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 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?


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki