Spied! 2011 Ford F-150 with EcoBoost V-6

[PWR Kid]

Exciting stuff. Eventually the wait will be over.

[NaviCat]

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup....

 

From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns).

 

As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

[Sixt9coug]

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup....

 

From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns).

 

As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

 

 

I'm guessing the 23-25mpg figure will be on a 2wd truck. What's a supercab F150 weigh? I also imagine gearing will play a huge part as well.

[92merc]

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup....

 

From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns).

 

As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

In the Taurus SHO, Flex Boosted, they are limited to AWD only due to the HP and torque being higher than the system can support. Even with splitting the power between four tires, they've also had to computer control the HP/torque.

 

The theory is that with a heavier duty RWD transmission behind it, the 3.5EB will be able to realize it's true potential much better.

 

Personally, I think the 400HP mark might be a tad high. I would hope that Ford tunes it for ability, but not sacrifice fuel economy. Otherwise, what's the point when the 5.0 NA looks like it'll do a good job.

[Deanh]

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup....

 

From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns).

 

As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

error alert, the engine alone is NOT a 5k option.....please note the word ALONE.... ..

Edited May 28, 2010 by Deanh

[NaviCat]

I'm guessing the 23-25mpg figure will be on a 2wd truck. What's a supercab F150 weigh? I also imagine gearing will play a huge part as well.

 

I'm sure it would be 4x2, for advertising purposes. F-150 SC at least 6500 GVW, a Flex is under 5000 lb.

 

How much lower than a 3.31 rear axle will you be able to go with the same 6 sp auto they're currently offering and still have reasonable launch performance?

 

I guess I'll wait to see before I believe...

[NaviCat]

error alert, the engine alone is NOT a 5k option.......

 

uh, yes it is....go try and price one out in an MKS, MKT, Flex......

[Deanh]

uh, yes it is....go try and price one out in an MKS, MKT, Flex......

wrong...check the ordering guide and find out what comes with the eco packages...heres one off the top of my head ...ALL WHEEL DRIVE...........heres another.....tuned suspension.....another....Wheels and tire uopgrades.....I could go on but will refrain in the interests of "playing fair"..........

[PWR Kid]

So I'm trying to understand the supposed advantage of a 3.5L EB V6 in a half ton pickup....

 

From the article the supposed rating will be 400 hp / 400 lb-ft for the F-150 and will get better than 23 mpg hwy. Current rating in the Flex and other vehicles its in is 355 hp / 350 lb-ft, and it gets 16 city / 21 hwy in the AWD Flex model. Someone please explain how to take the same engine, bump it up 50 lb-ft in torque, put it in a heavier and less aerodynamic vehicle, and expect to get more the 2 mpg better on hwy???? This is basic vehicle dynamics (and physics).....NOT POSSIBLE. And its a $5000 premium over the base engine in the Flex (more in the Lincolns).

 

As a potential F-150 buyer, where's the why buy over a 5.4L? Should get roughly the same fuel economy with roughly the same performance, and the 5.4L should be more reliable in a pickup duty cycle and cost less up front. I can see the EB in a lux car like the MKS, but in a pick-up? For the same price premium as the EB why not offer the 4.4L diesel in a work truck application?

 

 

Roughly the same performance? Even if you don't buy the increased MPG, given its flat from 1500 rpm torque "curve"... same performance? What am I missing?

 

http://farmindustrynews.com/trucks/0901-ford-ecoboost-engine/

 

I guess most don't believe the EB will have that much of a price premium. certainly not to the level of what the baby diesel would have required with its CGI block etc. There was a quote way back where a Ford rep said their additional cost for a EB was $700, but is that over a non-EB 3.5 or a 5.4L?

Edited May 28, 2010 by PWR Kid

[fordmantpw]

Roughly the same performance? Even if you don't buy the increased MPG, given its flat from 1500 rpm torque "curve"... same performance? What am I missing?

