Print 65 comment(s) - last by do_i_neda_name.. on May 2 at 8:38 AM

Ford EcoBoost V6 used in the F-150  (Source: Ford Motor Company)
Boosted V6 proves to be a popular option with consumers

We reported in September of last year that Ford was doing a top-to-bottom revamp of its powertrain lineup for its popular F-150 pickup truck. That new engine lineup included a new 3.7-liter V6, 5.0-liter V8, 6.2-liter V8, and an EcoBoost (turbocharged) 3.5-liter V6.

According to a new report from Automotive News, the EcoBoost engine is proving to be quite popular with buyers and bucks the trends that are normally seen in the full-size pickup market. In fact, the EcoBoost engine option is now accounting for 36 percent of F-150 sales. The EcoBoost engine also now has a 40 percent take rate when it comes to new dealer orders. 

Ford Consumer Marketing Manager Marc Lapine thought that there would be a little more lag time before consumers became aware of the engine option and started taking advantage of it, but higher gas prices have made the EcoBoost a popular choice. 

"We had a sales forecast but it has jumped up a little faster than we thought," said Lapine. "We thought there would be a little more time between the early adopters and the other people who said, 'Hey, now I am ready to buy it.'"

"As soon as this fuel thing started, probably two months ago, all of a sudden people are coming in, asking, 'Do you have an EcoBoost?'", added Wayne Seidel, a general manager for a Ford dealership in Wisconsin. "I've sold every one that I can get my hands on." 

The EcoBoost V6 makes a healthy 365hp at 5,000 rpm and 420 lb-ft of torque at 2,500 rpm while running on regular unleaded gas. Tow capacity (11,300 pounds) for the boosted six matches that of the top rung 6.2-liter V8 engine option.

The EcoBoost F-150 is EPA rated at 16 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the highway.

Many manufacturers are now looking to turbocharging to match the power of an engine with more cylinders while achieving better fuel economy. Ford uses EcoBoost engines in its Taurus SHO (V6), Flex (V6), Explorer (I4), and upcoming C-MAX (I4).

Other companies that are jumping on the turbocharging bandwagon for mainstream vehicles include Hyundai with its Sonata Turbo and Buick with its Regal. Chevrolet is also expected to add a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to its all-new 2012 Malibu to replace the V6 engine option.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ecoboost V6 Fusion GT please
By chmilz on 4/28/2011 8:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure I read it's been bumped back to 2012, but seriously, I want one. I love my '07, but a ~400hp sport model would sure be nice.

RE: Ecoboost V6 Fusion GT please
By CurseTheSky on 4/28/2011 9:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Only if it's RWD-based, which I doubt will happen since it would cannibalize some of the Mustang sales.

My 2008 V6 SE with only 221 HP already has plenty for a FWD platform. Torque steer and wheel hop are a major problem, and I can't imagine driving virtually the same car with an extra 100 HP on tap.

Perhaps they could do it just right, but I'd rather see something RWD based like the Pontiac G8.

By scottjames_12 on 4/28/2011 10:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Something like the Falcon XR6 Turbo sounds like it might fit your requirements - 362 HP and 393 lbs/ft, RWD of course. Or the uprated version - the FPV F6 with 415 HP and 416 lbs/ft, both from 4.0 L straight 6 turbo.

Pity there isn't much chance it would be exported to the US!

RE: Ecoboost V6 Fusion GT please
By Flunk on 4/28/2011 11:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just buy a Taurus SHO, it's got this engine and it's a large sedan like the Fusion.

it's about time
By deadrats on 4/29/2011 4:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
personally i think it's about time ford put the twin turbo six in their F series pickup trucks.

i have a 2003 nissan frontier, supercharged v6, auto, 4x4 and that thing sucks down gas like it's going out of style, combined highway city, with more highway than city, i get between 13 and 16 mpg and it pretty much demands premium fuel. at $4+ per gallon, i can barely afford to drive it.

considering my nissan only has 210hp and 246 lb-ft, i think ford managing to get 20+ from a 365hp engine in a truck so much heavier and larger than mine is impressive.

now they need to update the ranger with a similar turbo four, they would really have a winner.

