BTW, I'm amused that people think the 5.0l is so much simpler than the 3.5l. Tech wise, they are more similar than not- both have DI and PFI, both have TI-VCT (people do know that the 5.0l is a DOHC 4v engine, right?), etc. The only real tech difference is two turbos and an air-air intercooler. Which is hardly new tech- that was used on fighter planes in WWII. Both have oil coolers, both have pretty large cooling system- since both put out very similar power.
In reply to alfadriver :
It's not that they are simpler ( thank God Ford got away from pushrods.) It's just some tasks are done better with bigger/more.
In reply to Opti :
I get there's no eco in the ecoboost. I've put 50k on mine in 24 months. I average about 15.9 in DMV traffic. But I do love the power delivery, great for city driving and towing. I don't understand comparing towing mpg's between gas trucks, they all get 15 or less
I understand having certain wants in a truck. If I'm buying a current 1/2 truck my choice would be based on looks comfort and ergonomics. Only because they all perform the same and equally complicated. I chose my Expedition over the GM options because the 3.5 ecoboost drives so well and it was a little cheaper than a highly optioned Burb of the same year.
Every truck I've owned had a turbo so I guess I'm not really shook by extra parts
In reply to alfadriver :
Playing football if you're running through the line would you like to be behind an average size guy or a bigger guy?
Those hills and headwinds are pushing against both a 4 and a V8 with a V8 the load per cylinder is 1/2 the load of a 4 cylinder.
In a light sportscar I'll take the 4 because it helps it be nimble
In a truck I want an inline 6 but no one makes that so I'll take the V8.
In reply to frenchyd :
Why? In terms of output, the two engines are very similar, so the relative effort is the same.
And thanks to that, the engine speeds used to do the same thing is also almost the same.
But the 3.5 has less parasitic being smaller and fewer pistons, bearings, etc.
The engine is also specifically designed to run the higher combustion pressures. So your "impression" is just that.
frenchyd said:In reply to alfadriver :
Playing football if you're running through the line would you like to be behind an average size guy or a bigger guy?
Those hills and headwinds are pushing against both a 4 and a V8 with a V8 the load per cylinder is 1/2 the load of a 4 cylinder.
In a light sportscar I'll take the 4 because it helps it be nimbleIn a truck I want an inline 6 but no one makes that so I'll take the V8.
This makes no sense when the discussion is a v6 with two turbos vs a naturally aspirated v8, in the same EXACT body. Everything is the same otherwise.
Just curious, is this vehicle for most y'all your DD?
In reply to alfadriver :
Im not a fan of the coyote as a truck engine either. My opinion is fords best truck engine is currently the 7.3, its a shame you cant get it in the f150.
The difference in the real world, is when your turbo coolant fittings start leaking, like they do, and you choose to do it right instead of piece meal it, and its over 8 hours to change them, or the almost extra hour of labor you pay to do anything on the front of the engine because the multiple piece intake system has to be removed.
It easy to say the ONLY real difference is two turbos and an intercooler, but thats a bunch of extra E36 M3 to pack into an engine bay.
In reply to yupididit :
I get it, and Im glad your happy with yours. Ive worked on and driven a bunch of them, im not a fan for a truck. Give me a coyote or a 3.5 in a SCSB and id enjoy it as a toy.
Most people buy a truck for looks, ergo, and comfort, and thats fine. I want a truck to be reliable as gravity and easy for me to fix.
In reply to Opti :
I'd love a 7.3 f150 they briefly put the 6.2 in the f150.
I'm sure we have very similar wants in a truck but reliability is different depending on who you ask. To the guy who put 400k on an engine everyone dogs on might think that engine is reliable cause it was to him.
I do not enjoy working on mine at all, but that's because it's my main transportation. Luckily I've only had to work on it once.
In reply to Opti :
And it never will go into a ldt. The 7.3 is specifically design for larger mdv and hdvs.
But, thankfully, your opinion isn't shared much by new truck buyers.
Isn't a Godzilla your "go to" street and tow (truck) motor over an LS?
I used to use Cadillac motors.
Opti said:In reply to alfadriver :
Im not a fan of the coyote as a truck engine either. My opinion is fords best truck engine is currently the 7.3, its a shame you cant get it in the f150.
For what most people use an F150 for, they could get by with a four cylinder Ecoboost.
The Maverick does seem to be selling rather smartly, too.
In reply to alfadriver :
Im aware my opinion isnt shared much with new buyers. Trucks have become cowboy cadillacs, they are commonly purchased as a status symbols or to be replaced at relatively low mileage or at the first sign of a large repair and used as trucks at a decreasing rate. Which is fine, to each their own, but that has led to market forces caring less about durability and cost of service and more about luxury and fuel economy, all brands are doing it.
This is illustrated by ford creating the 7.3. They designed an engine with fleets specifically in mind, fleets have more traditional views of truck ownership and usage and Ford had to completely deviate from what they had been doing from a powertrain perspective to serve this market segment. It seems to be a huge success because of it.
Ford isnt alone in this, the LT is less reliable than the LS. The only reason I prefer the Dodge 5.7 (if I could only by newish) is because its an older engine (and its not the poster child of reliability either)
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
For what most people use the F150 for, the Maverick would suffice.
Im a huge fan of the maverick, Id prefer an NA non hybrid model, but whatever I like it. We heavily shopped them for my wifes vehicle, she said it drove and was appointed to "cheaply" which was the exact reason I loved it.
In reply to bentwrench :
It's for 350+ size vehicles. (and I don't work there anymore, so, my info stopped last May)
In reply to Opti :
My last truck I owned for 20 years and it hauled almost everything I used to build my house. 4000 pounds of granite per trip. Stone, thousands and thousands of them. 55,000 bd ft of hardwood Timbers. Tools equipment etc etc. 371,000 miles of work, hard work, overloaded work.
It put my 28 foot cruiser (6000#) in and out of the lake for 20 years. Hauled my race car all over the country.
My "new " Ford has taken up where the Chevy left off.
Yeh, some may use them to show off but the rest of us use them as trucks
Someone already put a Godzilla in a Mustang so it's game on there.
The "street" is waiting for aftermarket support for the 'Zilla.
In reply to Opti :
Again, the 7.3 isn't for normal trucks. Never was, and it won't be. It's for heavy Medium Duty and Heavy Duty vehicles- mostly large F series trucks. It was made because the V10 had reached the end of it's capability.
For the fleet owners for that market (ish), they tend to go 3.7l NA- like UPS and whatnot. Fleet owners don't actually care about the engine, they want the cheapest thing they can get. The 7.3 is for people who want a diesel but can't afford it. Or just don't want to deal with diesel fuel.
I can keep posting that if you need it to be repeated, again. I'd rather not, though.
bentwrench said:Someone already put a Godzilla in a Mustang so it's game on there.
That would be Brian Wolfe- former Chief Engineer, and I've worked with him on and off over my 30 years.
I wonder if Consumer Reports or JD Power or someone like that has actual, real-world data on the relative reliability and issues between the Ecoboost motors and the various V8s offered in Fords and other trucks. Because there's a decade-plus and millions of miles of information out there.
IMO, modern engines are amazing. I get that they were simpler and easier to fix in the old days, but they were also much less powerful, less efficient, dirtier, and more likely to NEED fixing. It's nothing for a modern engine to go 150k-plus miles with nothing but oil changes and maybe one plug change. In that span of time, an older engine would need multiple sets of plugs, caps and rotors, valve adjustments, carbs cleaned/rebuilt, maybe even rings or bearings.
In reply to frenchyd :
Thats fine frenchy. You are in the minority though. I read something a while back that said 75% of truck owners tow with their truck once or less (as in zero) times a year and 35% of truck owners put something in the bed once or less a year. Thats fine if someone wants a truck buy a truck.
Im just saying market forces are no longer conducive to building a half ton truck that I would buy.
Im not even buying this truck, I just gave my opinion on the 3.5 Eco.
In reply to alfadriver :
I never said it was for light duty trucks. I said its a shame its not available, because I think Ford current light duty offerings are not good.
Fleet owners want the cheapest thing that is capable of doing the job. That includes running cost, maintenance, repair, downtime and initial purchase price. These are all things that where discussed by Ford as being considered during the development of the 7.3. Those are things I want in a truck, I understand those are not buying motivators for the vast majority of the market when looking at light duty trucks. Its also interesting that when Ford cared about those things, they deviated from what they are doing in the most of their engine lines.
In reply to Opti :
I'm afraid you and I will just have to disagree. For more than 20 years I sold equipment to the construction industry. I never saw an unused truck. Driving through the countryside I saw so many farmers working their trucks. Yes some took the time to hose out the manure or whatever their last load was. Wash and wax it before taking it to church.
At the races most trucks were hooked up to a trailer for a race car. Horse people wear out trucks doing horse stuff. Boats get hauled to the cabin up North for fishing or canoeing, Dad is hauling bricks to build a fire pit,
Arrggghhh I'm absolutely sure it happens. I see gussied up trucks in parking lots by bars. But just as often they are all beat up and used hard.
But yes it happens sometimes. 75%. SorryI just can't buy that .
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
Id also like to see reports for CR, but I dont have access. Secondary sources are saying the Ram may be rated higher for reliability but I cant verify
The organization praised the Ram for its comfortable ride and its smooth running 5.7 liter V8 gasoline engine. It liked how the truck handled, its road feel and the quiet cabin. The Ram was the only full-size pickup that had at least average reliability.
Its been nothing for an engine to go 150K miles with very little maintenance and few repairs for 2 or 3 decades. I firmly believe we are to the point of ICE engines as a whole becoming less reliable. Chasing fuel economy is killing reliability. Tighter clearances and thinner bearings, low friction rings, thinner oil, start stop, etc etc etc. Think about the rise of oil consumption, this use to be relatively uncommon except by certain offenders (maybe 15 years ago) now everything has an oil consumption issue. Carbon build up enough to cause problems wasnt very common not that long ago.
You'll need to log in to post.
