Evan, I thought I said I would wait. My 6.0L had a two year track record when I bought it and that wasn't sufficient. The reliability issues were just starting to surface on an engine designed to work. I'll wait 4 or 5 years before I try another new tech engine from Ford. The 5.4L makes considerable more hp and tq than the old 351 did. I know it's technology and engine management that makes the difference. Still can't help but wonder what the 351 would have done with today's engine management and better heads and etc. Ford was nowhere near maxing out the pushrod engines. If the EB proves to be as reliable as the old 460 I'll have to consider one unless Ford does introduce the 4.4L diesel. And just for the record, the 2 valve 5.4 engines were slugs and spit out spark plugs occassionally. And they got less fuel mileage than the 351 they replaced. At least the 5.4 3 valve gets close to the same fuel mileage as the 351. As things stand right now if I had to buy a new truck it would have the 6.2L in it. But I wouldn't rule out EB if it proves itself.

 

And the programmers and chips that folks added which caused the puking, stretched head bolts and other issues

 

This is getting way off track of the OPs original post, but I can't help myself at times(sorry OP).

Your right, it does take time for things to show, it takes time for things that owners did that the engine didn't like to surface(that lends to the inability for some people to draw the conclusion that what they did might have contributed to the engine's issue) and you do have the true engine flaws that take time to show itself.

I just wonder that if we were ever able to weed out all the fake claims with the 6.0, how bad would that engine really end up looking? Especially when you think of all the good ones that people have in the later yrs of the 6.0 and those that are second(or even third or later) owners of the 6.0.

To the OP: I do appreciate you being the guinea pig for us truck people with regard to this engine. I do have hope for it and I do think it is a reasonable platform to go with(despite what the diehard v8 guys seem to think), it just has to do good in order for it to catch on.

 

If you want to know more about the man that started the Ford legend, check this out: Henry Ford Heritage Association

 

[QUOTE=fordtruckman;9418959]That is pretty much the exact opposite of all the reviews I've read. Also drive the loyal customers to the competition? Here is just an example of the reviews of the Ecoboost since we are talking about it -

I'm not taking sides or anything here, But I remember reading on one of the sites that tested the new 2011's that when pulling 6,000lbs the Ecoboost averaged about 8.9mpg and the 6.2L towing the same load was averaging just a hair over 10mpg. Like Greg I am very skeptical of the Ecoboost, and personally I'll be getting the 5.0L in my new truck, but another reason for that is im just a V8 man. I'll be really glad if the Ecoboost works out for Ford, as well as all the other new engines introduced.

To me, the Ecoboost is not a replacement for N/A V8's. But its more Fords way of offering a Diesel without actually having a Diesel. The Ecoboost will/should offer most of the same benefits of a Diesel engine. Low end torque with a flat broad torque curve. Decent fuel economy. And it will do all this for only 1700$ more than the base 3.7L engine offered in the new F-150s. Considering that a Diesel engine offered in the F-150 would most likely add around 5,000 to 7,000$ to the F-150's price tag, 1,700$ isn't all that bad. If this new engine proves itself it'll really have only one downside. And that is its 150,000 Mile major maintenance schedule. I've seen gasser V8's and many Diesels run 300K without major maintenance. But in the end that's why Ford offers the Ecoboost along side engines like the 5.0L and 6.2L for people like myself, who prefer 8 cylinders to 6.

In the end I'm sure everyone that gets a 2011 F-150 will get what they want and be more than happy with it.

 

Johndeerefarmer, it wasn't just the programmers and stuff that caused problems on the 6.0L. There were some serious intermitant quality problems from Navistar besides the design flaws. Mine was bone stock except for the 4" turbo back exhaust. Navistar had many machining issues on cylinder heads as well as some block decks. It seems flatness was an issue on too many of them. Some of the head bolt stretching was cause by turbos sticking at full boost and inadequate size bolts for the task at hand. There were casting problems with the EGR and oil coolers. And there were some hpop problems which also took out injectors. The fact that Ford is doing the engines themselves instead of purchasing them from outside vendors gives me some confidence, but I'll wait 4-5 years to make sure that the quality is there before I lay down that much cash on a new truck again. The new F150's are as much as my 05 SD was with comparable equipment. I hope they work out fine, but I'll wait before endorsing them.

 

Not sure where you get you info, but the 351 was an extraordinary gas hog. My '88 regular cab 4x4 never got above 11 mpg on the hwy.

 

[SIZE="1"]Originally Posted by Greg B
And they got less fuel mileage than the 351 they replaced. At least the 5.4 3 valve gets close to the same fuel mileage as the 351.[/SIZE]

WOW! Thats in the ruuning for preposterous stmt of the year! I had a 98 5.4L and a 351 of any year would never touch its MPG. Same goes for all the other 97-03 F150s I knew of in my area. Not a chance.
I liked the 351 when it was out, but I would never brag about its mpg!

 

The guy that buys an ecoboost and tows a boat or a TT on weekends or less often will be happy and will most likely see an overall increase in his fuel savings. The guys that may not so as well will be the landscaping contractors or the general contractors that tow a trailer every day.

 

I throw out MPGs altogether when it comes to this type of discussion. It doesn't matter what it's rated at on the sticker, what everyone else that owns a similiar equipped vehicle, I rarely get as good as what is claimed by both groups.

I do drive with a mind toward fuel economy about 90% of the time and yet my mileage is pretty bad. My 6.0, which is geared lower and significantly heavier then the 5.4 actually does a little better in the MPG department(unloaded as I never tow with my 5.4, so that would be an unfair comparison) then my 5.4. That is hand calculated.

So I rarely take stock in what other people claim or what the little sticker claims as that may or may not(more often does not) apply to me. The next person down the road might actually get better mileage then I do(or what the sticker claims) with a similiar equipped vehicle.

Greg B.: The only true design flaw that was on there was the STC fitting that was on the 05-06 models. The headbolts in of themselves were not an issue unless the robots didn't torque them down correctly, which would be a bad thing if they were even ARPs, so that's a quality control issue not a design flaw. The small passageways in the Oil Cooler is not an issue unless something is left behind, which actually applies more to the Oil Cooler then the EGR cooler, the only reason to mention the EGR Cooler because if the Oil Cooler goes so does the EGR Cooler. I have not heard of casting sand plugging up the EGR Cooler, just the Oil Cooler. Now that is questionable, I could argue with way, but since I after 200k and 5.5 yrs am still on the original Oil and EGR Cooler, I have a hard time reconciling that being a design flaw. A lot of other people are also on their original Oil(and EGR Cooler) as well. Now with turbo sticking causing heads lifting. True, but what caused that turbo to over boost? More then likely too much soot on the turbo. Can be caused by a truck being used as more of a grocery getter and soot was allowed to collect(which happened a lot with the 6.0, due to the factors that I've mentioned numerous times in posts like these) and by people running tuners or modules that overfueled, thus more soot(which was also done a lot with the 6.0, pretty much due to the same factors).

 

Thank you for posting that because I did not see that, 8.9mpg is pretty poor. I think for the normal guy towing stuff the ecoboost would be just fine. I know with my truck I tow maybe 2 times a month if that, the rest of the time the truck is just carrying me. So it should pay off. I would be really curious to see what mpg people actually get.

 

I don't imagine the reviewers were treating the truck very nicely, either.

 

Hsfbfan and Powerkid, those fuel mileage figures are what I actually averaged on the two rigs. The 351 was a 95 roller motor which gets a bunch better mileage than the 93 and older 351's. I have no idea what EPA ratings were for the 95. I just know that the mileage was about the same for both the 95 F150 and the 06 F150. The 88 351 F250 I had years ago averaged around 10 mpg loaded or empty city or highway. My son-in-laws 99 5.4 EC 4X4 couldn't get much better than 13.5 mpg on the highway. All figures are hand calculated. My 05 6.0L E/C 4X4 got slightly better mileage than the 06 F150 with a lot higher maintenance and fuel costs. Tex, the sand left in too many of the oil cooler and egr cooler passages was a problem in many of them. I had a problem with that with my 05. I also had the famous STC fitting problem on the hpop that wound up costing me some new injectors as well that I wasn't planning on. I personally never had any head gasket or head problems, but I know some folks who did on unmodified trucks. A couple of people I know who used to work in the Navistar plant in Indy where a lot of the engines were made clued me in on the flatness problems on the heads and block decks. It was caused by machining with dull tooling. Just suffice it to say that the emissions diesels aren't the most trouble free engines on the road. The oil sure does seem to shear early on the 6.0L's.

 

I have yet to hear of it getting in the EGR cooler. Oil cooler...yes, EGR cooler I haven't heard of. It craps out both with it just being in the one, but still it clogs the one.

STC fitting is a design flaw for sure. That is true. Also, head gaskets aren't an issue. It's going to be the head bolts lifting. We aren't talking about the 02-04 mustangs that had thin passenger head gaskets. I still have the stock headgasket and I'm pushing more then most 6.0 owners out there.

One thing you have to realize is that Ford(not International) was pushing very tight tolerances on these trucks. Perhaps too tight. Tight enough that you can ruin a stock truck depending on what you did or didn't do while you drove it. Do it correctly and you'll have a reliable truck... you fudge here and there over time you'll have issues. Should it be that way...that's for another "discussion". The point I'm making here is do you know how they drove it? Not what they just told you how they drove it, but what you have experienced for yourself? People may not give the entire or even true story. May not even realize that they are doing it either(seems strange, but there are a lot of people that don't know any better).

That's a quality control issue, not a design flaw with the engine. If they did that on the 5.4 engine, it would have it's share of issues too.

I know I'm in the minority when it comes to this, but the emissions controls aren't as big of a deal on diesels as long as you know what you need to do and I'm not talking about delete kits or bypasses. 508 horses and I still have the EGR and Oil Cooler on my truck. If it is really that bad of a design on a stock car, how do I survive with a moderately modified truck like I have? Either I'm lucky, have divine intervention, or people are looking in the wrong direction for answers.

6.0 is rough on oil that's for sure. 5k oil changes though will do wonders. I don't think there should even be a mention of the 7500 change, just the 5k change, but that's me.

 

Back to the original poster, when is the eta on your EB? I wanted to get one, but heard they won't be available until Feb. 2011. I need to buy one before 2011 for tax purposes, but don't want another 5.4..