1. Missed the live Ask the Expert event?
    Catch up on the conversation about fertilization strategies for success with the experts at Koch Turf & Ornamental in the Fertilizer Application forum.

    Dismiss Notice

2011 Ford F150 V6 Ecoboost

Discussion in 'Trucks and Trailers' started by Capemay Eagle, Oct 8, 2010.

  1. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Messages: 207

    This is an antiquated argument that really needs to be put to bed. The current trucks line up looks like this:

    Ford 6.7L: 400HP... 800ft/lb
    GM 6.6L: 397HP... 765ft/lb
    Dodge 6.7L: 350HP... 650ft/lb

    Ford 3.5L: 365HP... 420ft/lb
    Dodge 5.7L: 390HP... 407ft/lb
    Toyota 5.7L: 381HP... 401ft/lb
    Nissan 5.6L: 317HP... 385ft/lb
    Ford 5.0L: 360HP... 380ft/lb
    GM 6.0L: 322HP... 380ft/lb
    GM 5.3L: 315HP... 335ft/lb
    Dodge 5.9L: 245HP... 335ft/lb (2002)
    Dodge 4.7L: 310HP... 330ft/lb
    Chevy 5.7L: 255HP... 330ft/lb (1997)
    Toyota 4.6L: 310HP... 327ft/lb
    GM 4.8L: 302HP... 305ft/lb
    Ford 3.7L: 300HP... 275ft/lb

    If the argument is that you need displacement to pull a trailer, then you are dead wrong. Technology can AND will replacement displacement. You can see Dodge's and GM's largest engines (5.9L and 5.7L) have been WELL replaced with more modern designs. You will also notice that the largest engine (GM's 6.0L) is eclipsed by 5 engines with less displacement. On the diesel side of things, the larger engine does not necessarily make more power/torque.

    And before you say something about the turbo engine not being good due to turbo lag... remember, the big, bad diesels have all been running turbo for a long time... you won't see a normally aspirated engine pulling a 50K pound trailer down the highway ;)

    As emission and mileage requirements go up, you will see all the manufacturers finally put to rest the idea of "no replacement for displacement" and join what foreign car makers have known for a long time... technology and boost are the ways to go. With Ford dtepping up their product line and making an engine like the EB for a truck, the other makers will now have to step up. Once people start seeing the joy of getting 20+mpg out of their work trucks and the cost savings associated, fleets will start changing over to them and if GM and Dodge don't keep up, they will get left behind.

    Disclaimer: I ma not a Ford lover. Quite the opposite, I grew up in a GM family... but now with the new engines from Ford, I would NEVER buy one of GM's antique-like 5.3/4.8L engines.
  2. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 998

    You still miss the point. Numbers are numbers, and yes, they can be altered in several ways, boost or otherwise. And I'm not saying that a large engine is required to pull a trailer. My 3.0L V6 in my Taurus can pull my small utility just fine (145hp).

    I suppose my point is that displacement is what it is - volume. This is why there is no replacement for displacement because I would have assumed that that phrase is self explanatory. I assumed wrong. 1L of volume is still 1L of volume, no matter how you look at it. That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

    I bet, if you go out and purchase a 3.5EB F150 and tow 7K with it everyday, you'll be disappointed with the mileage. 350hp is still 350hp whether you have the displacement, or boost, to achieve the power. I'm sure you'll also agree with the fact that if you work a similarly powered (and larger displacement) V8 with the same towing requirements, the engine will perform better, last longer and be more durable.

    If I told my truck drivers that I was going to replace my entire fleet of 15-16L diesel engines that put out 525hp or so on average, to a 8-9L twin turbo engine running an insane amount of boost but puts out similar power levels, I'd be out of business. Engine durability is paramount to me, and a large iron block that can pull at very low rpm on its own with a single turbo and nearly no lag is my engine of choice for pulling heavy loads.

    My N/A 5.9L Dodge gas V8 does a fantastic job of hauling things with ease, and again, I can climb moderate grades without requiring a downshift, and get 20mpg highway. Obviously EPA is in the way, but I'm sure Ford would do best with a small diesel in the F150 for those who 'work' their trucks, not just use them for groceries.

