Fords New EcoBoost V6

[Sourskittle]

I wouldn't mind the 2.7 Eco in the new Mustang..

On one hand, I agree !!
On the other... The 4 cylinder weighs the same as the V8 basically, lol. Does that mean the V6 turbo would weigh more? Prob.

 

[airjor13]

On one hand, I agree !!
On the other... The 4 cylinder weighs the same as the V8 basically, lol. Does that mean the V6 turbo would weigh more? Prob.

Did not know the 2.3 is that heavy.. Close to 500lbs fully dressed?

 

[Sourskittle]

Did not know the 2.3 is that heavy.. Close to 500lbs fully dressed?

I'm just comparing a V8 GT weight to 2.3L weight that I saw posted somewhere random. I think it was a 80-120lbs advantage.

The problem is... (And i was talking about this with a co-working when it comes to trucks ), the V8 is just so damn good. That 5.0L is just WOW, its stupid stupid stupid good. So when you compare a ecoboost engine (V6 or I4) to the V8, its just really hard to beat the V8. If ford still have that boat anchor 4.6L engine, then the ecoboost motors would be super easy to pick. But not the 5.0L.

 

[Sourskittle]

We took an auto 2012 5.0L to the track. Header back exhaust,tuner, mickey T drag radials, and 75shot and it ran 11.50. With a 100shot it went 11.20 !!! I mean... This car had a stock paper air filter in it. How do you touch that? I don't think you can...

 

[Ghostwhite]

I hope this isn't what you saw randomly. http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthread.php?14860-Weight-difference-between-2-3-turbo-engine-and-5-0

 

[re-rx7]

I'm just comparing a V8 GT weight to 2.3L weight that I saw posted somewhere random. I think it was a 80-120lbs advantage.

The problem is... (And i was talking about this with a co-working when it comes to trucks ), the V8 is just so damn good. That 5.0L is just WOW, its stupid stupid stupid good. So when you compare a ecoboost engine (V6 or I4) to the V8, its just really hard to beat the V8. If ford still have that boat anchor 4.6L engine, then the ecoboost motors would be super easy to pick. But not the 5.0L.

Its beats it all day for towing. The turbos make so much more tq down low compared to the v8.

 

[JPGC]

F-series. Bestselling truck for 35+ years. All other arguments are void. Thanks for playing.

They were the best selling automobile this year...not just truck.

 

[JPGC]

We took an auto 2012 5.0L to the track. Header back exhaust,tuner, mickey T drag radials, and 75shot and it ran 11.50. With a 100shot it went 11.20 !!! I mean... This car had a stock paper air filter in it. How do you touch that? I don't think you can...

Not for the price!

 

[Sourskittle]

I hope this isn't what you saw randomly. http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthread.php?14860-Weight-difference-between-2-3-turbo-engine-and-5-0

Lmao. No, lol. I actually had a svo mustang, and a 5.0L fox.
This was complete cars weight. Like 3450lbs vs 3550lbs or something like that. Both were way too heavy to me...

 

[Ghostwhite]

the 5.0 mustang is 3705 and the 2.3 is 3532. Both for manual

 

[Sourskittle]

Its beats it all day for towing. The turbos make so much more tq down low compared to the v8.

Well... Yea... I get that. But... Not like a V8 is a dog towing. And a driver like me, prob could get better fuel mileage out of the 5.0L vs the 3.5L.

Ecoboost fuel rating are a complete joke. Real world mileage is A LOT lower than rated. The V8 is pretty close to rated.

Towing a 10,000lbs trailer, the ecoboost is a beast and easy choice. But for 98% of american soccer moms/dads that buy trucks to pick the kids up from school, the V8 will have a much lower cost of ownership over 150k miles. They pretty much have that mpfi pistons/rods kinda thing figured out, its pretty reliable. While it took my friend 3 dealerships to find a place that could find a simple ripped coupler on his 700 mile stock fost. Seen our intake ports/valves ?

At 100k miles, do a full test again and give me cost of ownership, gas mileage, and performance numbers. I'm gonna guess the V8 looks like a lot better out come on average. I'm not saying a few people won't have 200k trouble free miles from an ecoboost v6 or that no v8 guys will ever have an issue. "On average" the V8 is a better option for average American truck buyers.

On the flipside... I have a huge tattoo on my back in the Porsche font that says "turbo", so I hope every F150 buyer gets an ecoboost. The more ecoboost engines in the junkyards 10 years from now, the cheaper they are !! The cheaper parts are !!

For the guys I work with the tow lawn trailers, I recommend they buy the 5.0L due to low maintenance, likely equal towing mileage, and cost of buying ( which ford claims is $1200, but when i looked at them, that is a bit of a lie ).

I dislike dodge trucks in general, personally. But.... If I was in the market for a $80k 1/2 ton truck I'd look at the V6 diesel ram as well. I'd drive them all before buying.

If you really tow 10k lbs trailers ALL THE TIME, then you should prob buy a 250/2500.

I've read the Tundra with 4:56 gears can give the 3.5L a run for its money in a race.

 

[Sourskittle]

the 5.0 mustang is 3705 and the 2.3 is 3532. Both for manual

3532lbs. Holy.... A 4 cylinder engine has no business a car that heavy ( even looking at you AMG 45 which I really like ).

I think maybe the cars I saw was an auto ecoboost vs a manual 5.0L.

(Edit. Looked at the weight, and thought about the focus sT, lmao, explains why I didn't buy one, lol ).

 

[re-rx7]

that 4cyl run hard/

 

[Ghostwhite]

The Ecoboost mustang auto is actually lighter than the manual. 3524 vs 3532 surprised me

 

[Sourskittle]

The Ecoboost mustang auto is actually lighter than the manual. 3524 vs 3532 surprised me

I saw the other day, one has an iron rearend housing and one has an alum gear housing. Made me wonder why they did it... Can't remember which was which though, i read so much crap, sometimes its hard to recall it on something specific to a car I don't own....

 

[re-rx7]

I've read the Tundra with 4:56 gears can give the 3.5L a run for its money in a race.

You read wrong. The 2.7 in the Eco just went 13.9 in the qtr!

 

[Sourskittle]

Well, I wasn't actually thinking of the alum ecoboost.

Does that mean the 3.5L exoboost will go 13.5? Because motortrend tested one, and 13's were mentioned.

 

[re-rx7]

Well, I wasn't actually thinking of the alum ecoboost.

Does that mean the 3.5L exoboost will go 13.5? Because motortrend tested one, and 13's were mentioned.

Not a clue but that is fast.

 

[Sourskittle]

This is the alum 2.7L ecoboost in the middle via motortrend truck test against the diesel ram and 5.3L chevy.

Ecoboost is in the middle

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/t...5_ford_f_150_vs_ram_1500_chevrolet_silverado/

 

[airjor13]

I saw the other day, one has an iron rearend housing and one has an alum gear housing. Made me wonder why they did it... Can't remember which was which though, i read so much crap, sometimes its hard to recall it on something specific to a car I don't own....

Think it was C&D, auto stangs have the iron rear end, manual ones have aluminum rear end.