Learn me: New F-150 with the 5.0 engine

The wife unit's K2500 Suburban died on our last haul to the farm and it's really time for her to have a new truck.

We're looking really hard at the new F-150 with the 5.0 V8.

Looks like it tows at least 9,000 lbs and will do what we want it to.

Anyone have any experience with these things? Pros or cons? 

Thanks in advance 

Only thing I know about the 5.0...seems like real world MPG beats the 3.5L. I remember seeing a regular Cab 5.0L with headers break into the 12's, which surprised the heck out of me. Seems like a more reliable alternative to the TTV6 motors

And there is a 50 state legal factory ford supercharger that makes 700hp 590tq. With a 3/36 warranty. 

calteg said:

Only thing I know about the 5.0...seems like real world MPG beats the 3.5L. I remember seeing a regular Cab 5.0L with headers break into the 12's, which surprised the heck out of me. Seems like a more reliable alternative to the TTV6 motors

I hope you mean the 12s in the quarter and not 12s in the MPG department like it reads.   Lol

In reply to calteg :

I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I'm getting 19 mpg mixed driving in my loaded 3.5 crew cab. Most numbers I see have the 5.0 equal to or a little lower and the 2.7 a bit higher

I service a fleet, and they own at least a dozen 5.0 F150s.  The very early ones had lowest bidder engine valves, and they would lose compression, usually in #4.  Other than that, we change water pumps, a few of the halfwit plastic/oring coolant hoses, and the oil and filter.  Lots with 200+ km.  I don't know what the ignition coils look like yet.

I'm a born and bred Ford hater, and if I needed a new truck to replace the 00 Silverado, I'd hunt up a 5.0 F150.

Keep an eye on the electric steering rack boots.  They don't work well once they have been filled with water.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

How did Ford go from one of the easiest modern water pumps to change to THAT.

Maybe they scraped some crusty old Ford powertrain engineers out of retirement, and they wanted one last shot at their glory days of having everything possible bolted to the water pump.

The newest 150 I've been associated with is th 2011 with all the tow package stuff except the built in trailer brake booster. Rated for 9800 (ILO 12,500 with factory box) 

Having towed with everything from econoboxes to semi's, I can tell ya that those ratings were written by fords advertising dept. 

9000 was , while not scary unsafe, would not be considered "ok" by normal folks 

If the 150 you are looking at is rated for 9000, you might want to look at a 250 / 2500 truck, if you're regularly towing over about 7500. Will it do it, sure. Will you like it? No. 
That said, weigh towing weight, and percentage, against that nicer 150 ride when empty.  

I really like the Ecoboost and my friend has had almost 50k trouble free miles with his but that's just one days point. But it seems like it's probably about a wash overall with the 5.0, so if that would make you feel better then go for it. Max tow package is probably worth it for any amount of towing, but necessary for anything over like 6k. Rip off the stock hitch, put a 10k rated one on, airbags on the rear axle and then load up on tongue weight and it'll tow like a dream.

In reply to dps214 :

My wife's did have the eco boost, and was flawless till I totaled it at 57k miles. Only negative I had with it was the name... nothing "eco" about it. Had a bit more low end grunt than the V8, but over all about the same, power wise. But also the same as the V8 mpg wise, as well. My wife did love all the power, with that spooky quiet exhaust (The hooligan in me liked the sound of the V8 better, but it was nice)

Don't  know about now, but the only difference between our 9800 and the max tow, was the factory trailer box. The hitch was fine, and we were quite happy with the integrated trailer controls, and the interface with our aftermarket box. I did add the rear air bags... still didn't like getting up any where close to it's rating, much less the "max tow" that it really was. It's still a lighter truck, softer suspension and more flexible than our 96 dually, that was "factory rated" for less!!!

You are correct on it needing more weight over the front axle... it did want to "feel" a bit loose, with even a 6000 lb trailer (bumper pull camper, even with a decent hitch)
Again, not scary, but not the best for a tow pig. 
As a grocery getter, (all most use one for) it was a fantastic truck. Great on a road trip with the dogs, too. 

Cooper_Tired said:

In reply to calteg :

I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I'm getting 19 mpg mixed driving in my loaded 3.5 crew cab. Most numbers I see have the 5.0 equal to or a little lower and the 2.7 a bit higher

Left side is the 5.0L, right is the TT3.5L. Numbers skew more towards the V8 if you're towing. Plus a lot less heat underhood

Hey! I can answer here! Everyone asks about the eco boost but I really like the 5.0. I did 162k on my 2018 towing about 17,000 miles of that and averaged 18.9 on the lifetime. My numbers skew a little as o drive a ton of highway but figuring 1/10 roughly towing at 12/14 brings a little reality. Only issue I had during that time was the trans computer forgot who it was at about 120,000 miles and had to be reset by the dealer.

I got a 22 in May set up the same way to replace it and it is sitting at 20k miles now

No towing yet (well a few hundred miles) but an average of 20.7 so far.

edit: oh yeah, if you are figuring your mileage of the readout you'll be off by around 1.0 mpg, the 18 was off 1.2 and the 22 is off 0.9 so far. Since mine is a company truck I have to actually track it.

In reply to calteg :

Interesting. The fb comments tend toward the opposite, but it's a much less scientific data point. Color me impressed the 5.0 gets that good of mpg. It's only ~ 5mpg behind what I got out of that engine in my much lighter GT. 
Pretty impressive what these trucks can do. 

The only advantage the 3.5 have over the 5.0 is lowend torque. Other than that they seem pretty even. I'd go for either engine and pick the truck with the best options for me. That said, I love the 3.5

In reply to yupididit :

Yes. The new eco boosts are 470 ft lb and the 5.0 has 400 ish. 
 

in Minnesota the 5.0 would be fine but anyplace with elevation and I'd be looking at eco boost. Escpecislly. New ones.  The torque difference before used to be small. It's no longer small.  

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I just finished a water pump in a 3.7 Lincoln.  12 hours...

5.0 is cake.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

Hee hee.

I sneaked one out without removing the secondary chains/cam sprockets.  There is juuuuust enough room to loosen the guides enough to slip them out enough to get the water pump in and out.

Vehicle owner did not want to pay for chains since it was a lease vehicle getting turned in shortly.  Absolute bare minimum required to keep coolant in the engine.  

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Yes, I didn't pull the phaser either.  Still a dumbberkeley design.

Hard no on the ecoboost for me.

I don't want a high strung twin turbo V6 pulling its guts out, trying to do the work of a much larger engine.

We keep vehicles until they're completely worn out. If I'm dropping 80k on a new truck, I expect it to last 20 years.

There's always a tradeoff for more power and I'm sure it will be engine life.

Going to look at a couple trucks on Monday.

I wouldn't call it high strung, I mean it runs happily on 87 octane, even while towing 10k lbs. Having lived (vicariously) with one for a few years, I'd say it depends on your use. If it's primarily a commuter vehicle that tows occasionally, Ecoboost without question. If it's primarily a tow vehicle, the v8 might be the better choice as long as you don't need the extra torque of the Ecoboost. And if it's primarily a tow vehicle and you're maxing it out enough to need that extra torque, you probably actually want an f250.

Edit: it also depends on your driving habits. The Ecoboost will do better mileage if you drive it responsibly. But if you're like the average truck owner and your driving strategy is to set the cruise on 90...yeah the v8 is probably going to do less awful mileage.

EBs are the opposite of high strung.  They are a wall of torque at seemingly any engine speed.  Even the 2.7 is shocking in its power delivery.

That said, if I wanted a workhorse, I would want natural aspiration.  Less torque but a lot less thermal stress.

Ummm...simple no frills low optioned work truck is quicker than an '03 Lightning?  That's all I have.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to yupididit :

Yes. The new eco boosts are 470 ft lb and the 5.0 has 400 ish. 
 

in Minnesota the 5.0 would be fine but anyplace with elevation and I'd be looking at eco boost. Escpecislly. New ones.  The torque difference before used to be small. It's no longer small.  

Torque is less important than it once was.  Why?  Used to only have 3 or maybe 4 gears in the box.  Now I have 10.  A gearbox will make all the torque you want and when it's smart enough and efficient enough to get the right gear all the time (the 10 speed Ford uses is good at that) the engine's torque is less important.  Not wanting to rev the engine because you're afraid you'll wear it out, like I hear so many people say, is 1950's thinking.

In reply to A 401 CJ :

Ehh. I get it.  But I worked on the redesign on the Cummins so that it hit 1k ft lbs and stroke everyone's egos.   As an ex holset engineer I chuckle when everyone talks shot turbos not being reliable. Or talk about heat soak or thermal load.  No data supports these assertions.  Poor maint will a kill a turbo long before it wears out. 

A 401 CJ said:

Ummm...simple no frills low optioned work truck is quicker than an '03 Lightning?  That's all I have.

My app "suggests" o-60 on the 2018 at 5.9 and the 2022 at 5.8 in a 4x4 four door. That is not in sport mode. Ridiculous.