2011 F-150 engine Options

[jpvbs]

Take a 2wd F150 STX with the standard cab and short bed and spec the 3.5L EB and the lowest rear gear available, drop the rear end 2 inches, get a set of wider alloy wheels and some performance tires and you'll essentially have a new Lightning.

 

I would be surprised if we don't see some attempt by Ford at sport truck package of some sort now that they have a couple of good hot engine choices. It would make a nice bookend opposite the Raptor. I don't know if they could make is special enough to call it a Lightning, but maybe a really nice FX2.

[Extreme4x4]

A couple of tidbits from wescoent (in the know).

 

Internal targets for the EB F150, are 17/24.

 

T6 Ranger is looking more and more likely, for the US. There is, supposedly, a "Lightning" version T6 that is running all over Detroit, at this time. It is running the EB 3.5L, and the performance is supposed to be amazing.

 

While I like the 6.2, the EB is where the real action is. It is an amazing engine, and with its flat torque "curve" from just off idle, should be an amazing tow machine. Especially at high elevation (I start at 5000ft here). Also, its non laden fuel economy will put sedans from just a few short years ago, to shame.

 

Oh, and for those whining earlier, the 6.2L will be available down to the standard Lariat model. Thus, you can have the less expensive truck (in comparison to the higher end), with the cast iron gas pig, if you wish.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Extreme4x4

[xr7g428]

So wow, an embarrassment of riches... Looks like the 6.2 and the EB 3.5 might be about the same price? And with the 6 speed they might be fairly close in towing capability.

 

So basically the consensus is that the EB3.5 will be a good choice for towing? What do you guys (and girls) think about towing in extreme heat? I am talking our 110 degree plus temps in Arizona. I more or less live in the proving grounds,LOL!

[jpvbs]

I really hope these engines (- the 3.7) make it into the Expedition/Navigator soon as well. I am afraid the Expy is going to be the next Crown Vic/E-Series and get run into the ground with no powertrain updates. I'd love a 3.5EB Expy to haul the family and tow the trailer. I tow with a Hemi Dodge Durango now and the tranny blows chunks (gear ratios) and the hemi is peaky. Either it bogs down when driving at a reasonable RPM or it kicks down and screams at 5k. The EB w/6 speed sounds like it should be able to keep up a reasonable pace with its low rpm torque without having to resort to feeling abusive with sustained high rpm slogs.

[battyr]

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/ford-f-150-engines-for-2011-announced-includes-ecoboost-v6/

 

Another Link.

 

* The powertrain lineup for the 2011 Ford F-150 features four new truck engines: a 3.7-liter V6, 5.0-liter and 6.2-liter V8s, and a twin-turbocharged EcoBoost™ 3.5-liter

* Headlining the engine lineup is a new twin-turbo EcoBoost engine with Ti-VCT that has been specifically tuned, calibrated and tested for durability and reliability

* Each new engine delivers best-in-class towing and horsepower. The entire 2011 F-150 lineup will be at least 20 percent more fuel efficient than the 2010 F-150 lineup

* Ford is the first and only automaker to equip its entire full-size pickup lineup with fuel-saving six-speed automatic transmissions as standard equipment

 

While we don't have any official fuel economy numbers yet, we were promised that at least one of the engine options will beat the Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid's EPA rating of 21/22 miles per gallong. And, it will likely cost considerably less.

 

Following Ford's presentation, we were taken to an engine dynamometer lab where an F-150's EcoBoost V6 was set up. The engine was not taken up to full power in front of the media, but we did see it go up to 4,000 rpm where it was held for about 10 minutes with an output of 410 lb-ft and 310 hp

[V8-X]

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/ford-f-150-engines-for-2011-announced-includes-ecoboost-v6/

 

Another Link.

10K mile oil changes??? Say what!!!

 

I'm still changing my every 3K, even though the manual calls for every 5K.

 

That would mean I'd get 1 oil change a year. WOW!

[FordBuyer]

I really hope these engines (- the 3.7) make it into the Expedition/Navigator soon as well. I am afraid the Expy is going to be the next Crown Vic/E-Series and get run into the ground with no powertrain updates. I'd love a 3.5EB Expy to haul the family and tow the trailer. I tow with a Hemi Dodge Durango now and the tranny blows chunks (gear ratios) and the hemi is peaky. Either it bogs down when driving at a reasonable RPM or it kicks down and screams at 5k. The EB w/6 speed sounds like it should be able to keep up a reasonable pace with its low rpm torque without having to resort to feeling abusive with sustained high rpm slogs.

