Ecoboost V6 for the F150

Toms-SC

Toms-SC

Registered User
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/27/2011-ford-f-150-first-drive-review-road-test/#continued

There are two remaining powerplants to talk about, and though Ford sees its 6.2-liter V8 as the top rung of the F-150 ladder, we're going to go ahead and save the EcoBoost for last. Not that there's anything wrong with Ford's largest-displacement engine option. Far from it, in fact: Nobody is going to scoff at 411 raging horses and 434 lb-ft. of twist. What's more, Yours Truly set the quickest dragstrip time of the entire event – a 7.985-second run at over 68 miles per hour down what was almost-but-not-quite an 8th mile – in a 6.2-powered Harley-Davidson F-150.

No, there's nothing at all wrong with the big 6.2-liter V8 or its 11,300-pound tow rating... except that we'd opt for the EcoBoost every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why, you ask? Well, there are three major reasons: Power, efficiency and price.

Let's start with power, shall we? While its 365 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque may look a bit down on paper when compared to the 6.2-liter V8, real-life scenarios prove that the EcoBoost has got the brawn where it counts most: right in the meat of the power band. Ninety percent of the boosted mill's torque is available from 1,700 rpm through 5,000 rpm, allowing it to match the bigger engine's 11,300-pound tow and 3,060-pound payload ratings.
Click to expand...

That is the 4th car now with this power plant. Who's going to be the 1st convert?
 
Last edited:
ford is also planning a torture test with one of these engines selectd randomly off of the assembly line. they believe in them quite a bit.

first will be 150k miles on an engine dyno, then it will be put in a truck and taken to skidsteer at a logging company, then the same truck will be driven down to florida to tow two stock cars around a track at full throttle for 24 hours, then put into a CORR truck, taken out to baja and flogged.

afterwards, the engine will be disassembled, laid out and shown to the public.

in this engine, great faith i have.

i just wonder who will be the first to swap it into an '11 mustang, with a special mobsteel upgrade package.
 
So the standard 4.6 is replaced by a more pumped up 3.7. The 5.4 is replaced with a more pumped up 5.0. And the big block is the 3.7 turbo?

I still say it is an "exception" to the rule to build more power with a smaller motor and gain durability. It's not impossible, but it sure is asking a lot. A big reason why the 5.4L runs 200K miles is because it was only churning out 260HP (2V) and 310HP (3V). Granted the turbo motor should be built with tougher stuff, but I still don't see how it will be a longer lasting mill.

The 5.0L looks appealing, but again, losing about half a liter, picking up about 50HP. That's not a recipe that screams durability to me.

The 6.2L would be my choice. Not only is it a great performer at 411HP, but the power doesn't seem too far out of skew with the displacement. On paper, it should last a long time and it should mesh well with a truck of that size.
 
Micahdogg said:
The 5.0L looks appealing, but again, losing about half a liter, picking up about 50HP. That's not a recipe that screams durability to me.
Click to expand...

I can believe there are opportunities for increased engine efficiency (more with less) and maintaining if not increasing durability. Weather or not Ford has figured it out, we'll see. I won't jump on any new powertrain design until someone else got to try it out first. Consider the ability to now do direct fuel injection (basically eliminating the chances of pre-ignition) and variable cam timing ( allowing combustion stresses to be kept where the engine is best able to deal with them based on geometry). These two technologies alone should provide a significant durability improvement.
 
And it's all relative. I've had my 5.4L truck for 11 years now and just turned over 100K. At this rate, I don't know that I need a motor to last "this" long. :)

My mentality then was to get the biggest engine possible. I'm still in that mentality. Even though the Ecoboost is among the "biggest" in power... I like how the 6.2L makes more with less stress. The 5.0 doesn't look bad, but the article alluded that it would probably be the most cranked out of the bunch. I like the idea of my competition starting 60HP behind.
 
I'm with Micah. For a heavy truck, I want lots of cubes just loafing along at 1800 rpms, instead of a boosted 6 cylinder being worked harder. Ecoboost motor is great for mid size cars and small SUVs, but I wouldn't want one in a Truck or Full size SUV or even a full size car (like a Crown Vic).

David
 
I think you guys may be missing the point. The future is not going to include the option for 6.xL engines and the ecoboost is just getting people used to the idea of a small engine doing big work. As CAFE requirements go beyond 35mpg, there are going to be some serious adjustments to be made. In 10 years we'll be shrugging it off like it's completely normal.

Or driving diesels. ;)
 
David Neibert said:
I'm with Micah. For a heavy truck, I want lots of cubes just loafing along at 1800 rpms, instead of a boosted 6 cylinder being worked harder. Ecoboost motor is great for mid size cars and small SUVs, but I wouldn't want one in a Truck or Full size SUV or even a full size car (like a Crown Vic).

David
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. I was looking at the new Explorer for 2011 and the only engine options are a 4 cylinder or V6, no more V8's with the towing packages.
 
When these things are built they are not thinking how much can consumers get out of the powerplants after they get their hands on it. Shoppers when looking for a car look at MPG first Performance 2nd.


For example I'll take my 2.3L direct injected turbo that makes 270HP over any naturally aspirated V6 in the 250-300HP range. I dont plan on using its cubes to get much out of it. But knowing that I can get over 25MPG on an easy drivin trip, to me is worth more. Gas is not 99cents anymore.

When I get car that reasemble a dream car or toy then cubes will have to be there. There is no replacement for displacement. Why do you think we are stuck at 450WHP. Imagine havine some more cubes. 5.0L V6 LOL.
 
XR7 Dave said:
I think you guys may be missing the point. The future is not going to include the option for 6.xL engines and the ecoboost is just getting people used to the idea of a small engine doing big work. As CAFE requirements go beyond 35mpg, there are going to be some serious adjustments to be made. In 10 years we'll be shrugging it off like it's completely normal.

