backtop


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

Eco my ass
By smilingcrow on 4/28/2011 7:58:33 PM , Rating: -1
“The EcoBoost F-150 is EPA rated at 16 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the highway.”

If that’s the Eco model how much juice are the other engines slurping?




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.

/Navy


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
quote:
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
quote:
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.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














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