where are all the ecoboost swaps?

[ford4wd08]

It was a 2013 F150.

I thought maybe it was just in my head and my bias toward V8s, but then i seen this...

.

Granted those are newer then the ones i drove, but still id think the differences would be close to the same. The EB is quicker but not by much. Probably wouldnt even notice on a butt dyno.

Ah that's the 3.5 vs the 5.0. Have you driven the 2.7? Don't laugh. That is my current DD. The 2.7 is a peppy little engine. It has torque down low for sure.

Another thing to consider is the gearing and transmission. I have the 6 speed with 3.73 gears in the 10.75 rear end. Makes the truck feel like trucks of old, beats the pants off of the 5.4 I had in the truck before.

The 5.0 usually comes with 3.31 gearing I believe.

 

[RonD]

"There is no replacement for displacement"

Turbo or super chargers, in essence, give an engine an increased "Virtual displacement" by forcing more air into a cylinder, allowing it to use more fuel and release more energy.

So the 3.5l turbo looks to have a 5.0l virtual displacement, so at maximum power they would burn the same amount of fuel

The benefit of "virtual displacement" is better MPG when you don't use that extra displacement, you don't have that option with the 5.0l, in this example

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Both the coyote and

"There is no replacement for displacement"

Turbo or super chargers, in essence, give an engine an increased "Virtual displacement" by forcing more air into a cylinder, allowing it to use more fuel and release more energy.

So the 3.5l turbo looks to have a 5.0l virtual displacement, so at maximum power they would burn the same amount of fuel

The benefit of "virtual displacement" is better MPG when you don't use that extra displacement, you don't have that option with the 5.0l, in this example

And people that drive the EB like they stole it love to complain about their mpg...

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ah that's the 3.5 vs the 5.0. Have you driven the 2.7? Don't laugh. That is my current DD. The 2.7 is a peppy little engine. It has torque down low for sure.

Another thing to consider is the gearing and transmission. I have the 6 speed with 3.73 gears in the 10.75 rear end. Makes the truck feel like trucks of old, beats the pants off of the 5.4 I had in the truck before.

The 5.0 usually comes with 3.31 gearing I believe.

Yeah the 1st in the 6 speed is like 4.12:1. Most of the 5.0 trucks ive seen had a 3.55 but there are a few floating around with 3.73s.

Im coming from a 460, so ill be a bit harder to impress when towing then a 5.4 owner lol.

I got a 7000 lb camper to pull, the 2.7 trucks only go up to 7500 cap. So id be a bit nervous going that tiny. Plus im looking at 11-14 trucks as their a bit more in what im willing to spend.

My ideal truck will be an 11-14 ExtCab/Longbox 4wd with max tow/max payload, 3.73 Elock and the 5.0.

I could get away with not having max tow/max payload packages but itd be pushing it.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

"There is no replacement for displacement"

Turbo or super chargers, in essence, give an engine an increased "Virtual displacement" by forcing more air into a cylinder, allowing it to use more fuel and release more energy.

So the 3.5l turbo looks to have a 5.0l virtual displacement, so at maximum power they would burn the same amount of fuel

The benefit of "virtual displacement" is better MPG when you don't use that extra displacement, you don't have that option with the 5.0l, in this example

No i get that. Im just going off what i observed cruiseing around.

The ecoboost was like "blah, spool, shift, blah, spool, shift" just a real prounced powerband i didnt care for.

When i stomped it would go, but atleast imo no better then the 5.0 and it wasnt instant.

The 5.0 when cruiseing felt much more like my 460, smooth torque anywhere you wanted it and none of the jerky turbo spool.

When i nailed the 5.0 it responded how i expected, the tires barked and it was gone.

Ill add the disclaimer i havent been around either one enough to form a rock solid opinion on either one either way, but my gut and butt tells me to go with the 5.0. Either way i doubt they'll impress me in the long run like the old big inch monsters im used to, but i am for the first time in my vehicular life keeping an open mind because my old standbys are just not around like they used to be in good enough shape for long drives towing.

 

[RonD]

I am for KISS, so turbos just add one more thing to go wrong, IMO

If I was towing I would go with real displacement

For MPG I am happy with non-turbo V6's

But if I lived in Denver I would for sure have a turbo, lol, that elevation sure sucks the power out of NA engines

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I am for KISS, so turbos just add one more thing to go wrong, IMO

If I was towing I would go with real displacement

For MPG I am happy with non-turbo V6's

But if I lived in Denver I would for sure have a turbo, lol, that elevation sure sucks the power out of NA engines

If i lived in elevations id pry just buy me an old 7.3PSD or 5.9 cummins lol.

But yes, KISS is best. Which is another check in my book for the 5.0.

 

[ford4wd08]

Yeah the 1st in the 6 speed is like 4.12:1. Most of the 5.0 trucks ive seen had a 3.55 but there are a few floating around with 3.73s.

Im coming from a 460, so ill be a bit harder to impress when towing then a 5.4 owner lol.

I got a 7000 lb camper to pull, the 2.7 trucks only go up to 7500 cap. So id be a bit nervous going that tiny. Plus im looking at 11-14 trucks as their a bit more in what im willing to spend.

My ideal truck will be an 11-14 ExtCab/Longbox 4wd with max tow/max payload, 3.73 Elock and the 5.0.