 

http://farmindustrynews.com/trucks/0901-ford-ecoboost-engine/

 

I guess most don't believe the EB will have that much of a price premium. certainly not to the level of what the baby diesel would have required with its CGI block etc. There was a quote way back where a Ford rep said their additional cost for a EB was $700, but is that over a non-EB 3.5 or a 5.4L?

 

I'm with you PWR Kid...I'm guessing $1500 option for EB vs. $5000+ for diesel. I've always been a diesel fan, but if the EB performs like they say, if you aren't towing 50% of the time or more, the EB would be a better alternative to diesel. Fuel economy while towing is where the diesel would really shine.

[jpd80]

Roughly the same performance? Even if you don't buy the increased MPG, given its flat from 1500 rpm torque "curve"... same performance? What am I missing?

 

http://farmindustryn...coboost-engine/

 

I guess most don't believe the EB will have that much of a price premium. certainly not to the level of what the baby diesel would have required with its CGI block etc. There was a quote way back where a Ford rep said their additional cost for a EB was $700, but is that over a non-EB 3.5 or a 5.4L?

 

In the Super Duty range, the Powerstroke 6.7 V8 Diesel is approximately a $7,800 option.

I would think that the 4.4 in an F150 would be at least a $6,000 option so the 3.5 Ecoboost

as a fuel efficient alternative to the 5.0 V8 might be the bargain of the decade...

[PWR Kid]

I'm with you PWR Kid...I'm guessing $1500 option for EB vs. $5000+ for diesel. I've always been a diesel fan, but if the EB performs like they say, if you aren't towing 50% of the time or more, the EB would be a better alternative to diesel. Fuel economy while towing is where the diesel would really shine.

 

 

Yup fuel economy while towing and long term durability... thats where the baby diesel woudl have advantages. I know when I cruntch th enumbres on the SD... I can't justify the diesel. Unless you tow 75%+ of your miles. And on a half ton why woudl you be towing that much?

 

I've said this numerous times but in a perfect world we need a 5+1 truck comparo. 10,000 lb pull up a step hill, drag race empty & full, long cruise for mpg etc.. the std stuff. All trucks as close as posible: Crew cab 4wd alriats for example:

 

a) 2010 5.4L

B) 'Still born' 4.4L Diesel

c) 5.0L Coyote V8

d) 3.5L EB V6

e) 6.2L V8

and either a GM 6.2 or a TuRD 5.7L for comarisons sake.

 

I'd be really curious as to what would happen, especially up the hill with 10,000 lbs!

 

My Guess(Fords only):

Tow up the long step hill:

1) 3.5L EB

2) 6.2L V8

3) 4.4L Diesel

big gap

4) 5.0L Coyote

Last..... Still waiting ) 5.4L

 

Drag race:

1) 3.5L EB

2) 6.2L V8

Big gap

3) 5.0L Coyote V8

4) 4.4L Diesel

5) 5.4L

 

MPG loooog cruise interstate:

1) 3.5L EB

2) 4.4L Diesel

3) 5.0L Coyote V8

Big gap

4) 6.2L V8

5) 5.4L

 

MG Long cruise while towing 10,000 lbs

1) 4.4L Diesel

2) 3.5L EB

3) 6.2L V8

4) 5.0L Coyote V8

5) 5.4L V8

 

Long term durabilty:

1) 4.4L Diesel

2) 6.2L V8

3) 5.0L V8

4) 5.4L V8 (ignoring cam phasers etc)

5) 3.5 EB

 

When I go through this and look at it... The EB may be the engine to have? Two small turbos can't cost THAT much when they get tired?

 

Just my 2 pesos . :blah:

[lquidspine]

I'm sure it would be 4x2, for advertising purposes. F-150 SC at least 6500 GVW, a Flex is under 5000 lb.

 

How much lower than a 3.31 rear axle will you be able to go with the same 6 sp auto they're currently offering and still have reasonable launch performance?

