My thoughts on 2011 F-150 Ecoboost

HEMICAT · October 7, 2012

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you ever towed with the 5.7? I was very specific in saying I was referring to towing. VVT cannot create torque in rpms that the ports just cannot flow properly for. If it could, we would be seeing torque peaks at a usable rpm, and not at near 5k. VVT has its use, generating torque at low rpm is not one of them(low rpm meaning the rpm range you actually drive in). Torque at low rpm is what is required when towing. I am not talking about peak hp numbers, not talking about fuel economy when empty, not talking about the bench racing numbers, I am talking about towing.

You're going to have to step out of the 90's man. If towing is your priority get a diesel if you can't push a little harder on the throttle and listen to an engine rev.

MikeNH · October 7, 2012

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you ever towed with the 5.7? I was very specific in saying I was referring to towing. VVT cannot create torque in rpms that the ports just cannot flow properly for. If it could, we would be seeing torque peaks at a usable rpm, and not at near 5k. VVT has its use, generating torque at low rpm is not one of them(low rpm meaning the rpm range you actually drive in). Torque at low rpm is what is required when towing. I am not talking about peak hp numbers, not talking about fuel economy when empty, not talking about the bench racing numbers, I am talking about towing.

VVTs exact purpose was to give a flat powerband. LS heads are better than anything ever bolted to an old school SBC, and if you argue that you obviously know nothing about engines. The LS is light years ahead of the 5.7. And I can't understand why people don't like revving out the engine. They're designed to run at 5000 rpm as well as 2000.

MikeNH · October 7, 2012

Attached is a graph of the LC9 5.3 from GMPowertrain.com. It shows torque being at 310-330 depending on gas/E85 at 2800 RPM. The same RPM the 350 makes 350 lb-ft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Vortec_engine#5700

We're talking a difference that is marginal, especially with a 6-speed that can keep this engine in the sweet spot more readily. Claiming the 350 tows better is retarded. Even with a marginal power advantage the chassis is so inferior to a 8/900 series truck that any advantage is negated by a truck that can't stop for shit, that will use more gas, that is less comfortable and won't be as safe if you crash. You lose.

Prokopchuk_9 · October 8, 2012

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

Doug_Scott · October 8, 2012

Attached is a graph of the LC9 5.3 from GMPowertrain.com. It shows torque being at 310-330 depending on gas/E85 at 2800 RPM. The same RPM the 350 makes 350 lb-ft. http://en.wikipedia....tec_engine#5700

We're talking a difference that is marginal, especially with a 6-speed that can keep this engine in the sweet spot more readily. Claiming the 350 tows better is retarded. Even with a marginal power advantage the chassis is so inferior to a 8/900 series truck that any advantage is negated by a truck that can't stop for shit, that will use more gas, that is less comfortable and won't be as safe if you crash. You lose.

Explain why in real life a 91 ECSB 5.7 3.08 gears can tow a 12x7 enclosed trailer containing two motorcycles and kit for a race weekend, and never downshift to climb a hill on the highway, and two weekends later, same trailer, same load, but truck is now a 05 ECSB 5.3 3.23 gears cannot make the same trip without having to downshift to maintain the speed limit on the same hwy. All I am saying is towing requires torque at speeds you are driving. You keep going on about how the new engines are far superior in every regard, and that if I don't agree then I must know nothing about engines. Hate to say it, but, I will gladly take my "no knowledge" of engines over your "knowledge" anyday. Sometimes you have to actually drive something to understand. Not a fan of this "bench racing".

MikeNH · October 8, 2012

A 91? So no Vortec heads, TBI still and shit gearing? I'm calling bullshit, I flat out do not believe you.

Prokopchuk_9 · October 8, 2012

Doug scott you comparing oranges to apples bud. The newer vehicles are a far more Capable towing platform than the older trucks as far as powertrain goes....especially a 1991 5.7 litre. I had a 94...I know what they're like. No way an old 350 with 3:08's can out tow a 5.3, not a chance.

HEMICAT · October 9, 2012

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

Not to upset you man but diesel is not superior or cleaner than gas- that's absurd, it's even debatable if it's more fuel efficient anymore with all the emissions- and it's only going to get worse. Gas engines have come a long way as well, and they are only going to get better. No need to explain what diesels are best at, we all know, but the gas is a much better "all around" platform that is much less complex and inexpensive.

Ianf · October 9, 2012

Back to the original thread comments on mileage from the ecoboost engine, I have to ask how the ratings were done for the EPA CAFE standards. In other words how often did the turbo kickin during the fuel ratings test and are the tests actually weighed towards only NA engines. If no boost ever got used in the mileage tests, then the numbers would be extremely overstated to real world driving conditions. Slower speed increases, no load towing, etc. would surely skew the results towards displacement only and not include the boost factor at all.

I certainly hate it when manufacturers make things more complex and less mechanically efficient by adding parts that will require more maintenance over time and thus increase the lifetime operating costs far more than the lifetime fuel economy gains. I think that direct injection may be the way to go to increase both reliability and fuel economy as opposed to turbocharging or even diesel in daily driver work trucks.

Prokopchuk_9 · October 9, 2012

My question is when will all these western world manufacturers wake the hell up and turn to diesel technology. Diesel is cleaner, more fuel efficient, lasts longer and has more usable torque than any other type of gas engine. Diesel technology has

Come so far but yet we are stuck with these options for them. GM needs to make a diesel half-ton.

Not to upset you man but diesel is not superior or cleaner than gas- that's absurd, it's even debatable if it's more fuel efficient anymore with all the emissions- and it's only going to get worse. Gas engines have come a long way as well, and they are only going to get better. No need to explain what diesels are best at, we all know, but the gas is a much better "all around" platform that is much less complex and inexpensive.

Your whole statement truly shows how blind the western world is to diesel technology. LOL. Common rail diesel engines are VERY simple, and diesel is very much so cleaner. Today's light duty diesel trucks emit the same pollution as a small car. Get with the times, read a book. Get educated. I'm done readibg all this nonsense. Ever been to Europe? If you have or ever will you will remember when I say western manufacturers are te last ones sucking the teet of the gas companies....

Prokopchuk_9 · October 9, 2012

Back to the original thread comments on mileage from the ecoboost engine, I have to ask how the ratings were done for the EPA CAFE standards. In other words how often did the turbo kickin during the fuel ratings test and are the tests actually weighed towards only NA engines. If no boost ever got used in the mileage tests, then the numbers would be extremely overstated to real world driving conditions. Slower speed increases, no load towing, etc. would surely skew the results towards displacement only and not include the boost factor at all.

I certainly hate it when manufacturers make things more complex and less mechanically efficient by adding parts that will require more maintenance over time and thus increase the lifetime operating costs far more than the lifetime fuel economy gains. I think that direct injection may be the way to go to increase both reliability and fuel economy as opposed to turbocharging or even diesel in daily driver work trucks.

"turbo kick in" LOL you do you realize how a turbo works don't you?

kstruckcountry · October 9, 2012

I'm with chevyboy, if you want mileage and towing capability, you want a diesel. The 06 Cummins we pull with gets ~14 MPG pulling the gooseneck with 2 horses. It has 4.10 gears and screams on the interstate, and still pulls down better mileage and obviously more power than a gasser. I see no reason why this would be any different for a diesel in a 1500.

HEMICAT · October 9, 2012

I'm not meaning to argue with you Chevyboy, I just don't agree. Europe was forced to bring those small vehicles to market by government, it wasn't a choice because they wanted them. We have way nicer vehicles here, and I hope and prey we don't loose them. Danny, that's not a good comparison- '06 was back in the good days for diesels, and gas was not near as good as now- different times.

The problem with a diesel 1500 is fairly simple- aside from a few people on here, nobody I know in the real world wants one.Nobody will buy a slower version of a modern half-ton, which make approx. 350-400 HP. In order for a diesel to match a gas for horsepower it has to make about double the torque- which puts us right back at the 6.6 duramax, and that will never happen in a half-ton. Today's 1500's can already tow 10-11K , how much more would really be "safe"? I read in a paper recently an arcticle that said the take-rates for diesels in all the HD markets are dropping because of the expense and reliability issues of the emissions and with the emergence of more powerful and efficent gas engines- not exactly an incentive for the manufacturers to build one. I see companies all around me switching to gas for their fleets as well as fire companies, police, government and ambulance companies.

I am not a "diesel hater" or a " gas fanboy", I wanted a diesel for a long time but didn't get one because of common sense- they just don't make sense anymore, unless you need one for heavy towing or work.

Prokopchuk_9 · October 9, 2012

Have you ever towed 10-11k with a half ton??? Yes it can do it but in all reality anything after 8k gets pretty hairy. I think it's more than a few people that want it, diesel is the way of the future. Nobody cares about HP, what you want is torque. If you had a 350hp 700ft lb half ton diesel it would blow the doors off of a gasser towing. Diesel is the way of the future, auto manufacturers know it too. Look at the Jetta tdi, 500k mileage no problem. And still get

1000kms to a tank on the highway. What im saying is if they marketed it properly, they would sell. Because they make more sense. Who wouldt want a

Vehicle with extra torque, twice the engine longevity and cheaper fuel...I just don't understand why people are so afraid of them.

HEMICAT · October 9, 2012

Come on man, you're like my internet family, can't we just agree to disagree! Diesel is not the way of the future and the manufacturers know it. Neithers electric, but that's another story. People who buy half-tons don't want the drawbacks of a diesel and do you really think towing 20K with a diesel 2500 or 3500 is "safe" ? And the longevity argument is moot because if anyone kept a diesel as long as it took to wear out gas engine they would most

likely face repairs more expensive than replacing an entire gas engine- I've seen it myself and that wasn't even an emissions diesel! We are still friends, right