F-150: 3.5L V6 EcoBoost vs 5.4L V8
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
F-150: 3.5L V6 EcoBoost vs 5.4L V8
Got this from another forum... great article.
The Ford EcoBoost engines appear to be very impressive engines indeed. 
Ford's EcoBoost engine technology increases torque, improves fuel economy and lowers emissions
All it took was an impromptu drag race at Ford's Dearborn, MI, Development Center to convince me of the merits of the company's new EcoBoost engine technology. Journalists spent a day there learning about the new 2009 vehicles, and two of us ended up last in line on a straight test strip where we could compare an F-150 pickup with an identical vehicle powered by an EcoBoost V6 engine.
All Ford officials had left the area, and only two engineers remained to ride along with us on our acceleration tests. After requesting one last run in the F-150 with EcoBoost, I waved the other journalist to pull alongside in his F-150 with the 5.4 V8 and suggested we try a drag race on the wide, straight, mile-long strip. The engineers said they weren't sure we were allowed to do that, but I assured them — with no authority whatsoever — that it would be okay. Quickly, I told the other journalist to count down, “3-2-1-GO!” He did, we both hit the gas, and I was astounded both at how swiftly my EcoBoost-powered vehicle took off and how rapidly his V8 F-150 grew smaller in my outside mirror.
Ford first introduced EcoBoost in cars like the Taurus and Lincoln MKS and crossover SUVs like the Flex. Ford's standard 3.5 V6 engine turns out a solid 263 hp and 249 ft.-lbs. of torque. The EcoBoost V6 in car form jumps to 355 or 365 hp, and to 350 ft.-lbs. of torque, computer-controlled to maintain that peak from 1,500 to 5,250 rpm. In its auto and crossover applications, the EcoBoost required all-wheel drive rather than front-wheel drive to handle the increased torque.
“The F-150 will be the first application of the EcoBoost to a rear-wheel-drive vehicle,” says Alan Hall, EcoBoost marketing manager. “Because of that, we'll be able to get even more torque out of it. We'll have a similarly flat torque curve, and we're going to have a special transmission to handle what I would guess will be somewhere over 400 ft.-lbs. of torque.”
Technically, Ford created its first EcoBoost by taking the high-tech, two-year-old, 3.5-liter V6 and reinforcing it throughout. A stronger but lighter die-cast aluminum engine block was fitted with a crankshaft and connecting rods, both made of a higher-grade alloy for greater durability. Oil-cooled pistons, to withstand greater heat, have cylinder heads machined for direct injection. The dual-overhead camshafts are set for variable timing of the valve train to assure optimal performance, lower emissions and better fuel economy.
Turbocharging compensates for the fewer cylinders and smaller displacement, and Ford worked with Honeywell-Garrett to develop dual water-cooled turbochargers. Typically, turbochargers operate by directing a stream of exhaust flow to spin a turbine wheel, which powers a compressor that force-feeds an increased volume and velocity of airflow, sucking gasoline along with it to the engine. In the EcoBoost system, smaller turbines provide quicker spooling time, and, combined with the direct-injection system and computer control, the usual lag in power application is eliminated.
Instead of squirting the same air-fuel mixture into all cylinders at once, the Bosch-designed direct injection is calibrated to meter cool and more combustible air at extremely high pressure to insert a precise dosage of fuel individually into each cylinder's combustion chamber. Other direct-injection systems increase power, but Ford succeeded in coordinating the more efficient fuel-burning to aid power and fuel economy and to lower emissions.
“We promised a 20% increase in fuel economy, and we delivered a 25% improvement,” says Brett Hinds, advanced engineering design and development manager of the EcoBoost. “And we also achieved a 15% reduction in emissions.”
“Fuel economy is one of [farmers'] top needs,” says F-150 marketing manager Mark Grueber. “In our tests, farmers have praised the EcoBoost's low-end torque but also have been pleased to get 17 or 18 mpg and over 20 on the highway.”
By 2012, Ford expects to produce 750,000 EcoBoost engines in the U.S. and 1.3 million of them globally. The F-150 EcoBoost will reach showrooms late in 2010. Ford thinks farmers will appreciate the EcoBoost's durability and reliability. And once the crops are in, that EcoBoost engine might come in handy for drag racing.
http://farmindustrynews.com/trucks/0...oboost-engine/
All it took was an impromptu drag race at Ford's Dearborn, MI, Development Center to convince me of the merits of the company's new EcoBoost engine technology. Journalists spent a day there learning about the new 2009 vehicles, and two of us ended up last in line on a straight test strip where we could compare an F-150 pickup with an identical vehicle powered by an EcoBoost V6 engine.
All Ford officials had left the area, and only two engineers remained to ride along with us on our acceleration tests. After requesting one last run in the F-150 with EcoBoost, I waved the other journalist to pull alongside in his F-150 with the 5.4 V8 and suggested we try a drag race on the wide, straight, mile-long strip. The engineers said they weren't sure we were allowed to do that, but I assured them — with no authority whatsoever — that it would be okay. Quickly, I told the other journalist to count down, “3-2-1-GO!” He did, we both hit the gas, and I was astounded both at how swiftly my EcoBoost-powered vehicle took off and how rapidly his V8 F-150 grew smaller in my outside mirror.
Ford first introduced EcoBoost in cars like the Taurus and Lincoln MKS and crossover SUVs like the Flex. Ford's standard 3.5 V6 engine turns out a solid 263 hp and 249 ft.-lbs. of torque. The EcoBoost V6 in car form jumps to 355 or 365 hp, and to 350 ft.-lbs. of torque, computer-controlled to maintain that peak from 1,500 to 5,250 rpm. In its auto and crossover applications, the EcoBoost required all-wheel drive rather than front-wheel drive to handle the increased torque.
“The F-150 will be the first application of the EcoBoost to a rear-wheel-drive vehicle,” says Alan Hall, EcoBoost marketing manager. “Because of that, we'll be able to get even more torque out of it. We'll have a similarly flat torque curve, and we're going to have a special transmission to handle what I would guess will be somewhere over 400 ft.-lbs. of torque.”
Technically, Ford created its first EcoBoost by taking the high-tech, two-year-old, 3.5-liter V6 and reinforcing it throughout. A stronger but lighter die-cast aluminum engine block was fitted with a crankshaft and connecting rods, both made of a higher-grade alloy for greater durability. Oil-cooled pistons, to withstand greater heat, have cylinder heads machined for direct injection. The dual-overhead camshafts are set for variable timing of the valve train to assure optimal performance, lower emissions and better fuel economy.
Turbocharging compensates for the fewer cylinders and smaller displacement, and Ford worked with Honeywell-Garrett to develop dual water-cooled turbochargers. Typically, turbochargers operate by directing a stream of exhaust flow to spin a turbine wheel, which powers a compressor that force-feeds an increased volume and velocity of airflow, sucking gasoline along with it to the engine. In the EcoBoost system, smaller turbines provide quicker spooling time, and, combined with the direct-injection system and computer control, the usual lag in power application is eliminated.
Instead of squirting the same air-fuel mixture into all cylinders at once, the Bosch-designed direct injection is calibrated to meter cool and more combustible air at extremely high pressure to insert a precise dosage of fuel individually into each cylinder's combustion chamber. Other direct-injection systems increase power, but Ford succeeded in coordinating the more efficient fuel-burning to aid power and fuel economy and to lower emissions.
“We promised a 20% increase in fuel economy, and we delivered a 25% improvement,” says Brett Hinds, advanced engineering design and development manager of the EcoBoost. “And we also achieved a 15% reduction in emissions.”
“Fuel economy is one of [farmers'] top needs,” says F-150 marketing manager Mark Grueber. “In our tests, farmers have praised the EcoBoost's low-end torque but also have been pleased to get 17 or 18 mpg and over 20 on the highway.”
By 2012, Ford expects to produce 750,000 EcoBoost engines in the U.S. and 1.3 million of them globally. The F-150 EcoBoost will reach showrooms late in 2010. Ford thinks farmers will appreciate the EcoBoost's durability and reliability. And once the crops are in, that EcoBoost engine might come in handy for drag racing.
http://farmindustrynews.com/trucks/0...oboost-engine/
, sounds awesome 
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
The GT350 is just delayed shortly. Ford was bringing out enough new engines, for the 2011MY, for the Mustang.
Remember that the Ecoboost 3.5L is torque limited, in the FWD/AWD platforms. Current thoughts are over 400lb ft starting at 1500rpm, and flatlining to over 5000rpm. This will allow a much higher (numerically lower) rear end ratio, and/or higher (numerically lower) final trans ratio. Current "rumor" puts the engine at 425hp in the F150.
The Ecoboost 3.5L makes all 350lb ft of torque, in the SHO/MKS, from 1500-5000 also.
Acceleration, and mileage, are supposed to be excellent, in the Ecoboost F150.
BTW, GM's XFE package gets 22mpg highway. This is only achieved with the tonneau cover. May the best man/engine/combination win. (and then everyone wins)
Remember that the Ecoboost 3.5L is torque limited, in the FWD/AWD platforms. Current thoughts are over 400lb ft starting at 1500rpm, and flatlining to over 5000rpm. This will allow a much higher (numerically lower) rear end ratio, and/or higher (numerically lower) final trans ratio. Current "rumor" puts the engine at 425hp in the F150.
The Ecoboost 3.5L makes all 350lb ft of torque, in the SHO/MKS, from 1500-5000 also.
Acceleration, and mileage, are supposed to be excellent, in the Ecoboost F150.
BTW, GM's XFE package gets 22mpg highway. This is only achieved with the tonneau cover. May the best man/engine/combination win. (and then everyone wins)
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Sounds awesome. I'd be shocked to see anything close to 425 hp though. I'd expect more like 350 to 375 hp if the torque number is really going to be 400+. That's just a guess though.
If it makes 425 hp / 425 lb-ft, why bother with the new 6.2L?
The 5.3L is plenty adequate for half ton truck needs. (Seriously, I'm looking into getting an older GMT400, back when the 5.7L 350 had only 255 hp / 335 lb-ft, and that was a lot in the mid nineties! Even the 2500s had those, with the 290 hp / 410 lb-ft 7.4L 454 as an option). But the 5.3L has always given up a bit on the low end to the Ford 5.4L (but creams it in hp and overall acceleration in most tests I've seen).
If the 5.3L is updated with DI and VVT, I'd bet it can make some numbers that might keep it in the ballpark with this 3.5L ecoboost. It will be interesting to see how full size truck buyers like having a V6 with a turbo compared to a V8.
Good stuff!
If it makes 425 hp / 425 lb-ft, why bother with the new 6.2L?
The 5.3L is plenty adequate for half ton truck needs. (Seriously, I'm looking into getting an older GMT400, back when the 5.7L 350 had only 255 hp / 335 lb-ft, and that was a lot in the mid nineties! Even the 2500s had those, with the 290 hp / 410 lb-ft 7.4L 454 as an option). But the 5.3L has always given up a bit on the low end to the Ford 5.4L (but creams it in hp and overall acceleration in most tests I've seen).
If the 5.3L is updated with DI and VVT, I'd bet it can make some numbers that might keep it in the ballpark with this 3.5L ecoboost. It will be interesting to see how full size truck buyers like having a V6 with a turbo compared to a V8.
Good stuff!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
My own uninformed guess: I can't see them really embracing it, especially as trucks fall out of favour with the casual / status users and revert back to more actual work duties. But who knows ...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
I agree though, I'd prefer the V8 in my pickup at least until the Ecoboost V6 goes through a generation and we see how they perform and what maintenance costs are over a lifetime. I wouldn't be so thrilled to have to rebuild turbos every 100k miles or so (or less?) if I'm using it as a serious work truck and plan on keeping it a long time.
Then again, it may not be that much different from a turbo diesel.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
25% better fuel economy... in the F150? That'd be huge... I mean I don't know if it gets 20mpg highway but if it does then that's a boost to 25 mpg highway.
What I don't understand is why this awesome combination of fuel economy and performance didn't really translate to the Taurus SHO. I know it ended up being a heavy car, but still... on paper next to, say, the Pontiac G8 GT/GXP, it starts to look kinda silly with all of its hype and technology, next to the simple pushrod V8.
What I don't understand is why this awesome combination of fuel economy and performance didn't really translate to the Taurus SHO. I know it ended up being a heavy car, but still... on paper next to, say, the Pontiac G8 GT/GXP, it starts to look kinda silly with all of its hype and technology, next to the simple pushrod V8.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,870
What I don't understand is why this awesome combination of fuel economy and performance didn't really translate to the Taurus SHO. I know it ended up being a heavy car, but still... on paper next to, say, the Pontiac G8 GT/GXP, it starts to look kinda silly with all of its hype and technology, next to the simple pushrod V8.
Taurus Limited AWD - N/A 3.5L - 17/25
Taurus SHO AWD - TT 3.5L - 17/25
G8 sedan - N/A 3.6L - 17/25
G8 GT - N/A 6.0L v8 - 15/24
The thing hurting the SHO's fuel economy is the Awd which usually drops mileage by around 2mpg. The SHO actually gets the same fuel economy as the regular AWD taurus despite having 100+hp more. It'd probably match the regular fwd taurus's 18/27 if it was fwd.
The G8 is rwd so comparing its fuel economy to an awd car like the SHO isn't exactly apples to apples nor does it accurately reflect on the engines efficiency since rest of the drivetrain plays a factor too.
Technology isn't always what its cracked up to be and is sometimes just hype and marketing. GM's always done more with less when it comes to their v8's. But the 3.5L imo seems to be delivering on its promise of v8 power and v6 fuel economy so it isn't all just hype.
I've always said that i wanted to see the 3.5L Ecoboost in a lightweight rwd car like the mustang. I really think they can match the 3.6L camaro's excellent 29mpg hwy despite having 365+horses. It's hard to judge the efficiency of the 3.5L Ecoboost when the only applications it has been used in thus far have been heavyass awd vehicles (flex/Mkt/Mks/Sho).
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
From: Confederate States of America
I'm hoping they can get this motor into the Mustang, I might be in line for one if they get the numbers right, the V8 Mustang guys are just scared by a turbo 6, they don't understand the power this thing can put out plus have good mileage at the same time.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,595
From: Lenexa, KS
I really hope this works out for Ford. This will give them a competitive advantage which the other competitors (Chevy, GMC, Dodge, Nissan, etc.) will have to respond to. If all the light truck owners could get that extra MPG it would go a long way (not long enough though, obviously)
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
25% better fuel economy... in the F150? That'd be huge... I mean I don't know if it gets 20mpg highway but if it does then that's a boost to 25 mpg highway.
What I don't understand is why this awesome combination of fuel economy and performance didn't really translate to the Taurus SHO. I know it ended up being a heavy car, but still... on paper next to, say, the Pontiac G8 GT/GXP, it starts to look kinda silly with all of its hype and technology, next to the simple pushrod V8.
What I don't understand is why this awesome combination of fuel economy and performance didn't really translate to the Taurus SHO. I know it ended up being a heavy car, but still... on paper next to, say, the Pontiac G8 GT/GXP, it starts to look kinda silly with all of its hype and technology, next to the simple pushrod V8.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
FWIW, I don't believe the stated fuel economy improvements. Turbos use at least as much fuel as bigger engines unless they are driven very sedately. Plant the right foot and they will use more fuel. It just depends on the driver's attitude and not the engine's 'efficiency' per se.
What I do believe is that the 3.5L EB V6 is a weapon of an engine.
What I do believe is that the 3.5L EB V6 is a weapon of an engine.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Fuel economy ratings are based on driving normally. In normal driving conditions, there are not alot of opportunities to floor it.
When you floor it, of course it is going to use fuel. 365hp worth of fuel. The reality is, that this will get used very infrequently, for most people.
In my SD, I floor it so infrequently (it has more than enough hp/tq for less than 1/4 throttle driving most of the time), that it really surprises me, when I get on it (it is amazingly quick for such a tank). What doesn't surprise me, when I do so, is how fast the fuel guage will go down.
When you floor it, of course it is going to use fuel. 365hp worth of fuel. The reality is, that this will get used very infrequently, for most people.
In my SD, I floor it so infrequently (it has more than enough hp/tq for less than 1/4 throttle driving most of the time), that it really surprises me, when I get on it (it is amazingly quick for such a tank). What doesn't surprise me, when I do so, is how fast the fuel guage will go down.