CincyFlyer
Veteran Member
Reliability suspect? On a sample of one? I only have 14K on that engine (in a Flex) but folks are not having numerous issues with that engine; check the truck and Explorer/Flex/SHO forums.
3.5 Ecoboost questions?
- Thread starter WilliamBos
- Start date
- Views: 2981
Reliability suspect? On a sample of one? I only have 14K on that engine (in a Flex) but folks are not having numerous issues with that engine; check the truck and Explorer/Flex/SHO forums.
OP
WilliamBos
Super Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,276
- Location
- Innisfil, Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- MF 1635 12x12 Powershuttle
Get news Chris, glad to hear that. Looking forward to getting one.
OP
WilliamBos
Super Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,276
- Location
- Innisfil, Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- MF 1635 12x12 Powershuttle
I can buy a brand new F150 SCrew with a 6 1/2 bed for the price of a used Tundra.
After test driving both - I love the Ford, Hands down winner.
deerefan
Veteran Member
Since I own a Tundra, just curious why the Ford is a hands down winner? Not trying to argue, just wanting your opinion.
atsah
Elite Member
Toyota has always been very conservative, they seem to build very good products and then run with them for a bit to long before building to compete. My cousin has been buying new tundra's since they started building them, he just bought a 17 10 speed ecoboost for the first time, he is getting 24mpg and he loves the power. The Tundra was getting 12-14. The tundra is a solid pickup and most of them run like a clock but the engine design is old along with the transmission and suspension, they are late to the party at this point.
I'm on my third ecoboost and never an issue, the power and fuel efficiency of the ford is the cats meow for now.
OP
WilliamBos
Super Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,276
- Location
- Innisfil, Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- MF 1635 12x12 Powershuttle
I want a SuperCrew with a 6 1/2 bed, (electronic) locking rear diff, Toyota does not offer that. The MPG advantage the ecoboost has over the iforce is another reason. And the fact that i can buy a new Ford for a lower price with a lower interest rate makes it the winner in my book. The aluminum body is another plus, as are the ecoboosts.
The tundra is a nice truck, but the Ford fits my needs better.
deerefan
Veteran Member
All valid. I will say this-a lot of folks warned me about the 5.7 mpg, but we routinely see 17-18mpg. I can live with that. Now we bought our Tundra at year end and got it for 30k, 12k less than msrp. At the time it was cheaper than an equivalent xlt Ford with the 5.0. This was back in August of 2013. Strictly due to rebates and offers. Usually the Tundra is more expensive. I definitely have nothing against Ford, having owned 5 of them, currently own a 2013 expedition limited. This is our first Tundra and at 95k miles so far we are pleased.
I picked up a leftover 2016 F-150 got 13K off and 0% apr. it's a crew cab with the 3.5 eco but they only had 5.5 ' beds. We get around 19-20 mpg around town and highway. No complaints. My 2001 Elite gooseneck aluminum trailer still looks good. No major oxidation. Hoping the F-150 still looks good 15 years down the road.
robertsa
Silver Member
I've only owned pickups with 8' and 6' beds so was concerned when I purchased my F150 with the 5.5' bed when it came to picking up lumber/etc and towing. Since I have a 20' gooseneck and a 6'x8' trailer the picking up materials thing isn't a problem, and the gooseneck is fine due to the design. I can pull a full 90* turn with it. When we get rid of our 2 horse slant bumper pull and go with a GN, I have a 10" offset B&W hitch to buy me more space between the cab and trailer.
