backtop


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

EcoBoost
By Richard875yh5 on 9/21/2010 7:59:31 AM , Rating: -1
All I read is how great Ford's EcoBoost is. For your information, GM invented that technology about 3 years ago. GM's failure to give it a name was a big mistake. Now Ford is taking all the credit for it.




RE: EcoBoost
By Brandon Hill (blog) 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
quote:
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
quote:
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 (blog) 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
quote:
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 (blog) 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
quote:
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
quote:
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?

quote:
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.

quote:
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.


quote:
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
quote:
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.

quote:
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.

quote:
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?

quote:
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.

quote:
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.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/06/vehicle-qualit...


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, wikipedia.org, 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.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki