Anyone here bought an F-150 Ecoboost?

[LTC8K6]

Well, he's not towing very often, so I think a diesel is not necessary.

The Hemi is quite the puller, but people still don't trust Dodge.

I still think the 5.0 is the best overall, but I see the appeal of the Twin Turbo...

 

[Pulsar]

Well, he's not towing very often, so I think a diesel is not necessary.

The Hemi is quite the puller, but people still don't trust Dodge.

I still think the 5.0 is the best overall, but I see the appeal of the Twin Turbo...

If you buy the dodge, then you buy one with a cummins turbodiesel.

You never buy a dodge. You buy a cummins. A friend of mine tows larger trailers (large travel trailers for motorcycle racing) and has added tune, intake, exhaust, and water injection. He claims 1000 ft/lbs. I can't verify that, but god doe that motor torque.

The 5 liter and the 3.5 ecoboost are pretty comparable motors. The ecoboost is more torqey down low where it matters, and only slightly better on fuel economy.

A lot of people cite the ecoboost's durability as a worry point, but Ford has been putting smaller boosted engines in european vehicles for a long time. It isn't new - it's just new in the US.

Either way, they are fairly nice vehicles.

Considering what you're towing, you would be fine with the 5.4L in a truck a year or two older. I got my '08 for $24ish with 16k miles. It all comes down to what you want to spend.

 

[LTC8K6]

Looking at F-150 forums, it seems like the 3.5EB and the 5.0 have their share of problems.

Here's a thread detailing quite a few.

http://www.f150forum.com/f70/anyone-have-problems-yet-5-0-ecoboost-91819/

 

[Keysplayr]

The EB should have felt far more torquey than your average V8. The EB has quite the power band and a lot of torque down low.

350 ft.-lbs. from 1,500 – 5,250 rpm

Though it didn't. Really don't care what the numbers indicate.
And that was in a car. Now put that engine in a much heavier truck.
I'm telling you, the EcoBoost fell short IMHO. Just didn't do it for me. I remember posting on these boards in here at the time I actually test drove it. I remember posting that as I was test driving the SHO, I turned to the salesman who was riding shotgun and asked him if he possibly left the car in valet mode by mistake (not knowing if the car had valet mode or not). That is how unimpressive the EcoBoost was to me. No joke. No matter what the numbers say. It FELT like a letdown. And I obviously didn't by the car. No way was I spending 45 Grand on it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Though it didn't. Really don't care what the numbers indicate.
And that was in a car. Now put that engine in a much heavier truck.
I'm telling you, the EcoBoost fell short IMHO. Just didn't do it for me. I remember posting on these boards in here at the time I actually test drove it. I remember posting that as I was test driving the SHO, I turned to the salesman who was riding shotgun and asked him if he possibly left the car in valet mode by mistake (not knowing if the car had valet mode or not). That is how unimpressive the EcoBoost was to me. No joke. No matter what the numbers say. It FELT like a letdown. And I obviously didn't by the car. No way was I spending 45 Grand on it.

I remember your earlier post.

I think the SHO feels slow because of it's weight and size.

It weighs about 1300 pounds more than an original SHO...

 

[WackyDan]

If you buy the dodge, then you buy one with a cummins turbodiesel.

You never buy a dodge. You buy a cummins. A friend of mine tows larger trailers (large travel trailers for motorcycle racing) and has added tune, intake, exhaust, and water injection. He claims 1000 ft/lbs. I can't verify that, but god doe that motor torque.

The 5 liter and the 3.5 ecoboost are pretty comparable motors. The ecoboost is more torqey down low where it matters, and only slightly better on fuel economy.

A lot of people cite the ecoboost's durability as a worry point, but Ford has been putting smaller boosted engines in european vehicles for a long time. It isn't new - it's just new in the US.

Either way, they are fairly nice vehicles.

Considering what you're towing, you would be fine with the 5.4L in a truck a year or two older. I got my '08 for $24ish with 16k miles. It all comes down to what you want to spend.

A RAM 2500 diesel would be overkill... I don't need to tow a house. Now, Back when Dodge was planning a small diesel for the Dakota, I was chomping at the bit for them to build it. Rumor has them putting a small diesel in the 1500 at some point - if the rumors are good enough or a statement of intent comes from Dodge verifying it, then I would indeed buy a 1500 with a diesel.

Used trucks around here (Charlotte, NC) are stupid expensive for the mileage on them. I still hold out hope that I'll find one that is a steal, and there is time for that yet.

 

[Keysplayr]

I remember your earlier post.

I think the SHO feels slow because of it's weight and size.

It weighs about 1300 pounds more than an original SHO...

Heavy car indeed. And as I said right above:

"And that was in a car. Now put that engine in a much heavier truck."

It would be even worse.

@ WackyDan: Yes it would be nice if they came out with a F150 with a small diesel option. Even a Turbo 4cyl would be nice. It would be like the Mitsu cabover box trucks. They are slow but have a lot of power.

As it stands, and you think current diesel options are overkill for your needs, then as suggested you would probably be fine with a 5.0 in a F150, or a 5.7 Hemi in a RAM 1500.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, an F150 is at least another 1300 pounds on top of that, but the EB3.5L in the truck does have quite a bit more torque than the one in the SHO.

It's a shame they can't let that engine loose for the SHO.

Side note: With the original SHO, the 3L V6 was capable of 8500rpm, but Ford had to restrict it to 7000, because Ford's accessory drive system couldn't take the revs.

 

[angry hampster]

Hey asshole... I have a POS Chevy now...

I also have a 13 year old Dodge that has been near perfect...

Go figure.

Any American-made truck is going to have top-notch build quality and reliability. For the record, I've owned a Chevy, a Jeep, and 2 fords.

 

[ShawnD1]

Any American-made truck is going to have top-notch build quality and reliability. For the record, I've owned a Chevy, a Jeep, and 2 fords.

??
Horrible assumption. A few of my rig pig friends bought Ford F150s and both trucks screwed up at the same time. The head gaskets fail because different metals were used in the engine so they expand and contract at different rates and that ruins the gaskets. Only one of the available engines had this problem.

 

[Greenman]

The EB engine costs too much for the very slim fuel economy gains, imo. In the real world, the EB engine probably isn't going to get better economy than the 5.0

Now, if you really need that bit of extra acceleration in a pickup truck, then pay extra for the EB engine.

Also, the EB engine needs premium for best performance.

That's a very depressing piece of information. My next truck was going to be an EB engine. Having to run 91 octane fuel might be deal breaker for me.

 

[Alienwho]

That's a very depressing piece of information. My next truck was going to be an EB engine. Having to run 91 octane fuel might be deal breaker for me.

The EB sounds cool but I think the 5.0 would be great too. Also, you may not want to completely discount the 3.7. That's rated to tow up to 6100 pounds, which meets your requirements. It's also a great engine. I love it in my mustang. This would net you better mileage and you can use regular gasoline. At least give it a test drive to see if it meets your requirements.

 

[WackyDan]

The EB sounds cool but I think the 5.0 would be great too. Also, you may not want to completely discount the 3.7. That's rated to tow up to 6100 pounds, which meets your requirements. It's also a great engine. I love it in my mustang. This would net you better mileage and you can use regular gasoline. At least give it a test drive to see if it meets your requirements.

3.7 in my case would be probably enough most of the time ( My Dakota will tow 5000), but for the trailer I'm eyeballing, it wouldn't leave me enough overhead capacity.

I suppose after everyone's feedback and links, that the choice is between the EB and the 5.0 in regard to the F-150. * I don't really care about the exhaust note. I just care that it is reliable, can tow what I need it to, and doesn't get horrible mpg. I get 22 HWY with my Dakota, so that isn't shabby for a truck... and these full size trucks have come a long way.

If I go Ram/gas, then the 5.7 is the only option for me.

I don't know if I'll wait long on a diesel Ram as I'm replacing the Dakota soon in order to stagger the vehicle payments around here. Wife's car may need replacing by time I pay off the truck in three years.... add to that BRP introducing the new Spyder model in late 2013, and I might be looking at replacing my spyder too. Do want to avoid two car payments at once. - Keeping in mind, that I've had my Dakota 13 years and would keep it longer if it weren't for having a child now and wanting the quad cab and child seat base mounts.

 

[LTC8K6]

??
Horrible assumption. A few of my rig pig friends bought Ford F150s and both trucks screwed up at the same time. The head gaskets fail because different metals were used in the engine so they expand and contract at different rates and that ruins the gaskets. Only one of the available engines had this problem.

