My thoughts on 2011 F-150 Ecoboost

11Silvy · October 6, 2012

Problem with F150's is comfort. The seats are not very comfy and the ride is so stiff compared to GM trucks. Otherwise it's a nice truck. Hoping the 2014 is something special.

MikeNH · October 6, 2012

I think for a truck they should put the turbo on the 5.0............ then there would be no debate, everyone would want one! Ford is heading in the right direction with this concept- just need a little "nudge" to give us an ecoboost V8.

That's my problem with it too, it will never be a "truck" because it's a glorified car motor. It revs right out. Interesting to see the mpg results tho.

I bet that EB motor makes more toque at 2000 rpm than anything GM has aside from the Duramax. Calling it a car motor is stupid, just because it showed up first in cars doesn't make it a car motor, same as our trucks since the V8s showed up in the Vette and F body initially. If anything the cars are just proofs of concept for the trucks which both brands make their living from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't make it a v8...sorry.

Yep! I agree. I think what Chevyboy is saying Mike is the V6 is just not enough displacement for a big truck- great for the Taurus though.

Don't get me wrong I like big engines but the displacement argument is a bit silly- my 5.3 will out-everything an old 5.7 and I'm sure the GDI motors we'll be seeing in the new rigs will be the same.

And a turbo V8 will most certainly be a has hog. Only way to be efficient in the EB is to stay off boost, which negates the point. The very principal of forced induction (more air needs more fuel) dictates it will use more gas than a N/A motor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

patrick_tardif · October 6, 2012

we have a fleet of eco boost's at work and i went to the farm to take my boss' pontoon boat to the dealer for winterization and i was very impressed with the pulling capacity of that thing. pickup was good and pulled super nice. im a Chevy guy so i will never own a f-150 but gotta say... kinda wish gm has thought of it first

Prokopchuk_9 · October 6, 2012

I think for a truck they should put the turbo on the 5.0............ then there would be no debate, everyone would want one! Ford is heading in the right direction with this concept- just need a little "nudge" to give us an ecoboost V8.

That's my problem with it too, it will never be a "truck" because it's a glorified car motor. It revs right out. Interesting to see the mpg results tho.

I bet that EB motor makes more toque at 2000 rpm than anything GM has aside from the Duramax. Calling it a car motor is stupid, just because it showed up first in cars doesn't make it a car motor, same as our trucks since the V8s showed up in the Vette and F body initially. If anything the cars are just proofs of concept for the trucks which both brands make their living from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't make it a v8...sorry.

Yep! I agree. I think what Chevyboy is saying Mike is the V6 is just not enough displacement for a big truck- great for the Taurus though.

Yep. No replacement for displacement.

HEMICAT · October 6, 2012

I think for a truck they should put the turbo on the 5.0............ then there would be no debate, everyone would want one! Ford is heading in the right direction with this concept- just need a little "nudge" to give us an ecoboost V8.

That's my problem with it too, it will never be a "truck" because it's a glorified car motor. It revs right out. Interesting to see the mpg results tho.

I bet that EB motor makes more toque at 2000 rpm than anything GM has aside from the Duramax. Calling it a car motor is stupid, just because it showed up first in cars doesn't make it a car motor, same as our trucks since the V8s showed up in the Vette and F body initially. If anything the cars are just proofs of concept for the trucks which both brands make their living from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't make it a v8...sorry.

Yep! I agree. I think what Chevyboy is saying Mike is the V6 is just not enough displacement for a big truck- great for the Taurus though.

Don't get me wrong I like big engines but the displacement argument is a bit silly- my 5.3 will out-everything an old 5.7 and I'm sure the GDI motors we'll be seeing in the new rigs will be the same.

And a turbo V8 will most certainly be a has hog. Only way to be efficient in the EB is to stay off boost, which negates the point. The very principal of forced induction (more air needs more fuel) dictates it will use more gas than a N/A motor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to disagree. It's not a supercharger which forces more external air into the engine, it's turbocharged recycling otherwise wasted exhaust. And it would only be 5 liters making more power than anything currently available. It wouldn't work nearly as hard as the V6 has to or any of our V8's. There is proof on this very forum that a supercharged 6.2 is getting better mileage than stock in Johnathon's Calloway, and turbocharging is even more efficient.

MikeNH · October 6, 2012

I am aware of how a turbo works and I'm not talking about where the energy comes from to drive it- it is just fact that a turbo means more fuel will be needed under boost. The EB is proof of this as they're pigs if you work them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HEMICAT · October 6, 2012

I am aware of how a turbo works and I'm not talking about where the energy comes from to drive it- it is just fact that a turbo means more fuel will be needed under boost. The EB is proof of this as they're pigs if you work them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think they are "pigs" , just not as good as expected. That small engine has to work hard to make all that power, aV8 ecoboost would make way more power and would rev lower not working as hard. What is it you have against this concept- I truly believe this is where we are heading. Just like we had to get used to higher revving torque curves in today's more powerful and efficient gas engines, we are going to have to learn to live with turbos on our everyday engines- it's technology, not a bad thing. Ask any diesel guy if he would give up his turbo!

MikeNH · October 6, 2012

I have nothing against the concept, it was saying the EB is a car engine that I initially argued because that is a stupid statement. The EB was a truck engine from the beginning, it ended up in the SHO first essentially as a tested, same way the LS engines were in the Vette and F bodies before the trucks. I'd like a turbo V8 but I doubt it'd be executed how you describe. It would probably be a small, small V8 that is turbo'd in place of a current mid line engine like the 5.3.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Prokopchuk_9 · October 6, 2012

Their is pros and cons to forced induction. I'm not gonna list them all, but my biggest con against a turbo on a gas engine is extra moving parts, cool down period for turbo, extra fuel needed for all the air. Turbo'd engines obviously more prone to meltdowns because of the added complexity. Turbos belong on a diesel engine or race car not a truck. their is better/more reliable ways to create low end torque with a naturally aspirated v8 with far less moving/rotating parts. Plus you don't have to drive a 6 cylinder LOL.

HEMICAT · October 7, 2012

I have nothing against the concept, it was saying the EB is a car engine that I initially argued because that is a stupid statement. The EB was a truck engine from the beginning, it ended up in the SHO first essentially as a tested, same way the LS engines were in the Vette and F bodies before the trucks. I'd like a turbo V8 but I doubt it'd be executed how you describe. It would probably be a small, small V8 that is turbo'd in place of a current mid line engine like the 5.3.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well what about that then? Can we agree on a small, small V8 turbo as a first step?

MikeNH · October 7, 2012

I'd prefer a regular V8 that could match the numbers of the Ram's 5.7. It's kind of odd that the volume engine in the Ram nearly matches the rather rare 6.2 in the GM trucks. But if they could get ~400 HP from a smaller turbo motor I'd consider it I guess, so long as it isn't plagued by the oddball issued you read about the EB having now and then with injectors and such.

Doug_Scott · October 7, 2012

Number of cylinders has very little to do with power. The displacement is what matters. Dodge has shown that with their diesel pickup haven't they? Just a 6 cylinder.

Anytime you add forced induction all you are doing is making a temporary larger displacement engine. Add 14 lbs boost, you have effectively doubled the displacement, and doubled the fuel requirement. Under no boost, you have a small engine, and lower fuel requirement.

Car companies need to meet CAFE numbers, they can do that a lot easier with small engines that have some forced induction to make the driver feel like he has a bigger engine, yet meet the numbers they need to for economy.

As for the 5.3 doing everything better than the 5.7, I have to disagree. The 5.7 was a far nicer towing engine. Would pull a trailer up hills without downshifting, and could maintain hwy speeds using cruise control without all the shifting, and do it with 3.08 gears. I am comparing it to the 4 speed auto, not the 6 speed. The 5.7 had its torque peak down at an rpm you drove at.

It has been a very long time since pickup trucks had "truck" engines. I think the last real "truck" engine was likely the early 60's, and that was a V6 engine. Funny how that worked out.

HEMICAT · October 7, 2012

I can't believe all the kick-back towards forward thinking on engine technology. We will never go back to the way an "old" 350 was ( not bashing it- I loved mine). A V6 turbo is the manufacturers answer right now for incredible power out of a small displacement motor with good mileage. Ford was first, seems like GM will be next. The war for power will continue, and I can see Ford taking the next logical step putting a turbo on their already high tech, powerful and economical 5.0 V8..............and it will sell like crazy! I know this isn't a Ford forum, but you can't deny they have us beat hands down on engines.

My appologies to Jim for taking your thread off-topic.

MikeNH · October 7, 2012

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doug_Scott · October 7, 2012

A turbo 5.0 would be badass but it is yet to be proven if they're reliable or not. LSx motors are proven 200k+, we'll see how Ford does.

As for the old 5.7 motor being a better truck motor, that's absurd. The newest 5.3s with VVT will blow any old 5.7 out of the water and be more efficient and longer lasting while they do it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you ever towed with the 5.7? I was very specific in saying I was referring to towing. VVT cannot create torque in rpms that the ports just cannot flow properly for. If it could, we would be seeing torque peaks at a usable rpm, and not at near 5k. VVT has its use, generating torque at low rpm is not one of them(low rpm meaning the rpm range you actually drive in). Torque at low rpm is what is required when towing. I am not talking about peak hp numbers, not talking about fuel economy when empty, not talking about the bench racing numbers, I am talking about towing.