    Again, I like the idea of the EB3.5 but it doesn't appeal to me as an owner operator as an everyday work truck. If Ford made it the base engine, instead of a $2K option here in Canada, I might consider trying it out, but I refuse to pay more for a smaller engine that will have to work harder, and more than likely cost me more in the long run as I try to keep vehicles as long as I can. If anything I'd take the base V6 with 300hp and 273lb ft of torque. It's not far off from the EB 3.5 but Ford doesn't offer it above base 2wd models here in Canada. Which is why I had mentioned that the next engine up, the 5.0L V8 would be the one I'd go with. If Ford can write for me on paper that a V6 can do the work of a V8 and give me a ten year powertrain warranty with the EB 3.5, I'd take it. However, as much as my dealer likes me as a client I can't see that happening.

    The 5.0L V8 pumps out 360hp, in line with the EB3.5. If I wanted a 'performance truck' that gets decent mileage, I'd slap on a supercharger and be near the 500hp mark, or I'd do the same with the larger 6.2L engine and make it worth my while. As the EBV6 is already boosted, the engine is as far as it can go power wise except for throwing on perhaps a programmer and some bolt on mods, but an increase would be minimal at best.

    Who knows, if the price is right a 3.5EB might be in my future, but for now, the 5.0L remains tops on my list from Ford. Unless they do come out with a diesel in line with GM's 4.5L mill due out (finally) in the next two years. The only downside to diesels is the Urea fluid. Of which the Ram doesn't need for it's 6.7L, TD but it uses slightly more fuel to compensate which to me is a good compromise, let alone I can order one with the manual transmission. I won't though, only because I don't need a truck with that capability, yet.

    I've owned kinds of vehicles from the Big 3 over the years. Pontiac, Chev, GMC, Ford truck and car, Buick, Dodge truck, SUV, and cars. I had a Tundra as a rental once, and looked in the manual to realize a 4x4 5.7L long box has a payload of 1280lbs!!! Terrible for a full size reg cab!

    Dodge has a new Durango, but it's not for me. It's car based for 2011. All to gain better **** numbers, they offer it with their new 3.6L V6.

    Oh, GM's 6.0L also makes 360hp. It makes 322hp (as you listed) in one ton trucks for GVWR reasons (read: durability).
  3. doubleedge

    doubleedge LawnSite Senior Member
    from ND
    Messages: 911

    Could you provide a couple of sources? My comments are in red.

  4. joed

    joed LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,198

    Ford is not putting the 3.7 in the 4WD model? That's terrible. How will the 5.0L V8 be for fuel economy? Any news yet on fuel economy for the ecoboost? We'll have to see if the increased fuel economy justifies the extra upfront cost and likely the extra upkeep cost for things such as the turbochargers.
  5. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 998

    It still has less power/displacement. Yes it does, but that doesn't mean it's any less capable, Mr. GM guy.

    It can have the 5.7 hemi. The platform is unibody and has independent suspension but can still tow 7k, I believe. And it has good ride quality too. Yes, but I bought my Durango originally as a hunting/trail vehicle as well as a tow machine. I need a low range. Fewer vehicles are offering it now, as they're going car based for a more compliant ride as you mentioned. If I got the new Durango I'd stick with the base V6 as it would be sufficient in everyday driving. Lifting and going with lower gears will also be hard unless the aftermarket finds that there is enough demand to warranty 'off road' performance mods.

    But has less torque and the torque peaks at higher rpm. The ecoboost peaks at diesel like rpms. Yes, but at maximum boost you'll use just as much fuel, if not more depending on if you're towing anything than a N/A V8. Diesel burns more efficiently in terms of BTU output per X amount of fuel used for each engine.

    What about "there is no replacement for displacement"? And you gave price as a reason why you didn't want the ecoboost; supercharger kits cost $5k+ As I said, performance costs money, and the question is How fast do you want to go? Not very, I buy trucks for what they are - workhorses. As for S'charge kits I have my connections to get them at cost, in line to the EB3.5 option here in Canada which is $2K over the 5.0L by the way. However, to get the max towing package you have to get the 3.5EB, which would have me going with a 3/4 ton if I planned to do any towing, because at that point I'm already well into 3/4 ton pricing. The EB cannot be had on XL or XTR trim, XLT and higher only.

