New Brunswick, with the trucks I know of around here from last gen probably 70% have 5.0's other 30% 3.5's. The dealers bring lots of 3.5's in, so they go somewhere, maybe it is just the group I know of. The point would be there is a large market for the 5.0.

 

Lots of 5.0s here to, lots of all of them really.

 

On my 2011 the computer, while fairly accurate was off a bit in favor the company. I personally believe it related to overall tire sizes. With stock tires my MPG was off between 5-10%. Put new treads on this year, Yokohama Geolanders and mileage reading to gage as well as conversion to calculator was more accurate. Tires were about 3/4 inch taller. This dropped typical around town driving from 17+ to closer to 16 mpg.
Note: Mileage may vary due to driver input, area driven, winter fuels.

Just my thoughts and I'm stickin to it!

 

Did you see the vid on the start page today? Looks like getting a 1976 f 100 is the way to go, 24mpg hwy. with a V8. What is wrong with this picture?

 

I owned a 1978 F100 with a 300 inch six. It weighed 3600 lbs and was tiny in terms of frontal area compared to the new trucks. What's wrong with the picture is that the new trucks have 2000 lbs of extra weight, much wider tires, can seat lots of people in limo like comfort compared to my old '78. My '78 was an actual truck with rubber mats (no carpet), a woven vinyl seat, no power windows. and the driver's head was up against the rear glass of the cab.

I totally call BS on the 24 mpg highway--it *might* get 20 mpg at 55 mph (which was the national speed limit in those days). I could actually get 22-24 highway with my 300 inch six, with the 4 speed OD manual trans and a 2.75 rear axle (giving a final drive ratio of 2.18), in the days of the 55 mph speed limit. I had a '78 LTD II with a 302 and that never got over 20 mpg on the freeway--maybe 17-18ish.

ps I just checked the start page and the EPA ratings on the '76 with manual trans were 16/24--this had NOTHING to do with real world mileage. The EPA ratings on my '78 with the 300 six and same transmission were 19/29. Back then, EPA ratings were in their early days and were TOTALLY BS, especially on highway readings. Gearing was stupidly tall to make the EPA test cycle good, but my truck could not even go up the slightest grade in 4th gear at freeway speeds. I recall my truck revving 1600 rpm at 60 mph.

Elemint, you seem obsessed by MPG and seem to think that 6000 lb trucks with the frontal area of my garage should use the same amount of fuel as a Focus. They won't, because they weigh 6000 lbs and have the frontal area of my garage. My '78 F100 was tiny and light even compared to a Chevy Colorado.

George

 

Well said George. I had a 1984 F-150, 300 CI, M4OD, 2.75 axle, RCSB and I never saw over 19-20 because at highway speed I had to keep it in third gear as OD was useless.

 

Let's just insert the term off boost the into the conversation here, and I would buy a 3.5 if I got a new truck. Maybe a 2.7 if I got a rcsb, but life says crew cab.

The 3.5 can not compete with the 5.0 in off boost torque. End of story.

If I was going to become a hvac contractor, lost my mind, and decided to become HVAC contractor anyways. I would get the 5.0 for mpg savings. Where the Eco boost would have trouble saving mpg due to off boost torque saddled by drag. That was my point if you work a vehicle.

My work E150 gets 13mpg with a 4.6 usually. Van weighs 6500 ready to go.

My friends work E250 gets 13 mpg usually with a 5.4. Not sure of weight, but we can guess.

An old friend did handy man stuff to pay for a career change running a C30 CC dually with a 454, and averaged 10-13 mpg.

All vehicles have a bunch of stuff, and aero friendly ladder racks.

 

The application of information in to the real world utterly, entirely, and completely escapes your grasp.

 

Plow prep is 5.0 only due to airflow problems over the intercooler caused by the installation of said plow.

 

What is the application? There was no stated app you have the reading comprehension of a rock.

Each engine, truck or vehicle has benefits, and detractions. So when choosing the best people with reading comprehension, and experience just do not bench race the spec sheet.

