Print 95 comment(s) - last by shaidorsai.. on Sep 27 at 4:23 PM

3.5-liter EcoBoost V6
V8 what? EcoBoost V6 is probably going to be a hot seller for the F-150

When we brought you news of Ford's overhauled F-150 powertrain lineup for 2011, most people were quite happy with the changes made. However, there were some that were skeptical about the possible power ratings for the optional EcoBoost V6 engine.

Some simply weren't buying into the idea that the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 -- a twin-turbocharged engine that sees duty in the Ford Taurus SHO and Ford Flex -- could possibly produce even more power in a truck platform that would undergo much more stress.

Today, however, Ford is giving the naysayers a healthy dish of crow to eat with the final power/torque figures for the EcoBoost V6 engine option in the 2011 Ford F-150. The engine will generate 365 hp at 5,000 rpm and an outrageous 420 lb-ft of torque at 2,500 rpm. Even more impressive is that 90 percent of peak torque will be available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm. Towing capacity with the new engine matches that of the larger 6.2-liter V8 engine option -- 11,300 pounds. Better still, all of this is achieved using regular unleaded fuel.

For comparison, the EcoBoost V6 generates 365 hp at 5,500 rpm and 350 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm in the Taurus SHO.

The new EcoBoost will be a more expensive engine option than the 5.0-liter V8 which generates 360 hp and 380 lb-ft of torque.

“Truck customers should think of the EcoBoost truck engine as a gas-powered engine with diesel-type capability and characteristics,” said Jim Mazuchowski, Ford's V6 engines program manager. “The twin turbochargers and direct injection give it the broad, flat torque curve that makes towing with a diesel so effortless – and hard acceleration so much fun.”

“Customers have embraced the EcoBoost solution of delivering the power they desire with the fuel economy they demand in a no-compromise package,” added Derrick Kuzak, group vice president, Global Product Development. “From the start, we have pledged that this solution applies to any engine and any customer. The EcoBoost truck engine for the 2011 F-150 will deliver those attributes and has been specially tuned and tested to deliver the best-in-class towing and capability our truck customers demand.”

The EcoBoost V6 engine option will be available for the F-150 in early 2011. Although Ford didn't give any specific fuel economy numbers for the engine, it will more than likely be more fuel efficient than the less powerful 5.0-liter V8.

Comments     Threshold

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

GM lover
By scottymyboy on 9/21/2010 12:44:44 AM , Rating: 5
for many years i have always bought GM cars, but the last 3 or so years, ford has made some serious improvements technically and i think they are just crushing their competition. With sync, ecoboost engines, option for AWD on their sedans...i find it very hard NOT to go with ford these days. and that's just to name a few options. it's hard not to also be impressed by the fact they didn't depend on the us government to bail them out. It definitely seems like of all the us auto makers, they are the ones with their sh*t together.

RE: GM lover
By Lunyone on 9/21/2010 1:24:43 AM , Rating: 3
I couldn't agree more. I think Ford has done all of the right things for the last 3 or so years. I don't like how GM has handled things and if I was in the market for a new vehicle, I'd be seriously looking at what Ford has to offer.

RE: GM lover
By aegisofrime on 9/21/2010 2:10:45 AM , Rating: 3
In fact, Top Gear had a poll, "Which car company had made the most great cars". IIRC Ford won that poll. Coming from a British motoring show that is pretty darn impressive.

RE: GM lover
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 2:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Coming from Top Gear I don't think it means all that much.

RE: GM lover
By silverblue on 9/21/2010 3:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
I used to believed it was a joke designed to help get Jeremy his GT... however it does look as if they really like Ford.

RE: GM lover
By Hyperion1400 on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: GM lover
By quiksilvr on 9/21/2010 9:06:25 AM , Rating: 3
Of course they do. Ford makes great cars and they got their act together a lot sooner than GM did. It's just GM's crap company that gave American car makers a bad name.

RE: GM lover
By mcnabney on 9/21/2010 12:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
No, that would be Chrysler. GM is still doing ok, not as good as Ford, but pretty good. If Chrysler didn't sell minivans I don't know what they would do.

RE: GM lover
By 67STANG on 9/21/2010 1:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about that... they sell plenty of 300's and Chargers too. I'm not saying they are good cars (I had a 300 and the check engine light was on more than it was off) but they sell a ton of them.

RE: GM lover
By Samus on 9/23/2010 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason you see so many of them is because they're cheap as hell and chrysler will finance anybody. The guy down the street from me has a house being foreclosed on yet he just bought a brand new Dodge Journey. They get away with it because the vehicles are so unbelievably shitty that profit margins are huge, even though they're inexpensive to the public.

Almost all Chrysler technology (platforms, engines, transmissions, etc) is left over from the Daimler AG merger. The 300 is a 1990's E-class chassis, along with all the control-arm geometry problems it was plagued with that caused premature ball joint wear and a car that never drove straight The Dodge Caravan is STILL a dead axle. I had one of these in 1987 and I swear the platform is still 90% unchanged. They handle horribly and have constant front-end problems. I'm not going to even bother discussing the gas guzzling "Hemi" that uses 40 year old technology. Most of these engines are plagued with emissions failures after a few years.

