Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Budget F-150 Shoppers Looking At Ram, GM

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Because we're talking about complexity and long term reliability, do we have any accurate data comparing Ecoboost engines to the 5.0 and to the competition's v8's?

I doubt there is good reliable data to compare since most manufacturers probably don’t want to share information on specific problems.  Most comparisons I’ve read go on basis that an item that doesn’t exist can’t fail if not there, which is technically correct, but doesn’t paint the entire picture.  Like you implied, it is a complex issue, as demonstrated by fact that even similar engines from different manufacturers have different failure rates and of different types.  Not all pushrod V8s are the same, nor are GTDI engines.

 

Anyway, below is comparison from Ford source so less likely to be biased.  However, differences are not quantified.  I copied paragraphs that address your question:

 

https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines

 

“Furthermore, due to their intricate design, EcoBoost engines may have higher maintenance costs than traditional engines. This is primarily because components such as the turbocharger and direct injection system can be more costly to repair or replace. Additionally, in certain instances, EcoBoost engines may necessitate the use of premium fuel, leading to increased operational expenses over time.”

 

and

 

 

“Many drivers appreciate the simplicity and reliability of naturally aspirated engines. These engines have fewer complex components than turbocharged ones, making them easier to maintain. This perception of reliability has contributed to the enduring popularity of Ford's naturally aspirated V-8 engines.

 

Another advantage of naturally aspirated engines is their lower maintenance costs. Without the turbocharger system and associated components, there are fewer potential points of failure and less complexity overall. This can lower long-term maintenance expenses, especially for drivers who keep their vehicles for many years.”

[Sherminator98]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I doubt there is good reliable data to compare since most manufacturers probably don’t want to share information on specific problems.  Most comparisons I’ve read go on basis that an item that doesn’t exist can’t fail if not there, which is technically correct, but doesn’t paint the entire picture.  Like you implied, it is a complex issue, as demonstrated by fact that even similar engines from different manufacturers have different failure rates and of different types.  Not all pushrod V8s are the same, nor are GTDI engines.

 

Anyway, below is comparison from Ford source so less likely to be biased.  However, differences are not quantified.  I copied paragraphs that address your question:

 

https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines

 

“Furthermore, due to their intricate design, EcoBoost engines may have higher maintenance costs than traditional engines. This is primarily because components such as the turbocharger and direct injection system can be more costly to repair or replace. Additionally, in certain instances, EcoBoost engines may necessitate the use of premium fuel, leading to increased operational expenses over time.”

 

and

 

 

“Many drivers appreciate the simplicity and reliability of naturally aspirated engines. These engines have fewer complex components than turbocharged ones, making them easier to maintain. This perception of reliability has contributed to the enduring popularity of Ford's naturally aspirated V-8 engines.

 

Another advantage of naturally aspirated engines is their lower maintenance costs. Without the turbocharger system and associated components, there are fewer potential points of failure and less complexity overall. This can lower long-term maintenance expenses, especially for drivers who keep their vehicles for many years.”

So I’ve had Ecoboost engines for over a decade I had no major issues with them and running premium as a choice I made due to tuning it. 
 

otherwise maintenance costs where the same a gas engine. 
 

both engines hit over 100k miles with no major failures. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

So I’ve had Ecoboost engines for over a decade I had no major issues with them and running premium as a choice I made due to tuning it. 
 

otherwise maintenance costs where the same a gas engine. 
 

both engines hit over 100k miles with no major failures.

 

 

Daughter’s 2014 2.0 escape has 140k no engine issues.  My 2018 3.55 F150 has 45k no engine issues.  My 2013 2.0 Fusion was 6 yrs old with 60k no engine issues.  My two neighbor’s F150s (both 3.5eb) have over 100k no engine issues.

 

Turbo or turbo related failures happen but they’re not common.

[akirby]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I doubt there is good reliable data to compare since most manufacturers probably don’t want to share information on specific problems.  Most comparisons I’ve read go on basis that an item that doesn’t exist can’t fail if not there, which is technically correct, but doesn’t paint the entire picture.  Like you implied, it is a complex issue, as demonstrated by fact that even similar engines from different manufacturers have different failure rates and of different types.  Not all pushrod V8s are the same, nor are GTDI engines.

