Would you get a 5.0 V8 if offered?
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Joined
·
2,926 Posts
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.
Joined
·
572 Posts
Yes. I would rather have the V-8 but doubt they will offer it in the transit. I wonder if space is an issue?
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
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
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.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
In your case "not on he same planet" seems appropriate but not connected to the matter at hand.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined
·
46 Posts
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.
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.
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.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: A turbo Transit. I like the sound of that!
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
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
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