I bought a Ford SVT Focus in 2003. It hasn't been the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, but being a performance car with a lot of new technology, that was expected. I still have it, and it has never stranded me anywhere. To this day, there hasn't been another car yet that looks and performs as good while being as economical and safe. I know because I crashed a 2002 SVT Focus I bought in 2007 for a project last year at 70MPH into a concrete overpass. The car was completely totalled but the door opened and I got out.

RE: GM lover
By silverblue on 9/21/2010 3:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but they're praising the British and European models; the Granada and Escort are different to the models over in the States, for example.

Ford did great things over here, and still continue to do so. My father owned two Cortinas (one in British Racing Green, the other a rather questionable cream) and a white Granada in the 80s, and you still see Escorts on the road even now when there's questionably better and more economical cars around.

RE: GM lover
By BZDTemp on 9/21/2010 6:12:49 PM , Rating: 1

No one in Europe thinks of the F150 or anything like that when talking about Ford. What they think is the history like those you mention and the Focus, the Mondeo and the Fiesta. Plus some may think of the Ford Transit which is a van but that is it then.

RE: GM lover
By AEvangel on 9/21/2010 6:51:30 PM , Rating: 3
No one in Europe thinks of the F150 or anything like that when talking about Ford.

Which is surprising given the fact that Ford’s F series is at present the best selling car in the world. Every year Ford sells almost a million cars, that is almost one vehicle every 30 seconds. So far, 25 million vehicles of the F series were sold. The only vehicles that comes close is Toyota Corrolla, VW Golf and VW Beetle followed then by the Model T.

RE: GM lover
By rtrski on 9/21/2010 9:57:59 AM , Rating: 3
Ditto, except I am in the market. I only wish they were a bit quicker with the better mileage options, as I may take a pass on Ford this time.

Seriously like the Edge, but the mileage on it is still crap. Will look into the Fiesta pretty hard (it's State Fair season here in TX, so perfect time to go car-comparing!) but although it gets the BEST mileage of all the hatchback to midsize crossover type vehicles I'm interested in, it's also about the smallest in terms of usable space. Will have to see if that balances out against the very nice appointment (Sync, etc. feature set).

If they had an Edge with ecoboost now that got around 24-25 mpg combined, I'd be all over it. There's just no reason for 20 or under (combined) mpg unless** you're looking at high power / towing or high performance (sport), and I'm not looking for either, just a nice ride.

And as I think I've "outed" myself before on this page, my current ride is a Prius. Bought when I had a 55 mile commute each way to work. Been a not so bad car, but now that commute is around 30 mi, willing to drop a bit of economy for a bit more style. The 05 Pri will get handed down to college age daughter and should run another couple years at least (already at 125k miles and replaced nothing but a water pump and tires...aside from bodywork from being RE-ed).

Goes without saying, I won't even look at GM or Chrysler. Frakers. May be irrational, but they burned that bridge when they became Gubbamint Motors.

[**The caveat is intended to show I am NOT saying no one should buy a car with lower mileage. That's their choice as a consumer, not the choice of some eco-nazi-car-czar or whatever. It's simply my OPINION, as I'm not in a category that either "needs" or "wants" higher power. But neither do I "want" non-competitive fuel use. Compare say the Kia Sportage with 23-25 combined for different trim levels vs. the 18-20 for the Edge.]

RE: GM lover
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 2:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Compare say the Kia Sportage with 23-25 combined for different trim levels vs. the 18-20 for the Edge.]
2011 Edge is up to 22 combined now. Don't know if that makes a difference to you or not. And is the Sportage a competitor to the Edge? The Edge is decidedly more expensive. Not sure on that comparison. On my commute, I would get right at the 27 mpg mark or more (2011 Edge is 19/27/22). My wife would probably get ~25 mpg as she does more city driving than me. If you're doing mostly city, maybe you should stick to hybrids or even the VW TDI's. A gas car isn't going to be all that great in the city.

RE: GM lover
By rtrski on 9/22/2010 10:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
Whoa...thanks for posting. I hadn't checked the 2011 stats yet. That is enticing.

By the time I get the Kia configured the way I want its up into similar pricing. And they're both the 'smaller' crossover SUV offerings, so I would say they would be competitive. Really like Sync - especially the new touch. May have to check this out seriously this weekend. Sure they'll have one at the State Fair.

Thanks again!

RE: GM lover
By AstroGuardian on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: GM lover
By Spoelie on 9/21/2010 6:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
Get your facts straight. The Focus developed and released in Europe have been hailed as the better model, the new Focus also made the transfer to the US. Their chassis and road behavior have historically been described as best in class, better than VW Golfs and Opel Astras and certainly not shared with them.

The Fiesta and the Panda are on different platforms, it is shared with the Mazda 2 though.

RE: GM lover
By teldar on 9/21/2010 7:06:30 AM , Rating: 3
Could you be less well informed? The only car that shares anything with a fiat is the ka, which was co-developed as the 500. The focus of based on the volvo platform for the c30. Opel has been agm brand for 40 years, I believe.

