Well my dad is thinking about getting a new truck soon. He has a 2001 f150 xlt supercrew with 200000 miles on it and its getting time for something new. He is looking at 2011 F150 supercrews. He does some towing but its a 22 foot aluminum fishing boat and in the winter he will pull either a 2 place enclosed snowmobile trailer that is not that heavy or a utility trailer with 2 4 wheelers.

He is leaning towards an ecoboost but would kinda like the 5.0. Im not very familiar with these new motors. Yes I know the ecoboost has really good hp and torque numbers and probably wouldnt strugle pulling any of the above. It also gets better mpg. But the question is how much better is the mpg in the real world and not on paper? He was also wondering whats the maintance schedule on the ecoboost for the turbos and what it would cost to repair if they were to go? Right now we found some really nice ecoboost and a few nice 5.0 but the problem is that the ecoboost is stickering about 1000 or so more.

There was a local ad for a nice F150 FX4 4 door with the 5.0 advertised for 34000. Not sure what the same truck with a ecoboost would be advertised for. Just looking on some input on what to tell him. He would like to get whatever gets better mileage but if the 5.0 is close he may do that.

 

Between those 2, definitely the 5.0. Later down the road when things start to go wrong, the 5.0 will be much cheaper and easier to repair. Also, with the 5.0 being in the Mustang, the aftermarket goodies will be easier to get

 

Well he was thinking about the 5.0 but the ecoboost gets better mileage and has more power from what I see on dyno tests. He dont care about the performance stuff. He would probably leave it stock unless there is a programmer for the ecoboost then he might do that for better mileage. He loves the way my programmer on tow mode pulls are trailers. I have a 04 F150 FX4. Right now he is really leaning towards the ecoboost but just wondering the cost repairs on the turbos.

 

Both of those motors would do just fine and yes the EB will probably get better mpg's, but not huge differences. It sounds like your dad keeps vehicles for a long time. Only time will tell the longevity of these motors, but the EB has water cooled turbos, so that may help with long term longevity. I think as with any engine, keeping up with maintenance a key factor.

 

I remember the old Turbocoupe T-Birds were oil and watercooled too. I've replaced a few of them over the years.
Following the service intervals in the owners manual is crucial to turbo longevity.
I still prefer V8 myself.

 

My 2003 6.0 had 260,000 kms when I sold it with original turbo. Turbos are not new technology, nor do they fail often if you maintain your vehicle properly. I see no advantage with the 5.0 other than initial price.

 

Well the 5.0 is a little cheaper. Not much. With gas going over 4 dollars this week every little mile helps expecially when we go up north.

Ya my dad likes to keep his trucks for a long time. He had a 93 f150 2 wheel drive with a v6 I think. I was young but when he sold it the truck had 220000 miles on it. He bought it new. Then he bought his 01 supercrew in 03 with 40000 miles on it and now has 200000. So he will keep the truck till it dies. He said he has been reading alot of reviews saying that people perfer the ecoboost over the others. I guess I will have to go with him and tell him to test drive both and see what he likes better. He only cares if it will pull are boat and snowmobile trailer. He dont care how fast it is. From what I have been seeing the ecoboost has like 5-10 more hp anyways.

 

This EB will do a lot better than some are giving it credit for. With a 4X2 supercab with 3.15 LS rears I am consistently getting between 21.5 and 23 city. Yesterday evening the wife and I took a nice scenic ride from Ft Pierce, Fl. to Stuart, Fl approx 20 miles at 35 - 45 mph along the Indian river. Filled up and reset gauges before leaving, at about 17 miles I was up to 28.3 mpg, then I hit some slower traffic coming into town the last few miles, dropped to 27.1, wife snapped a few pics for me of the dash. The pics are in my gallery, RPM @ 1100, speed @ 40mph average MPG 27.1 was not doing anything special, just holding her steady and smooth @ 40 MPH the whole trip, with a few exceptions, cars pulling out in front of me or turning off and taking their good old time! At 65 it will do 22-24 depending on how many morons are out that day! Sorry but I doubt you will get this kind of fuel mileage out of a "equal" 5.0 truck. And the best part is if need be the 365 HP and 420lb ft of torque are there just waiting for my call!! And yes I do hand calc. at each fill up to confirm these MPG's

 

I think I would get the 5.0.
It appears that Ford did some extensive testing on the ECO, but this did not include years of on/off heat cycling. Also turbos usually need to be cooled down somewhat after a long drive or the bearings can get coked up. Having said that, I don't know about these newer turbos and certainly synthetic oils help some.
Before I got my 09 5.4 I had a Dodge Cummins and had no problems with the turbo, but it was basically an industrial grade diesel in a pick up.
I think , I would want to wait a few years to see how the ECO holds up in the long run. If you pop a couple of turbos, it's gonna cost ya big.
Certainlay an interesting motor, but I would stick with the 5.0 IMHO.
These ECO Boost engines may indeed be reliable over the long run, but just too early to tell. They require more electronic control, and more complicated cooling.
As per working on your own vehicle, sort of relagated to the past with any modern engine for most of us, the turbo would be a biatch, considering it's complexity and tight pakaging.(labour costs in the shop).
At the end of the day, I think it makes for a hard buisiness case, just like todays emission diesels. They certainly have their place, but you really have to justify them from a money stanpoint. But....if you have the money, have at 'er....I am sure they will be fun!

 

I've driven both and I towed with both. I bought the ECO. Stop looking at the peak advertised numbers and look at the power curve. Then drive both of them. Then decide. Both are great engines. The fact is the low end torque blows the 5.0 away when I compared their towing capability.
Also IMO, making a decision based on worry about turbos isn't valid. They aren't some kind of voodoo that's new. One could be just as worried about a few parts failures on a 5.0. You just need to find which one suits you better. They both have their place. Some people will always want that V8 and will not want to embrace something different. And that's ok.

 

Still own a 1987 and has 155K miles on it. I have owned it since 37K miles.
If he is getting 200+k on his trucks he is taking care of them and the Turbos will last the life of the truck.

I prefer the turbo because when you do light foot it for mpg you get it and when you need the power you have that too.

A few years back I took the Bird from South Dakota to Charleston South Carolina, spent 5 days there. I put 5000 miles on in 10 days and averaged 28mpg. I had tanks at 36mpg and two tanks at 22mpg, those were the sections in KY in the hills. One tank going and one returning home.

Some people just gota have a V8. I want power and MPG and the turbo gives both..

 

The 87-88 TC T-Birds were quite impressive in their day.

 

Grand National V6 turbos were/are too. You can drive to the track getting over 20 mpgs with the a/c on. Whoop up on some V8s that come in on trailers and drive home with the a/c on gettting over 20 mpgs. I've owned one for the last 23 years, and as many as 3 at once.Some of the modern mods are nuts.I run alky injection with 26 psi of boost .

 

wait till you pull something and your turbos stay spooled, you can kiss that 20+ mpg crap goodbye. Now if your rarely going to tow, then it obviously wouldn't be a big deal and the ecoboost would definitely be the right move.

 

That holds true for the 5.0 and 6.2 also, so that point is moot. If I was going to have a heavy trailer hooked up 90% of the time, then the 6.2 is what I'd have.