologies have been around for a long time. It has only been recently that they became viable as a mass produced option. I beat the snot out of my Turbo cars a quarter century ago with hardly an issue. All that was needed was a little extra care.
I have no doubt my EcoBoost will hold up for the 160,000 plus miles I need from it. I just rolled 61,000 trouble free miles today and about two weeks ago I rolled 20,000 towing miles. All is good in the land of force feed engines.

 

I, too would buy the V8 for its sound. The EB doesn't sound that great under the hood of an American pickup.

That being said...Tom, not sure how you think turbocharging is relatively new to gasoline engines. Really, its quite a mature technology...just continually refined to improve it, like anything else.

Direct injection is relatively new, but even that is more than a decade old in mass-produced vehicles.

Yes, there is a lot more plumbing under the hood of an EB truck, but none of that plumbing amounts to moving parts. Just plastic pipes and rubber hoses which are problem free for probably at least 10 years. An intercooler (or charge air cooler as you call it) also has no moving parts. So basically we're back to the two turbos and the direct injection system...that's all the 3.5TT has in extras over the 5.0L. And there is plenty of speculation the 5.0L is on the verge of getting direct injection; the bosses for the injectors are apparently already being machined into the cylinder head castings...

 

This...But with the 5.0L V8.