RE: GM lover
By bldckstark on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: GM lover
By FITCamaro on 9/21/2010 8:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I wouldn't mind having that V6 in my GTO. I'd be upping the boost pretty quick. ^o.o^

It'll be interesting to see the mod potential of the V6. Sure it won't have the rumble of a V8. But power is power.

I still would love to see a turbo-diesel in a mid-size truck. Shouldn't have to buy the HD version of a truck to get one.

RE: GM lover
By tjr508 on 9/23/2010 12:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ford's Super Duty isn't exactly a different version. It's a completely different platform. It has been that way since 1999. It's hard to tell why they even refer to all of the trucks as F-Series any more when the only thing they share is an F in the name.
As a Power Stroke driver myself, I can say that there is no point in owning a diesel in a truck unless you do a lot of heavy towing and hate changing gears constantly. The EPA requirements combined with a relentless horsepower race have done away with any slight economic advantages that may have existed in the past.

RE: GM lover
By VahnTitrio on 9/21/2010 10:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think more importantly than how they jumped out front is that they continue to push forward, rather than just being content with the recent success. Only problem is you may one day feel like me. My 2008 Fusion only has about 16,000 miles on it and reading Ford articles here makes it feel more and more dated all the time.

I need to win the lottery though so I can buy one of these F150's and put a 21 foot bass boat behind it. Wouldn't it be cool if it was the F150 SHO, and the boat behind it had a Yamaha VMax SHO on it?

RE: GM lover
By dubyadubya on 9/21/2010 7:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
The new SHO motor was built in house by ford not by Yamaha.
It would be a nice setup though.

RE: GM lover
By VahnTitrio on 9/22/2010 10:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
I was referring to the outboard motor on the boat. Yamaha does make an outboard dubbed the SHO. So both the boat and the truck could be dubbed SHO.

RE: GM lover
By Treckin on 9/22/2010 3:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
The confusion is because Ford outsourced the design of the original SHO motor to Yamaha.

RE: GM lover
By iFX on 9/21/2010 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ford has been a degree ahead of GM for the better part of 20 years. Nice to have you in the family though.

RE: GM lover
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2010 8:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? So Ford's answer for the LS series was......? They've been down on power with the same or worse fuel economy in the performance sector for around 20 years. Only by supercharging the Mustang were they able to stay even. And we don't even need to talk about the poor handling and traction of the Mustang. There was the GT but I hardly think a $200,000+ supercar needs to be looked at compared to even the Corvette considering the cost difference (nevermind that the Z06 keeps up with it for far less $$$ and is a far more comfortable car to drive.

Only with the new 5.0 are they coming back. The only blip from 1990 onward was the 02-03 Terminators. And then the GT500 which was a Corvette priced Mustang that kept up with a Vette in a straight line but didn't even come close in turns. Only just now, in 2010, are they finally adding a 6-speed to the Mustang GT. The Camaro/Firebird had one in 1993. And the Corvette has had one since 1988 I believe. Before that it had a 4+3(4 gears + 3 overdrives).

Yes Ford has had 3V heads for a while while GM has stuck with a 2V. GM actually has a 3V head design which for the life of me I don't know why they haven't used. I guess because they haven't needed to to beat Ford in power and fuel economy. Maybe the new 5.0 will change this.

RE: GM lover
By tjr508 on 9/23/2010 12:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
The mustang and corvette have never directly competed. Meanwhile, the mustang has captured the heart of America for decades while the F-Body remains associated with methamphetamine use and mullet haircuts.

I'm patient
By MGSsancho on 9/21/2010 2:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'll wait till these systems achieve 100k, 150k and 200k miles on them in real world. I have no beef with the engine I have been burned by every ford I've owned in the past 40 years. maybe they are better I'm sure but I will wait and see

RE: I'm patient
By gemsurf on 9/21/2010 7:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 94 Ranger 4 liter sitting in the driveway with 180k on it. (My 4th Ranger) Other than normal maintenance, the only problem I've had is a siezed tensioner pulley for the serpentine belt. What was crazy, was it got so hot it literally spun the threads out of the aluminum bracket and spit it back on top of the manifold. Had it gone down or forward it would have busted the crap out of tons of expensive stuff, but since it didn't I was up and running for less than $40!

I'm a Ford guy because I've had success with many Fords! I also have a 2007 Mountaineer (Merc) with 60K and plan to sell the Ranger next year and buy one of the F150 SuperCrews next year.

RE: I'm patient
By Pneumothorax on 9/21/2010 9:14:41 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize your Ranger engine AND the 4.6/5/5.4 Liter V8's are much less complex designs than this ecoboost engine. Not only do you have turbos - which have a low probability of making it to 180K without replacement, you also have HPFP/Direct Injectors which haven't been proven yet over the long haul. I'm also curious to see if Ecoboost has solved the other major issue with Turbo DI engines - intake valve buildup. Since you don't have air/fuel (gas makes a great solvent) cleaning the valves anymore.

RE: I'm patient
By Brandon Hill on 9/21/2010 12:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
HD diesel pickups use DI and turbos; they can't be THAT bad...