Yes the Eco boost 3.5 is likely the best choice for most people, and also has the power to tow the most. All true.

So why does routinely get worse mpg when people work the truck hard? Your a genius you should know. Oh wait your a rock.

The best choice is a mix of lots of things, and I will restate for you. If I got a rcsb I would love a 2.7 Eco boost, but I can not see that engine doing much besides struggling compared to a 5.0 in the mpg category. WHEN and let's repeat that for you WHEN the truck is loaded up or has stuff in the bed. Either of which will strain the motor in OFF BOOST TORQUE. Since most people know that turbos have some lag, and they do not run in boost at light throttle conditions.

So how is it going to return better mpg when you dig into boost to maintain speed.

 

Here's the thing, you're comparing the MPG's of two loaded work vans and a C3500 to an ecoboost truck and I'll wager th at your MPG assumptions are based on when the ecoboost is towing.

I've loaded 2000 lbs (based on a scale) of top sooil in my truck, delivered it to a friend 25 miles away and still got over 18 MPG doing it. That extra 2000 lbs made my rig weight in at a little over 7600 lbs without me in it.

There's a huge different in drag when towing and when running with a loaded bed / van. Then again, after the T-series vans have been out for a while, we'll know what a T-series with the ecoboost gets as opposed to an E-series with a mod motor.

 

Clearly you have never driven an Ecoboost so you should stop talking like you know how it behaves. Turbo lag is so insignificant that it isn't even worth mentioning. It doesn't strain to accelerate. It makes gobs of torque off idle because the turbos spool that quick. It doesn't behave anything like you think.

 

I'll second that. Got to drive one around a half hour during the Chicago auto show last month. There is NO turbo lag. I nailed it at 5-ish mph (after asking the Ford rep if it was ok first ), the tires instantly spun and it slammed you back pretty damn good and accelerated hard all thru first and part of second, woulda stayed in it longer but not in the middle of Chicago just south of the Loop. I jumped on it about a dozen more times at various speeds and various amounts of throttle opening. I was duly impressed, if it wasn't for the sounds you'd never know there wasn't a well tuned big block under that hood. My friend drove it around next, he rolled on the throttle, maybe taking a second to get WOT, from a dead stop several times, it was laying some serious rubber. This was a fully loaded Lariat Screw with some 600 or 800 miles on the clock, and my skinny 275 lb azz, my friend around 225 and the cute blonde rep maybe 120. Found some potholed and patched side streets on the drive, handled it great, very solid, rattle free ride.
If you never drove the 3.5 EB or hadn't driven one in a long time (as I haven't*), you would think it was the 3.5.
*Three or four years ago an acquaintance friend was the sales manager at a local Ford dealer. We went out for lunch and spent the afternoon on a project hunt in his KR 4x4 3.5EB, he let me drive it around a while. The two drives felt the same, but since they were 4-ish years apart, I cant say for sure. Although it was the old steel body, a 4x4 and a KR, they very well could have been really close in acceleration.

 

Let's start with I have never said it is a bad motor, and restate I would buy the Eco boost I I was laying down money. I only got to drive one for a few blocks, and that is why I almost purchased a rclb Eco boost. They are hens tooth rare, and I went a different direction on a truck. I only drive 30 miles a week so I have no justification for something new. It was right after i finally lost a 350 due to age, and was looking for what i wanted. I have an aversion to anything but a regular cab for some reason.

So when defining the best anything or
In this case truck engine. One has to be honest about intended use of said vehicle, and conditions which it would live.

Would you buy a F150 to tow 11,000 or run fully loaded in the box daily? Or step up to a F250 with a less sexy engine that if epa tests were required would get 1/3 or so less mpg, but in real life do just as good on mpg likely. Plus offer a good amount of cya.

I would pick the F250, but I have no more fantasies of being a contractor. So I would get one of the Eco boost offerings since the truck would be a glorified car to me, and very occasional towing.

I as an adult can be honest with myself, and see the best is really the only definition i apply to said item. For others the best may have other meanings, and it is for them to decide.

So read more then the spec sheet.