Learn me: New F-150 with the 5.0 engine

Driven5 said:

2.7EB = Small V8 pull, nearly V6 fuel economy, small sound.

Have you DRIVEN one?  They are crazy.  Feel like an old big block truck but more of it.

It's funny how  replacing "gasoline fueled" with "diesel fueled" causes most of the arguments typically used against engines that are turbocharged for torque (specifically in relation to doing 'truck stuff') to simply fall apart.

As much as I dislike the oilburners, one advantage turbocharging has for them is that it makes them run cooler and more efficiently.

OTOH, if you could get a gasoline engine to happily run far lean of stoich under boost, you'd probably get a 7 liter engine that needs 20lb of boost to make only 800 ft-lb.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Yes, and that's precisely why I'm so pissed at how Ford has played games with packages vs payloads, unlike (thankfully) Chevy and Ram.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Driven5 said:

2.7EB = Small V8 pull, nearly V6 fuel economy, small sound.

Have you DRIVEN one?  They are crazy.  Feel like an old big block truck but more of it.

Purely anecdotal but our next door neighbor just got a 2.7 EB.  He had an earlier 6.7 Powerstroke diesel, one of the 400 hp 800 lbs variety, that he sold.  He doesn't tow super heavy, just a 20' pontoon boat or a 10' fully enclosed trailer for his side by side, but according to him the 2.7 will tow those loads just as well as the diesel.

Just checking in to say that the 2.7 is a riot in a smallish sedan. 

yupididit said:

How about the 3.0 diesel? I dont know anyone that has any experience with one lol.

That's because it makes zero sense next to the ecoboost options. Maybe if ford hadn't offered it only on the high trim models, making it effectively like $15k more than a 3.5 ecoboost, it would have been a bit more popular. IIRC it was discontinued for either '22 or '23.

Driven5 said:

2.7EB = Small V8 pull, nearly V6 fuel economy, small sound.

5.0 = Small V8 pull, small V8 fuel economy, small V8 sound.

3.5EB = Big V8 pull, small V8 fuel economy, small sound.

 

The only thing holding the 2.7EB back is the shiny happy persons at Ford intentionally sandbagging the payload it with a lighter duty axle and making it unnecessarily difficult (and ridiculously uncommon) to option back up for 'real' truck duty, all in the name of maximizing profits and saving egos.

Modern V8's trying to hit EPA standards are not simple, or less complicated than turbos, and have demonstrated no apparent overall advantage (nor disadvantage) in durability or reliability that I have found. They are all good engine that each has their own well documented, but not as widespread as the internet makes them out to be, issues these days.

It's funny how  replacing "gasoline fueled" with "diesel fueled" causes most of the arguments typically used against engines that are turbocharged for torque (specifically in relation to doing 'truck stuff') to simply fall apart.

I'd disagree with you. Extensive experience working on them has shown me the 5.0 is considerably more reliable and less expensive to repair than the 3.5. To the point that 3 coworkers, sold their 3.5s to buy the same truck in a 5.0.

Outside of common cooling issues, and the occasional intake or valve train issues I haven't seen anything too crazy with 5.0s. Completely different story on the 3.5s.

dps214 said:

yupididit said:

How about the 3.0 diesel? I dont know anyone that has any experience with one lol.

That's because it makes zero sense next to the ecoboost options. Maybe if ford hadn't offered it only on the high trim models, making it effectively like $15k more than a 3.5 ecoboost, it would have been a bit more popular. IIRC it was discontinued for either '22 or '23.

But people (allegedly) really wanted a half ton Diesel.

I do agree that limiting to high trim models was either dumb or brilliant.  If people really wanted it then they'd spend the money.  If nobody buys them, they have fewer warranty headaches. 

At least the 2.7 and 3.5 are used in multiple other platforms so their engineering costs are largely able to be spread around more.

I'm sure people wanted a half ton diesel, but not one that makes the same torque and much less power than the gas engine, and costs substantially more. None of the tiny diesels really make sense to me, other than in tiny trucks. Make that 3.0 powrstroke an option in the ranger and I bet it'd sell like crazy, but it makes no sense in a full size truck.

Well, point was moot anyway.

Spent today looking and and test driving a bunch of trucks, new and used.

I have to say the F-150's were a disappointment in fit and finish and how they felt on the road.

We ended up putting a deposit on a 2019 Silverado High Country 4x4 Crew Cab with the 6.2 and the Max Trailering package.

Thanks for all the input though. I was impressed by both the 3.5TT and the 5.0 performance.

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

Just checking in to say that the 2.7 is a riot in a smallish sedan. 

That's all you've got to say in thread about trucks, V8's and EcoBoost engines??

In reply to Opti :

Working on that many, I'm shocked you haven't seen any of the 18+ 5.0's with excessive oil consumption.