 

Since it now looks like the 5.4L truck V8 is history, I imagine the Expedition will at least get the new 5.0L V8 and possibly the 6.2L V8. I doubt if Ford is going to make a few 5.4L V8's for the Expedition/Navigator only. Ford is probably focusing on F-Series first because of the sales volume involved. Keep those customers happy and then focus on the Expedition/Navigator. I would imagine the Expedition/Navigator would be good candidates for EB since Ford didn't follow through with its new diesel engine for them.

[blksn8k2]

Anyone else think this new engine lineup is going to trash the competition? I know the F-series outsells the rest now but this could be the makings of a blood bath.

[MY93SHO]

I really hope these engines (- the 3.7) make it into the Expedition/Navigator soon as well. I am afraid the Expy is going to be the next Crown Vic/E-Series and get run into the ground with no powertrain updates. I'd love a 3.5EB Expy to haul the family and tow the trailer. I tow with a Hemi Dodge Durango now and the tranny blows chunks (gear ratios) and the hemi is peaky. Either it bogs down when driving at a reasonable RPM or it kicks down and screams at 5k. The EB w/6 speed sounds like it should be able to keep up a reasonable pace with its low rpm torque without having to resort to feeling abusive with sustained high rpm slogs.

 

You'll never see the 3.7 in the Expy/Navigator. Not enough torque.

 

I thought I read unofficially that the 3.5EB would be in the next Navigator? I would think the Expedition would get it too.

[akirby]

You'll never see the 3.7 in the Expy/Navigator. Not enough torque.

 

I thought I read unofficially that the 3.5EB would be in the next Navigator? I would think the Expedition would get it too.

 

Early 4.6 expeditions only had 215 hp and 290 lb/ft. And I don't think the Expy weighs THAT much more than a loaded Crew Cab F150. It won't win a drag race but it should be adequate if it gets great fuel economy.

[FordBuyer]

Anyone else think this new engine lineup is going to trash the competition? I know the F-series outsells the rest now but this could be the makings of a blood bath.

 

I would think the competition is paying aftention. They have to meet new CAFE rules also. Hopefully though, Ford has a year jump on them and can pull away further in pickup market share. That is mighty impressive coming up with four new engines in one model year. It wasn't that long ago that Ford had a dearth of new engines throughout its lineup. Not anymore. Much to choose from. Ford is keeping its momentum of new products coming.

[rmc523]

Internal targets for the EB F150, are 17/24.

 

 

Ah, so my calculations were in line with their projections, except for how I rounded down even though I should've rounded up for the city mileage.

 

You'll never see the 3.7 in the Expy/Navigator. Not enough torque.

 

I thought I read unofficially that the 3.5EB would be in the next Navigator? I would think the Expedition would get it too.

 

Yes, I remember reading that snippet of info too.

[Hydro]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about 4 new engines. I am a little let down by the 5.0 and 6.2L. I think the 5.0 should have matched the Ram and Tundra (385-390 range) and cranked the 6.2L to 430 hp. GM's currently offering the same power as the 6.2L. Ford should have notched the bar a little. So, to get the same power or a little more as Ram and Tundra you need to pay a premium. The folks who buy trucks just for the numbers might not be swayed? A decent loaded XLT 6.2L would attract lots of folks.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Hydro

[fordmantpw]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about 4 new engines. I am a little let down by the 5.0 and 6.2L. I think the 5.0 should have matched the Ram and Tundra (385-390 range) and cranked the 6.2L to 430 hp. GM's currently offering the same power as the 6.2L. Ford should have notched the bar a little. So, to get the same power or a little more as Ram and Tundra you need to pay a premium. The folks who buy trucks just for the numbers might not be swayed? A decent loaded XLT 6.2L would attract lots of folks.

 

The 5.0 (smaller V8) should match the optional V8 in the others? Don't think that is necessary. You need something for the folks that want a decent engine and not some crazy HP numbers they'll never use.

 

If you buy it just for numbers, then buy the 3.5L EB!

[MY93SHO]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about 4 new engines. I am a little let down by the 5.0 and 6.2L. I think the 5.0 should have matched the Ram and Tundra (385-390 range) and cranked the 6.2L to 430 hp. GM's currently offering the same power as the 6.2L. Ford should have notched the bar a little. So, to get the same power or a little more as Ram and Tundra you need to pay a premium. The folks who buy trucks just for the numbers might not be swayed? A decent loaded XLT 6.2L would attract lots of folks.

