backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 19 at 1:38 AM


Ford EcoBoost V6 Engine  (Source: Ford)
EcoBoost is proving very popular with truck buyers

With automakers focused on increased fuel efficiency these days, the move to smaller displacement engines with turbochargers is happening at a rapid pace. Ford was one of the first to head in that direction on the domestic market with its EcoBoost V6 engine that has so far been used in the Taurus, F-150, Flex and several other Lincoln vehicles.
 
The F-150 with the EcoBoost twin turbo V6 engine has proven to be very popular. In fact, the combination of the F-150 and the EcoBoost is so popular that Ford is raising the sales forecast for the truck. Ford says the reason for the forecast upgrade is that the market demand for the EcoBoost F-150 has been greater than expected. 
 
Previously Ford had expected about 40% of the F-150 trucks sold to use the EcoBoost 3.5L engine. Ford is now predicting that about 45% of the F-150 trucks it sells to have the EcoBoost with a total retail sales number of about 100,000 in 2011. Ford full-size pickup sales -- including HD vehicles and fleet vehicles – are up almost 8% to 416,488 units through September 30.
 
Traditionally, the V8 is the engine of choice in the F-150 and truck market overall. Ford does provide a version of the 5.0-liter V8 used in the Mustang GT for F-150 buyers that still want eight cylinders on tap.
 
During the last few months, the WSJ reports that the EcoBoost has accounted for 42% of F-150 sales. This is in part thanks to the robust power and towing capacity mixed with fuel economy averaging 18 mpg compared to the 14-17 mpg for V8-equipped trucks.

Source: WSJ



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: I'd pick the V6
By sprockkets on 10/16/2011 9:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, with their 3.7l V6 NA engine putting out ~300hp when the old 1994 8.0l V10 of Dodge put out the same why bother with a V8 for most people?


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/16/2011 10:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
With the tow ratings and capacities equal to the V8's, IMO, there's little reason to buy a V8. But I'm sure someone will come up with a reason. :)


RE: I'd pick the V6
By quiksilvr on 10/17/2011 8:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I'd pick the V6
By caseyse on 10/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: I'd pick the V6
By sprockkets on 10/17/2011 7:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
Citation otherwise the V10 in the viper put out 400hp, and not in the truck.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Kurz on 10/17/2011 9:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
You should see the Ecoboost f150 challenge.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/17/2011 9:53:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The EcoBoost will be more expensive to service and will have a shorter life than it's normally aspirated 5.0 counterpart.
How will it be more expensive to service and how will it's life be shorter than the 5.0L?? Prove it with data. I don't want to hear your guesses or anecdotes.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Bad-Karma on 10/17/2011 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
My brother has already sent two of these to early graves.

My family maintains a cattle ranch outside Durango Co. After seeing the specs on HP & Torque he bought one of these for ranch duty.

It worked just fine for light work and around town. But he needed to take a pair of breeding bulls up to Montana and he decided to give the new truck a go at it. With the trailer cargo and livestock it was well under the trucks rated GVW (for commercial tonnage it must be inspected and weighed). 1700 miles into the trip and the engine threw a rod which tore up its' cylinder and left the crank shaft out of balance.

Ford replaced the engine. But him and I made another run, this time hauling hay and feed, and that one died with 7700 miles on the odometer. Got the dealer to take back the truck and drove off in a F750 w/6.7 Cummins diesel for hauling and a F250 w/6.7L PS for ranch duty.

Lesson Learned: A small displacement engine running at high rpm for extended lengths while pulling heavy loads just can not hold up to the stress for extended lengths. Things wear out too fast when yo put that small of an engine under heavy stress. They are just not made to take it.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By MrTeal on 10/17/2011 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How will it be more expensive to service and how will it's life be shorter than the 5.0L?? Prove it with data. I don't want to hear your guesses or anecdotes.


quote:
My brother ...

quote:
My family ...


Not that I disagree that there's applications where the V8 would be superior to the V6 EB, but you basically gave him the dictionary definition of anecdotal evidence.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/17/2011 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but you basically gave him the dictionary definition of anecdotal evidence.
yep, some people just can't friggin read. Nevermind that, he never states what was actually wrong the engines. Which leads me to believe the entire post is just BS.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Bad-Karma on 10/17/2011 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How will it be more expensive to service and how will it's life be shorter than the 5.0L?? Prove it with data


The engine hasn't been in service long enough to give data on longevity, especially in varied application. So anecdotal is all your really going to get you F*ing genius.

quote:
he never states what was actually wrong the engines.


quote:
1700 miles into the trip and the engine threw a rod which tore up its' cylinder and left the crank shaft out of balance.
So where did you learn how to read? Second one seized.

