That's not a bad point.  Modified vehicles typically bring less money at sale.  Sell now while the value is the highest it will likely ever be and move on to something that does what you need without the need to modify. 

Just as a side note, the EcoBoost V6 has a higer tow capacity than the 5.0. When I was looking at new trucks that made me scratch my head. But mine has a 10,000# capacity, otherwise I would have gone 5.0.

And definitely get the tow package with bigger fuel tank among other things. 

My bro lives and works out of Whitehorse and Juneau,AK. He has a 2011 F150 with the EcoBoost V6. On his drive to Hains to catch the ferry to Juneau he lost his engine on the top of the mountain road. It was 20 below and real windy so he had to continue driving to get to Hains. He could not check the truck till he got to Juneau and found the engine full of metal shavings. The shop closed it back up and pushed it out the door. Told him he needs a new engine. It has 70K on it. The turbo V6 doesn't sound very reassuring to me and at this point neither does putting a turbo on the 4.6. This same sort of thing happens to airplanes as well so it's not as though I don't know the risks. My experience with diesels seem to have better luck with turbos. I tend to keep vehicles 12 to 15 years and buy used 2 to 3 years. With all the talk about lack of wear on modern engines got me to thinking putting a turbo on the 4.6 might be the least expensive way to go for the interim. 

For any Ford tuning SCT is the preferred platform.

I don't know how the manufacturers come up with tow ratings, but I can tell you I wouldn't put a lot of stock in them.  Chevy/GM trucks with the 6.2 Diesel had close to the same tow rating as the first gen Dodge Cummins trucks that were their contemporaries.  Anyone who'd driven and towed with both will tell you the 6.2 was a toilet, and the Cummins was the sign of the future.  I think a lot of it has to do with the rear axle's ability to carry weight and what rear suspension they have in the truck.  The engine seems to make less difference to them. 

Well it's good to read the discussion going on here. I have no experiance in doing something like tunning and have no idea how to go about it. I can't even get my carbureted Mustang to run the way it should. When putting a turbo kit on an airplane you just do it. There is no tunning, but then it is called turbo normalized. you never run the manifold pressure above 30 inches. That's the same as running it at sea level all the way up to altitude. After awhile you run out of of turbo but your still above the weather, crusing faster, and using less fuel. I was thinking that would happen with the F150. I'm kinda thinking the 4.6 isn't strong enough to be boosted over seal level pressure (30 in MAP).

HudginJ3 wrote:

Well it's good to read the discussion going on here. I have no experiance in doing something like tunning and have no idea how to go about it. I can't even get my carbureted Mustang to run the way it should. When putting a turbo kit on an airplane you just do it. There is no tunning, but then it is called turbo normalized. you never run the manifold pressure above 30 inches. That's the same as running it at sea level all the way up to altitude. After awhile you run out of of turbo but your still above the weather, crusing faster, and using less fuel. I was thinking that would happen with the F150. I'm kinda thinking the 4.6 isn't strong enough to be boosted over seal level pressure (30 in MAP).

You have to be really, really careful talking about boost in terms of measured pressure.  Boost pressure as measured in bar, psi, etc. is not an actual measure of what the turbo is doing to the engine.  People always say things like "how much boost do you run?", but that's a meaningless standard.  Here's why: pressure is largely a measure of restriction.  If I take a turbo engine and pull all the intake and exhaust plumbing and port, polish, smooth, and unrestrict flow the boost pressure as measured in psi, etc. will go way down at all points except max pressure (because that's determined by the wastegate), yet the engine will make more power.  The only way to compare boost referenced in psi, etc. is on the same engine with the same turbo.  If you say change the wastegate setting to allow 20psi instead of 15 the engine may make more power (if the turbo hasn't come up against the wall of adibiatic efficiency, unlikely with a small change on a stock setup).  But if you for instance swap turbos you may find a larger turbo doesn't make as much pressure, but makes more power, though spool will take longer and you'll lose low end.  The problem is that what is really changing is mass flow, but that's very hard to measure and people don't understand it.  What's happening isn't so much that the intake tract is being pressurized, as that the turbo is simply allowing that system to move more air than it could under the vacuum created on the piston's downstroke.  Pressure is a byproduct, not the cause.  The pressure is created because you have increased the volume of air.  The result is an increase in the differential between the cylinder and the intake track allowing more air to enter the cylinder.  What is measured in the intake as far as pressure goes in psi, etc. is really just a measure of how much restriction is exerted on that additional air by the space its forced to flow through.  This is why the same turbo on two radically different engines may read 100psi on one an 30 on the other.  Its not moving any more or less air; its just doing it against different degrees of restriction. 

This is why kits are the way to go, because there's no guesswork involved.  The company selling the kit has already done all the homework in terms of fueling, ignition, etc. and know the engine will be safe. 

The 4.6 will live through the boost if you don't get crazy.  Its the only way that engine ever made any really power to be honest.  Thousands of Mustangs have blowers on 4.6s without any problems.  The thing I worry about is everything else (trans, etc.).