Does anybody have any experience with the Ford 5.0 L with cylinder disconnect?

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
Does anybody have any experience with the Ford 5.0 L with cylinder disconnect?
A leftover 2022 F150 was offered to me at a good price. I am concerned about the cylinder disconnect and the belt driven oil pump. I had planned if ordering to get a 3.5 L TwinTurbo.
 
Sport mode bypasses cylinder deactivation feature. If that’s not good enough, forscan will allow you to turn the feature off at the ECM.

I had an 07 Ram 1500 Hemi with the feature and no problems. GM seems unable to make it work reliably.
 
A quick google search showed that the belt is Kevlar reinforced liquid-cooled belt that is supposed to last the lifetime of the engine. Looks a lot like a cogged blower belt, pretty beefy. I would say treat it like a timing belt and replace on mileage or time in service. It's too new for a failure rate to show up and google didn't see early failures of any note in my search.

Not sure on the cylinder deactivation ... I've had it on multiple Dodge/Ram products with the Hemi's of various displacements with no problems. They do get better highway mileage. Need to service regularly and use the correct grade/viscosity of oil for it to last and work properly. Pretty sure GM used it in their V8's, I think they may have been the first to do it but my memory isn't reliable enough to say that one with authority :D
 
I wouldn’t be worried about it. Think about how often a timing belt snaps when changed within its prescribed interval. For me that’s been zero observed.

I’m surprised they chose to use a belt, probably lower cost and slight engine noise reduction.
 
Hem and haw long enough and you won’t have to worry about it.
 
I have a Jeep gc with multi displacement hemi, it’s seemless and no problems at 120 k miles
 
Cylinder deactivation by itself isn't too bad these days, it does depend on the implementation. I'm not familiar with the Ford implementation on the 5.0. On the Hemis, they use different lifters (they call it their "MDS" system) which shuts off 4 cylinders. That seems to work quite well so long as you change the oil, the issues seem to be with the lifters having issues when you get dirty oil. I wouldn't be too worried about that. The big thing I don't like about that setup is that it makes for a heavier valvetrain.

Auto start-stop is a feature that I do not like, especially on turbocharged engines. We turn it off on my wife's Alfa. On my friend's Mini, it caused/contributed to the timing cover to start leaking.

I looked a bit more into the Coyote 5.0 setup for oil pump and camshaft drive. It reminded me a good bit of the 4.4L V8 in the BMW 740iL we used to have (pre-VANOS). Similar architecture in general being a DOHC 32-valve V8. The oil pump on that was driven by a small chain. Sometimes people replaced it when they did the timing chains (which was a thing on those engines, mainly due to the tensioners but mine had shown stretch after something like 160k miles), but most people didn't and it usually wasn't an issue. Timing/cogged belt technology has come a long way from the 1980s when we first started to see them with generally 60k mile intervals. I used to not like timing belts because of that replacement interval, but I suppose it doesn't bother me as much these days.

For your standard distributor type engine of course you've got an oil pump shaft that goes from the distributor down to the oil pump, which works but those shafts can break (especially if you put in a high volume/high pressure pump) and the risk is that it comes loose/out when you pull the distributor. On my Cobra (351W) even though I'm not running a distributor, I had to put something in there to drive the oil pump, and when with an ARP oil pump shaft. All designs have their pros and cons.

Which reminds me, I need to work on that
 
I just replaced a vacuum pump on a friends 3.5 ecoboost f150 due to a massive oil leak. I'll sacrifice the power to never have to work on it again. Give me a good ol pushrod V8 in my truck please. I don't know what it is about Ford products but I just despise working on them. Everything plastic under the hood seems to break. They use little clips that are practically impossible to remove without breaking them to move wires out of the way. To be a v6 it sure is tight in there as well with the turbos and all the piping. The one thing I did like on this truck is that the whole grill opens with the hood.
 
It seems like cylinder deactivation is an inherently bad idea. It almost makes more sense to have two separate engines, one of which shuts off when not needed. Or better yet put them on a rotation like we do industrial motors.
 
I’ve had two GMs (07 and 18 Silverados with the 6.0 and 6.2, respectively). Both have GMs version, AFM (active fuel management). My 07 made it to 105K with nothing more than an occasional lifter tick on cold start in the winter.

