Here's a tip: Consumer Report is about as reliable a source as my 14 year old granddaughter when it comes to rating products. They are far from fair and unbiased. Using them as an example only demonstrates the weak position you are arguing from.

As proof, look up the law suit filed in 1996 by Suzuki Motor Corporation against Consumers Union and its magazine, Consumer Reports.

 

There are lots of Turbo/SC 5.0's out there, holding up fine. The whole engine is fine up to 800HP, without internal upgrades.

 

"Holding up fine" is a very vague description.
Would they "hold up fine" towing and being used as the ecoboost is?
Are you saying ford wasted money on all the additional engineering put into the ecoboost engine?
I think a turbo 5.0 would work, we know they do, but I don't think you could go quite so far before towing duty might start to cause some issues.
In other words, I think a 5.0 might make 800 hp in a race car, but I don't think it would last long in an f150 towing and lasting a good while like the 3.5 ecoboost does.

 

Hold on now! I don't understand you diminishing Consumer Reports analysis. Does your 14 year old daughter keep data on repair issues with cars and trucks and set up an objective system of relative repair issues?

I will look up the lawsuit filed by Suzuki, but my first though is that anyone can sue anyone and unless there is proof...okay I just read the lawsuit. It was originally dismissed, then appealed, then set for trial. Consumer Reports agreed to apologize and paid zero to Suzuki. If someone sues you, and you agree to apologize rather than risk a trial, what does that prove? For those of you unwilling to read this lawsuit, It was over the Suzuki Sarmai, which tipped on the test course and Suzuki stopped production.

Conclusion: Let your 14 year old make your decisions; what you are thinking is beneath her.

Article:Suzuki settles Consumer Reports lawsuit after eight-year legal battle - Jul 08, 2004 - HISTORY.com

 

It may not hold up at 800HP, while towing 10,000+ pounds. Towing 10K at 5PSI (500+HP) No problems at all.

 

I kindly disagree.
That would give the 5.0 a power density of 100 hp/ liter.
That is very close to what the ecoboost 3.5 is.
If it was possible to have that kind of power density and have a reliable engine, I'm sure ford wouldn't have wasted money on all the ecoboost engineering and parts.

 

I have no indication that Ford is going to get rid of the 6.2L anytime soon. Whats weird about America cars is, is that we use to buy make big displacement motors for car and trucks, and they really didn't live up to their size. Now we have a 2.7L 4 cylinder EcoBoost engine that would make any 460 owner blush.

 

Consumer Reports bases their claims on survey results. No one really knows what the sample size they use nor do they know the response rate. There are estimates that less %6 of the people return the surveys. CR is also closed lipped about there product testing procedures and how they choose which products to test.

CR doesn't have access to manufacturers databases. They create their own data base on surveys and some minimal testing they perform. Which brings into question the integrity of the data they are using to predict the results.

The questions on the surveys are some what subjective and can lead to misleading results. An example would be if your car requires a new timing chain at 30,000 miles so you replace it. You'll give the car a good rating because you had no issues. Mine requires a timing chain at 60,000 miles however at 55,000 miles it needs to be replace, I'll give it a poor rating because I had an issue. Is your car really better than mine?

Features and Options can unfairly skew results. Let's say my car has some cool useless electronic feature that doesn't always work correctly (i.e Sync) and your car doesn't have this (or a similar) feature. I'm likely to ding my car due to the feature while you will not because you don't have it. Your car will score better than mine in the ratings. Is yours really better because it has less features?

Another flaw in CR is how they classify vehicles & problems. Let's say a car has two V6 engine choices 3.3 & 3.6. One engine is bullet proof while the other had issues. CR will lump these together & classify the car has having issues.

Don't underestimate the knowledge of young girls. I bought my first F150 because my daughter liked it better than all the other trucks we looked at. 17+ years later I'm still driving F150's.

 

Sorry Sir, I just don't get any of your points. Consumer Reports takes no money from advertisers and is the most objective consumer reporting company out there. Is it perfect--No. But I hear more BS from many others than Consumer Reports.

I am sure your daughter is lovely. However, is that really a valid point...not so much and I am wondering.....what?

 

The 5.0 was designed with turbocharging and direct injection in mind. There would be very few changes on a 5.0 Ecoboost internally.

 

I know it was speculated that the 5.0 heads were cast with the possibility of future direct injection, but I don't think that means that everything is 'ready to go' other than the fuel and air system. I could be wrong, but I would imagine even though it might be designed with future turbocharging in mind, does not mean that 5.0's are coming off the assembly line ready to put down 100 hp/ liter reliably while towing.
It may only take few changes, but important changes.
It seems like only yesterday the mustang guys were whining about the 5.0 rods, saying they wouldn't last much above stock power.

 

It seems like everyone dances around reality:

1. Is the 5.0 set up for direct injection and turbos. I think so, but the other internal parts will need to be beefed up to handle the turbos. That seems simple enough???

2. Anytime you ask an engine to handle more stress, you are shortening the life. Same with the drive train and suspension.

Conclusion: If you are going to replace the 6.2, I wouldn't use a turbo gas and Ford isn't going to either. They are going to go diesel. I can't figure out why everyone seems stuck on the EB and how great it tows. So my first answer to the question posed in the thread is neither. If I had to choose, I want the cylinders and it makes sense to turbo charge it for even more power, but then it still comes back to what the individual wants. The truth for most people is that buying will be an impulse decision and they will fall in love with whatever is on the lot.

 

That is only assuming the engine design goes unchanged.
If you had a 2L engine making 100 hp, then turbo it to make 150 hp, it won't last as long.

That does not mean a different 2L engine could be built that can make 150 hp even more reliably than the original 100 hp 2L engine.

Engine displacement can be engineered around.
Many small engines have short lifespans, especially performance ones, but that does not mean it is impossible to have high power density and long lifespan, it just costs more to do it than using a large displacement engine with low cost materials.

 

"It costs more to do it" .....

A more expensive engine, add twin turbos - more complexity, more weight. Add a ten speed (or whatever) automatic - more complexity, more weight. Add towing and mileage is down the drain (read frustrated consumers!) The 6.2L Boss is the logical choice, for upgrades or for continued use as the base engine. The 5.0L Coyote is the next most logical choice, but I'm honestly not sure it's up to the task as is (torque). EcoBoost? When a co-worker and Chevy driver told me his new Chevy had an EcoBoost (in reality an Eco-Tek), I knew the Ford marketing was working.

Marketing and real world performance, especially longevity - are not the same thing!

 

I agree with you. Here is the thing: Yes, Ford has beefed up the ecoboost engines. What they haven't done is gone thought the experience cycle that is absolutely necessary to resolve unexpected issues. The short term problems like condensation have been addressed. Long term issues have yet to be discovered. I don't want to be a guinea pig. I am pretty sure that there is a combination that pushes our trucks best. Until Ford dropped the weight, I was hooked on the 5.0. EB seems more practical now. I drove the 2.7 and it is impressive. However, I'm not read to go v6 even though I got jammed with the 3.7.