 

Anyway, below is comparison from Ford source so less likely to be biased.  However, differences are not quantified.  I copied paragraphs that address your question:

 

https://www.chalmersford.com/blog/ecoboost-vs-naturally-aspirated-engines

 

“Furthermore, due to their intricate design, EcoBoost engines may have higher maintenance costs than traditional engines. This is primarily because components such as the turbocharger and direct injection system can be more costly to repair or replace. Additionally, in certain instances, EcoBoost engines may necessitate the use of premium fuel, leading to increased operational expenses over time.”

 

and

 

 

“Many drivers appreciate the simplicity and reliability of naturally aspirated engines. These engines have fewer complex components than turbocharged ones, making them easier to maintain. This perception of reliability has contributed to the enduring popularity of Ford's naturally aspirated V-8 engines.

 

Another advantage of naturally aspirated engines is their lower maintenance costs. Without the turbocharger system and associated components, there are fewer potential points of failure and less complexity overall. This can lower long-term maintenance expenses, especially for drivers who keep their vehicles for many years.”

Premium is not required and only recommended for towing in high temps.  Repairs are not maintenance.  Maintenance costs are identical.

 

There is no such thing as a simple engine these days.  All you have to do to gauge the difference is look at turbo and blow off valve failures.  There are failures but they are not common these days especially considering how many ecoboost engines ford sells every year (well over a million).

 

NA preference these days is largely subjective.

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

So I’ve had Ecoboost engines for over a decade I had no major issues with them and running premium as a choice I made due to tuning it. 
 

otherwise maintenance costs where the same a gas engine. 
 

both engines hit over 100k miles with no major failures. 

Didn't you own a Tarus sho? I've heard those things are pretty damn reliable, and surprisingly fun to drive. 

[Rick73]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

Premium is not required and only recommended for towing in high temps.  Repairs are not maintenance.  Maintenance costs are identical.

 

There is no such thing as a simple engine these days.  All you have to do to gauge the difference is look at turbo and blow off valve failures.  There are failures but they are not common these days especially considering how many ecoboost engines ford sells every year (well over a million).

 

NA preference these days is largely subjective.

Yes, indeed subjective.  And it’s not a Ford or EcoBoost issue because pretty much every major manufacturer has Gas Turbocharged Direct Injection engines.  Ford may have been first and branded technology EcoBoost but that doesn’t imply exclusivity any longer, so EB fans should not take different engine preferences so personal.

 

It’s become like a religion, you won’t convince anyone on either side of issue.  The only point that matters, whether right or wrong, is if a percentage of buyers resist a product or a technology, then maybe manufacturers should question why, or what they can do differently.  I think it’s OK for Farley to question all differences.  As previously discussed, that probably influenced Godzilla development.

 

You’re correct that most GTDI engines can run on regular gas, but it is my understanding that premium is often required to achieve rated engine power.  I personally don’t like buying premium because added cost is as much or greater than fuel economy gains.

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, indeed subjective.  And it’s not a Ford or EcoBoost issue because pretty much every major manufacturer has Gas Turbocharged Direct Injection engines.  Ford may have been first and branded technology EcoBoost but that doesn’t imply exclusivity any longer, so EB fans should not take different engine preferences so personal.

 

It’s become like a religion, you won’t convince anyone on either side of issue.  The only point that matters, whether right or wrong, is if a percentage of buyers resist a product or a technology, then maybe manufacturers should question why, or what they can do differently.  I think it’s OK for Farley to question all differences.  As previously discussed, that probably influenced Godzilla development.

 

You’re correct that most GTDI engines can run on regular gas, but it is my understanding that premium is often required to achieve rated engine power.  I personally don’t like buying premium because added cost is as much or greater than fuel economy gains.

Yes ecoboost engines make more power on premium but that’s still personal preference.  In my F150 I could not tell the difference based on how I drive.

 

It’s not a personal thing, it’s about battling misinformation.  Some think modern turbocharged engines are like the 90s turbos and unreliable but Modern turbocharged engines are designed for turbocharging just like diesels.  Some complain about turbo lag but again that’s non existent on Ford ecoboosts.  Also the myth that they require premium fuel or that maintenance costs are higher.

[Rick73]

You won’t become more profitable telling customers they are wrong, even if they are.  Applies to pretty much all products. 😀

[grbeck]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

 

Daughter’s 2014 2.0 escape has 140k no engine issues.  My 2018 3.55 F150 has 45k no engine issues.  My 2013 2.0 Fusion was 6 yrs old with 60k no engine issues.  My two neighbor’s F150s (both 3.5eb) have over 100k no engine issues.

 

Turbo or turbo related failures happen but they’re not common.

We have 160,000 miles on our 2014 Escape SE, and the engine has not had a problem.

 

The transmission, on the other hand, failed completely at 113,000 miles. This is apparently common on Escapes of that vintage. (A friend had his 2014 Escape's transmission fail at 80,000 miles!). 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

You won’t become more profitable telling customers they are wrong, even if they are.  Applies to pretty much all products. 😀

Huh?

[rmc523]

56 minutes ago, akirby said:

Huh?

 

Sometimes you just....

[Sherminator98]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Didn't you own a Tarus sho? I've heard those things are pretty damn reliable, and surprisingly fun to drive. 

 

Yeah that was my first Ecoboost product and I sold a few years back when I thought my Bronco came in. The FWD Ecoboosts have had water pump issues around the 80-100K mark.

My wife had a 2017 Escape with the 2.0L Ecoboost and 6F transmission-no engine troubles outside of mice eating the wiring harness and her transmission was acting up, but didn't need a rebuild or anything before she got rid of it last summer. She had over 127K on it. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

back when I thought my Bronco came in.

What happened with that one?  😂😱😉

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

Huh?

Perhaps I see a different pattern evolving.

 

 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Perhaps I see a different pattern evolving.

If you’re trying to make a point it’s not working.

[Sherminator98]

Not to mention some the products with major drops are in the middle of refreshed product launches like the Maverick and Expedition

 

The Mustang is in a three month rut of sales shrinking but who really buys a Mustang in the middle of the winter north of the mason Dixon line too.  

[rmc523]

21 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

Not to mention some the products with major drops are in the middle of refreshed product launches like the Maverick and Expedition

 

The Mustang is in a three month rut of sales shrinking but who really buys a Mustang in the middle of the winter north of the mason Dixon line too.  

 

Sure, but usually a newer model is able to buck that trend.  We're seeing ultra low levels compared to the past.

[Sherminator98]

53 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Sure, but usually a newer model is able to buck that trend.  We're seeing ultra low levels compared to the past.

I wonder if it still has supply chain issues like Ford was claiming in December 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

I wonder if it still has supply chain issues like Ford was claiming in December 

 

It's possible.  January and February production were within a few units of each other and pretty close to a monthly average of last year......I don't know what December production figures were like, but last November was only 2k units.

[jpd80]

Signs that the next few months could be quite challenging…..

[Captainp4]

On 2/28/2025 at 9:31 PM, jpd80 said:

Not sure who you are directing that to but my guess is our friend…so no offence taken.

 

There is a big difference in early acceptance by Ford buyers and Ecoboost engines (complete success as you said)

the EB 35 so successful that it put the 6.2 boss engine on the scrap heap, killed it for CAFE fuel efficiency.

 

What will be harder to switch are GM and Ram fans who do prefer their V8 and the big issue for

Ram is that it never prepared buyers for the change and the quick withdrawal of the hemi V8.

(Ford didn’t either but their buyers were always open to something new/different)

 

GM hasn’t even tried beyond the 2.7 I-4 turbo because sales of that have been woeful,

they will die on the V8 hill even though they have had 3.0/3.6 V6 TT available for years.….

perhaps Mary Barra still has all of GM eggs in the BEV basket?

I wouldn't mind if Ram drives boycotted driving because they couldn't get their HEMI. Without fail it is them tailgating and driving like an absolute fool when you're already doing 15 over in the hammer lane. "Dick in a dodge" is what we called them years ago.

[akirby]

56 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

I wouldn't mind if Ram drives boycotted driving because they couldn't get their HEMI. Without fail it is them tailgating and driving like an absolute fool when you're already doing 15 over in the hammer lane. "Dick in a dodge" is what we called them years ago.

Or “rolling coal” in their diesels…..

[Captainp4]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

Or “rolling coal” in their diesels…..

I do that in my old 7.3 😅 Mostly not on purpose, but it does dump some fuel in the 'hot' tune

[Motorpsychology]

18 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

I wouldn't mind if Ram drives boycotted driving because they couldn't get their HEMI. Without fail it is them tailgating and driving like an absolute fool when you're already doing 15 over in the hammer lane. "Dick in a dodge" is what we called them years ago.