    There is no reason why it can't If it was a big V6, like the old 4.9L I6, that engine could do a lot of work that the V8 could with more reliability at the expense of noise vibration and harshness with similar fuel economy numbers as the V8.

    Based on what? It has 140 ft lbs less torque Yes, but the 3.7 still makes decent torque for the engine size, and on base models where the EB cannot be optioned, you save over $5K. The old 4.2L V6 pumped out 202hp and was a decent base engine for the time also, as it was in line with Dodge's 3.7L at 215hp and GM's venerable 4.3L with 195hp.

    We aren't talking about substituting a boosted engine with an engine that has even more boost; the ecoboost replaces a naturally aspirated engine and has two small turbochargers, designed to reduce lag, not produce ridiculous amounts of boost. You missed my point, as I was getting at reducing displacement. The EB does produce high boost to achieve the HP numbers on paper. Last I read it high on the two digit mark. Most boosted engines run mid to high single digits so as not to have a negative effect on engine durability.

    You aren't considering that the engine has less friction and doesn't need to produce 350 hp all of the time. When you tow, you more than likely will as the 3.5L V6 will require more rpm to pull a trailer due to the small displacement where a larger engine can literally lug along in a lower gear although it's not healthy on the transmission. My 5.9L V8 produces stock 250hp at 4200rpm. It's rarely producing that amount of power. Generally I'm lucky to need more than 150hp even when towing on the highway as the engine cruises just under 2000rpm and at that speed I have all the torque I need RIGHT when I want it without the need to downshift, it just pulls.

    There is no reason to have the extra displacement if the engine is turbocharged. You aren't giving a reason why there is no replacement for displacement, you are just saying that displacement is volume. Exactly, displacement is volume. We're not changing the volume of the engine because in the end, boosted or not the EB3.5 is still 3.5L. You're saying that large engines don't require turbos? You're right. They don't, unless the owner is a performance freak and wants the added power boosting brings. To each their own.
  6. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 998

    Not for the first year was my understanding, as I can't build one online, but that might change, or be a mistake. If anything I'd guess that Ford thinks the 3.7L too weak when compared to other base half ton models in terms of peak torque to weight ratio perhaps?...
  7. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Messages: 207

    Basic engine dynamics... air + gas = go.

    The reason the cliche "no replacement for displacement" even exists is because bigger displacement means the engine could ingest more air and therefore burn more gas. The more gas burned, the more power made. (not adjusting for thermal efficiency of said engine).

    If 1L sucks in 100% of its volume, a normally aspirated engine sucks in 1L of air. If 1 liter is turbo charged to 7psi, that same engine can take in 1.48L of air.... and so on. I am sorry if you still live in 1969 when carburetors ruled the earth, but the cliche is now dead and the manufacturers are going to put it to bed. There is a reason why Ford dumped the 7.3L Powerstroke in favor of the current engine.... and why GM dumped the 5.7L for its 5.3L... it is evolution... the days of monster sized engines is dieing.
  8. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 998

    Another reason not to trade in!
  9. Knight511

    Knight511 LawnSite Member
    Messages: 207

    You will eventually be forced to as fuel prices become cost prohibitive. :) Hell my full-time job calculates full savings down to how we can save 0.5mpg due to the size of our fleet... I think the day is coming that all us NORMAL people end up doing the same thing.
  10. 360ci

    360ci LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 998

    It's inevitable. Fuel prices are what they are. We'll still require vehicles to do 'work'. People that buy a truck just to haul their lardness around are the ones who should face tax premiums on fuel, etc. Obviously that can't be regulated yet (seats that weigh the driver before the vehicle starts, ha!), but I'm sure its in the works. A 400lb person puts twice the strain on asphalt that a 200lb person does, afterall.

    Europe has had road tax, engine displacement tax, and emission tax for eons and I'm still rather shocked that we don't...yet.

Share This Page