 

I guess I'll wait to see before I believe...

I would assume that the 24 MPG rating will only come on the Regular Cab not the Super Cab version. Regular cab version is much smaller than even a Super cab.

 

The Crew Cab Raptors just look strange so far to me, very nice but strange non the less. Also I wonder with the crew how much of what the raptor was made for will be taken away.

[Sixt9coug]

I'm sure it would be 4x2, for advertising purposes. F-150 SC at least 6500 GVW, a Flex is under 5000 lb.

 

How much lower than a 3.31 rear axle will you be able to go with the same 6 sp auto they're currently offering and still have reasonable launch performance?

 

I guess I'll wait to see before I believe...

 

all i could find was the curb weight of a 2010 regular cab. it was a tick over 4700lbs. less than i thought to be honest.

[MY93SHO]

GM has crew cab 4x4's with the 5.3 rated at 21mpg highway.

 

So why can't the EB get 22-23 highway?

 

Alot of potential energy in gasoline is wasted as heat going out the radiator, brakes and tailpipe.

 

It's not all weight and aerodynamics, efficiency is also a factor. If the EB turns fuel into energy with less waste then it would turn better numbers.

Edited May 29, 2010 by MY93SHO

[92merc]

Why does everyone assume the EB 3.5 won't have the longevity? Ford builds these things tough. They are using the same technology as they do in the diesels. But ooohh, a diesel will last much longer? Why, because it burns diesel? Seems to me they are just through out a SWAG and everyone just buys it. I'd like to see some proof or examples. The problem is you can't. No one has been doing gas turbo's as of anything we can call recently.

[Pioneer]

all i could find was the curb weight of a 2010 regular cab. it was a tick over 4700lbs. less than i thought to be honest.

 

It will go lower for the 2011 model year.

[StevenCaylor]

uh, yes it is....go try and price one out in an MKS, MKT, Flex......

 

We've gone over this before. Option out a Limited similar to an EB and the price difference was $3330, not $5000.

[PWR Kid]

Why does everyone assume the EB 3.5 won't have the longevity? Ford builds these things tough. They are using the same technology as they do in the diesels. But ooohh, a diesel will last much longer? Why, because it burns diesel? Seems to me they are just through out a SWAG and everyone just buys it. I'd like to see some proof or examples. The problem is you can't. No one has been doing gas turbo's as of anything we can call recently.

 

 

My reason is that Ford has stated the life expectancy of the turbos in a EB is 150,000 miles. I would expect the other engines to not have components that would fail by 150M.

[Noah Harbinger]

My reason is that Ford has stated the life expectancy of the turbos in a EB is 150,000 miles. I would expect the other engines to not have components that would fail by 150M.

 

Is that "150,000 miles" figure the milage to the 10% or 50% failure rate? Or what?

[PWR Kid]

I don't know.

[Pioneer]

Is that "150,000 miles" figure the milage to the 10% or 50% failure rate? Or what?

 

Sounds like they designed it to last for 150k miles/10 years. After that, you're a guinea pig.

 

The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of at least 150,000 miles or 10 years

 

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29946

 

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29944

[jpd80]

Sounds like they designed it to last for 150k miles/10 years. After that, you're a guinea pig.

Except for the cost of turbos and associated hardware, it's no different to a

naturally aspirated engine. Ford is making a strong claim on reliability by

saying their turbo engine is designed to last at least 10 years/150K miles .

 

 

Anyone buying a 10 year old or high mileage turbo engine should be going in eyes open.

Edited May 30, 2010 by jpd80

[akirby]

I thought 150K was Ford's target for all engines. Doesn't mean it will fail at 151K.

[Pioneer]

I thought 150K was Ford's target for all engines. Doesn't mean it will fail at 151K.

 

My Foci will be at 150k in about 2 to 3 weeks. Hoping to get 240k out of it.

 

Better not die at 151k.