Driven5 said:

In reply to STM317 :

Modern diesel owners believe that factory turbocharging reduces the longevity of the engine, and that more hp and less torque is better driving with a heavy load? The arguments people make against turbo'd for torque gas engines vs their naturally aspirated contemporaries, are among the main reasons people doing 'truck things' still buy diesels despite their modern issues.

Well unlike gasoline engines, modern diesel owners have no modern N/A alternatives to compare longevity/performance/reliability with. I really don't see many people thinking that an N/A gas engine is going to outperform a torquey turbo'd engine. The concerns that I see and hear most are about longevity and running costs between the two. If we go up a class in size, lots of former diesel owners are going with N/A gas engines these days in HD trucks, small RVs, etc because they offer adequate performance for less money and hassle than their diesel counterparts. I see similar thoughts in Coyote/Ecoboost decision making.

My point was that modern diesels and direct injected/turbocharged gasoline engines like an Ecoboost have similar levels of complexity. And because of that, they have similar issues with long term ownership and maintenance costs. Modern diesel owners complain about fuel systems, variable geometry turbos, EGR stuff, etc just like Ecoboost owners might.

An Ecoboost is going to be superior to a Coyote when working hard, but that doesn't mean that a Coyote won't get the job done with potentially lower costs for care and maintenance. It's the difference between needing max capability (and being willing to pay for it) and having 'adequate' capability/performance from a slightly less complex option. Note that I'm not saying that Ecoboosts are bad or that new Coyotes aren't increasingly complex and stressed. But the Coyote still has fewer potentially problematic components to deal with (no turbos or wastegates, no intercooler, no hot/cold piping, etc).

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

That's all you've got to say in thread about trucks, V8's and EcoBoost engines??

You know what, you're right.

Allow me to defend the honor of the 3.5EB. I've had three vehicles with that engine, an F-150, a SHO, and our current Expedition. It's a workhorse, plain and simple. And a torquey beast. I drove the two engines back-to-back before ordering my 2011 F-150. I found them to be very similar, acceleration-wise, with the 3.5 having more low-end oomph and the 5.0 sounding better. Given the better EPA rating, I went with the 3.5, and never regretted it. I'm on record as calling these engines Eco/Boost, because you can't have both, you can have one or the other, and it all depends on your right foot and how much you're hauling. But unladen, even my older all-steel trucks with the 6-speed could get 20mpg on the freeway. Towing was a different matter, 8-9mpg towing my 30' travel trailer. Slightly better with premium.

Interestingly, from what I hear, the most common failure on the 3.5 is not anything to do with the turbochargers, it's the water pump, which could happen to literally any engine.

In reply to STM317 :

And my point is that the causes for the modern diesel major concerns are diesel specific and do not apply to GTDI, while the benefit(s) GTDI share with diesels I regularly see (including in this thread) V8 proponents actively ignore or dismiss.

IMHO, if people (and Ford) were honest about comparing truck engine capabilities, they wouldn't be directly comparing the 5.0 vs 3.5 as equivalents the way I typically see happen. Rather they'd compare it more like 5.3 vs 6.2 in Chevy or 5.7 vs 6.4 in Ram. If Ford had been more like Chevy and not intentionally cut the 2.7 off a the knees on the payload side, I would go so far as to argue that the more equivalent comparison for truck use would be 2.7 vs 5.0.

In reply to STM317 :

You make a very valid point regarding choices.   I see similar levels of complexity  between Gas And Diesels. While it's true in the past that diesels required less maintenance than Gas with plugs, points,  and tuneup requirements. Gas powered has caught up, now running reliably 100,000 miles between attention.  While diesels now need DEF and other attentions.   
     So then the question is initial cost  and Higher operating costs in normal driving or saving fuel cost under heavy load. 

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

Interestingly, from what I hear, the most common failure on the 3.5 is not anything to do with the turbochargers, it's the water pump, which could happen to literally any engine.

While not critical/fatal to the engine, the earlier 3.5EB's had a lot of issue with leaking coolant lines and warping manifolds, both of which are turbo specific.  By the time I sold my 2013 I was having to add coolant just about every fuel fill, and the cabin would fill with exhaust at stop lights.  For handy people like many on this forum, it could have been fixed with about $600 of carefully chosen parts and a weekend in the garage.  For people who get service done at the dealership, it was a $3-4k job (and prone to fail again a few years down the line).  I don't know if this has been improved with the newer models.

I moved to a SuperDuty with the 6.2L gasser.  Compared to the 3.5EB it gets about 1.5 fewer mpg's unloaded, and 2 more mpg's towing a 20' enclosed trailer.  EcoBoost is a contradiction in terms- you either get Eco or Boost, never both at the same time.  I have no need or desire to own a diesel.  I'm feeling pretty good about the reliability of a port injected, push rod V8.

Driven5 said:

In reply to STM317 :

And my point is that the causes for the modern diesel major concerns are diesel specific and do not apply to GTDI.

Such as?

HPFP's are common issues with GTDI engines (including the 3.5 EcoBoost) just like they can be with diesels.

