I am in the market for a 2012 or 2013 Ford F-150. From what I have read I'm not really decided on which engine as they both seem great, the EB and 5.0. My concern is with the EB being driven short distances so often. I only drive 1.5 miles to work and then back home for lunch and then back to work and so on. Would these short trips cause problems with the turbos?

 

Don't go ecoboost. Your short trips will exacerbate the ecoboost issues of building condensate in the intercooler. You will also have 20k mile spark plug intervals. Go 5L and never have to worry.

 

I think the first part of the post is very accurate. I've decide that if I replace my wife's Expedition, I'd opt for a car with an N/A engine because of her short trips.

The guys that are doing 20K mile plug changes as a rule are the guys who tuned their ecoboosts. Mine was doe at 61K due to a shudder and a flashing CEL. Both dealers that I use said this is about the normal range for plug change outs in the EB. 50K-70K, some go more or less.

For the OP's needs, I'd opt for a 5.0L as well.

 

The 5.0 is a good motor. My only advice is go 13-14 if you get one. I got a 12 and ended up with a 14 long block in it. Seems to be the 11 and early 12 that had the knock issue, but I'd wouldn't buy a 12. Unless you want mine, of course.

 

The EcoBoost has direct injection (carbon buildup on valves which eventually will cause you problems), a supplemental vacuum pump since forced induction engines can't create it on their own (this has been known to fail, causing issues, some which are safety issues), an intercooler which hangs down low, as is also potentially a source of moisture contamination, a timing chain that's 2 miles long that has had issues on both the 3.5 and 2.7 EcoBoost engines, reports of horrible fuel economy, reports of "missing" or running poorly, etc.

The Coyote had some cylinder issues from improperly cast blocks in the first two model years of production. That's about all you ever hear of that's wrong with a 5.0.

To me, the choice was simple. Why pay more money for an engine with more problems that is widely known to get less fuel economy? That seems really stupid.

"But the EcoBoost is rated to tow more!" Well if you need to tow over 5 tons all the time then you don't need the F-150 to start with.

 

I've had the Coyote 5.0 in my 2011, and now in my 2013 F150 Super Crew. And I love this engine, and truthfully I get as good, or better mile per gallon of fuel than several friends that do have the EcoBoost. Though the EcoBoost is rated better for towing, but my truck is a daily driver. And now at over 56k on the odometer, it's also been zero hassle, original everything, no mods other than FLowmaster Series 70 exhaust.

 

Sounds like the 5.0 is a better fit for me. I was leaning that way a little anyway just because of the possible maintenance cost down the road with the turbos. So there was a problem with 2011-2012 5.0's? A knock?

 

It seems some small number of those trucks had a cylinder issue. You can search for 5.0 ticking sound to find out more about it.
Driving 1.5 miles and parking will be hard on any engine. I doubt a naturally aspirated engine will fare any better than a turbo engine under that continued use. I hope you take your vehicle out every now & then and warm it up to full operating temperature.
Is your truck only used for commuting or do you have any other plans? The 3.7 V6 is a nice engine. It delivers better power than the old 4.6L V8 and will probably give you the best gas mileage with your drive.

 

Thanks xr7! I drive for longer periods on weekends. And maybe a couple two or 3 times through the week for longer periods. This would be my daily vehicle. It's just that I am going to have those short drives through the week. I did see the thread below on the 5.0 ticking after I posted here and have been reading it.

 

What about a 6.2?

 

The 6.2 is a very good engine. It is a little tougher on gas than the other choices. It may also be harder to find one.

 

May be harder on fuel, although as I read most of the 6.2 Motors are in the Raptors and naturally the Raptors are going to have worse fuel mileage do to more weight more rotating weight and the type of people that by them and what they are used for. Low gearing has always had a major impact on fuel economy and the Raptor comes with the lowest gearing you can get in an F-150. I have been searching fuel economy for quite a while now trying to decide if I want to keep my Lariat limited 6.2. As I do my research I see the 5.0 averaging 13 and 14 miles per gallon and I also see an equally equipped F-150 with a 6.2 averaging the same. My personal truck average is 13 to 14 miles per gallon so I know that's a pretty safe average and I have bigger tires on mine.
About 2 weeks ago I was reading a post on another forum from a guy who claims who had a 6.2 and an almost equally equipped 5.0. He claims he was averaging 2 to 3 miles per gallon better with his 5.0. Then later on I read in another post where he had moved and had to do a lot more highway driving to get to and from work. So I thought to myself, if he owed the 6.2 when he lived in the city and did mostly City driving with very little to any highway driving, then gets rid of a 6.2 ends up getting a 5.0 and moving out of the city where he does a lot more highway driving that would make sense that he would see better fuel economy on the 5.0. Still after all this research and reading I've done I still couldn't tell you for sure if one are the other truly gets better mileage but one thing's for sure the power of the 6.2 is way better than the 5.0.

 

1.5 miles to work? I would be riding a bicycle. Or walking.

 

Lol. I prob should!

 

HA, I drive to my mailbox, although it's a long driveway. Work smarter not harder

For the record, same daily driving my 6.2/3.73 gets 1 mpg less then our 3.5 EcoBoost/3.31 Super crew at work. I get around 12 average it gets 13.