EcoBoost a Hit

[fordmantpw]

That's all the GM 6.2 is offered in. High end, crew cab, half tons. The HD's still have the 6.0L.

 

Agreed, and the 5.0 sounds like it will handle the 6.0L with no issues. The 6.0L is still available in the half-tons thought, isn't it?

[jpvbs]

I played with the Silverado configurator on Chevy's site and it list the 6.2 as an option in lower trim levels. I says it's a $1950.00 opition (or $1000 on higher trim levels). However, when you choose it, it then says you have to include a passle of additional options and the price goes up about $5k. I suppose if you already wanted all the extra options anyway, then it would be just the $1-2k option. You can't just order a basic work truck and option the 6.2.

 

I hope Ford will at least do something similar and make it available in a non-specialty trim line. Although, with the new 5.0 it may not be as significant of an improvement.

 

The 6.2 is the only optional "big" engine on the configurator. Their HDs gas are 6.0 only.

[atvman]

I played with the Silverado configurator on Chevy's site and it list the 6.2 as an option in lower trim levels. I says it's a $1950.00 opition (or $1000 on higher trim levels). However, when you choose it, it then says you have to include a passle of additional options and the price goes up about $5k. I suppose if you already wanted all the extra options anyway, then it would be just the $1-2k option. You can't just order a basic work truck and option the 6.2.

 

I hope Ford will at least do something similar and make it available in a non-specialty trim line. Although, with the new 5.0 it may not be as significant of an improvement.

 

The 6.2 is the only optional "big" engine on the configurator. Their HDs gas are 6.0 only.

Yes, it is available in lower trims if you choose the right options. Finding one on the lot is a different story though. IMO, Ford should go the Chrysler/Toyota route and just offer it as an option on all trim lines in any configuration, then just stock dealers with it in high end models anyways. If somebody wants to order an XL F150 with no options and the 6.2L, they should be able to. Unless it gets deplorable mileage, I can't see any good reason for Ford not to try and capitalize on it.

[ausrutherford]

Not bad !

 

I wonder what percentage of the Taurus buyers opted for the SHO ?

 

Anyone interested in a towing report on the EcoBoost Flex should look for a copy of the May issue of Trailer Boats Magazine. They were favorably impressed the performance, even when towing a 4740 lbs boat and trailer, 240 lbs over the factory recommendation. Here are some interesting stats they accumulated while towing and using 87 octane.

 

0-30 - 4.5 seconds

40-60 - 6.5 seconds

0-60 - 12.8 seconds

 

Overall fuel economy - 9.6 mpg (Ouch !)

 

Ford said a couple months ago it was 25%

[jpd80]

Ford said a couple months ago it was 25%

 

What sort of fuel economy were you expecting from a gas engine towing 4,700 lbs?

 

Until we can directly compare an EBV6 and a V8 in F150, those claim cannot be substantiated.

[StevenCaylor]

Not bad !

 

I wonder what percentage of the Taurus buyers opted for the SHO ?

 

Anyone interested in a towing report on the EcoBoost Flex should look for a copy of the May issue of Trailer Boats Magazine. They were favorably impressed the performance, even when towing a 4740 lbs boat and trailer, 240 lbs over the factory recommendation. Here are some interesting stats they accumulated while towing and using 87 octane.

 

0-30 - 4.5 seconds

40-60 - 6.5 seconds

0-60 - 12.8 seconds

 

Overall fuel economy - 9.6 mpg (Ouch !)

 

I can see using 87 octane under normal circumstances, but when pushing the limits, they should have used 91 octane.

[theoldwizard]

What sort of fuel economy were you expecting from a gas engine towing 4,700 lbs?

 

Until we can directly compare an EBV6 and a V8 in F150, those claim cannot be substantiated.

I had no expectations.

 

There are some people (even on this BB) that seemed to expect something miraculous from EcoBoost. Enormous horsepower, gobs of torque and fantastic mileage.

 

Bottom line. When you need them horses, you have to feed them horses !

[RichardJensen]

When you need them horses, you have to feed them horses !

 

Is that the mechanical engineer's version of TANSTAAFL?

 

Whole point of EB is that if you don't need them, you don't have to feed them.....

 

Of course, if you don't need them, why buy them?

 

----

 

Crap! Do you know what would happen to the economy if we only bought stuff we needed?

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

I am glad the take rate on the EB motors is so high. I personally love mine. The mileage is good, the pick-up is astounding, and I see people gawk when I let them catch up to me. On another note, the engine is super smooth and the tranny is hard to notice even when you get into the throttle hard.

[Hydro]

Yes, it is available in lower trims if you choose the right options. Finding one on the lot is a different story though. IMO, Ford should go the Chrysler/Toyota route and just offer it as an option on all trim lines in any configuration, then just stock dealers with it in high end models anyways. If somebody wants to order an XL F150 with no options and the 6.2L, they should be able to. Unless it gets deplorable mileage, I can't see any good reason for Ford not to try and capitalize on it.

100% agree, but don't charge freaking $3,000. I could settle for $1,500. A decent equipped supercab XLT with the 6.2L would be in my driveway.

[87gray]

Old Wizard,

 

I sent you a PM, asking information. I don't really understand how such works on this board, so if you replied, I have no indication.

 

Please acknowledge this post.

 

Thanx

[MY93SHO]

100% agree, but don't charge freaking $3,000. I could settle for $1,500. A decent equipped supercab XLT with the 6.2L would be in my driveway.

 

CAFE will not let Ford slam the 6.2 in just any truck. Limiting it to higher trim levels is a way to control the number of trucks withe the 6.2.

 

The rest will have to settle for the 5.0 or 3.5EB.

 

I've looked for recent info but haven't found anything recent on the F150/EB trucks Ford is letting farmers try out. I'd love to hear how it's working out.

[fordmantpw]

I had no expectations.

 

There are some people (even on this BB) that seemed to expect something miraculous from EcoBoost. Enormous horsepower, gobs of torque and fantastic mileage.

 

Bottom line. When you need them horses, you have to feed them horses !

 

The point is when you DON'T need the horses, they can hibernate and not need fed. That is what is great about EB. I mean, if a car with 265HP and a car with 355HP get the same EPA gas mileage ratings, chances are, they are using the same number of horses doing the task assigned for the EPA ratings. But use the extra 90HP and you'll pay at the pump.

 

So, you do get enormouse HP (well, maybe not enormous, but a 33% gain is nothing to sneeze at), gobs of torque (yeah, EB yas that), and the same mileage if you drive it the same as the non-EB version. Hmmm, sounds like a win-win to me. You just have to realize that if you are going to use the extra 90 HP, that is when you'll have to pay for it.

[Noah Harbinger]

Is that the mechanical engineer's version of TANSTAAFL?

 

Whole point of EB is that if you don't need them, you don't have to feed them.....

 

Of course, if you don't need them, why buy them?

 

----

 

Crap! Do you know what would happen to the economy if we only bought stuff we needed?

 

Ideally, we could all work 20 hour weeks and spend the rest of the time drinking beer and playing softball...

[fordmantpw]

Ideally, we could all work 20 hour weeks and spend the rest of the time drinking beer and playing softballhitting the refresh button waiting for more posts to show up on BOF...

 

Fixed it for ya...

[Hydro]

CAFE will not let Ford slam the 6.2 in just any truck. Limiting it to higher trim levels is a way to control the number of trucks withe the 6.2.

 

The rest will have to settle for the 5.0 or 3.5EB.

 

I've looked for recent info but haven't found anything recent on the F150/EB trucks Ford is letting farmers try out. I'd love to hear how it's working out.

 

I never thought of that. Good old CAFE. I hope the 5.0 has some nuts to make the trucks move out pretty good. I know at least 5 people who bought other brands because they said the Ford just didn't feel as quick. I know, I know, it's a truck not a Mustang, but having the best of both worlds is also a nice thing. Plus, most trucks are not towing or hauling loads around here. A noodle framed toyota that hauls ass or the rebate king (RAM) seems to be the hot ticket right now. I'd love to have a F-150 that is just as quick as a tundra because I'll never buy a toyota.

[TomServo92]

A noodle framed toyota that hauls ass or the rebate king (RAM) seems to be the hot ticket right now. I'd love to have a F-150 that is just as quick as a tundra because I'll never buy a toyota.

 

You say that but the F-150 is handily outselling them all right now. Acceleration might be an issue for some but the numbers don't indicate it being a widespread issue amongst truck buyers.

[battyr]

CAFE will not let Ford slam the 6.2 in just any truck. Limiting it to higher trim levels is a way to control the number of trucks withe the 6.2.

 

The rest will have to settle for the 5.0 or 3.5EB. ...

 

The 3.5L EB, 5.0L and 6.2L all have close to the same performance. If Ford offers all three engines on the same products, they runs the risk of confusing the customer.

 

I see them offering the 3.5L EB and 5.0L on most F-150's and offering just 6.2L, Diesels and maybe future Bob Cat engine on the Super-duty. The F-150 Raptor would be an exception.

[atvman]

The 3.5L EB, 5.0L and 6.2L all have close to the same performance. If Ford offers all three engines on the same products, they runs the risk of confusing the customer.

 

I see them offering the 3.5L EB and 5.0L on most F-150's and offering just 6.2L, Diesels and maybe future Bob Cat engine on the Super-duty. The F-150 Raptor would be an exception.

Really? The 6.2L makes 401hp and 434lb-ft on 87 octane. The best rumors and estimates I've heard for the F150 5.0L are 360hp and 390lb-ft. That's a big enough gap to avoid confusion. The 3.5L EB is where things get confusing, especially if it makes the 400hp and 400lb-ft that many are claiming.

[fordmantpw]

Really? The 6.2L makes 401hp and 434lb-ft on 87 octane. The best rumors and estimates I've heard for the F150 5.0L are 360hp and 390lb-ft. That's a big enough gap to avoid confusion. The 3.5L EB is where things get confusing, especially if it makes the 400hp and 400lb-ft that many are claiming.

 

I agree with you on the 5.0 vs. 6.2, but I don't think the EB is confusing at all. You want more power than the 5.0 and similar power to the 6.2, but better fuel economy than either, and still need the power from time-to-time for towing/playing/etc., get the EB. Pretty simple. For me, I tow probably 10% of the time. Give me the EB...if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg!

Edited May 6, 2010 by fordmantpw

[rcf8000]

I was surprised that the MKX didn't get the EB engine. And I'm going to be really surprised if the Explorer doesn't get the 3.5 EB. That would make no sense at all.

[atvman]

pickuptrucks.com dyno'd a 6.2L Raptor at 345hp and 362lb-ft at the wheels, and that is with horsepower sucking four wheel drive and 35 inch tires! If a 5.0L F150 is only making the rumored 360hp and 390lb-ft at the crank, then there really is no comparison between the two.

[atvman]

I was surprised that the MKX didn't get the EB engine. And I'm going to be really surprised if the Explorer doesn't get the 3.5 EB. That would make no sense at all.

I was hoping the MKX or Explorer would get the 3.5L EB, both are on the list to replace my wife's Edge.

[MY93SHO]

The 3.5L EB, 5.0L and 6.2L all have close to the same performance. If Ford offers all three engines on the same products, they runs the risk of confusing the customer.

 

I see them offering the 3.5L EB and 5.0L on most F-150's and offering just 6.2L, Diesels and maybe future Bob Cat engine on the Super-duty. The F-150 Raptor would be an exception.

 

MPG's are the problem, not hp/tq.

 

If the 3.5EB gets 24mpg as has been suggested that can offset the 6.2's in the F150.

 

The take rate on the 3.7 and 3.5EB will determine the number of 6.2's more than anything.

[battyr]

Really? The 6.2L makes 401hp and 434lb-ft on 87 octane. The best rumors and estimates I've heard for the F150 5.0L are 360hp and 390lb-ft. That's a big enough gap to avoid confusion. The 3.5L EB is where things get confusing, especially if it makes the 400hp and 400lb-ft that many are claiming.

 

My mistake. I was looking at the Power numbers from the Mustang 5.0L. In any case there is only 11% difference in torque between the 5.0L and the 6.2L using your numbers. The advantage of the 6.2L is that you get the torque at a lower RPM and durability. I expect the power of the RWD 3.5L EB to come in between that of the 5.0L and 6.2L.