Or driving diesels. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm used to the idea of an Ecoboost and am actually excited that they are offering it in a F150.

But you largely have two kinds of truck owners. The utility crowd who just need something with a bed that starts. Then you have the hotrod crowd who gravitate toward the lightnings, HD trucks, SRT10 Ram's, etc... Most people fall in the middle and try to balance both.....like me. I need my truck to be useful, but am willing to sacrifice some utility for the cool factor. That is why I lowered my truck, got 20 inch wheels and will be installing a Vortech. But I only lowered 3 inches, didn't go crazy with the rim size, and will be pulleying at 6#. Again, a compromise, because last night my primary goal for the truck was for it to start and haul a bunch of stuff over to the other house. I can't ever lose that.

If I wanted a 2011 F150 for a hotrod type truck, the Ecoboost would probably be at the top of the list. But having owned my truck for 11 years now, I'm really starting to appreciate the relatively simple, low-stress design (especially as I'm servicing the ac, water pump, alternator, etc....) The idea that the 6.2 may not be around even 5 years later doesn't bother me anymore than my current 5.4L not having lasted into 2004.

P.S. A small deisel like that 4.6L that GM developed interests me the most. As long as it's not a crazy expensive option. Same power output as the Ecoboost, but should be easy to add 60HP or so and stay rock solid.
 
Micahdogg said:
I'm used to the idea of an Ecoboost and am actually excited that they are offering it in a F150.

But you largely have two kinds of truck owners. The utility crowd who just need something with a bed that starts. Then you have the hotrod crowd who gravitate toward the lightnings, HD trucks, SRT10 Ram's, etc... Most people fall in the middle and try to balance both.....like me. I need my truck to be useful, but am willing to sacrifice some utility for the cool factor. That is why I lowered my truck, got 20 inch wheels and will be installing a Vortech. But I only lowered 3 inches, didn't go crazy with the rim size, and will be pulleying at 6#. Again, a compromise, because last night my primary goal for the truck was for it to start and haul a bunch of stuff over to the other house. I can't ever lose that.

If I wanted a 2011 F150 for a hotrod type truck, the Ecoboost would probably be at the top of the list. But having owned my truck for 11 years now, I'm really starting to appreciate the relatively simple, low-stress design (especially as I'm servicing the ac, water pump, alternator, etc....) The idea that the 6.2 may not be around even 5 years later doesn't bother me anymore than my current 5.4L not having lasted into 2004.

P.S. A small deisel like that 4.6L that GM developed interests me the most. As long as it's not a crazy expensive option. Same power output as the Ecoboost, but should be easy to add 60HP or so and stay rock solid.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that Ford intends eventually to move over to 85% ecoboost in all platforms. Clearly they are looking at dollar per mpg more than anything else. The first ecoboost motors are being marketed as exclusive and exotic but eventually Ford will be using turbochargers to supplement all their powerplants allowing them to use smaller motors to do the same work as bigger ones. My guess is that this will carry them well up until the time comes that gasoline power is unable to meet the mpg demands of CAFE and diesel takes over.

Then eventually gasoline will become cheaper again and we'll start using it as a cleaning fluid instead of fuel. :rolleyes:
 
I'm reminded of the people who bought the smaller 4.6L V8 rather than the "huge" 5.4L because they wanted better fuel economy. IN a lot of cases, they got worse economy because they had to be in the throttle a lot more.

I can't wait to see how the real world mpg wars play out with that line up.
 
Micahdogg said:
I'm reminded of the people who bought the smaller 4.6L V8 rather than the "huge" 5.4L because they wanted better fuel economy. IN a lot of cases, they got worse economy because they had to be in the throttle a lot more.

I can't wait to see how the real world mpg wars play out with that line up.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a very good point. Hp requires fuel, and as long as we use generally accepted methods of burning it, we will use a relatively equal amount of fuel for an equal amount of power. Case in point is the new 5.0 Mustang. EPA fuel economy ratings have it getting 29mpg vs 26 (going off memory here) for the SS Camaro. However, on the race track the Mustang got 11mpg and the SS got 12. Or something like that.

I was reading a discussion on fuel strategy on the new 5.0 and it was pointed out that Ford commands 14.7 AFR all the way to 95% pedal on that motor. This means that during all aspects of EPA testing, the motor stays in closed loop thereby generating good economy and relatively boring power. By tuning using traditional standards and methods, 80ftbs torque was picked up on the bottom end with no fuel economy penalty on the top.

So as this relates to us - well - a lot of the fuel economy crap is marketing. If you look at an SVT Focus for example, I think EPA is about 23mpg but I know of people claiming 35mpg on the highway and close to 30 in town if they drive it nicely. This will become even more apparent as people start driving turbocharged cars more. It is interesting though, that it may have a spin off effect of slowing people down and helping them focus on economy because they will have a lot more control of their results. When driving a 460 powered truck, you just know that no matter what you are going to get 12mpg so it doesn't really matter how you drive. With an Ecoboost, you will find that your foot can make the difference between 25mpg and 15mpg.

Most people won't care and they will get 15mpg just like they always have.
 
XR7 Dave said:
Most people won't care and they will get 15mpg just like they always have.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but you right. It seems the more performance you give someone the more the see the need to use it all the time.

I might get scolded for this but I wish Ford wouldn't have released the 305 hp V6 Mustang as the base engine. Does anyone realize how many idiots out there that are incapable of driving safe with a 15 second mustang let alone a high 13 second Mustang.
 
I don't doubt that Ford is aware of the challenges it faces with this powertrain and I think it will be very interesting to see how exactly it all shakes out.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9O7I4knkKEo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9O7I4knkKEo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Bahh, we survived the LS1.

wambulance_01.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top