RE: I'm patient
By Pneumothorax on 9/21/2010 2:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem. The diesel engine block itself is stout and will outlast the chassis. It's the supporting "cast", the turbos and di components that run into trouble. I'm very pro-diesel (have a 335d myself), but I'm also aware that maintenance on them isn't going to be cheaper vs. a naturally aspirated motor. For many super-duty diesel truck owners, the money they saved on mileage is eaten up by the higher maintenance costs, but a diesel truck engine is superior by it's virtue of much greater torque vs. the equivalent sized gasser. I'd also like to see endurance tests like going up a steep grade, towing max capacity, and at 105F for this ecoboost v6 vs. the new 5 liter V8. I'd also wager the fuel economy isn't going to be much different in those conditions.

RE: I'm patient
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
but I'm also aware that maintenance on them isn't going to be cheaper vs. a naturally aspirated motor
Depends on the car. My DI turbo 4 cyl has only oil, oil filter and air filter changes until 100K. Lowest maintenance car I've EVER owned. Looking at the Taurus SHO's maintenance schedule, looks exactly the same as my car. Can't imagine much more maintenance on the F150.

RE: I'm patient
By Pneumothorax on 9/21/2010 4:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about cheap oil changes and basic maintenance. I'm talking about the inevitable turbo failures and etc. that are part of a forced induction engine. For the majority of the fickle car buying public it won't be an issue as most will dump the car/truck long before six figure mileage. For the people who actually use their truck to work/haul stuff, 100,000 miles isn't a lot and long-term costs become a bigger factor.

RE: I'm patient
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 6:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably why they are still offering the 5.0/6.2 V8.

I think time will tell if you are right, and while past evidence is on your side, Ford isn't someone who does crap like that with their trucks and doesn't bother testing them.

Now I want the V6 in a new company van for my work. The current V6 4 speed trany is a wimp.

RE: I'm patient
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 6:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about the inevitable turbo failures and etc. that are part of a forced induction engine.
HD trucks use turbo's and have no premature failures, why would the F150 be the same? This isn't 1986 dude, turbos' nowadays are better designed and use better materials, not to mention, todays turbo's are water/oil cooled. This isn't your grandmas POS GM turbo car.

RE: I'm patient
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 6:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Check out Mozee's post below on FOrd's durability testing. There's no way in hell Ford is going to put a POS engine in a vehicle that sells 50k units a month. No way.

RE: I'm patient
By iFX on 9/21/2010 7:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you understand the difference (no offense intended). A diesel engine is comparatively overbuilt if you only intended to run it at gas engine compression levels. The difference is, a diesel engine might run a 40:1 compression ratio - if you ran that on a gas engine it wouldn't last a minute. Gas engines are typically designed for compression levels of 10:1 or less. Everything on a diesel engine is made to withstand much higher operating tolerances, gas engines just aren't, even "beefed" up gas engines with turbos.

RE: I'm patient
By dubyadubya on 9/21/2010 8:26:19 AM , Rating: 4
Only time will tell. I have not seen any info on the durability testing ford has done on this specific engine package but if its anything like what they did with the new 5.0 or 6.7 diesel it should hold up to anything. A single 5.0 was run on a dyno at WOT under full load for 40 days without fail. Ford also ran a dyno simulation of 62 Daytona 500's without a tear down. Engines were shock tested by making full dyno pulls followed by quick shutdowns and then injecting -20F coolant into the engine. This was repeated over and over. The 5.0 was so reliable ford only needed a few test mules. Following each test an engine was disassembled inspected and in most cases reassembled using the same components because everything was still in spec. The new 6.7 diesel was tested in the same or similar manner. I would guess the 3.5 was tested the same way. Info on the 5.0

RE: I'm patient
By Mozee on 9/21/2010 5:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Found some testing details for you, direct from Ford:

An all-new engine
Every Ford truck engine undergoes a tortuous testing program, and the EcoBoost truck engine was no exception.

“We’re testing this EcoBoost truck engine just as we would all of our other F-150 truck engines – we have exactly the same expectations and it has to pass all our truck durability and reliability tests,” said Kris Norman, powertrain operations manager. “From our standpoint, this is an all-new engine specifically designed and engineered for the F-150. Everything is validated to the higher stress levels and higher customer usage levels found in any F-150 engine.”

Three avenues that test and validate engines are computer analysis, laboratory testing and in-vehicle validation. For the 3.5-liter EcoBoost application in the 2011 F-150, that includes:

More than 1.5 million hours of analytical time

More than 13,000 hours of dynamometer testing, including more than 5,000 hours at full boost and more than 2,500 hours at or above 5,000 rpm; the dyno testing helps ensure durability in excess of 150,000 miles

More than 100,000 hours of vehicle test time encompassing the full range of potential customer operating conditions

All the tests together replicate more than 1.6 million miles of customer usage – the harshest-use customer. A customer profile reflecting extreme-use driving style, road types and vehicle usage, including maximum towing and payload situations, was developed to underpin the testing program.

RE: I'm patient
By dubyadubya on 9/21/2010 10:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I'm patient
By FITCamaro on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: I'm patient
By weskurtz0081 on 9/21/2010 9:06:48 AM , Rating: 5
I think that's mainly because he is using anecdotal evidence to come to his conclusions about the entire company. I understand, it is classic consumer behavior, but it isn't the most accurate way to judge a company and its products.