 

GM's 6.2 has less torque than Fords. HP isn't everything.

[justinc1973]

Hopefully the 6.2L finds its way into the XLT trim. I was looking forward to a new truck.......DAMN

[Hydro]

 

 

If you buy it just for numbers, then buy the 3.5L EB!

That's what I'm saying. You have to pay for a premium to get any power over competitors CURRENT V8's. The 3.5L competes with everybody's introductory motors just fine. Now the 5.0 should compete with the next level motors (390hp hemi, 380hp tundra) because you don't pay a premium for those motors. If the EB doesn't have a mark-up then all is good. I don't forsee that hapenning though.

 

93SHO, I know the Ford engine makes better tq, but they should have bumped the HP just to claim a numbers victory all around, hell, 420 or 415hp would sound better.

[F250]

Turbo charged smaller engines, replacing naturally aspirated larger engines, is a pretty new thing. As a manufacturer, you want to get the product out there, and get the buying public used to the idea............. because, as YOU said, Ford has CAFE to think about. So, what do you do??

 

You put the engine out as a premium offering. Remember that perception is everything, and has very little to do with reality. People begin to accept the engine as a premium offering with better fuel economy. You get to get millions upon millions of additional testing miles, while the engine is in the field.............. and the engines prove themselves to the buying public, as being reliable. Then, as the buyers get used to the idea, and accept the engines and technology as mainstream, you begin to make the engine more and more mainstream.

 

At some point, instead of every discussion of the Ecoboost turning into 30% accepting, and 70% worrying about reliability issues, due to turbos from 20 years ago, the percentages turn. Now your Ecoboost can be your mainstream engine, because the vast majority of the buying public accept is as the norm, with the same or very similar reliability to every NA engine out there. Plus, Ford gets their R&D paid off faster, by being in highly profitable vehicles.

 

Actually this has been done before...1979. Ford introduced it's first regular production small turbocharged engine intended to replace it's 5.0L V8 with a fuel efficent 4-cylinder that could match the V8's horsepower. Offered in the Mustang and Fairmont those first carbureted turbo-4 cylinders were unreliable but Ford did not give up. They dropped them after a couple of years then reintroduced the 2.3L turbo with multi-point EFI and the engine was a success. Available without an intercooler and lower boost on the Mustang GT-turbo and with intercooler and high boost on the expensive Mustang SVO. The engine went on to power the Thunderbird and Cougar as well with great success.

 

But the engine never made it to standard passenger cars it stayed with the high end performance models of the line. Ford tred to sell the turbo-4 directly along side the 5.0L V8 Mustang GT and the market chose the V8 hands down. Learning from that they offered the high performance T-bird/Cougars with the turbo-4 only, the standard non-HO V8 was available and without the special suspension the Turbos recieved so the v8 option was hardly a performance vehicle.

 

A couple of days ago I saw a 1984 Mustang GT-turbo convertable had parked next to my truck in a parking lot. It was obviously just a daily driver white with white vinyl interior and black top the car was in good original shape and had been left with the windows down unsecured. I wonder if the owner knows they were only produced for 1 year and it was one of only 412 built.

 

The 2011 F-150 engine lineup looks very promissing indeed! It will be interresting to see how the new EcoBoost, whatever the price is, will be recieved by the market considering the other very capable NA engines available.

Edited August 12, 2010 by F250

[RichardJensen]

I think the general elimination of turbo lag has made a world of difference between Ford's 80s experiments and today.

[F250]

I think the general elimination of turbo lag has made a world of difference between Ford's 80s experiments and today.

 

Today's far better engine oil will do a lot to help their reliability as well.

 

Those 80's turbo Fords ran damn good...of course I suppose everything is relative to time.

[Extreme4x4]

I thought the 6.2L GM engine was only rated at 403hp in its highest truck application??

 

Am I wrong??

 

I know it is rated at 426hp in the Camaro, but that doesn't count.

 

The 5.0 is Fords base V8. It competes very well with others base V8's............... as in blows them away. Remember that the base V8 in the GM's is the 4.8L, and the base in the Rams is the 4.7L. The base in the Tundra is the 4.7L. The 5.7L "hemi" is their top of the line gas engine, just like the 5.7L is the Tundras top of the line gas engine.

