What engine would you choose?
#1
10-17-2011, 09:56 PM
What engine would you choose?
My neighbor is going to trade his 2007 F-150 with the 5.4 for a 2012 F-150. He likes his current 5.4 but was thinking about getting the Eco-boost motor. I just wanted to get some owner feedback from those of you that have the Eco-boost motor. He occasionally pulls a small single axle trailer and he also borrows my 10K trailer 2 or 3 times a year.
Thanks!
Thanks!
#5
10-18-2011, 06:32 AM
Didn't you watch the torture tests? waitin' on the EB for a couple years ... that's just me.
#7
10-18-2011, 06:41 AM
Fleet Mechanic
Trending Topics
#8
10-18-2011, 06:49 AM
As far as the turbo, what about Cummins diesels with 300k on the clock on the original turbo? Boost makes an engine more efficient, and therefore it doesn't have to work as hard as a n/a engine to get the same/better output. Why must so many people spew this garbage on these boards? Coming from the sport car world I know that this kind of logic is just dumb. If you cause even 1 person to change their mind because of non-factual BS you should feel ashamed. State the facts, not the crap.
#9
10-18-2011, 07:15 AM
As far as the turbo, what about Cummins diesels with 300k on the clock on the original turbo? Boost makes an engine more efficient, and therefore it doesn't have to work as hard as a n/a engine to get the same/better output. Why must so many people spew this garbage on these boards? Coming from the sport car world I know that this kind of logic is just dumb. If you cause even 1 person to change their mind because of non-factual BS you should feel ashamed. State the facts, not the crap.
In defense of NumberDummy, he may not know how well the EB engine is built. The Ecoboost is not just your average 216 cid V6 gasoline powered engine with a couple of off the shelf turbo's.
2011 EcoBoost Durability.mp4 - YouTube
#10
10-18-2011, 07:19 AM
As far as the turbo, what about Cummins diesels with 300k on the clock on the original turbo? Boost makes an engine more efficient, and therefore it doesn't have to work as hard as a n/a engine to get the same/better output.
Why must so many people spew this garbage on these boards? Coming from the sport car world I know that this kind of logic is just dumb. If you cause even 1 person to change their mind because of non-factual BS you should feel ashamed. State the facts, not the crap.
Why must so many people spew this garbage on these boards? Coming from the sport car world I know that this kind of logic is just dumb. If you cause even 1 person to change their mind because of non-factual BS you should feel ashamed. State the facts, not the crap.
How many Ford vehicles have you owned in your lifetime, prolly less than 10. I've owned 84, 12 of which I bought new....so I usually know what the hell I'm talking about.
Turbo's installed in 1980's Passenger Cars tended to carbon up after only a few years. The cost to replace one was almost 500 dollars, so I can just imagine what the costs to replace just one Eco Boost turbo today would be.
You are expecting a 216 cid V6 engine originally designed for/installed in 3,000 lb. Passenger Cars to hold up in an F150 that weighs almost three tons. Maybe it will...maybe it won't. Lets hope maybe it will is the answer.
Comparing a Cummins diesel to an Eco Boost is ridiculous, two totally different designs, engineered for two totally different applications.
The OP asked for opinions and I gave mine...If you don't like it, that's your problem.
#11
10-18-2011, 07:32 AM
How many years of Ford parts experience do you have? Prolly none. How many Ford vehicles have you owned in your lifetime, prolly less than 10.
Turbo's installed in 1980's Passenger Cars tended to carbon up after only a few years. The cost to replace one was almost 500 dollars, so I can just imagine what the costs to replace just one Eco Boost turbo today would be.
You are expecting a 216 cid V6 engine originally designed for/installed in 3,000 lb. Passenger Cars to hold up in an F150 that weighs almost three tons. Maybe it will...maybe it won't. Lets hope maybe it will is the answer.
Comparing a Cummins diesel to an Eco Boost is ridiculous, two totally different designs, engineered for two totally different applications.
Turbo's installed in 1980's Passenger Cars tended to carbon up after only a few years. The cost to replace one was almost 500 dollars, so I can just imagine what the costs to replace just one Eco Boost turbo today would be.
You are expecting a 216 cid V6 engine originally designed for/installed in 3,000 lb. Passenger Cars to hold up in an F150 that weighs almost three tons. Maybe it will...maybe it won't. Lets hope maybe it will is the answer.
Comparing a Cummins diesel to an Eco Boost is ridiculous, two totally different designs, engineered for two totally different applications.
#12
10-18-2011, 07:55 AM
Not to be augmentative but which Ford car was the 3.5L engine with 6 bolt mains, forged crank shaft, direct fuel injection with diesel style pistons originally designed for? I know my Fusion had a 3.5 and a few of the other Ford cars has a 3.5 but I didn't know they were the same designed engine as the EB.
I rented a new Mustang ragtop with the Eco Boost earlier this year, put over a 1000 miles on it over the course of 4 days. It ran like a striped assed ape, but....
A Mustang doesn't weigh almost three tons, and obviously will be unable to do the same things as an F150.
#13
10-18-2011, 08:02 AM
The Fusion/Milan/Taurus/Sable and etc 3.5L is not the same as an Eco Boost 3.5L, only the cid is the same.
I rented a new Mustang ragtop with the Eco Boost earlier this year, put over a 1000 miles on it over the course of 4 days. It ran like a striped assed ape, but....
A Mustang doesn't weigh almost three tons, and obviously will be unable to do the same things as an F150.
I rented a new Mustang ragtop with the Eco Boost earlier this year, put over a 1000 miles on it over the course of 4 days. It ran like a striped assed ape, but....
A Mustang doesn't weigh almost three tons, and obviously will be unable to do the same things as an F150.
#14
10-18-2011, 08:13 AM
How many years of Ford parts experience do you have? Prolly none. I have 35 years of Ford parts experience.
How many Ford vehicles have you owned in your lifetime, prolly less than 10. I've owned 84, 12 of which I bought new....so I usually know what the hell I'm talking about.
Turbo's installed in 1980's Passenger Cars tended to carbon up after only a few years. The cost to replace one was almost 500 dollars, so I can just imagine what the costs to replace just one Eco Boost turbo today would be.
You are expecting a 216 cid V6 engine originally designed for/installed in 3,000 lb. Passenger Cars to hold up in an F150 that weighs almost three tons. Maybe it will...maybe it won't. Lets hope maybe it will is the answer.
Comparing a Cummins diesel to an Eco Boost is ridiculous, two totally different designs, engineered for two totally different applications.
The OP asked for opinions and I gave mine...If you don't like it, that's your problem.
How many Ford vehicles have you owned in your lifetime, prolly less than 10. I've owned 84, 12 of which I bought new....so I usually know what the hell I'm talking about.
Turbo's installed in 1980's Passenger Cars tended to carbon up after only a few years. The cost to replace one was almost 500 dollars, so I can just imagine what the costs to replace just one Eco Boost turbo today would be.
You are expecting a 216 cid V6 engine originally designed for/installed in 3,000 lb. Passenger Cars to hold up in an F150 that weighs almost three tons. Maybe it will...maybe it won't. Lets hope maybe it will is the answer.
Comparing a Cummins diesel to an Eco Boost is ridiculous, two totally different designs, engineered for two totally different applications.
The OP asked for opinions and I gave mine...If you don't like it, that's your problem.
If you are talking about the K cars with turbos, then yes, those were CRAP. The EcoBoost is actually engineered much like a diesel engine. You are entitled to your own opinion, and I am entitled to think you are wrong. Who will win? We won't know for a few years, but I have a feeling about this motor. It has all the right stuff to be bullet proof. The days of powdered metal rods, hypueretic pistons and crappy turbos are over, so I would like to believe. I HAVE A DREAM! Lol.
#15
10-18-2011, 08:14 AM