RE: I'm patient
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2010 8:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
So if you have bad experience with a company time and time again, you continue to buy their products anyway? He wasn't saying no one should buy Ford, just that he wouldn't without seeing how long they last.

RE: I'm patient
By weskurtz0081 on 9/21/2010 9:07:41 AM , Rating: 5
Plus, how many Fords did he own? Why did he keep buying them if he kept "getting burned"? If I say I had the exact opposite experience, does that mean I am right and he is wrong?

RE: I'm patient
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 9:26:33 AM , Rating: 5
I love how a comment on his personal experiences over 40 years is downrated.
His experiences aren't the problem, IMO, it's that there's ALWAYS at least one of these comments. It's old. The company is obviously doing much better even the stats say so. How many people REALLY have problems with a car company's entire product line? Wouldn't two bad cars be enough to move on?

RE: I'm patient
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 6:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
I love how a comment about a person's comment about 40 years is downrated.

EcoBoost V8?
By Redwin on 9/21/2010 9:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
I have to ask, why don't they put their EcoBoost turbo charging shenanigans ON the 5.0 liter V8? I mean obviously the whole point of ecoboost, (up to and including the name) was to lower fuel consumption while maintaining power, but couldn't they tune it to also maintain fuel consumption while increasing power?

Gas is back under $3 here in California, I bet there'd be a market for it again :)

RE: EcoBoost V8?
By Brandon Hill on 9/21/2010 9:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree, an EcoBoost 5.0 would probably produce stupid amounts of power. This is after all a light-duty truck.

This would only make sense if Ford was going to do another F-150 Lightning, but I think that Ford is over that...

RE: EcoBoost V8?
By Goty on 9/21/2010 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, now they have the Raptor. =D

RE: EcoBoost V8?
By 67STANG on 9/21/2010 1:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
There are rumors that an upcoming Shelby GT 500 will use an ecoboost V8. Mind you, the rumors are probably true. The only unknown is what V8 they'll put it on. 5.0 or 6.2. I hope it's the 6.2 because then they might offer the 5.0 ecoboost on a special model wedged between the Shelby and the GT.

Btw, where in California do you live?? Gas where I am is 3.45/gallon.

RE: EcoBoost V8?
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are rumors that an upcoming Shelby GT 500 will use an ecoboost V8.
If they do that, I'll definitely pick up a used one in 4 years. IMO, I hope they go out of the box and do a Ecoboost 4.0L V8. Cut down on some weight. And while I'm in dreamland, throw in some double wishbones in the rear.

RE: EcoBoost V8?
By Treckin on 9/22/2010 3:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
dude you must realize that extra displacement adds virtually NO weight to a motor. Other design choice are FAR more important, ie. heavy dual turbos, heavy cast exhaust manifolds, heavy o2 collectors, intercooler + piping, extra reinforced forged pistons and connecting rods to take the beating of the turbos...
Just saying. This is why ricers have been eating corvette dust for decades now... Try to remember that displacement is empty volume, not solid.

I think this is great!
By amanojaku on 9/21/2010 8:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
For the consumer. Better fuel economy will hopefully lead to a lower TCO over time.

As to the environmental impact (one of the engine's goals is to lower CO2 emissions by 15%), well, I think this is a good read:
The Earth Doesn’t Care About what is done to or for it.

RE: I think this is great!
By Dr of crap on 9/21/2010 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 1
I agree that this engine is great - but not BECAUSE it saves CO2, But because it's a smaller size that has the performance of a bigger engine.
That makes the car / pickup lighter and has the same pulling power, so all around good things. The fact that the CO2 is less - don't really care, but I guess the car companies do for the CAFE standards, and the US govt does - at least the car buyers get something better from CAFE, and not have to give up something!

RE: I think this is great!
By theapparition on 9/21/2010 12:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, your username is quite apt.

Hate to break it to you, but Fords Ecoboost engines are actually heavier than comparable engines, for several reasons.

1st, bigger displacements mean bigger holes. If you take a piece of swiss cheese and make the holes bigger, it gets lighter, not heavier. (Gross example but fundamentally correct). Displacement refers to the amount of air pumped through the cylinders, not physical size. Most OHV V8's are physically smaller than OHC V6s.
2nd, you are adding the additional weight of the turbochargers and associated plumbing.

For example, as a system, a typical(aluminum block and heads) V8 will weigh about 100lbs less than a comparable ecoboost V6.

There's a reason Ford's going to Ecoboost, but don't for a minute believe it's because of weight reduction.

RE: I think this is great!
By Spuke on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: I think this is great!
By theapparition on 9/21/2010 3:33:24 PM , Rating: 3
Nice try, but how about comparing them to aluminum block engines, not older iron block ones (6.2L). Also, I went out of my way to specifically to mention cam-in-block OHV, not OHC engines.