My 18, which I still have, is another story. Despite religious frequent oil change intervals with full synthetic, at around 30k one of GMs infamous AFM lifters went south, grooving the cam lobe, bending the pushrod, and winding up at the dealer under warranty. The “repair” was to pull that bank down to the short block and replace only those lifters (and the cam). I offered to pay to replace the other side (parts plus labor to remove that head)-nope, can’t do. I offered to pay for the kit to go non-AFM-nope, can’t do.
All GM will do is replace the failed bank with the same problem lifters. Supposedly if it goes again, they replace the whole engine.

As soon as I’m out of warranty, it’s getting the conversion cam and lifters in my garage.
 
Ted said:
Cylinder deactivation by itself isn't too bad these days, it does depend on the implementation. I'm not familiar with the Ford implementation on the 5.0. On the Hemis, they use different lifters (they call it their "MDS" system) which shuts off 4 cylinders. That seems to work quite well so long as you change the oil, the issues seem to be with the lifters having issues when you get dirty oil. I wouldn't be too worried about that. The big thing I don't like about that setup is that it makes for a heavier valvetrain.

Auto start-stop is a feature that I do not like, especially on turbocharged engines. We turn it off on my wife's Alfa. On my friend's Mini, it caused/contributed to the timing cover to start leaking.

I looked a bit more into the Coyote 5.0 setup for oil pump and camshaft drive. It reminded me a good bit of the 4.4L V8 in the BMW 740iL we used to have (pre-VANOS). Similar architecture in general being a DOHC 32-valve V8. The oil pump on that was driven by a small chain. Sometimes people replaced it when they did the timing chains (which was a thing on those engines, mainly due to the tensioners but mine had shown stretch after something like 160k miles), but most people didn't and it usually wasn't an issue. Timing/cogged belt technology has come a long way from the 1980s when we first started to see them with generally 60k mile intervals. I used to not like timing belts because of that replacement interval, but I suppose it doesn't bother me as much these days.

For your standard distributor type engine of course you've got an oil pump shaft that goes from the distributor down to the oil pump, which works but those shafts can break (especially if you put in a high volume/high pressure pump) and the risk is that it comes loose/out when you pull the distributor. On my Cobra (351W) even though I'm not running a distributor, I had to put something in there to drive the oil pump, and when with an ARP oil pump shaft. All designs have their pros and cons.

Which reminds me, I need to work on that
Click to expand...
So I test drove both the 5.0L and the 3.5 L twin turbo yesterday. The 3.5 L has a lot of punch lower end but I am not drag racing my truck. I like the idea of the simplicity of the 5.0 and the greater displacement. 5.0 L still had plenty of giddyup. Conventional wisdom says go with the 3.5L for towing but the V8 gets the nod for long term reliability. And fuel efficiency while towing appears to be better, by some accounts a lot better. So given that I am not needing the extreme towing capacity of the 3.5l I decided to go with the 5.0L.

Now the (final?) question becomes which rear end gear ratio? The middle options are 3.31 and 3.55. While I certain that both would work, since I have a choice, which one gets the nod? There is also a 3.73 for more dollars and a 1000 lb. More rated capacity. The purpose in purchasing this truck is to haul a converted 7 x 16 tandem axle toy hauler with 2 motorcycles cross country. (Did I mention that my wife purchased another motorcycle to replace the Triumph, a Rebel 1100 with the DCT?) It will also be my primary vehicle around town. The only time it’ll be on the highway is if it’s towing the trailer. Otherwise will just take the wife’s RAV4 for drives out of town. So which one should I get?
 
So you really ain't pulling ****. Might as well get the 3.31 for better fuel economy 95% of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
I'd get the 3.73. With the 10 speed transmission the fuel economy will not be much worse but the towing will be much better.
 
I’d get the 3.31. Lower revs in top gear on the highway for normal driving will be nicer. With the 10-speed you’ll still have plenty off the line and enough gears to get the right RPM for any occasion. Your towing needs are minimal, well within the capability of any rear end.

Even on my Ram I wanted the 3.42 (lowest numerical gearing) and I would’ve opted for a 3.31 or something a bit lower if it was an option.