RE: it's about time
By russki on 4/29/2011 11:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised no one has brought up one engine option available on the super duties.


I bet if truck manufacturers put diesels in half tons they'd sell like hotcakes. My 2011 F350 ford diesel truck gets 15.9 mpg. This is not babying it at all, just driving normally, with a good mix of highway and city driving. Imagine putting a 5L turbodiesel in a half ton.. it would get over 20mpg easily, and you could tow even more!

I guess it might not ever happen because auto makers want to separate their light duty trucks from their heavy duty ones.

RE: it's about time
By Spuke on 4/30/2011 10:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
I bet if truck manufacturers put diesels in half tons they'd sell like hotcakes.
Most of them planned to do just that a couple of years ago. The economy tanking killed that though.

What don't people understand about "Ecoboost"?
By mamisano on 4/29/2011 11:37:11 AM , Rating: 3
Ecoboost in the F150, or other Ford products is not about getting the best fuel mileage. It is about getting similar performance compared to a larger engine while better fuel economy.

F150 ratings (all are Supercrew 4x2 models)
5.0 V8
Power: 360@5500 / 380/4200
Max Tow: 9400
EPA Rating: 15/21

6.2 V8
Power: 441@5500 / 434@4500
Max Tow: 11300
EPA Rating: 13/18

3.5 EB V6
Power: 365@5000 / 420@2500
Max Tow: 11300
EPA Rating: 16/22

I would pick the Ecoboost engine, especially with how quickly it makes peak torque - perfect for towing.

RE: What don't people understand about "Ecoboost"?
By gregpet on 4/29/2011 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
What you say makes sense but I think the perception (that Ford is selling) is that the Eco boost is a gas saver for everyone...The 36% of people choosing the Eco engine are not pulling around a 11,300 lb trailer...That has got to be a small % of truck buyers...

By Spuke on 4/29/2011 5:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
The 36% of people choosing the Eco engine are not pulling around a 11,300 lb trailer
No, but you are probably pulling an 8000 lb trailer with one. Typically, you're not pulling trailers at your max weight rating anyways on any truck especially since how much you can tow depends on the weight of the truck itself. There are more people towing heavier trailers (like lighter 5th wheels) with F150's nowadays because the payload capacities have gone up quite a bit in the last few years.

By DigitalFreak on 4/28/2011 7:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they have i4 EcoBoost engines in the next Taurus and Fusion from the get go.

By Targon on 4/29/2011 10:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
The information that has been released/leaked indicates that EcoBoost will be added to the Fusion line, and is already set for the Taurus. Just remember that a big factor in the Fusion and Taurus is that they are supposed to be more powerful than the Focus.

By YashBudini on 4/29/2011 11:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your dead grandmother has more hp than a Focus.

No offense.

The EcoBoost engine appears good
By Beenthere on 4/29/2011 10:23:10 AM , Rating: 3
The new Ford EcoBoost engine is a viable alternative to a V-8 engine for many consumers. It offers slightly better fuel economy, particularly when you're just crusing and don't require a lot of power. This is the primary advantage to fewer cylinders and a turbo.

The true test will be how these engines wear in real life not some made-for-TV-Ad. Those familiar with the 2.3L Turbo or the Mopar 2.2L turbo are aware of significant engine wear and oil consumption by 50K miles. Turbo Diesel engines run a long time without issues because of the lubrication properties of the fuel and lower combustion temps. Turbo gas engines require premium metallurgy to get long duration durability.

By benny638 on 4/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Yeahhhhh
By aguilpa1 on 4/29/2011 9:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
seriously, you want to compare your thing that has over 120HP less and half the torque but still gets about the same gas mileage and your happy with it? whatev dude

Long term reliability
By TerranMagistrate on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Long term reliability
By Brandon Hill on 4/28/2011 7:05:55 PM , Rating: 3
What about diesels? Most of them are turbo'd and damn near bulletproof.

RE: Long term reliability
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Long term reliability
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Long term reliability
By Brandon Hill on 4/28/2011 7:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
As stated in the article, the EcoBoost V6 in the F-150 runs on regular.