LS3 6.2L Aluminum block - 418lbs
3.5L Ecoboost - 449lbs missing lots of parts

Information I had was that weight was without turbos, which I still feel is the case. I don't trust as a factual source, but for now I retract my previous 100lb differential and modify that to 75lbs.
So while this package may weight less than Ford's other offerings, it's far from weight competitive with other manufacturers.

Keep in mind, I'm not knocking the ecoboost line. Just that it gets to me when people talk about lighter (which it isn't), or cheaper (which is most certainly is not) engine. You'd be surprised how many people think ford is doing good financially because they put in a cheaper engine (aka ecoboost).

RE: I think this is great!
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 6:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but how about comparing them to aluminum block engines, not older iron block ones (6.2L). Also, I went out of my way to specifically to mention cam-in-block OHV, not OHC engines.
You're cherry picking the data and comparing apples to oranges. Then the typical ignorant non-posting a$$holes downrate me when I posted facts! Nice try my ass. The 6.2L is a brand new engine. What's old about it? Fact, the 3.5L is LIGHTER than the FORD engines that it either replaces or augments. If I used your logic, I could pick a 1938 Fiat 4 cyl and say that's lighter so therefore the Ecoboost motor is a pig. That might work for you but that's not a fair comparison.

FACT : the Ecoboost is lighter than ANY of the engines offered in the F150. Therefore, the F150 WILL be lighter with that engine installed.

By GruntboyX on 9/21/2010 10:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is exciting! If that motor can get even 22 MPG it would be a complete win in the truck market. More Power and better fuel efficiency that is great.

Now if they can only design a suitable replacement or simply update the ranger to more of mid size. To be honest, I have no need to tow 11,500 lbs of payload. However, I do need a truck and 4x4 capability for where I live. It is getting a tad ridiculous that you just about need a CDL to drive an F-150. You use to be able to reach over the bed of the truck, now you need a step ladder. Soon your going to need a extension ladder. Its a shame to see people buying lawn and garden trailers to tow there payloads, because they cant get them into the beds of these monster trucks.

RE: Exciting
By weskurtz0081 on 9/21/2010 11:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, lawn and garden trailers are less expensive than ramps.... wait, no they aren't!

RE: Exciting
By tng on 9/21/2010 1:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well in all fairness some of the 4X4s look pretty high off the ground..... But that should not stop people who buy these vehicles from looking at what they will really use them for and make a decision if they really will EVER need the 4X4 capability, you can buy a F-150 without 4WD can't you?

As someone who lives in a largely metro area in CA, I see allot of 4X4s (both jacked up and standard) that will never see any real need for 4X4 use in their lifetimes.

When I visit upstate NY I really see fewer of these types of vehicles (big 4X4 pickups) even though there is more justification for them due to winter conditions.

RE: Exciting
By Andrwken on 9/21/2010 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
There are already full size v8 trucks on the market that can get that. I would be impressed if it played around at 25 mpg empty.

Make life interesting
By YashBudini on 9/21/2010 4:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Put this engine/turbo combo in a Ford Fusion.

RE: Make life interesting
By tng on 9/21/2010 5:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
You know, that is one of the best things you have ever posted I think. Wish I could rate you up on that one.....

I know I would buy one of those in a Fusion with all of the new My Touch systems.

RE: Make life interesting
By Atheist Icon on 9/21/2010 7:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
I would go a little further and make it an AWD 6spd (manual only) as well. I would definitely buy the car.

Driveability & Reliability
By iFX on 9/21/2010 7:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Let me start by saying I have driven the new SHO Taurus and this new twin turbo 3.5L V6 is arguably a hot motor, for a mainstream Ford sedan. When it comes to trucks however, I'm not interested.

When it comes to a truck, I want a durable V8 engine. That isn't to say six cylinder engines can't be durable, look at the Ford 300 I6, arguably one of the best and most durable truck engines of all time. That motor however in contrast to the new 3.5 was under-tuned and underpowered - on purpose, to gain that legendary durability. The new 3.5 is under pressure (literally) and on the bleeding edge of what it's capable of right out of the factory. This engine has zero down time, as is proof by the torque curve. It's making boost as early as 1000 RPM and making peak torque at 1,500 RPM. As much as I like the engine, I don't see it lasting when being taxed day in and day out.

Admittedly, I didn't see anything wrong with the previous modular 5.4L V8 and 6.8L V10 engines. They made adequate power but more importantly they were up to the abuse challenge and have an excellent track record when it comes to reliability and longevity.

If I were buying a new F150 today my engine of choice would indeed by the 5.0. Having owned many generations of the Ford modular V8 in many, many flavors dating back to it's introduction in 1992 I have come to grow confident in it's performance, reliability and durability. The 5.0 is just the latest flavor of this excellent engine platform and is sure to serve well like it's predecessors.

RE: Driveability & Reliability
By Pneumothorax on 9/22/2010 12:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's the thing. Just like a overclocked vs. stock & watercooling vs. air-cooling in computers, the more complex/pushed designs give higher performance at the expense of reliability. Many F-150 owners have easily reached 200K ranges without engine rebuilds and while the 3.5 block is likely durable, I have yet to see long-term reliability tests on these complex engines. Your reliability needs are different for a Taurus SHO vs. a truck that you need every day for your job/hauling duties.

Sync is cutting edge? LOL
By jfelano on 9/24/2010 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny you guys think Sync is cutting edge. GM has had Onstar standard for 1 year since what, 2000? LOL

RE: Sync is cutting edge? LOL
By shaidorsai on 9/27/2010 4:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
BlondeStar in no way competes with Sync...In 2000 Ford drivers bought a Garmin and a cell phone and saved 2000 dollars. BlondeStar is nothing but a dumbed down cell phone with voice dialing that gives the user the ability to call someone, get help, or ask for directions... that's it. Sync on the other hand does everything BlondeStar does and much more. Items like direct voice access to my music player and my entire cell phone address book by name...I know I've used both. BlondeStar is no competition for Sync....

By Richard875yh5 on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: EcoBoost
By Brandon Hill on 9/21/2010 8:07:18 AM , Rating: 5
GM invented turbocharging and direct injection?

You're right that Ford did a good job of marketing the turbocharging and DI to the masses, but all GM has to show for is the Ecotec 2.0T which they only really used in performance applications.

Ford is actually bringing Ecotec to mainstream vehicles (Fiesta, Focus, F-150, Taurus, Flex, Explorer, etc.) and its Lincoln luxury line.

RE: EcoBoost
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 9:12:28 AM , Rating: 3
Ford is actually bringing Ecotec to mainstream vehicles (Fiesta, Focus, F-150, Taurus, Flex, Explorer, etc.) and its Lincoln luxury line.
I agree. It isn't just marketing, Ford has actual product to sell. And it isn't just engines, they also have VERY compelling cars to go with those engines. I test drove a 2011 Edge (3.5L) this past weekend and it was VERY impressive. Great ride with even more impressive handling. No bobing or floating at all and good grip from the tires. The MyFord Touch (gay name) was awesome but I knew that one beforehand.

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/21/2010 8:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
How was the 20-22 mpg? Another class leading stat.

oh wait,,,,,,

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 11:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
How was the 20-22 mpg? Another class leading stat. oh wait,,,,,,

FYI, the 3.5l isn't turbocharged or DI.

And since you are a stupid GM lover, the Chevy Equinox got an observed 18MPG vs. 20MPG for the Edge, Santa Fe, and Mazda CX-7.

And the saddest part of all that is the Equinox got that with the 4 cylinder with around 80 less HP.

See how facts work? Seriously, STFU before I pwn you even more.

RE: EcoBoost
By Brandon Hill on 9/21/2010 9:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
I should have said Ford is brining EcoBoost, not Ecotec, in the last sentence. Too much Eco going around :)

RE: EcoBoost
By NesuD on 9/21/2010 10:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
You're right that Ford did a good job of marketing the turbocharging and DI to the masses, but all GM has to show for is the Ecotec 2.0T which they only really used in performance applications.

You must have forgotten about The Solstice, G6, Vue, HHR, Aura, Malibu and Sky, that used the Ecotec 2.4 engine in 2009 and 2010 as well as the 2010, Terrain, Equinox, and Lacrosse. Lets also not forget the 2.0 and 2.4 liter versions of the Ecotec engine that can be found in 2007-2010 vehicles including HHRs, Cobalts, Opel GTs, Fisker Karmas, and Elfin T5s. I happen to drive a well eguipped 2010 Terrain that has a 2.4 liter Ecotec engine. Their claim of 32 mpg is valid and consistantly acheivable at 55 mph. at 60 to 70 mpg is more around 30 to 28 respectively. Ford Explorer is slated to get Ford's first 4 cylinder Ecoboost engine this fall a full year behind the Equinox and Terrain which have been a pair of the most popular Small SUVs launched in the past year. Your Statement is woefully innacurate. Ford is ahead on the Tech in turbo V6 configs as of this year But GM has been using the Tech in production Non Turbo L4s for some time now.

RE: EcoBoost
By Brandon Hill on 9/21/2010 10:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
EcoBoost is Turbocharging + DI, thus I was talking about vehicles that use DI + turbocharging.

What does GM have now that use DI + turbocharging? The Cruze which hasn't been released yet (or at least is very close to release) and the Buick Regal GS.

And I mentioned the Ecotec 2.0 (which is Turbocharged + DI), but nearly all of those vehicles (Sky, Solstice, HHR SS) are dead or dying (Cobalt SS).

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/21/2010 7:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Gm didn't invent turbocharging, but they were the first production vehicle to use it in 1962.

DI has been fiddled with by everyone over the years and only mainstreamed recently by Mitsubishi in the late 90's. They produced over a million engines with the tech during that time.

As for the Ecotec 2.0, GM still had a DI turbocharged motor out before Ford, so lauding Ford as a wonderfully ahead of the game company is slightly laughable.

The marketing is sound, the cars are better than "they" used to be, but not really ahead of the curve.

RE: EcoBoost
By shaidorsai on 9/27/2010 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Your right...we should be "lauding" Ford for doing it right...not first. Unlike some others with half-ass'd efforts like Government Motors. Being first at something does not automatically imply it was done well.

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 10:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
FYI Ford and others were using it back in like the 70s, waaayyyy predating GM.