I think you’ll be happy with the 5.0. It sounds better too.
 
The 3.55 should be plenty. I towed a 4000# car on a dual axle car trailer behind an old school tritan 5.4 F150 with the 3.55 and four speed trans and it maintained 65mph through the hilly mountains of I79 in West Virginia.

The Coyote 5.0 w/10 speed trans and 3.55 will be more than enough for your application.

Oh, and if your moto travels ever take you to SE TN or SW NC, drop me a PM.
 
Used to pull a Mahogany inboard boat with a 4.9L 6 cylinder naturally aspirated 3 speed manual transmission Econoline. Don't recall the rear end ratio. Pulling the boat out of the water on a ramp is a bit hard on the clutch but it was still good when I sold it at 100K+ miles.

You guys way overthink this towing stuff.
 
Morgan3820 said:
The only time it’ll be on the highway is if it’s towing the trailer. Otherwise will just take the wife’s RAV4 for drives out of town. So which one should I get?
Click to expand...

For me this answers the question - 3.73 gears all day long. It'll be way happier towing and as a bonus you'll likely get better fuel mileage towing than with the taller gears. The truck will be working easier towing and hunting for gears less as a result. When I bought my new Ram 2500 with the big hemi I had the choice of 3.73 or 4.10 gears and I went with the 4.10 and bloody glad I did. Pulls like a beast and couldn't give a fig about the 10000+ I'm pulling, I also don't really drive it much empty so the pulling gears made more sense. I think I figured out I'm using it approx 70 percent for towing so the empty economy doesn't matter as much to me.
 
The other benefit to higher gears is if you intend on getting larger than stock tires as it will keep the overall ratio in the factory range. You could probably go to 35s with 3.73 and still have similar performance to the 3.55 trucks with stock tires.
 
The belt the engineers designed for that engine would probably never fail. What you get after the been counters try to cut a few $ in production cost out of the engine, who knows.

The timing chain issues of GM engines 10 years ago is a good example of how been counters run designs.
 
Have it on my 2011 Silverado and no issues, just burns a little more oil than new. Mechanic says he sees a lot of issues with the new Chevy version. The idea of stop start with turbo engines seems nuts to me if the turbos are oil cooled.
 
My work truck has the 5.0 Coyote and 10-speed transmission. I’ve put about 5,000 miles on it thus far and it’s solid. Considering your mission and such, I think you’d be fine with the 3.31 too. It’ll have plenty of power.
 
PilotRPI said:
Have it on my 2011 Silverado and no issues, just burns a little more oil than new. Mechanic says he sees a lot of issues with the new Chevy version. The idea of stop start with turbo engines seems nuts to me if the turbos are oil cooled.
Click to expand...
Eh, modern turbos and synthetic oil pretty much keep the "oil coking" issues to a minimum. Besides, if you're sitting at stop lights and general low speed traffic stuff that allow the start/stop to engage, the turbos aren't doing anything to generate heat anyway. Won't be building boost at idle.
 
PilotRPI said:
Have it on my 2011 Silverado and no issues, just burns a little more oil than new. Mechanic says he sees a lot of issues with the new Chevy version. The idea of stop start with turbo engines seems nuts to me if the turbos are oil cooled.
Click to expand...
SoonerAviator said:
Eh, modern turbos and synthetic oil pretty much keep the "oil coking" issues to a minimum. Besides, if you're sitting at stop lights and general low speed traffic stuff that allow the start/stop to engage, the turbos aren't doing anything to generate heat anyway. Won't be building boost at idle.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about GM, so I'll talk Ford. The turbos on a F150 Ecoboost are liquid cooled (in addition to oil). It is designed to take advantage of passive thermal siphoning. After engine shutdown, the coolant flow reverses, and coolant flows away from the turbocharger water jacket pulling fresh cool coolant in. Supposedly this actually works quite well. Any heating the turbo applies to the local coolant just further energizes the siphoning effect.

As Sooner notes, in most auto-stop cases, the turbo is not likely to be too hot anyhow. But if it is, Ford has thought about that.

Myself? I disabled the auto-stop start years ago. I find it annoying more so than I was worried about the turbos failing. Additionally, you'll go through this whole embarrassing routine with passengers every single time:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top