Very lawyerly! You did not edit my post. You did omit what I was replying to, which does take out of context my post.

 

I know three people that have Ecoboost f-150s including myself and all three of us tow at least a camper. Most people you know might not tow, but I can only think of one person I know that has a truck, any truck, and does not tow.

 

That is the kind of stuff that seems so goofy. It means diddly. Do you know what percentage of people who tow, with their EB---No.

For the vast majority of people who do tow, the 3.7 or 5.0 would do the job just fine and that includes all three of "us" too. Tell me I'm wrong or let me say thank you for making my point.

 

But alas my dear you do not know what the percentage that tows either. I cannot vouch for the 3.7 but I have towed my camper with a 5.0, it pulled it fine, just not as plesant as towing experence as the Eco, so yes any of the three would probaly be fine, although Sam's gap or Black Mountain with 8k behind a 3.7 would be a bit slow.

 

I have a question for ya: How would you feel about Ford boosting a 5.0L V-8 and using it in an F-series truck? Would you buy it? It's a V-8!

 

Sarcasm is lost on you.

 

Lol, no, I just end-arounded it for amusement.

 

Here is my opinion: If you are going to two heavy, get a heavy tow vehicle. That doesn't include an ecoboost--especially long term. As to boosting a V8, no, I wouldn't buy it. But, there is no point for me. When I had a heavy ski boat my 1995 5.0 hauled it just fine.

Everyone gets to buy whatever works for them. I just think the ecoboost is over-sold and gimmicky. Why would you buy one?????????

1. To save gas? You might save a little, but doubtful.
2. Towing. That is the best reason, but ecoboost isn't the only answer.
3. Reliability. EB has yet to prove itself real world...so NO!

 

I see the 6.2 and eco compared a lot. I'm sure the eco is a good motor. Why don't they put it in the F350?

I would be anxious to see an eco and 6.2 with 14k behind it pulling up hill for 100,000 miles.

 

The most obvious question would be whether the 5.0L V8 was built to handle the boost? I personally don't know the answer to that question, but it would need to be answered.

 

I don't know why ford isn't doing cylinder deactivation. 20mpg highway on the GM 6.2 PUSHROD motor with 460LB of TQ.

The cylinder deactivation of the 70s-80s was crap but it seems like the technology has been figured out.

Car and Driver got a Silverado 0-60 in 5.4 seconds too.

Who knows.

 

The question I would have is how that might work on a V6. Not as many cylinders to deactivate...

But it might be an option for the 5.0L.

 

It seems like they could hop up the power on the 5.0 and do cylinder deactivation to get RAM and GM V8 MPG numbers. From what I have heard and seen the Eco boost just barely gets Ram HEMI mpg numbers while sacrificing 2 cylinders. It just seems ford is throwing a TON of tech at motors and the MPG, which sometimes is a little better, isn't a HUGE step in being a leader in MPG. Hell.. My 6.2 barely gets 11 in the city.

Small engines typically get better fuel economy but putting turbos on a smaller engine introduces more air so you can feed it more fuel so, number of cylinders aside, you are sucking in as much air as a V8 and using the same amount of fuel. Doesn't the 5.0 get just about the same MPG as the eco in similar driving situations? I've even heard the eco can get worse MPG towing than the 5.0.

Not bashing at all, just confused with fords direction. If they want to sell a good motor with tons of diesel like power at low RPMs, they should have marketed the 3.7 eco that way because the ECO boost 3.7 isn't a fuel saving champion when compared directly with its v8 counterparts.

I know emissions is hard to fight with but motors anymore don't really get any better fuel mileage than they did 15 years ago. I had a first year v10 excursion and my 6.2 is just the same fuel hog that it was. No real improvements in 15 years? 6.2 even has less TQ and less cylinders.

 

The marketing I've read said you can get the power of a larger displacement engine with the gas mileage of a smaller displacement engine. The EcoBoost delivers on those points.
It is delivering the power of a 6.2 liter V8 and it get better mileage than a 6.2.

 

I think the problem with cylinder deactivation as the main mpg gain is, where are they going to go now? How are they going to improve on the v8 to get the mpg numbers that will be required in the near future? I think Ford will have a step up in that respect since they already have a bunch of development and experience in smaller engines.