Ford Transit USA Forum banner

Would you get a 5.0 V8 if offered?

22K views 46 replies 27 participants last post by  Chance 
#1 ·
Would you get a 5.0 V8 if offered in a Transit and fuel economy was almost the same as a 3.5 EB for your type of driving? What would sway you either way?
 
#2 · (Edited)
If the 5.0L V-8 is offered with a 8 to 10 speed automatic transmission, I would be interested. Not much difference on the in-town mileage but could help greatly with the 3.31 or 3.55 ratio rear axle on the highway. The F-150 is supposed to have the 10 speed automatic starting in 2017 and that would be a good time to move it to the Transit as they are at the same assembly plant.
 
#7 ·
Not me. I've owned both. They aren't even on the same planet. When driving the EB, besides the ridiculous amount of power available, the overwhelming sensation to me is the electric motor like smoothness of it. It's just a really great driving engine with bottomless torque. When up to speed the transmission just stays in sixth gear almost the entire time, no lugging or kicking down.
The 5.0 in my Econolines was adequate, but I don't think any transmission could make it drive as nice as the EB. If I were a fleet guy, I'd probably opt for the 5.0 for the simplicity and lower likelihood of hooliganism from my drivers;)
By the way, the mileage was significantly worse on my 5.0 V8's (had two of them). My old one almost never cracked 13mpg and the newer one 15mpg under ideal conditions. They were both fuel injected. My EB easily beats those numbers on a van several feet taller (High Roof EL).
JP
 
#8 ·
The current 5.0-liter V8 used in Mustangs and F-150s has nothing in common with the very old 5.0 (302 cubic inch) V8 used in Econolines that dated back to the 1960s -- except for similar displacement. They are COMPLETELY different engines based on different technologies.

In your case "not on he same planet" seems appropriate but not connected to the matter at hand.
 
#9 ·
The reason I thought of this question is that I was looking at fuel economy data for a different vehicle and accidentally noticed that the difference between the Transit Connect's 2.5L and 1.6L EcoBoost was very small. If I doubled everything in size to reflect a much large Transit, it would be like comparing a 3.2L EB with a 5.0L naturally-aspirated engine. That theoretical 3.2L EB size would put it between a 2.7 and 3.5, so MPG would be in middle as well.

In the Transit Connect, the highway MPGs were 29 versus 30. And that's roughly twice what is being reported for larger Transits when loaded, and certainly more than twice that of many Transits when towing. I think it's fair to conclude that for more demanding (power wise) Transit applications, the difference in MPG would be no worse than 14.5 versus 15 MPG. Not that much a penalty if you like a V8 for whatever reason. I personally prefer the sound of a V8.

The difference in fuel cost for the Transit Connect was $50 per year at a rate of 15,000 driven miles. Under same conditions doubling fuel consumption leads to an estimated difference of $100 per year for a much larger Transit. To me that's an insignificant penalty if I wanted a 5.0L V8 in lieu of 3.5L turbo.

Cost wise it doesn't seem to make much difference either way. It should come down to what do you like best -- turbo or displacement?
 

Attachments

#10 ·
A 5.0 Mustang V8 with a 6 speed manual would be my choice. No need for tow/haul mode or manual shifting automatic. No concern for automatic being in the wrong gear. Gearbox always in the exactly correct gear for the conditions. Only negative would be the loss of the hill holder feature.

Transit is my forth automatic. 1957 Dodge (bought from Dad), 1989 Honda Odessy (sp) van and 2008 Sprinter are the only automatics ever owned in 60 years of owning vehicles. My other current vehicles are manual (2002 BMW and 2003 Dodge Dakota).

Will admit that the Transit automatic is very good for an automatic but no substitute for DIY. Sprinter old NAG1 5 speed was terrible.

For me a manual is automatic and an automatic is more difficult.
 
#11 ·
I traded in a 2011 Ford van for the transit. It had the Ford 4.6 V-8. Compared to the transit the 4.6 had no power. the transit goes right on up hills that the 4.6 had to down shift a couple of times. I am talking about basically empty vans. I'm not sure how the 4.6 would compare to the current 5.0 engine.
 
