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 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.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














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