Buying a truck soon and can't decide between the 5.0 or

>>16061091
A good turbo is worth more than an extra 1.5L of displacement

In all honesty, the ecoboost seems to be working out pretty well for the F series line. My father owns one, and it's been a great performer so far. It tows his 22ft travel trailer exceptionally well, and it gets decent mileage for being as big as it is. However, Ecoboost is still new and fairly unproven as far as long term reliability goes.

So if you're at all nervous about the longevity of ecoboost, i'd stick with the 5.0. Either way, i think you'll do just fine.

File: 16354899.jpg (44KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 534x401px

>>16061091
EGOBOOST BTFO OF GM

EZ CHOICE

File: 1450190034245.jpg (10KB, 233x233px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 233x233px

>>16061091
>A V6 that won lemans or shitty V8
Hmmmmm

I drove a friends 3.5 ecoboost and was quite impressed with the power it put out.

File: gm cuck gets BTFO again.jpg (28KB, 324x291px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 324x291px

>>16061163
>Ford V8
>Shitty

Found the GM fangirl falseflagging
How is that assmad treating you?

stay away from anything egoboost or ford

File: CORVETTE_BTFO.png (934KB, 831x613px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 831x613px

>>16061205
Stay btfo
>>16061172
V6>V8

Who cares if the V8 has a few less HP and TQ.

>Getting a v6 instead of a tried and true V8.


ffs

if i was going to be turning it in before the warranty was up i would go for the ecoboost.
If i planned on keeping it a long time i would get a gm as you can get a vortec for 500bucks and working on them is damn simple.
OHC on a V engine, unless the performance is amazing, is dumb as shit.

>>16061091
N/A > Turbo
Consumes less fuel and is of a simpler and more reliable design.

Get the 2.7 Ecoboost. It's quicker 0-60 and cheaper.

>>16061277
>Consumes less fuel
Only when compared under load. When you're driving to and from your job as an accountant it will get better mileage.
>and is of a simpler and more reliable design.
Wait until the turbodiesel faggots get in here.
>>16061280
The 2.7 is the best one for all purposes.

>>16061277
has nothing to do with turbo, in fact turbos are more fuel efficient all else equal due to their increase cylinder pressure.

but yes, it's more reliable.

>>16061238

Why do Autists keep posting shit like this?
Why are you even trying to convey by posting this?

Because to me it looks like a screenshot of some stupid race that means literally nothing to nobody and has literally 0 real significance when trying to analyze car companies

>>16061292
Seen turbos running rich only to cool them self. If one drives very carefully and hardly ever use the throttle then they can provide better consumption.
>>16061288
Turbodieselfags can say whatever they want. The turbo has bearings that can go to hell and they can mess up the oil in the engine.

>>16061304
It's just board disruption. They neither work, nor go to school or sleep, so best to just accept it and ignore it.

>>16061304
If I were a mod I would ban anyone who posted stupid laptime shit like that.

File: 1469214739167.jpg (274KB, 454x591px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 454x591px

>>16061318
FALSE!

I'm at school rn, shitposting. I shitpost 24/7.

Stay mad
>>16061344
Stay mad

>>16061351
>FALSE!

'no'

Ecoboost a shit.

Enjoy your frequent oil changes.

V8. Want your truck to sound good or like a vacuum cleaner?

>>16061308
But a diesel engine without a turbo will not go fast. Also, the turbine in diesel is much less prone to damage than in gasoline engines due to lower exhaust temperature. So they can also be fitted with variable geometry system without worrying that vanes will be stuck dead.

And if you change your oil once every so often you should be fine.

But the powerband is shit tho.

>>16061361
Stay btfo
>>16061368
You're going to have more oil changes if you buy a Chevy
>>16061370
>muh sound
Kys

Go 5.0. It's not even a hard choice
5.0
>reliable
>generally gets same fuel mileage as 3.5
3.5
>early models had turbo failures at 30k
>new ones stretch timing chains
But woohoo twin turbskies muh future

>>16062020
>v8 ffags literally making up stories
As expected

>>16061091
Do you want cheaper maintenance or to be able to hypermile your "truck"?

The only guy I know that's happy with his Ecoboost fuel economy drives like a snail and never tows anything.

Everyone is happy with how much power the EB has, however.

File: should__ve_had_a_v8_by_fupajib.jpg (17KB, 297x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 297x200px

>>16061091
We all know the correct answer
(except for the gay furfag with something to prove (lel))

File: V8s BTFO 1.jpg (263KB, 1068x1298px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1068x1298px

>>16062058
Yep, we know all know what to chose

>>16062041
Ive done 3 timing sets on <40k mile ecoboosts and countless turbos. They aren't good. If you want a turbo v6, at least buy a 2.7

File: BTFO animated.gif (2MB, 680x366px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 680x366px

>>16061238
This is how I know you're a GM fangirl

ford V6 and V8>Everything else.

That trash that GM and FCA call V8s and V6s are nothing but shittier versions of the ford designs.

Now go put some balm in destroyed ass GM fangirl and don't bother trying to act like a Ford enthusiast again.

File: 1476738306120.jpg (106KB, 837x356px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 837x356px

>>16061238
Did I do well master?

>>16061091
what ever has more torque