#12 ·
Burt, as I recall the Econoline's 4.6L was rated at 225 HP, even less than the Transit's standard 3.7L NA V6.

In F-150 tune the 5.0L is rated 385 HP and 387 lb-ft of torque, on regular gas. I'd expect a significant difference just based on power and torque figures, plus the modern 6-speed would also make a difference beyond the old Econoline 4-speed.

In Mustang tune the 5.0L V8 is rated 435 HP and 400 lb-ft of torque, but on 93 octane. I personally don't see any chance whatsoever of that kind of tune for a Transit work truck being offered.

I think a V8 Transit would be a great choice for Ford to make available for those that tow often, or for cutaway/cab chassis used for RVs or box trucks.
 
#15 ·
Remember, every motor available in the Transit is detuned compared to F150 use. If that would hold true for the 5.0, it would drop its numbers down to 325-330hp level.

I bet it would sell great though. Good power, likely good fuel mileage (looks like they average 1-2mpg less than the EB in the 2014 F150's), and simplicity.

I would like to see the 2.7EB offered in the Transit as well.
 
#16 ·
In my opinion it's important to remember that a high-roof or loaded-down 1-ton Transit requires a lot more power than the typical 2WD F-150 driving around empty.

And as required power goes up in the bigger/heavier Transit (seen as lower average fuel economy compared to F150), the difference between smaller EB and V8 diminishes.

You can see this clearly by pulling up EPA test results. For 2WD F-150s, the smaller 2.7 EB gets better highway fuel economy than the 3.5 EB, and that better than the 5.0L V8.

On the other hand, for 4WD F-150s, the 2.7 and 3.5 EB are essentially the same and both only a little better than the 5.0L V8.

It pretty much confirms that as required power goes up, the EB fuel economy advantage diminishes compared to larger NA engine. And when we go from a 23 MPG highway F-150 to a 15 MPG high-roof loaded-down Transit, the difference should be negligible.

In a compact Class C or B+ RV I have little doubt the 5.0 would hold its own in MPG. And while towing also.
 
#20 ·
EB or 5.0?

I have both the EB in my new Transit and the 5.0 in my 2013 F-150 XLT. I seem to be getting about a mile better mileage in the van. Having said that I haven't tried towing with it yet.

They're both great riding vehicles but the F-150 seems to be the smoother of the two. I think sitting over the front axle in the van compared to in between them has something to do with that. The larger/taller tires I'm sure also contributes to the ride quality.

I'll be heading out next week to Elkhart In. to pickup my new 20' trailer so I'll keep you posted as to how it handles that. Although it will be empty I think I'll still get a good idea how it tows with the van.

Travel Safe,
VA
 
#22 ·
You're suggesting displacement on demand, which has been tried in many forms. EcoBoost, while not changing the internal combustion engine's displacement, essentially accomplishes the same thing by using higher intake pressure to stuff more air and fuel in an engine. Higher pressure does similar to higher volume, but with some important benefits. For one it has lower friction than a larger engine and also the thermodynamic efficiency at lower power levels compared to a much bigger engine wouldn't suffer as much.

Another approach is cylinder deactivation. A V8 running as a 4-cylinder or a V6 as a 3 or 4 cylinder can be made more efficient at part load, but not as efficient as a 3 or 4 cylinder sized for efficiency at the lighter loads which then gets boost pressure when more power is needed.

And in my mind a hybrid gas/electric does some of what you suggest but by running a larger engine when needed and turning it off entirely when batteries can take over at low speed/power. This has the benefit of recovering some of the vehicle's kinetic energy while the others don't.

The closest direct comparison to what you suggest, and I wish I had it for reasons other than higher MPG, is two engines doing different tasks. I'm aware of buses that had a small engine for the air conditioner and a large diesel for driving. If it were feasible to split my V10 into a V8 for driving and V2 for AC and alternator, it would make a camper conversion that much better. Like the buses mentioned above, the small engine could run the AC when parked without being so wasteful, or needing a separate generator and extra roof-mounted AC.

For efficiency, the bottom line is that smaller engine is better overall, but mostly when operating at lower power levels. The simplest thing would be for Ford to add a 260 HP detuned Mustang 2.3L EcoBoost to the Transit. When operating at 100 HP or higher it wouldn't save anything, but when driving at 60 MPH or slower it could save some. The slower and smaller the van the more it would save relative to a 3.5L EB. The 2.7L EB could also save fuel, but not as much as a 2.3L EB at the lower speeds.
 
#23 ·
Don't get me wrong, I love the EB V6 but if the V8 option is available, I with take the 5.0 Coyote V8 over the EB V6. Yes, the EB V6 has more torque but you shouldn't keep the turbo on boost long period of time. When the van get older and starting showing engine issue... The Coyote V8 might be cheaper and easier to fix.

And I don't think Ford will de-tune the 5.0 V8 further down to 330 hp range like the other member suggesting. I really can't think of the reason why Ford need to de-tune it even more from the Mustang 412hp or F-150 385hp. It is a bigger van than Econoline.

But who know which engine drive better on Transit, we all just guessing here because no one actually has drove a V8 Transit yet.

No matter what, I vote for V8 10spd option for Transit.
 
#24 ·
I thin that the coyote is a great engine but don't you think they'd either need to add a doghouse or extend to front end to make it fit? I wouldn't care for either of those options. The first would make it difficult to get to the back from inside and the second would make it look like a Nissan, (yuk).
 
#25 ·
I thought Ford was phasing out all non-turbo engines? Turbos are really reliable these days, not like the 80s and 90s where they had a life expectancy of 75k miles. Now they last as long as the internal engine components (cam, bearing, rings, etc). The only advantage of extraneous cylinders might be smoother idling due to better balance by counter-opposing force.
 
#26 ·
I would have liked to see a V8 offering with more HP. For how I will use my van, I would like to see more power. Gas mileage is secondary.
The reason I like more power is for passing. My 3.5 Eco boost is ok for passing, but it takes longer to get around slower moving RV's and trucks with trailers. This can limit my passing opportunities on the 2-lane back roads I often drive on.
 
#27 ·
in the test comparing the ecoboost and 5.0 in F150's, the ecoboost is faster and more powerful. I think even the 2.7 ecoboost is faster than the 5.0.
 
#29 ·
I would prefer a V8 but ended up getting the V6 because my choice was between a V6 and
a turbo v6 and I don't really like turbos.
If I was planning on loading the van down or towing a trailer I would have been forced to
get the turbo engine if I wanted a Transit .
 
#31 ·
Pertaining to engine performance in any given vehicle,

these numbers are important:
0-60 time
foot pounds of torque

these numbers are meaningless:
number of cylinders
displacement

Some numbers may correlate more or less with desired attributes:
horsepower
mpg
 
#32 ·
I agree that 0-60 or even quarter mile time is much more important than say displacement, but displacement is not meaningless (yet). In the racing world sure where they can make an engine that lasts for 2000km~ and is a 1.6T pushing 1000~ hp. In the real world you don't need to see a 0-60 time to know a 1.6T gas engine will not be enough to push around 6500lbs + because at best you might get 250hp reliably from this platform . Number of cylinders I agree to a similar point, but again a 4 banger is just not quite enough to push around a big vehicle on a consistent basis by US standards(yet).
 
#33 ·
I clarified by saying "in any given vehicle". Meaning; not an engine on a stand but an engine IN the vehicle you are interested in, apples to apples.

Ecoboost inline 4cyl 2.3:
350 hp (261 kW; 355 PS) @ 6000 rpm
350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @ 3200 rpm
2016– Ford Focus RS
2016- Zenos E10 R

Coyote 5.0 V8 in Mustang GT:
435 hp (324 kW) at 6500 rpm
400 lb·ft (542 N·m) at 4250 rpm

3.5 6cyl ecoboost:
320 hp (239 kW) @5500 rpm
400 lb·ft (542 N·m) @2250 rpm
2015- Ford Transit
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top