They canceled it because the technology needed the electronic controls we have today.

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/21/2010 7:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
building 100 cars for testing does not really count as using the tech as brought up in this article.

I can read wikipedia as well, :)

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 8:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Who said I relied on wikipedia?

And btw, since you asked for it, GM worked with Lotus on their Ecotec engine, so don't play it like GM is all awesome cause they aren't.

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/21/2010 10:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
so don't play it like GM is all awesome cause they aren't.

Who can argue with solid logic like that?

Your post is still flawed. If I decide I want to stick an electric motor in my car and and then junk it, does that mean I am the pioneer of electric cars? You cherry picked a statement out of wikipedia (or some other site) discussing who tested direct injection in the 70's, managed to only include Ford directly, and never mentioned that they put it in 100 cars to test and waved goodbye to it. It was never sold to the masses until Mitsubishi in the 90's.

Lastly, who the hell cares who helped develop a motor. Was the powerstroke diesel bad for Ford because International designed it? How about the Cummins or Duramax? All outsourced motors from a design standpoint. I prefer to buy a car on its merits, not politcal views, and wish this site would get back to discussion on the technical merits, not arguing over who got a loan and they suck because of it.

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/21/2010 10:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is still flawed. If I decide I want to stick an electric motor in my car and and then junk it, does that mean I am the pioneer of electric cars?

GM tried to use cylinder deactivation before its time and didn't care that it had issues.

I guess it is better that we release technology before it is ready like GM (who sucks), unlike Ford.

There, is my OP now clear enough for you?

Lastly, who the hell cares who helped develop a motor. Was the powerstroke diesel bad for Ford because International designed it? How about the Cummins or Duramax?

FYI The old Powerstroke diesel was made by Navistar. And while they are an International subsidiary, it may shock you to know that International trucks use Cummins diesel engines, not Navistar engines.

I prefer to buy a car on its merits, not politcal views, and wish this site would get back to discussion on the technical merits, not arguing over who got a loan and they suck because of it.

Who can argue with solid logic like that?

Well judging by how GM isn't even competent to make its own cars anymore, my opinion is based on facts, like it or not, loser.

And who has higher reliability now than Toyota or Honda? Hint: It isn't GM.

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/22/2010 6:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
GM tried to use cylinder deactivation before its time and didn't care that it had issues.

It was still released in mainstream vehicles. Your point is worthless to the original post.

I guess it is better that we release technology before it is ready like GM (who sucks), unlike Ford.

Fanboy cracks really aren't going to get you somewhere with someone who does not carry a company's reputation on his shoulders every day.

There, is my OP now clear enough for you?

Clear as mud. But now your age is starting to really be questioned by the type of responses. 12-13 maybe?

FYI The old Powerstroke diesel was made by Navistar. And while they are an International subsidiary, it may shock you to know that International trucks use Cummins diesel engines, not Navistar engines.

Navistar owns International. International Harvester IDI is the actual name of the motor. Your not proving much about your background other than your lack of it. International trucks also use Detroit diesels and Allison Transmissions, both GM garbage "roll". Almost all large truck companies allow a multitude of engine options from different companies.

And who has higher reliability now than Toyota or Honda? Hint: It isn't GM.

Right, It would be Cadillac, for one. Lexus, Porsche, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes Benz, and Toyota all round out the list ahead of Ford with Chevrolet, Ford, and Toyota in a virtual tie with 103, 102, and 101 defects per vehicle. They are all below the Industry average. Feel free to read up and post something worthwhile next time. Here's a link to get you started.

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 7:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
Deny it all you want, you still got pwned. And most of what you posted is wrong, so I don't care.

Believe what you want.

Oh, and that list of yours, the one that most people rely on, how is it that Scion, a Toyota marquee is so much worse than Toyota itself? That list makes sense doesn't it?

RE: EcoBoost
By Andrwken on 9/22/2010 8:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was wrong, I'm arguing with a 3rd grader not a 5th or 6th grader like I initially thought.

But keep on pwning,,,,

RE: EcoBoost
By sprockkets on 9/22/2010 3:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Good. Explain why GM doesn't use engines from Detroit diesel.

Next, explain how initial quality has much if any bearing on long term quality.

Then, explain why you think GM came out with DI first when by your best friend for information,, says Mercedes did it first, not to mention Toyota, Mazda and Ford all had engines out either before or at the same time GM did.

Then address my point on how GM doesn't make much of any cars themselves anymore, save anything on the Corvette platform.

Then explain why you think anything else other than the Edge has class leading MPG.

Oh and btw, a person who says the OP is a 3rd grader probably goes to school himself.

You probably don't even drive yet.

RE: EcoBoost
By sorry dog on 9/21/2010 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
GM invented turbo's 3 years ago?

RE: EcoBoost
By superflex on 9/21/2010 1:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Copernicus,
Audi has been using direct injection and turbocharging since 1998.
My 2001 A4 1.8T had it.
The only thing GM innovated was failure.

RE: EcoBoost
By VisionxOrb on 9/21/2010 4:33:58 PM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure Audi had turbocharged direct injected gas engines well before GM "invented" it as you say.

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

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