Oil/coolant lines to turbos are common leak points on both EcoBoost and Diesel engines.

The 3.5 is known for developing misfires from condensation in the intercooler. It's a common fix for owners to drill weep holes in them.

Wastegate issues from rattles to sticking open, to complete failure aren't exactly uncommon on EcoBoost related forums.

The newest EcoBoost engines have cooled EGR too, which can be a pain point on diesels. Time will tell how they hold up for owners:

Besides the HPFP, a brand new Coyote would skip out on all of these potential issues simply because they don't have the hardware to fail or cause issues. Again, I'm not saying that the Ecoboost is bad or that new Coyotes are problem free. But I think lots of owners are becoming increasingly aware that adding components like turbochargers will likely require more maintenance and repair costs over the life of the vehicle. And that can factor into purchase decisions. Modern engines of all types are pretty impressive, but they require adding hardware to achieve the things they currently do and all of that added hardware has a lifespan and multiple failure modes. So I can understand people wanting to keep the complexity down as much as they can if they don't need maximum performance.

really not relivent to the actual topic here.  But wanted to share anyway!

I watched a supercharged 5.0 F-150 doing a track day here in Michigan this last weekend.  It also had the largest brembo calipers I've ever seen on the front of it.  It was well driven and I enjoyed watching it hunt down some sports cars!

But I the type that likes the oddball vehicles at track days!!!

In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :

I was actually about to make a thread about the 6.2. I have an opportunity to look at a F250 with a 6.2. I'm looking to get out of my Expedition and into a pickup + cheap beater. 

In reply to STM317 :

Such as the items you listed in your first post (finicky fuel systems, VGT's, and problematic emissions components, more expensive regular maintenance) that are driving people away from diesels in general. The second grouping seems more application specific to me. I don't disagree that there are obvious additional potential failure modes for turbos, and the role accountineering plays in their manifestation, but the fundamental components are far from new tech and have been used in some of the most historically reliable applications. I also see that there are plenty of additional potential failure modes similarly being added to naturally aspirated engines too, in an effort to keep them competitive with GTDI engines. In addition to the same fuel delivery and cam phasing equipment, there are things like non-serviceable cylinder coatings, ultra low friction sealing components, and cylinder deactivation systems which are all being piled on the 5.0.

One oddity I've noticed is that it doesn't seem to matter whether they're 5.0 proponents or 3.5 proponents... I've seen  both camps tending to agree that the 2.7 is actually the the least failure prone engine of the trio, in-spite/because (respectively) of it being GTDI.

yupididit said:

In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :

I was actually about to make a thread about the 6.2. I have an oppertunity to look at a F250 with a 6.2. I'm looking to get out of my Expedition and into a pickup + cheap beater. 

I'm only three months into ownership, but so far I have only good things to say about the 6.2 F-250.  It has more power and similar torque vs. the 7.3 Powerstroke that Ford guys like to drool about, and actually gets better mileage even though it's a gas motor.  When I look in the engine bay I can name every single component that I see, it's refreshingly simple.

In reply to Driven5 :

The fuel systems in a GDTI and a diesel are very, very similar though. Low pressure pump in the tank, cam driven High Pressure Pump on the engine, common rail with stainless high pressure fuel lines leading to direct injectors that inject fuel multiple times per stroke. Diesel tends to run higher pressures, but the basic components and failure modes are all very similar.

And with the addition of cooled EGR, the on-engine emissions controls are largely the same too. The aftertreatments are diesel specific of course, but I've been trying to discuss engine hardware only since there are quite a few similarities there.

A diesel might have a finnicky VGT, while a GDTI might get away with a cheaper wastegated turbo, but those are more of a trade off than one being a serious improvement over the other.

I'm not sure the maintenance costs between a diesel and a similar GDTI engine are vastly different these days either. The 3.0 Powerstroke and 2.7 EcoBoost have similar 10k mile/1 year oil change intervals for normal duty. The diesel uses 6.5qts of 5W30 while the 2.7 uses 6.0qts of 5W30. I would change more frequently than that for either the gas or diesel, but that's what Ford says as far as I can tell.

Anyway, we've taken this thread far enough off the rails. I think we both agree that modern engines have impressive capabilities, but it requires a lot of tech to achieve that no matter what fuel or aspiration method is used.

In reply to STM317 :

Agreed. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

In reply to Driven5 :

I have a couple times, and Ford said it's normal. I've also seen very low mileage engine failures. 

I never said I thought the 5.0 was reliable, just more reliable than a 3.5, which I think is a terrible choice for someone who wants to keep a truck for a long time and actually do truck stuff with it.

I do think the 5.0 F150 is the best performance vehicle ford makes for drag racing though.

I also don't care too much about oil consumption when comparing new cars. Seems to affect almost everything, some manufacturers will warranty it, and most have some ridiculous high oil consumption allowance.

I will say If reliability is super important to you I almost never recommend new cars, I think as a general rule cars where more reliable from the early 2000s to the early teens for most manufacturers.