Triton V8 or Ecoboost V6?
- Thread starter donl
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
0-60 in a expedition? Your kidding me, right? We got some parking lot, road warriors chiming in....
ExpeditionAndy
Full Access Members
JExpedition07
That One Member
That link is incorrect the 2007 expy is 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. Can confirm (have done) and actually beat the 7.9 time. It's closer to 7.5 seconds if your balls to the walls from stop and know how to drive. The reality is ecoboost is only 1 second faster.
Edit: the second post is correct now I see it shows 7.5 seconds for the V8.
http://www.carspecs.us/cars/2007/ford/expedition/19350
Edit: the second post is correct now I see it shows 7.5 seconds for the V8.
http://www.carspecs.us/cars/2007/ford/expedition/19350
Last edited:
You can't confirm anything because you have no proof. I'll take the word of some of the most trusted automobile publications in the world over what you say. 0-60 doesn't mean a whole lot. It's 1/4 times that show performance. You think 1 second (it's really closer to 3) doesn't make that big of a difference but in the drag racing world a second is a lifetime. Just shows you don't know much about cars and their performance at that
This thread has gotten stale. There is no argument, the Eco is better in every aspect over the Triton.
Like 07 said, 1 Second is an ETERNITY in 0-60! 0-60 and 1/4 Mile both are standard measures of a vehicles ability to get its Mass moving. Other measures that are good to look at are like 40-60, and 60-80. Good as a gauge for Passing power and so forth.
Your important things to look at are times measured by the same Organization, like Motor Trend. Test are typically done with high end equipment on the same tracks/parking lots. They maintain consistency.
Saying 0-60 doesn't matter when we are talking about performance of a Motor, is just Moronic!
Your important things to look at are times measured by the same Organization, like Motor Trend. Test are typically done with high end equipment on the same tracks/parking lots. They maintain consistency.
Saying 0-60 doesn't matter when we are talking about performance of a Motor, is just Moronic!
John Christopher
Full Access Members
Your lucky you didn't get a few speeding tickets. 83 mph for 300 miles is amazing. In the northeast you probably couldn't get 20 miles without being pulled over. Are Texans lucky or the cops just don't care about speed?
Last edited:
ExpeditionAndy
Full Access Members
John, I'm from PA, but I've lived in Oklahoma for 9 years and drove to and in Texas a lot. It's a big state and speed doesn't seem to matter, OK was pretty much the same. Highways were 75 MPH and once you got south of Norman (where I lived) if you weren't doing 90 in the right lane you were tying up traffic.
Yeah, 83 is nothing on the Highway in TX!
ranger024x4
Active Member
this is still going? lol
ranger024x4
Active Member
agreed!
JExpedition07
That One Member
Literally right in front of you the triton is 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the EB is 6.5 LOL. It's literally on the graph posted. 3 seconds how'd you pull that out of your a**? You an get up to 60 in 3.5 seconds with your ecoboost? That's faster than my uncles 2017 Bentley Mulsanne with a twin turbo V8 I smell some bullsh*t. It's all right I'll get the 6.2 and it blows the pants of your ecoboost in every way lmao. Half the problem is that stupid name if they called it the 3.5 predator or something maybe just maybe I'd buy it. The ecoboost loses the mpg battle to big V8s from GM and barely improved over the triton (literally 1MPG EPA) and is barely faster if any when it matters. Up to 65 is only time where speed matters to merge into traffic or to avoid an accident and accelerate. It's a flop dude. Why waste all that time turbocharging a baby engine in the end when it can't compete.
Last edited:
ranger024x4
Active Member
someones mad. lol
literally nothing in your argument makes sense. First off, why are you talking about the 6.2? Last time I checked this is an expedition forum, full of expedition owners. 6.2 isn't offered in this platform so why are we even talking about it?
second, the ecoboost makes its peak torque between 2-3k rpms, which is where you spend 90% of your time. How does that not a good thing?
ps, the link you posted showed 0-60 in 7.9, not 7.5
Shopping for an Expedition and enjoying the thread as it's the question I'm debating right now.
When choosing a motor, aren't most of us only interested in performance and reliability? The performance differences can be understood clearly and easily, with solid numbers to back them up. 16 vs 17 mpg over 100K miles costs 368 gallons. That will probably end up being over $1000. Knowing that, pick the performance you prefer for your uses and be happy.
Regarding reliability, no one is producing similarly convincing data. People speculate that the V8 will be more reliable as it doesn't work as hard, and I assume some would speculate that the V6 will be more reliable as it is newer technology.
Can anyone produce convincing data about real world reliability? And not just about specific problems like spark plugs and replaced turbos, but overall reliability and repair costs, as would be shown in a cost to own breakdown? I use as site that offers true repair information from consumers, but the expedition is not included. I guess I could compare Triton vs Ecoboost reliability in the F150's, right?
Ok, F150 Generation reliability comparisons reported from registered users:
Gen Overall reliability % Engine problems %Transmisss/Dtrain
04-08 Excellent 42% 12%
09-10 Good 20% 20%
11-16 Good/Fair 15% 12%
Overall, reliability is slipping, but Transmission and Drivetrain reliability is staying about the same while engine reliability is improving as a percentage of overall repairs. From this, I would conclude that the Ecoboost is looking to be at least as reliable as the V8s it replaced.
When choosing a motor, aren't most of us only interested in performance and reliability? The performance differences can be understood clearly and easily, with solid numbers to back them up. 16 vs 17 mpg over 100K miles costs 368 gallons. That will probably end up being over $1000. Knowing that, pick the performance you prefer for your uses and be happy.
Regarding reliability, no one is producing similarly convincing data. People speculate that the V8 will be more reliable as it doesn't work as hard, and I assume some would speculate that the V6 will be more reliable as it is newer technology.
Can anyone produce convincing data about real world reliability? And not just about specific problems like spark plugs and replaced turbos, but overall reliability and repair costs, as would be shown in a cost to own breakdown? I use as site that offers true repair information from consumers, but the expedition is not included. I guess I could compare Triton vs Ecoboost reliability in the F150's, right?
Ok, F150 Generation reliability comparisons reported from registered users:
Gen Overall reliability % Engine problems %Transmisss/Dtrain
04-08 Excellent 42% 12%
09-10 Good 20% 20%
11-16 Good/Fair 15% 12%
Overall, reliability is slipping, but Transmission and Drivetrain reliability is staying about the same while engine reliability is improving as a percentage of overall repairs. From this, I would conclude that the Ecoboost is looking to be at least as reliable as the V8s it replaced.
Last edited:
A "chip tuner?" will not add any horsepower. It adjusts engine parameters, for maximum power(fuel,air,timing,shift point,rev limiter). You can get more power, by running 91 or higher fuel. The 3.5ltt detunes for low octane. Engines do not have hidden power. The factory engineers squeeze everything out and test for best economy, reliability and performance. 0-60 can be improved with a rear end, ring and pinion swap 3.31 to 3.73. To add 100hp, you have add nitrous(not recommended).
i guess winning means can't compete now
JExpedition07
That One Member
Correct I was referring to andys second post with the chart showing the 2007 expy at 7.5 seconds which is correct I even said my link was incorrect in first post. And 05 your not winning you drive a V6 that's worse on gas than a V8 FYI it also sounds like a bumblebee mine sounds like a real truck. I'm talking about the 6.2 because I'll be buying a truck next which the ecoboost is available in as this truck is based on the F150 chassis so they are comparable. I'd take the Boss engine any day over the ecoboost. Also 6.2L is the successor to the triton engine family. More power, torque, better reliability, faster you name it the 6.2 wins over the ecoboost. You ecoboost owners are so obsessed with your engines you look past all its shortcomings so it's not worth my time arguing against a brick wall that can't understand reality.
Last edited:
Again....WRONG! Factory tunes vehicles for a balance of Power, Longevity, and Smoothness. A "Programmer"(LMS, Unleashed, SCT) or "Inline Module"(JMS BoostMax), will add power, and it is a LARGE gain. The advantage of a Turbo, is in most cases the Max Boost(PSI) can be tuned higher. That additional air combined with additional fuel means more HP and Lb/ft. If you were talking a NA motor, there is very little to be had by a change in programming, but on these EB motors, plenty is there! Also, as you can see in the post that YOU quoted, he already has the 3.73.
Info for BoostMax:
Stock 2014 F150 - 3.5L Ecoboost DynoJet Test on 91 Octane, Knob @ 100% Stock = Blue Line: 309rwhp / 374 ft-lbs BoostMAX = Red Line: 398rwhp / 455 ft-lbs Peak gains of: +89rwhp and +81 ft-lbs Boost Increase = +5psi(2014 F-150 is actually the closest to the 15-17 Expy in engine calibration and output)
Info for LMS MyCalibrator:
As seen on the F150, this engine has an impressive amount of room left in the calibration, our Performance tuning unlocks that hidden potential with peak vs. peak gains of over 77hp and 82 ft/lbs of torque, with maximum gains of over a staggering 95hp and 95 ft/lbs of torque on our 93 octane performance tuning. In addition to these powerful performance tunes, we also have towing specific tunes available for performance, without sacrificing the utility these vehicles are designed for.
I have both. Had the BoostMax on the 2015 Expedition for a short period, but Never turned it up to Full cause the wife ran 87 most of the time. Now we have the 17, and waiting on the 10K mark, have about 1500 to go.
I run an LMS tuner on my Edge Sport with the 2.7EB. I typically have the 93 Aggressive tune loaded, and IT IS FUN!
I was thinking of getting an LMS MyCalibrator for the Expy, but I will probably stick with the BoostMax. Just cause of the Easy adjust ability on the fly for different Octane. Disadvantage is no Trans Tuning.
Most people that post in this forum, love the power of the ecoboost. That is All they care about. They turn a blind eye, to reliability and anything negative said and attack people, who do. Time will tell and people leery, will not buy one. I personally feel, Ford will quietly and slowly phase them out.
jeff kushner
Full Access Members
Here I thought this thread had died but then I see something that I just HAVE to respond to....regardless of what is printed by anyone anywhere, I having owned THREE Expeditions can attest that my gas mileage is VASTLY more than a 1 mpg improvement over the 5.4.
I owned two of them(the 5.4) and having driven them well over 300,000 miles I can unequivocally tell you that both got me 12-13 mpg for the IDENTICAL driving route that now nets me at minimum 17.8mpg. I say "at minimum" because while my meter tells me approx 19.5mpg for the same route I drove with both of my old Expys, I'm using the "mileage since new" figure since it cannot possibly be any lower. Comparing 13 to nearly 18 is a huge 28% increase in mileage. I am quick to admit that I don't pay for gas so mileage doesn't matter a bit to me so if anything, I tend to drive faster then I would if I were concerned about mileage.
THEE only reason that Ford invested a billion or so dollars in the ecoboost is to ultimately, reduce manufacturing costs. Obviously, if a family of engines can be engineered & produced using same components from the same vendors for the supporting accessories for an engine, then costs will be reduced. If Ford can reduce the number of different engines it makes to 6 or 8, then the cost to build each will drop with it. Now, you can slip in one of those prepackaged engines from the EB series and you're good to go....sure beats trying to maintain, develop and stock parts for 24 different engines.....just my view.
FWIW, I've got over 19,000 miles on my '17 since buying it in november and I've yet to rev it to redline....and yes, of course I've "raced" a few other trucks and was beaten by one....don't know the make or the engine but that pickup with a bed cap frickin FLEW! The point of this is if I can get by even with occasionally aggressive driving and never having to rev it up, I suspect the 3.5 will last for a long, long time!
And yes, you can always tell when an auto manufacturer is planning on phasing a family of engines out....when they come out with the Gen II version of it! Yup, combine that with a noticeable lack of other engine development projects and you can be sure they're about to shut them down<LOL>!
jeff
Similar threads
