DUCKRACER Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Does anyone out there own a 2011 F-150 with a 5.0 motor? If so, how do you like it? What kind of MPG do you get? Any input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 A few sites have your question... http://www.f150online.com/forums/2009-2011-f-150/445191-11-5-0-stx-scab-3000-mile-report.html http://www.f150online.com/forums/2009-2011-f-150/445454-11-plat-5-0-3-55-review-6400-miles-pics-vids.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitCritter Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I've got 1200 miles on mine and I love it. Lots of power, but a quiet ride. I'm getting around 15mpg mixed, I get as high as 22mpg hwy. Check www.fuelly.com for more mileage results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I've got 1200 miles on mine and I love it. Lots of power, but a quiet ride. I'm getting around 15mpg mixed, I get as high as 22mpg hwy. Check www.fuelly.com for more mileage results. PitCritter. Thanks for your very informative response. 22mpg hwy is encouraging. I have been trying to decide what gear ratio to get and now I know to get the 3:55 Thanks for the pic, What a BEAUTIFUL truck. I love the grille on the FX2 I am contemplating a black Lariat and that pic may seal the deal. All things considered, I am leaning more and more towards a 5.0. The 5.0 mpg is not that far from the EB mpg. I have driven both and the 5.0 made beautiful music and the EB....not so much. Thanks again for your time and effort. Edited April 7, 2011 by DUCKRACER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb37 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I test drove both an EB and a 5.0. Both test drives were in similar vehicles (XLT, SCrew, 4x4, 3.55 LS rear axle). The EB had impressive acceleration once the transmission downshifted and the turbos spooled up. Engine was quiet. The 5.0 also had impressive acceleration without the "thrust" feeling that turbo motors sometimes have. This is difficult to explain, but every turbocharged vehicle I've driven (1980 Mustang Turbo, mid-90s Eagle Talon TSi, 2005 VW GTI 1.8T) seems to accelerate faster than your mind expects it to. What sold me on the 5.0, though, was the sound. I walked back into the dealership with a big smile on my face and the salesman knew I was hooked. On a practical level, I think either engine is a good choice. The fuel economy ratings between the two engines are very close. If you plan to tow, the EB gives you horsepower and torque similar to the 6.2 without the fuel economy penalty. If you don't plan to tow, I think the 5.0 will be more fun to drive and $750 less expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bajabobby1 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I test drove both an EB and a 5.0. Both test drives were in similar vehicles (XLT, SCrew, 4x4, 3.55 LS rear axle). The EB had impressive acceleration once the transmission downshifted and the turbos spooled up. Engine was quiet. The 5.0 also had impressive acceleration without the "thrust" feeling that turbo motors sometimes have. This is difficult to explain, but every turbocharged vehicle I've driven (1980 Mustang Turbo, mid-90s Eagle Talon TSi, 2005 VW GTI 1.8T) seems to accelerate faster than your mind expects it to. What sold me on the 5.0, though, was the sound. I walked back into the dealership with a big smile on my face and the salesman knew I was hooked. On a practical level, I think either engine is a good choice. The fuel economy ratings between the two engines are very close. If you plan to tow, the EB gives you horsepower and torque similar to the 6.2 without the fuel economy penalty. If you don't plan to tow, I think the 5.0 will be more fun to drive and $750 less expensive. bb37 Well said and I second your reasining. Since I will be towing I went for the Eco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovel-ready project Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) When I ordered mine, the difference was more than $750. The 5.0 was selling around invoice while the EB was at sticker. So, approximately $3500+750. Might be different now. DR, is that duck one of those funky square sailboats that you build? Cool! Edited April 9, 2011 by Shovel-ready project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitCritter Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) If you plan to tow, the EB gives you horsepower and torque similar to the 6.2 without the fuel economy penalty. If you don't plan to tow, I think the 5.0 will be more fun to drive and $750 less expensive. I will be towing my 28' travel trailer pretty regularly. I ordered a 5.0L back in October since the EB was listed as "Late Availability" and I needed my truck ASAP...six months later and after lots of EBs shipped, I picked up my 5.0L. With the 6000lb trailer on, you can definitely feel it, but it pulls easily. It was a long wait, but so far, worth it. Edited April 9, 2011 by PitCritter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I test drove both an EB and a 5.0. Both test drives were in similar vehicles (XLT, SCrew, 4x4, 3.55 LS rear axle). The EB had impressive acceleration once the transmission downshifted and the turbos spooled up. Engine was quiet. The 5.0 also had impressive acceleration without the "thrust" feeling that turbo motors sometimes have. This is difficult to explain, but every turbocharged vehicle I've driven (1980 Mustang Turbo, mid-90s Eagle Talon TSi, 2005 VW GTI 1.8T) seems to accelerate faster than your mind expects it to. What sold me on the 5.0, though, was the sound. I walked back into the dealership with a big smile on my face and the salesman knew I was hooked. On a practical level, I think either engine is a good choice. The fuel economy ratings between the two engines are very close. If you plan to tow, the EB gives you horsepower and torque similar to the 6.2 without the fuel economy penalty. If you don't plan to tow, I think the 5.0 will be more fun to drive and $750 less expensive. I test drove a 5.0 and without a doubt... it is the best sounding engine I've ever heard in a truck. When you first start the truck, a big grin follows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 When I ordered mine, the difference was more than $750. The 5.0 was selling around invoice while the EB was at sticker. So, approximately $3500+750. Might be different now. DR, is that duck one of those funky square sailboats that you build? Cool! I use the name because I used to road race motorcycles at Willow Springs Raceway and the motorcycle I raced is called a Ducati, commonly called a Duck for short. Hence the username of DUCKRACER. The only square sailboat I know of is a sabot and I don't build them.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovel-ready project Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Okay, the bike Duc is cool, too. The Duck sailboat is DIY-built from a couple sheets of 4X8 plywood. Its dimensions are ... 4X8. Very esoteric but it has a big following and some big racing fleets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FX-4 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) I just ordered a FX-4 Crew Cab w/ the 5.0 and the 3.73 rear end. How much will my gas mileage suffer compared to the 5.0 w/ the 3.55. Edited April 13, 2011 by FX-4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) I just ordered a FX-4 Crew Cab w/ the 5.0 and the 3.73 rear end. How much will my gas mileage suffer compared to the 5.0 w/ the 3.55. If you don't do mainly freeway driving it will probally benefit you. The 3:73 will get the weight moving easier from a stop. Either way you aren't giving up a whole lot of MPG. I'd rather have the lower gearing (3:73). Edited April 13, 2011 by Hydro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 Okay, the bike Duc is cool, too. The Duck sailboat is DIY-built from a couple sheets of 4X8 plywood. Its dimensions are ... 4X8. Very esoteric but it has a big following and some big racing fleets. Sailors are just like us gear heads....we will race anything!!! Where in Texas do you sail/race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 If you don't do mainly freeway driving it will probally benefit you. The 3:73 will get the weight moving easier from a stop. Either way you aren't giving up a whole lot of MPG. I'd rather have the lower gearing (3:73). I am considering the 5.0 also, so please let us know how it pans out. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FX-4 Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 I am considering the 5.0 also, so please let us know how it pans out. Thanks. Will do. I probably won't see the truck till mid May but as I as get some miles on it and a few tanks of gas I'll post how my average and highway mileage is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrajim Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 i'm hopeing the new 5.0 gets the same or better milage then my 08 5.4l(18-20mpg),i hate waiting i'm like a kid on xmas eve! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.