F150 Ecoboost vs 5.0 in the hills

[CodyB]

I am starting to shop for a new truck to replace my 2009 DCLB Tacoma that I have outgrown a bit. The Tacoma has been a wonderful truck and took me on many adventures without a bit of trouble for 86k miles but the cab and storage space in the truck is a just a bit small for me.

I am looking at the F150 and trying to decide between the Ecoboost or the 5.0 V8. Most the of the F150 trucks I see on the dealer lots in Northern NV are the ecoboosts. What I am curious about is how the Ecoboost engines are doing for guys traveling off the pavement throughout the mountain west. I spend a ton of time hunting and fishing in remote areas traveling mountainous two-track roads and I just not sure about the twin turbos on the Ecoboost holding up to that kind of use. My plans for the truck would be Buckstop bumper, Warn winch, a Camburg suspension system, either camper shell or bed rack, and running Toyo MTs in 265/75R17 or 285/75R17.

I would really like to hear from people that are using their new F150 for traveling long distances off the pavement and how the different engines are holding up. Thanks.

 

[Halligan]

Bottom line is the Ecoboost add's complexity. Go visit a Ford truck forum and read up on the Ecoboost. I did and I would take the 5.0 over it any day.

 

[surlydiesel]

Yep, go for the 5.0. Much simpler platform and I've read about a lot less problems. Some of the issues have just been computer tweaks but in a gas platform, I'm happy with naturally aspirated.

Enjoy whatever truck you get. I will toss in a "why not testdrive a Tundra" and I know you can get a heck of a lot of truck for less money and the Tundra platform is getting long in the tooth as well. Anyway. Enjoy the search and the research, it is nice going into a dealer feeling confident in your decision.

-jorge

 

[Raul B]

I drove both and chose the 5.0l. In Stock Form I got about 18mpg. After adding everything to make it more expo ready I'm at about 15mpg now. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Google it Research]

I say go 5.0. Although I don't have experience with the ecoboost, I do with turbos and one thing NEVER disclosed is the higher octane and $$$. On a side note, I own a 2009 4.6l that has +130,000 miles and I couldn't be happier (I upgraded from a Tundra).

 

[thedjjack]

I vote 5.8L Windsor or even better 300 six (4.9L)

 

[east_tn_81]

Go to the f150forum.com. There is a ton of good info there.

 

[txnight]

I say go 5.0. Although I don't have experience with the ecoboost, I do with turbos and one thing NEVER disclosed is the higher octane and $$$. On a side note, I own a 2009 4.6l that has +130,000 miles and I couldn't be happier (I upgraded from a Tundra).

Both my Dad and I bought the 5.0 in our 4x4 Lariats for this very reason. I have several friends that have had mixed experiences with the ecoboost.

I'm averaging about 16.5 sitting in Dallas traffic. Good enough for me.

 

[zzz150]

if you are spending a lot of time off the pavement go for the simpler 5.0L, turbos are just more problems waiting to happen when out in the bush. i have a 2014 5.0L and it's pretty good imo. more power than you will need on the hills, i find when on trails i use the manaul options to keep the right gear, always wants to shift to 3rd then i'm waiting for power before it shifts back, stupid truck trying to be economical for me..! i've been in a few ecoboost and while they're a fine city/hwy truck that's where i'd keep them.

 

[lbarcher]

The internet is a strange place when you ask a question like this. My experience with my eco-boost has been the opposite of what many on the forums have been saying.
I haven't had any trouble at all from -40c to 32c. I get decent fuel economy (I drive like an old lady) and the comfort of our super crew is great.
We looked at other half tons but in our area Ford had the best value.

 

[TeCKis300]

It's a toss up. I agree with just about everything posted previously. When new it's almost a non-issue. Though there's a lot more to go wrong with the turbo configuration as the vehicle approaches higher mileage that may be harder to solve out in the brush. Lots more moving parts.

That said, there are some pros to turbos. At higher elevations turbos more than earn their keep as they continue to make power where a naturally aspirated motor will really drop off. Tons of heavy duty turbo diesels have been piling on the miles, so turbo's themselves are not really new technology.

 

[stingray1300]

if you are spending a lot of time off the pavement go for the simpler 5.0L, turbos are just more problems waiting to happen when out in the bush. i have a 2014 5.0L and it's pretty good imo. more power than you will need on the hills, i find when on trails i use the manaul options to keep the right gear, always wants to shift to 3rd then i'm waiting for power before it shifts back, stupid truck trying to be economical for me..! i've been in a few ecoboost and while they're a fine city/hwy truck that's where i'd keep them.

I'll take that bet, and raise ya...

Seriously, the vast majority of the comments here are anecdotal and based on what has been "heard". So until someone here has actually taken an EcoBoost off roading, I politely invite said person(s) to keep their opinions to themselves.

This 5.0L vs 3.5L EB debate has been raging for a long time, and the only place it still exists is where 5.0L folks still have a listening ear to bend. Basically I see it as a possible case of "sour grapes". Why can't y'all just be happy with what you've got and quit bad-mouthing what someone else has?

We took our '13 EB overlanding last year in Utah, NM, CO, WY and ID. I had more hp at the right foot than I ever needed, with nothing more than that lovely turbo spooling sound; oh, and of course the tires spinning if I wanted them to - even at over 10,000ft elev. (you try passing motorhomes on Molas Pass when you've got a 1/4 mile passing zone with your 5.0L)

Turbos have been around for a very LONG time. The technology is proven, and works very well in a 4x4 platform. And what this about fuel octane? I've run 87 in mine since new. And, if I'm good, I get 24mpg in my FX4 (3.73 gears) doing 60-65. With a truck cap. Loaded. With 10 ply tires. With the A/C on.

Keep it nice folks. It would be more appropriate to tell someone to go and test drive something before they bought it rather than telling fibs. Now, if you want to warn someone away from a Fiat (Dodge) product, well then, that's another story

And to conclude, after I pick up my Tepui RTT this week, the planning and prep goes into high gear for our overland trip to the Arctic Circle in the Yukon then into Alaska for some more overlanding in September...

Have fun, keep it real, and be nice!

 

[dave1014]

Im gonna go against the crowd here and say ecoboost. The power and mileage is awesome. And the trouble isnt half as bad as what you see on the forums

 

[Rovertrader]

I've had both, and feel it is chocolate/vanilla- choose what you like. The EB is a bit more thirsty towing, while better than the 5.0 empty. At elevation- hands down the EB wins the nod...
Complexity?? The 'go to' Rover engine is the 'basic' turbo diesel- world famous for simplicity and longevity. Today's engines are barely serviceable in the field, but seldom need to be.
Full circle- get what you like, drive them both and decide as there are noticeable differences.

 

[AFBronco235]

I agree with above. Every rig has its good points and bad points.

I do however, agree that the EB engine adds complexity to a motor that can make it difficult to repair in field. My personal experience with engines is that the simpler the setup, the better, especially when off roading or traveling to remote locations.

I should also point out that the year of the vehicle plays a part too. For instance, I've driven an I6 powered (300) F150 and a 5.0 V8 powered Bronco, and can't really complain much about either one, but both were in 1991 model year, and were designed to actually continue functioning even when damaged and not shut down at the slightest problem. I also feel I should point out that my MPGs with the 5.0 are about 10 MPG city and 18-19 MPG highway, and that's with a malfunctioning fuel control system. (Its running lean right now so I'm not getting full power.)

The 4.9L I6 has the great benefit of just about never breaking. In fact, I've never even heard of an I6 failing and can't imagine it happening without a great deal of owner abuse.

But again, it all comes down to use. A smaller engine gets better power to weight ratios at lower loads. Assuming the same vehicle, at a non-loaded condition, a 4.9 I6 would get 20 mpgs while the 5.0 V8 might get 17 or 18. Add an extra 500 lbs of load and the 4.9 I6 drops to about 12 while the 5.0 V8 is at 15 or 16. Overall, the basic design of each engine has changed very little over the years.

Now, I can't say I've had personal experience with the EcoBoost engine, but I imagine it still follows the same principle, even with the turbos.

Here are some questions you should be asking.
1. How difficult is the engine to service and work on? Can you do the work with your own tools or do you need a shop just to change the oil or fan belt?
2. How will you be using your new rig? Will it be a road king or a dirt warrior? (I guess elevation changes should be included.)
3. What's the total cost of the vehicle? Including the sticker price, gas usage, servicing and potential repairs required and warranties.