RE: Long term reliability
By YashBudini on 4/28/2011 7:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's means the likelihood of any used truck seeing premium just plunged to nothing.

RE: Long term reliability
By Kurz on 4/28/2011 8:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
>.> You usually run any engine now adays that ask for premium on regular. Bless the modern Engine sensors.

RE: Long term reliability
By YashBudini on 4/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Long term reliability
By Spuke on 4/28/2011 11:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
The Ecoboost is direct injected also. Shouldn't have an issue with knock.

RE: Long term reliability
By voronwe on 4/29/2011 12:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I only got a little over 300,000 miles apiece out of my two Saabs. I'm sure that without the turbochargers I could have gotten an extra 100.

Of course, now that I think about it, the engines themselves had good compression at that point. It was the transmissions that finally went.

RE: Long term reliability
By Spuke on 4/29/2011 12:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, now that I think about it, the engines themselves had good compression at that point. It was the transmissions that finally went.
And that has what to do with the turbo's again? Also, how can OTR diesels routinely rack up 1 million miles or more on OEM turbo'd engines if they're so crappy on reliability?

RE: Long term reliability
By YashBudini on 4/29/2011 5:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
That would depend on how close to max torque Saab ran his transmission.

Ford's EcoBoost
By Richard875yh5 on 4/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By Spuke on 4/29/2011 9:44:33 AM , Rating: 3
Ford brags about their Ford HD truck being the best and it's so far from the truth.
Yeah because a website named "gmauthority" is totally unbiased.

RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By YashBudini on 4/29/2011 6:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
At least it ain't a bunch of Moonies.

RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By Spuke on 4/30/2011 10:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
At least it ain't a bunch of Moonies.
LOL! You're cracking me up dude.

RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By voronwe on 4/29/2011 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ford's is called EcoBoost, GM's is called EcoTec. So they have different brand names.

RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By JediJeb on 4/29/2011 3:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have driven Chevy trucks, even HD models, and to me they feel like riding in a boat. The suspension is soft and cornering they feel like they will roll over. But then that is just my impressions of them, others probably just love them.

RE: Ford's EcoBoost
By Spuke on 4/30/2011 10:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not just you. They aren't designed for great or even good handling IMO. But they excel at towing and hauling!! The ride is better with a couple thousand pounds in the bed.

Eco my ass
By smilingcrow on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Eco my ass
By quiksilvr on 4/28/2011 8:44:21 PM , Rating: 5
More fuel obviously. You fail to realize that not only is it a 365 hp engine, it's lugging a pickup truck. The fact that it gets 20 mpg at all is a monumental achievement and a real money saver for those that need pickup trucks for their work.

RE: Eco my ass
By Philippine Mango on 4/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Eco my ass
By MadMan007 on 4/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Eco my ass
By aegisofrime on 4/30/2011 12:07:49 PM , Rating: 1
The f**ktards are f**ktards and they can waste their own f**king money :)

RE: Eco my ass
By YashBudini on 4/30/2011 1:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Spend much time augmenting your vocabulary?

Old Scrabble games can be found at yard sales cheap.

RE: Eco my ass
By p05esto on 4/30/2011 3:09:18 PM , Rating: 4
Hey D*PSH*T, I own a F-150 and am a web designer. I do a lot of home improvement projects, pull my ATVs up north, etc. I find having a pick-up critical for my daily life. Are you suggesting I go buy ANOTHER vehicle so so I can save $40 a month at the pump? How many decades would it take before that purchase made financial sense? Or how much MORE waste and energy would be produced by me having two vehicles to someday put in a landfill?

In otherwords, maybe think for 3 seconds before you make some pointless generalization about people who drive pick-up trucks to the grocery store.

I won't even get into how much safer trucks are than smaller vehicles or that people with pick-ups tend to be interesting people with a lot of cool stuff going on in their lives that they need a truck to begin with. Suck on it.

RE: Eco my ass
By Amedean on 5/1/2011 3:11:49 AM , Rating: 1
And that is why I went to Iraq twice and Afghanistan getting shot at with people trying to blow me up. I carried the body of a good man SFC Knier who left 3 children and a loyal wife. Then a month later seen the body of my Sergeant Major, SGM Watts who was blown up by a land mine. My friends shot and shell shocked, that is why I when I left the Army I had to go through over a year of mental therapy making sense of all this...

