F150 or RAM 1500? Here to help get this sorted...

[iLikeTurtles]

Lol ok...you have a point regarding low RPMs for sure. But those turbos shoot up the RPMs so fast that over time I think it has a degrading attribute regarding long term reliability. Did you watch that video I posted about the Ford Techs?

I did not watch the video. I only have time to make silly analogies, not learn.

I think the argument is subjective as your definition of “makes an engine work harder” is not the same as mine.

Maybe we should start with, what does it mean by “work harder?”

 

[Biga]

I think it depends how you will work the truck and how long you will keep it. If your a person to keep a truck until the wheels fall of then yes the V8 will probably be a better choice for the long run. If you trade every few years, you will not likely see turbo failures in that short of a time frame in which case the durabilty aspect of it is not as important.

 

[PowerJrod]

I did not watch the video. I only have time to make silly analogies, not learn.

I think the argument is subjective as your definition of “makes an engine work harder” is not the same as mine.

Maybe we should start with, what does it mean by “work harder?”

The hotter, more pressurized exhaust gases that the turbo force feeds into the cylinders...causing the fuel to combust faster provided a very big open window of premature wear. Not only that...but you have the engine oil being cooked by this process at such an extreme rate that pretty much all of the internals are working harder.

 

[PowerJrod]

I think it depends how you will work the truck and how long you will keep it. If your a person to keep a truck until the wheels fall of then yes the V8 will probably be a better choice for the long run. If you trade every few years, you will not likely see turbo failures in that short of a time frame in which case the durabilty aspect of it is not as important.

Very true! Personally I think we'd see a turbo engine failure before the turbo itself.

 

[iLikeTurtles]

The hotter, more pressurized exhaust gases that the turbo force feeds into the cylinders...causing the fuel to combust faster provided a very big open window of premature wear. Not only that...but you have the engine oil being cooked by this process at such an extreme rate that pretty much all of the internals are working harder.

For simplification, higher temperatures and less reliability means working harder?

You used the word (at the end) in your definition of the word. My inner engineer is upset.

 

[PowerJrod]

For simplification, higher temperatures and less reliability means working harder?

You used the word (at the end) in your definition of the word. My inner engineer is upset.

First sentence...that's how the engine is being worked harder.

 

[iLikeTurtles]

First sentence...that's how the engine is being worked harder.

Your definition of "working," or the process of work is not a technical definition, this is why you have a different opinion.

Work = force times distance.

Reliability has nothing to do with work.

Oil tempature has nothing to do with work.

Material temperature may impact work by a miniscule expansion of materials potentially enducing more friction, but factory tolerances generally compensate. Therefore, still negligible and has nothing to do with work.

Premature detonation is also out the window as long as knock sensors do their job. But, in your defense, premature detonation will make the engine decrease force output therefore impacting work. However, we have a thread on 87 here showing plenty of people having detonation on NA motors. I am sure the ecoboost motors experience knock also, but require premium fuel therefore less likely. Therefore a mute point.

Therefore, is a turbo engine "working" any harder than an NA motor? If anything, we are both wrong and the engine that makes more torque at a given RPM or moment of interest is "working" harder, or, "doing more work." I do not want to do integrals at the moment though.

The true answer, to me, using your definition seems to be the engine requiring less fuel and less timing to perform X amount of work is the true defining factor.
However, this argument is not about one specific engine versus another it is about turbo vs not turbo. So, if anything we were doomed by our comments and are circling a rabbit hole.

Don't mind a winking hole, don't mind a stinking hole. I do mind a winking stinking hole.

My opinion is better than yours because its mine!

I am getting a lot of notifications here though, so...

 

[PM-Performance]

Not even close dude... it's a smaller engine. I guarantee while those turbos are boosting...you're getting maybe 8 mpg (because those turbos are pushing the engine beyond it's limits for that short time). That's why it's only better MPGs at highway speeds. My Hemi gets the same city AND highway mileage as a 2.7 EcoBoost. I've already posted the proof of that on a MPG thread ...feel free to look for it.
At the end of the day...even Ford techs don't want anything to do with the EB's and they choose the 5.0 every time.

what f150 do ford techs choose? - Google Search

www.google.com

That video was ********. It was Years ago and again they have no clue. Most dealer techs are clueless. Lol

There is no way your 5.7 bested a 2.7 in gas mileage.
I was hard on mine and have a heavy foot and I routinely saw 20 mixed abs 24-25 highway cruising at 80-85.
Many have posted even more than me.
If you think turbos work a smaller engine harder, I do not see any reason to have this convo anymore as you likely have no real world mechanical experience or background .
Sorry to put it that way, but I will call a spade a spade when I see it.
Again, I got them all. I can speak from experience. I’ve owned probably a hundred cars and I build my own stuff. I been around the block a few times.

 

[PM-Performance]

Another point....Ford is the only one doing the full lineup of Turbo truck engines, there's probably a reason no one else is doing it.

“Full lineup” . While not really, but yes most of their lineup.
Look around. The other guys are doing it as well now

 

[scottmoyer]

My last truck was a 2018 F150 XLT 4x4. It was fully loaded and had the 5 Liter. At 400 miles, I was back at the dealership complaining about it's drivability, inconsistent shifting, delayed shifting, etc. It was at this time that I also noticed how poorly the interior of the XLT was put together. My MSRP was over $52k and it wasn't possible to get homelink or HD Radio. When a $22k Fiesta can get HD Radio, why is it not even an option for the XLT?

Seven months of ownership and multiple trips to the dealer, the truck was lemon lawed. The arbitrator needed to go on a drive to experience my complaints and asked the Ford engineer about his experience in my truck. They said it was performing "as designed". At that point, the arbitrator told Ford they had a design flaw and awarded me the case.

As to mileage, I was getting about 14.5-15mpg with the XLT. I was very disappointed in the F150 because my 2006 Silverado Z71, with a leveled front end, oversized tires, all steel body, 400 pounds heavier, 4 speed trans, etc, got 15mpg around town and 18.5mpg on the highway.

What's funny is that a guy came to look at my son's Mustang today. The guy is a mechanic at a local Ford dealer and is in the process of lemon lawing his 2019 F150 for trans issues.

 

[PowerJrod]

That video was ********. It was Years ago and again they have no clue. Most dealer techs are clueless. Lol

There is no way your 5.7 bested a 2.7 in gas mileage.
I was hard on mine and have a heavy foot and I routinely saw 20 mixed abs 24-25 highway cruising at 80-85.
Many have posted even more than me.
If you think turbos work a smaller engine harder, I do not see any reason to have this convo anymore as you likely have no real world mechanical experience or background .
Sorry to put it that way, but I will call a spade a spade when I see it.
Again, I got them all. I can speak from experience. I’ve owned probably a hundred cars and I build my own stuff. I been around the block a few times.

Maybe you should've watched the other video I posted...it was from last year. Secondly you've obviously been around the wrong block and I speak from experience too. Considering that I do all my own work on my vehicles and have owned a lot of them. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you because now you're talking like a kid who thinks he knows it all. Secondly...I never said I drove 85 mph so I don't know where that came from lol. Turbo charged gasoline trucks are crap in the long term...end of story.

 

[PM-Performance]

They aren’t crap. There are tons of turbo vehicles out there running strong for decades. You just don’t know about them because it seems you are anti turbo.
I said I drove 80+ mph. The only way you bested a 2.7 in gas mileage is if you drove downhill with wind blowing from the back at sea level with over inflated tires with cruise control on at 45mph.
Again, calling it like I see it.

 

[Jako]

I think it depends how you will work the truck and how long you will keep it. If your a person to keep a truck until the wheels fall of then yes the V8 will probably be a better choice for the long run. If you trade every few years, you will not likely see turbo failures in that short of a time frame in which case the durabilty aspect of it is not as important.

That's pretty much what the Ford salesman told me while looking prior to purchasing the Ram.

 

[iLikeTurtles]

We all know the subaru baja is the king of trucks.

 

[iLikeTurtles]

I will leave this here for comedic relief.

 

[Rebelguy2020]

Wow we are really off the original post, but I enjoy reading these posts, I’m old school and don’t do Facebook, this forum is my relaxing pass time.

I realize I am too late to reply to the original post, regarding the decision from a Ford 150 eco boost or a Ram 1500, in my case the decision was clear, I chose a Ram Rebel 1500 with a turbo, 3L V6 VM Motori EcoDiesel to be exact. I never would even consider buying a F150 2.7L V6 eco boost mainly because of where I live, premium gas here in Timmins Ontario Canada is $1.30/L and ultra low sulphate diesel is $1.02/L. That is $28 cheaper to fill my 100 litre tank with diesel fuel.

Now mpg, I can only compare with my previous truck, a 2011 Ram 5.7 Hemi crew cab with the same 3.92 axle, the comparison is not fair because of the older generation Ram only had 5 speed and hydraulic power steering...I do a lot of traveling to Sudbury Ontario, in the last 8 years, traveling my university kids, it is 300km or 188 miles south of Timmins
In the summer with the Hemi unloaded at 100kph was 23mpg or 19mpg US gallon.
My Diesel Rebel unloaded in the summer 31mpg or 26mpg US gallon.
Now for trailering, same trips and same 8X16 tandem enclosed trailer.
Hemi Ram at 90kmh 12mpg or 10mpg US gallon
Diesel Ram at 90kph 19mpg or 16mpg US gallon
Diesel Ram at 90kmh with my flatbed 8.5x16 with shingles total near 5000lbs 24mpg or 20mpg US gallon.
So my new Rebel Diesel towing that flatbed gets better mpg than my older Hemi unloaded.

Very very satisfied with my Rebel Diesel, almost at 12000km, I know the service is more for the diesel but with the much better mpg and much lower fuel prices it makes it a no brainer.

In Canada, at the time of my purchase the Diesel option was $3900 over the Hemi but the promotion was a discount of $2500 to upgrade so the Diesel cost me an extra $1400.

I did the calculations for both trucks for 12000km using their best mpg unloaded and using mid grade 89 octane gas for the Hemi it ends up being a cost saving of $750, now if I were to include the trailering the savings would be greater. So after 24000km the diesel will have paid for itself, but that is not including the extra cost for the oil changes, I did buy the oil at half price and it only uses one extra litre than the Hemi.

 

[PowerJrod]

They aren’t crap. There are tons of turbo vehicles out there running strong for decades. You just don’t know about them because it seems you are anti turbo.
I said I drove 80+ mph. The only way you bested a 2.7 in gas mileage is if you drove downhill with wind blowing from the back at sea level with over inflated tires with cruise control on at 45mph.
Again, calling it like I see it.

Could care less what you think...idk why you're still talking. You have your opinions and I have facts. I actually like turbo cars. But turbos have no business being in a truck unless it's a diesel. And for the record...I get 24 mpg at 65 mph consistently...which I've proven in a different thread. The 2.7 is only rated at like 22 mpg highway (at 65 mph). Here you are boasting about Ford on a Ram forum...thread troll all day long.

 

[rebel without a cause]

Fords turbo 3.5 and 2.7 are great little motors. Ram has nothing like them, but that's it. That's the only thing Ford has going for them. Ram gives you more bang for your buck!

 

[PM-Performance]

Fords turbo 3.5 and 2.7 are great little motors. Ram has nothing like them, but that's it. That's the only thing Ford has going for them. Ram gives you more bang for your buck!

This I agree on. Hence why I have a Ram now
Not sure why dude above thinks I am a troll. Ya’ll will realize I’m about as straight as they come.
I always keep it 100, even when people don’t like it.

 

[grimreefer]

Used to love Fords. My favorites I've owned include a 68 Falcon, an 03 and 04 Mach1, 99 and 03 Lightnings, 02 F-150 Harley, 03 Cobra. Last experience with a Ford was a 17 Fusion with the 2.7 turbo pile... god awful POS.