 

Why should Fords base V8 have to blow away Ram and Toyotas top of the line gas engine??

 

Frankly, it embarasses the living hell out of the 5.3L. LOL

[atvman]

I thought the 6.2L GM engine was only rated at 403hp in its highest truck application??

 

Am I wrong??

 

I know it is rated at 426hp in the Camaro, but that doesn't count.

 

The 5.0 is Fords base V8. It competes very well with others base V8's............... as in blows them away. Remember that the base V8 in the GM's is the 4.8L, and the base in the Rams is the 4.7L. The base in the Tundra is the 4.7L. The 5.7L "hemi" is their top of the line gas engine, just like the 5.7L is the Tundras top of the line gas engine.

 

Why should Fords base V8 have to blow away Ram and Toyotas top of the line gas engine??

 

Frankly, it embarasses the living hell out of the 5.3L. LOL

Top Engines

GM 6.2L: 403hp, 417lb-ft

Ram 5.7L: 390hp, 407lb-ft

Toyota 5.7L: 381hp, 401lb-ft

Nissan 5.6L: 317hp, 385lb-ft

Ford 6.2L: 411hp, 434lb-ft

Ford 3.5L EB: XXXhp, 410lb-ft*

*autoblog

 

I think Ford's top engines compete very well with the top engines from other companies.

 

Volume/Base V8s

GM 5.3L: 315hp, 338lb-ft

Ram 4.7L: 310hp, 330lb-ft

Toyota 4.6L: 310hp, 327lb-ft

Nissan 5.6L: 317hp, 385lb-ft

Ford 5.0L: 360hp, 380lb-ft

 

Other than Nissan's 5.6L, the Ford 5.0L is quite a bit stronger than any base/volume V8 from the competition.

[MY93SHO]

That's what I'm saying. You have to pay for a premium to get any power over competitors CURRENT V8's. The 3.5L competes with everybody's introductory motors just fine. Now the 5.0 should compete with the next level motors (390hp hemi, 380hp tundra) because you don't pay a premium for those motors. If the EB doesn't have a mark-up then all is good. I don't forsee that hapenning though.

 

93SHO, I know the Ford engine makes better tq, but they should have bumped the HP just to claim a numbers victory all around, hell, 420 or 415hp would sound better.

 

GM 6.2 in pickups is 403hp like Extreme4x4 said. Fords is 411hp.

 

Ford wins. If GM bumps their power then Ford can respond. Why "drop your pants" right away?

 

Remember folks, Ford has to consider CAFE in all this.

Edited August 12, 2010 by MY93SHO

[jpd80]

GM 6.2 in pickups is 403hp like Extreme4x4 said. Fords is 411hp.

 

Ford wins. If GM bumps their power then Ford can respond. Why "drop your pants" right away?

 

Remember folks, Ford has to consider CAFE in all this.

 

Yes... CAFE is looming large for GM and Chrysler, both of those makers will have to

re-engineer their engines with perhaps more VVT and DI improvements to stay in front

of economy targets. What's the bet that the 5.0 F150 resets the bar for GM and Chrysler....

 

Talk about towing all you like but there are lots of Ford/GM/Chrys trucks that don't

tow much if anything, it's that market they Ford is after with the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 V8.

Fuel economy gets buyers through the door and lively engines sees them as owners......

Edited August 12, 2010 by jpd80

[mustang_sallad]

Talk about towing all you like but there are lots of Ford/GM/Chrys trucks that don't

tow much if anything, it's that market they Ford is after with the 3.7 V6 and 5.0 V8.

Fuel economy gets buyers through the door and lively engines sees them as owners......

 

I agree with your point about not everybody needing a towing vehicle, but I hardly think it's fair to imply the 5.0 isn't adequate for towing... Can't it tow 9000lbs or something? That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

By the way, anybody remember when the F-150 Lightning was wicked fast for a pickup with 380hp and 450lb-ft? Now look at us, wondering whether 411hp and 434lb-ft is enough for the optional V8! Just like what's happened with the mustang. They're saying on themustangsource.com that we will be seeing a Mach 1 using a N/A version of the aluminum-block 5.4 from the GT500. I wonder if we'll see this engine in a truck at some point.

 

edit: here's the post on TMS: http://forums.themustangsource.com/f765/next-up-486396/

Edited August 12, 2010 by mustang_sallad