So a web designer can complain convenience and about high gas prices while he is driving his F-150 for his safety on the highway?!?

Thank you to everyone who is trying to conserve until we figure out how to get out of this energy crisis and oil addiction.

RE: Eco my ass
By heymrdj on 5/1/2011 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds like to me you joined the army for the wrong reason then. What made you think that most of the wars you would get sent to today wouldn't be for economic interests or peace keeping in other nations. Other nations aren't exactly throwing their soldiers onto our terrain. When we're attacked you can then join/get drafter for to defend your land. Otherwise you knew what you were signing up for when you joined, as did the others that have died. Doesn't matter how much I try to beat that into peoples head they still think the military is cool or the benefits or the money. No one seems to think about what it really is, you're going to be sent to kill or be killed.


RE: Eco my ass
By Amedean on 5/1/2011 7:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Don't patronize me about service to my country and don't assume I joined for benefits! I joined to perserve my nation and its constitution when almost 3000 citizens were murdered. Aside from that,what are you disagreeing with in my statement? Conservation is an issue of national security and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil I think we all agree. I am ashamed to here a service member attempt to trash another for his service, especially speaking from the Navy. Not all service member bear the weight equally in this fight and I knew exactly what I came in for in 2002. If I wanted to mop decks and practice naval drills then I would have joined the Navy, but I wanted to do a little more - rather a lot more! Unless you are EOD then I would just nod and continue about your life.

RE: Eco my ass
By heymrdj on 5/1/2011 11:16:36 PM , Rating: 3
I patronize you because you're playing a two sided fiddle. You may displace the Navy all you like, I don't know what you saw in your service, you certainly don't know me. As for trashing your service, it was not a trashing of your service. You can say what you like, that doing what you did was special, but it's not. We all made that choice. We did it to serve our nation.

As to my two sided comment, you stated you fought for oil or that you fought for 3000 people's deaths. We had no reason to go gangbuster in other countries for one man, who is now finally dead after 10 years at the expense of thousands more lives. If it was for oil, well it was all a waste in the end then. I can support this nation. That doesn't mean I have to agree with its leadership.

RE: Eco my ass
By Amedean on 5/2/2011 4:57:09 AM , Rating: 2
STILL, what the hell is your point?!? I feel like you just like arguing. You make no sense when you say - whatever nvm, I give up! You must be one of those people that has to be right about everything no matter what I say. At least you said something I agree with, you don't know what I have seen. To bad in your two posts there is not a valid topic relating to my original post about oil dependence and lost lives, just a rant.....troll.

RE: Eco my ass
By mikeyD95125 on 5/2/2011 3:15:24 AM , Rating: 1
I think you need to make a distinction between pickup trucks, a vehicle with a lot of utility, and HERE WE GO BRO BIG ASS TRUCKS raised 4 feet off the ground with stickers and chrome. Trucks raised so high they cannot be off-roaded,or even have stuff placed in the bed without lifting it over your head.

People have freedom and rights in our country, driving those excessive vehicular monstrosities is an embarassment to that.

RE: Eco my ass
By Lazarus Dark on 4/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Eco my ass
By Flunk on 4/28/2011 11:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
The F150 is a full size 1/2 tonne truck, geared for payload and towing.

You can't compare that to any car, even a really inefficient one. As an example my Mazda 3 gets about 26MPG in the city and 34 on the highway, but it's not comparable to a pickup in any way so that's irrelevant.

RE: Eco my ass
By chick0n on 4/28/2011 11:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
Lazarus Dark is one of those "brain dead" people who just love to compare apples to his neighbor's dog ...

so don't waste your time on him.

RE: Eco my ass
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2011 12:08:33 AM , Rating: 3
Lazarus Dark is one of those "brain dead" people

Well obviously, he DID buy a Challenger after all...

RE: Eco my ass
By ebakke on 4/29/2011 11:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
Awww SNAP!

RE: Eco my ass
By Lazarus Dark on 4/29/2011 6:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
lol, I didn't know I was famous. I've been come here since day one and only recognize maybe three screen names. It's not like a forum, where you get to know something about peoples personal lives, and thus remember them.