I could get away with not having max tow/max payload packages but itd be pushing it.

11 to 14 truck I would probably go 5.0 as well.

I was going that route too until I found the well optioned 2.7 EcoBoost that I bought. It just seemed like a good fit.

I am however trying to get my BII going so I can daily drive it and get the miles off of my F150.

I don't plan on buying another truck for a long time!

 

[rusty ol ranger]

11 to 14 truck I would probably go 5.0 as well.

I was going that route too until I found the well optioned 2.7 EcoBoost that I bought. It just seemed like a good fit.

I am however trying to get my BII going so I can daily drive it and get the miles off of my F150.

I don't plan on buying another truck for a long time!

I only drive 13 miles 1 way to work a day.

I could keep my 97 F250, but its starting to get road cancer and needs alot of nickel and dime type stuff, its only got 104,000 on it but the ol lady kinda pushed me into getting something.

Her exact words were "Im tired of you spending every free minute fixing them piles of shit!" Lol.

Ill pry sell my 77 and 97 F250s, shes letting me keep the ranger just cause its so close to my old one and its kinda sentimental.

 

[ford4wd08]

I only drive 13 miles 1 way to work a day.

I could keep my 97 F250, but its starting to get road cancer and needs alot of nickel and dime type stuff, its only got 104,000 on it but the ol lady kinda pushed me into getting something.

Her exact words were "Im tired of you spending every free minute fixing them piles of shit!" Lol.

Ill pry sell my 77 and 97 F250s, shes letting me keep the ranger just cause its so close to my old one and its kinda sentimental.

Yeah I am double that one way to work each day. Almost 30 miles. BII only has 60,000 miles, but being 34 years old has taken its toll.

 

[stmitch]

From what I have seen of the ecoBoost, they fall apart around 500 hp because of their open deck design. But they are a compact engine, sort of, Turbos get in a way some times, but they are able to get 400 hp without too many problems. If there was a better market for the ecoboost, specifically exhaust manifolds that let you move the turbos around, they could fit into a lot of applications pretty easily?

Maybe I am just fanboying over the engine?

You know what doesn't have problems at 400hp and fall apart at 500hp? An LS engine.
You know what doesn't have turbos that get in the way? An LS engine.
You know what has a massive aftermarket? An LS engine.
You know what fits more easily into pretty much everything than a DOHC V engine? A super compact LS engine.
You know what was used in every full sized GM product for over a decade, making them super cheap and easy to find? An LS.
You know what doesn't have expensive, hard to tune direct injection? An LS.
You know what has an easy manual transmission option? An LS.

The Ecoboost swaps are cool (I've been following yours) but they really don't make sense unless it's just something that you want to do for the sake of doing it. The LS is cheaper, easier, and more reliable in every way. With a cam, ported heads and boost a $500 junkyard 4.8 can make 1000+hp, and do it for WAY less than the ecoboost would. That's why there aren't very many Ecoboost swaps.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

You know what doesn't have problems at 400hp and fall apart at 500hp? An LS engine.
You know what doesn't have turbos that get in the way? An LS engine.
You know what has a massive aftermarket? An LS engine.
You know what fits more easily into pretty much everything than a DOHC V engine? A super compact LS engine.
You know what was used in every full sized GM product for over a decade, making them super cheap and easy to find? An LS.
You know what doesn't have expensive, hard to tune direct injection? An LS.
You know what has an easy manual transmission option? An LS.

The Ecoboost swaps are cool (I've been following yours) but they really don't make sense unless it's just something that you want to do for the sake of doing it. The LS is cheaper, easier, and more reliable in every way. With a cam, ported heads and boost a $500 junkyard 4.8 can make 1000+hp, and do it for WAY less than the ecoboost would. That's why there aren't very many Ecoboost swaps.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Her exact words were "Im tired of you spending every free minute fixing them piles of shit!" Lol.

I am getting there myself.

It gets to feel like I am running some banana republic navy where we get one patched up enough to make a cruise and probably get back on its own power while the other two are in dry dock.

Me walking around my driveway:

Agree with the LS thing. Ford engines are great but they are not packaged well for transplants though.

 

[sgtsandman]

It’s been touched on a bit here but to bring it out in the open more, with ecoboost engines, you either in eco or boost. Boost mpg can sometimes be worse than what you would get with the equivalent NA engine. So if you do a lot of towing or hauling, get the bigger NA engine. Until it’s proven otherwise over the long term, ecoboost engines are better for those who only need that extra power here and there instead of all the time. Technology has evolved since the 1980s but I remember when turbo charged engines were all the rage then and disappeared almost as fast when turbos and engines started failing and failing badly.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

It’s been touched on a bit here but to bring it out in the open more, with ecoboost engines, you either in eco or boost. Boost mpg can sometimes be worse than what you would get with the equivalent NA engine. So if you do a lot of towing or hauling, get the bigger NA engine. Until it’s proven otherwise over the long term, ecoboost engines are better for those who only need that extra power here and there instead of all the time. Technology has evolved since the 1980s but I remember when turbo charged engines were all the rage then and disappeared almost as fast when turbos and engines started failing and failing badly.

The 5.0 is a evolvement of the 4.6L if i understand correctly.

The ecoboost worries me for long term reliability.

I do fit into that "only needs the power sometimes" catagory though. But eh, i know the 5.0 will make me happier in the long run