So if you think it is such a great engine just base on HP/Torque/MPG, then why isn't Kenworth/MAC/Freightliner/Volvo..... all snapping up these amazing V6EB engines for their intra-city & local freighters? The performance numbers by themselves would make it a perfect selling point to their trucks. <sarcasm> Do you think it is that maybe those engines wouldn't even last a day?

So the "data" is pulled from simple physics, You can't run any engine at max output for long periods of time and not have it destroy itself.

Go move some real cargo there kid and then come back and tell me my post is BS.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/17/2011 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go move some real cargo there kid and then come back and tell me my post is BS.
Now I know your post is BS...son.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By caseyse on 10/17/2011 11:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
Direct injection requires a fuel system that delivers 2k thousand plus PSI, over 50 times more than a non direct injected engine - complex and expensive. Turbo chargers increase cylinder pressures, have wearable bearings/seals, and increase heat (AITs, engine oil.) Assuming there are no engineering defects in the EcoBoost, it's easy to conclude that a smaller displacement engine with the added stresses and complexity of forced induction and direct injection is going to be less reliable and costly to repair than a low tech normally aspirated engine. One is going to pay $750 added cost for the EcoBoost over the 5.0 to save about $2,500 in fuel over 100k miles. This might seem nice, but if you had to replace it's high pressure fuel pump, rebuild those turbos, or replace a leaking head gasket out of warranty, is going to eat into those few dollars in savings.

On a side note, I have a normally aspirated Viper (700hp) and a forced induction Vette (1k hp) that I beat the snot out of road racing. The forced induction cars, stock or modified, push up the AITs and heat soak after a few laps. When hot, the engines retard ignition and the power drops sharply compared to the normally aspirated cars. I understand we are talking about a truck, but pulling a heavy load on a summer day, I suspect the EcoBoost will see added heat over the 5.0, and will pull timing resulting in lower power. Also all direct injection engines are exhibiting excessive carbon build up on their valves, which on many cars have lead to significant decreases in mileage and power after as little as 40k miles. Ford claims they have reduced this through their head design, but it can't be eliminated and comes with any direct injection design - due to the lack of atomized fuel passing over the valves, which serve to keep them clean. Pros and cons to added technology.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By kjboughton on 10/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: I'd pick the V6
By spread on 10/17/2011 12:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A V6 just isn't going to make the same torque as a big-block V8.


Unless that is a big bored V6 and it has some help from a supercharger.

Repeat after me: What follows after the V isn't as important as the rest of the engine specs.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By kjboughton on 10/17/2011 3:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
This is no replacement for displacement.

Let me know when there's a change. And no, turbo's aren't it.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Bad-Karma on 10/17/2011 4:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'll second that.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By scottjames_12 on 10/17/2011 9:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Get with the times, people.

A modern forced induction engine will usually make a better spread of torque than a naturally aspirated engine. It will be more fuel efficient and weigh less than a N/A engine that makes similar performance. If engineered well and maintained correctly, they can be just as reliable. Naturally, maintenance costs may be higher due to greater complexity of the engine, but you can't have everything.

Take a look at those silly Germans, BMW. They used to be big flag wavers for the N/A crowd. Now, they are making loads of turbo engines, because of the reasons above.

Also, what was the last time you saw a big diesel that WASN'T turbocharged? Certainly here in Australia I can't remember the last time I saw a prime mover that didn't have a turbo.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By kjboughton on 10/17/2011 9:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
BIG (being the operative word) diesel + turbo = WIN

Small engine + turbo = not enough torque to effectively move a heavy load (which is what trucks are engineered to do)

If you're buying a truck, it should be for hauling/towing. Putting a small-ish V6 in a TRUCK made to haul/tow WILL result in a lower total payload capacity. Last time I checked the F-150 was a truck. Ergo, if you're buying an F-150 with plans to haul/tow a big load, and you choose the V6, you've made a grave mistake.

Nobody's attacking the idea of more fuel-efficient people movers. But trucks need BIG engines with lots of cubes to make the torque needed to haul loads.

Again, there is no replacement for displacement.

And you've hit on one of the main reasons turbos are unusually not chosen for most designs - costs. Especially maintenance costs should one fail or start to go bad (which is not uncommon).


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/17/2011 10:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you've hit on one of the main reasons turbos are unusually not chosen for most designs - costs.
Did I just go back 30 years? Turbo's are in an increasing number of vehicles. And this won't be stopping anytime soon. These arguments are silly and have yet to produce any real proof. Just a rehashing of the same old anecdotal BS.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By mindless1 on 10/19/2011 1:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, there is a reason why we didn't see turbos in pickup trucks or didn't that dawn on anyone? Only now are they offering the turbocharged V6 for ONLY. ONE. REASON. Fuel economy. In every other important parameter it is inferior.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By scottjames_12 on 10/17/2011 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Small engine + turbo = not enough torque to effectively move a heavy load (which is what trucks are engineered to do)


Wrong. The V6EB makes MORE torque than the 5.0 V8 through a wider rev range. Also, I think you'll find the V6EB has as good as, if not higher, payload and towing capacity as the 5.0 V8.

What makes you think that turbo's work in large applications, but cannot be scaled down?

Also I said 'Prime Mover' not people mover. That might be an Australian term though - you guys might call them 'Big Rigs' or '18 Wheelers'? How many of these use non-turbocharged engines?


RE: I'd pick the V6
By scottjames_12 on 10/17/2011 12:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, forced induction engines often make better torque than larger, naturally aspirated engines. And the torque comes on strong early, quite often hitting peak torque and staying there for a good chunk of the rev range. So no, it's not as simple as that.

Of course, the reality is far more complex and depends on a huge amount of factors. Too many to discuss here. Suffice to say, take a look at the torque figures and the revs they come in at for the Ecoboost 3.5 V6 and the Coyote 5.0 V8. Speaks for itself.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By kittypuncher on 10/17/2011 6:06:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
On the contrary, forced induction engines often make better torque than larger, naturally aspirated engines...


Often? There are rare exceptions to this rule, so please do enlighten us with the paradigm change of small displacement creating more torque than large displacement. Especially in large diesel...
Either way, for most city-dwellers, that 3.5 is all that's needed, and praise to Ford for their ingenuity.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By Spuke on 10/17/2011 10:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Often? There are rare exceptions to this rule, so please do enlighten us with the paradigm change of small displacement creating more torque than large displacement.
??? "Rare exceptions" makes what the poster said correct, would it not? We sure have a LOT of people that don't understand what a turbocharger is or does. With a turbo you can easily place your powerband where you want it making small displacement engines drive like larger one's. And with the added benefit of small displacement when you're not on it. That's the whole point of turbocharging.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By mindless1 on 10/19/2011 1:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
On the surface that sounds fine, but when considering a vehicle that will potentially be subject to extended high load conditions, it is inevitable that the smaller displacement turbo engine (with all else being equal...) will wear out sooner.

There is no free lunch. They can use good engineering and make it last as long as the older design, but by the same token they can use the engineering to improve the NA engine to make it even more long lasting.

There's a label for people buying this turbo V6 truck. Beta-tester. No matter how much testing an auto manufacturer puts into a design, later through real world applications they find flaws they missed and revise the design.


RE: I'd pick the V6
By blueaurora on 10/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'd pick the V6
By amanojaku on 10/17/2011 8:55:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
..... To step on Petal and go WEEEE!!!!!!
"He's havin' a go at the flowers, now!"

A truck shouldn't throw you through the back of the seat. That's great for a sports car, but risky for a vehicle carrying a heavy load. Trucks generally have smooth acceleration, deceptively so for their weight. And what the hell does the sound system have to do with the vehicle's performance? You sound like someone prejudiced, not someone performing an objective analysis.

Or, maybe you're just killing time to hide from some Romans?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9czBBKof7Yo


RE: I'd pick the V6
By wyrmslair on 10/17/2011 1:38:08 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, you picked truck based on the stereo? If you're really that serious about the SQ, you'd be putting an aftermarket setup in there anyway. For $300 you can get an Alpine with bluetooth and another $100 will get you a solid set of front co-axials. So for $400 or $500 bucks worth of factory stereo crap (and I've yet to hear a factory system that sounded truly "good"), you disregarded towing capacity, fuel economy, etc. in a truck? /FAIL


"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