That sounds like it's from way back when they first started putting aluminum heads on American cast iron blocks.

I can't recall that problem in any recent vehicles.

The closest I can recall is Ford's 3.8L head gasket problem, which was caused by the head gasket supplier, iirc.

 

[LTC8K6]

That's a very depressing piece of information. My next truck was going to be an EB engine. Having to run 91 octane fuel might be deal breaker for me.

It will run fine on 87, you just won't get the best out of it.

 

[LTC8K6]

The 6R80E transmission has fewer clutch plates when paired with the 3.7L V6. I don't know that I'd tow much with it.

 

[Zivic]

That's a very depressing piece of information. My next truck was going to be an EB engine. Having to run 91 octane fuel might be deal breaker for me.

You don't need 91.....

Ford knows these trucks will sell in volumes to people that use them as everyday work trucks.... these same people are used to using regular unleaded. the ecoboost will pull/tow/drive just fine on regular. That said, I am sure the ECU will detect higher octane and you will get a bit better performance out of running premium.

It should definitely not be a deal breaker

 

[Greenman]

You don't need 91.....

Ford knows these trucks will sell in volumes to people that use them as everyday work trucks.... these same people are used to using regular unleaded. the ecoboost will pull/tow/drive just fine on regular. That said, I am sure the ECU will detect higher octane and you will get a bit better performance out of running premium.

It should definitely not be a deal breaker

Sounds like I need to do a bit more homework. Thanks for the info.

It would be sweet if Ford would put a diesel in a 150. I'd buy it tomorrow.

 

[WackyDan]

Sounds like I need to do a bit more homework. Thanks for the info.

It would be sweet if Ford would put a diesel in a 150. I'd buy it tomorrow.

There has been a number of things keeping them from doing so.

- California emission regs
- Fear that it would impact their sales of F-250, and for the other makes, the 1500's.
- Diesel is more expensive - more so in some places that it doesn't make sense even with the extra MPG.

My bet is Dodge does it first... being the little guy they have more to gain by putting a diesel in the 1500 and attracting more buyers, balancing out any erosion of 2500 sales.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, the mention of 91 octane for towing and hot weather is in the F-150 owner's manual. IIRC, premium gives a nice hp boost to the EB engines.

Ford just doesn't want to require it.

 

[Zivic]

Well, the mention of 91 octane for towing and hot weather is in the F-150 owner's manual. IIRC, premium gives a nice hp boost to the EB engines.

Ford just doesn't want to require it.

of course higher octane is going to benefit a boosted motor, but the success of this motor in this application has to be that it does everything the consumer has come to expect from a ford truck with a V8 and do it better.... this includes using standard grade gasoline

 

[LTC8K6]

of course higher octane is going to benefit a boosted motor, but the success of this motor in this application has to be that it does everything the consumer has come to expect from a ford truck with a V8 and do it better.... this includes using standard grade gasoline

Throughout most of the EB 3.5L engine's life prior to sales, it was listed as requiring premium fuel. This was on the Ford website and in press releases. It was only right around release time, that Ford altered the wording a little. This was most likely merely to prevent loss of sales with high premium fuel prices.

Besides, once you know you will get better performance, and you will know after a couple tanks of premium, you aren't going to go back.

IIRC, all of Ford's new engines get a nice HP boost with premium fuel, boosted ones just get more.

The difference in the Mustang GT is 12 horses, for example.

 

[Greenman]

12 pony's is maybe a hundredth of a second faster in the quarter? Effectively zero in day to day driving.

Has anyone chipped the EB yet?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

got the 5.0 lariat. 17.3 average mileage 50/50 hwy city driving. Love everything about it except it cost a small fortune. 8500 trouble free miles in the five months I've owned it.

 

[WackyDan]

got the 5.0 lariat. 17.3 average mileage 50/50 hwy city driving. Love everything about it except it cost a small fortune. 8500 trouble free miles in the five months I've owned it.

Good to know!

Yeah... It is going to be some coin... But I look at it this way. I bought my Dakota in December 98 for just under 20k. In 2011 dollars, after adjusting for inflation that would be almost $27k.

For about $35K you can get a nicely optioned F-150. I don't think that is too shabby considering my income level has gone up quite a bit since 98. - Still going to hurt though. I keep these at least ten years if not more, so that is a bit less pain.