RE: Eco my ass
By woofersus on 4/28/2011 11:56:08 PM , Rating: 5
You mean the base 4.6L V8 in 1997 that had 145hp AND 155lb-ft of torque less than the current ecoboost powerplant? (and that torque at a somewhat less accessible 4000rpm) Even the up-level 5.4L engine comes up 130hp and 75lb-ft short. AND this year's truck weighs about 900lbs more.

It's irritating that articles mentioning these newer engines and what they can do are always pooh-poohed by people comparing apples to oranges. Gas mileage is about a lot more than horsepower or displacement!

And btw, your challenger with the 5.7l V8 and 6spd manual, which has 10 more hp and 16lb-ft less torgue, (although again at a slightly less accessible 4200rpm) is EPA rated at 15/23 or almost identical to the Ecoboost F-150, but requires more expensive 91 octane fuel. Perhaps if F-150 owners drove like you they'd get even better mileage as well, and for less money. The 2011 F-150 also weighs about 1500lbs MORE than the Challenger.

RE: Eco my ass
By headbox on 4/29/2011 1:10:39 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, the horsepower gain in the last 10-15 years is amazing, and I'm sure it will continue to rise. BMW is getting 180hp+ out of a 1.0 liter production motorcycle engine in a bike that's only $14k. Honda, Suzuki, etc. are not far behind it.

RE: Eco my ass
By Spuke on 4/29/2011 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 5
The 2011 F-150 also weighs about 1500lbs MORE than the Challenger.
And, more importantly, it has far worse aero than the Challenger.

RE: Eco my ass
By apmonte on 4/29/2011 6:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
My 2003 F-150 FX4 with a 5.4 gets 12.5 in town and 16 on the Hwy. The Ecoboost is a welcome addition to the engine selection, but I'd still like to see it in a lighter/smaller F-150 or F-100.

RE: Eco my ass
By do_i_neda_name on 5/2/2011 8:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
1/2 ton trucks today are more like 3/4 ton trucks of yesterday. New 1/2 ton truck are so big they have to carry higher weight classes in some states (PA requires a class 2 tag on most 1/2 tons). There is a big gap between the mid size offerings and the full size offerings and there is defiantly a market for a truck in between. Toyota has an ad with a rancher who thought he needed a 3/4 ton until he tried a new 1/2 ton.

My 08 Nissan Titan has near identical towing and payload of my 01 F-250 with the 7.3L diesel. The only difference is I don't mind slamming firewood in the F-250.

RE: Eco my ass
By fraks on 4/29/2011 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2010 F150 FX4 with the stock 5.4l V-8 and I get this mileage rating on the dot... and that's with the crappy 10% ethanol mix

RE: Eco my ass
By JediJeb on 4/29/2011 3:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 96 F150 with the last of the 4.9L(300cid) inline 6 cylinder engines and that thing gets 16-18mpg no matter if it is highway or city. I don't have the hp or torque numbers handy but I know I did put 3000 pounds of tobacco in it once and hauled it to market and was pulling steep hills by only dropping to 4th gear. I really haven't seen comparable torque from idle to about 2000rpm in anything else, though this ecoboost sounds rather impressive maxing out at 2500rpm. I just hope it will last 200k+ miles with little to no maintenance needed other than oil changes and spark plugs.

RE: Eco my ass
By Kurz on 4/29/2011 5:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Youtube it, at least one of their engines did.

RE: Eco my ass
By Alexvrb on 4/30/2011 9:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Can't say that much about their 6.0L diesel. I hope their 6.4L diesel proves more reliable in the long term.

Anyway, it's turbocharged and generates pretty good ponies. It's a high tech, high cost modern truck engine. It should produce good mileage and be fairly durable. Just change the oil when you're supposed to, and use good oil. Preferably a good quality synthetic. Turbos like to cook oil. Of course, even conventional (SN grade) oil is leaps and bounds better than the conventional oil we had 15 years ago.

Of course, if it does break (and all engines can break), this one has the potential to be very costly to repair or replace, compared to their simpler engines.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki