3.5L Ecoboost in 2011 F150

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
536
Location
Curtice, OH
I've been doing some truck shopping, and really like the new F150. Drove one last night with the new turbocharged Ecoboost V6 in it. I think this is what I want, but I'm concerned with the Direct Injection on this engine. We've seen numerous problems with buildup on the valves of other DI engines; VW, Audi, and the 3.6L GM engines come to mind. Is anyone aware of anything that Ford is doing different than the other manufacturers to avoid this? Or, is it just a problem waiting to happen? I did notice that this new motor calls for 5w30, as opposed to the 5w20 that has become the standard for Ford. If this is going to be a long-term issue with this engine, I may just opt for the new 5.0 that they're offereing, or get a Tundra. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I love the Ecoboost engine, but I'm not sure if I'd buy it the first model year.

If you were on the fence with the 5.0 V8 before, this should put your mind at ease. Excellent engine IMO. 311hp/325tq to the wheels and 7.18 0-60.

2011 F150 5.0 Road Test
 
Are you buying the truck to do a lot of towing and heavy hauling? If so, then go with the V8. I have heard that fuel economy of the Ecoboost engines in the field has been disappointing.

If you do decide to go with the turbo 6, religiously follow Ford's recommendations for fuel and oil selection, and maintenance intervals.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
I love the Ecoboost engine, but I'm not sure if I'd buy it the first model year.

If you were on the fence with the 5.0 V8 before, this should put your mind at ease. Excellent engine IMO. 311hp/325tq to the wheels and 7.18 0-60.

2011 F150 5.0 Road Test


What's surprising to me about those numbers for the 5.0, other than it being a Crew Cab 4x4, is that it beat out the Tundra 5.7 and Hemi Ram numbers posted by pickuptrucks.com. It ran the 1/4 mile within one hundreth of a second of the 6.2 Silverado, which was the quickest half-ton in their 2008 shootout.

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2008/11/quarter-mile-dr.html
 
I dont see anyone driveing anything fast up around here. I wish someone would find the go pedal. I have a hard time driving a tiny 1.5L yaris s-l-o-w enough to not run over everyone else. Maybe I'm saying the 0-60 numbers on a truck are worthless. How bout some Monster torque from 1000-3000rpm not 300HP at 6000rpm? I dont see ANYONE anywhere in my commute revving up their engines to peak HP - I think they are afraid they are abusing them
smile.gif
must be using Bad 20 grade oil
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
I personally think it is foolish to buy the first or second year of any new production item. I have Fords and had good luck with them and presently own two a 2010 Focus and a 2002 Superduty . I would rather due without a turbo in a passenger vehicle .
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Are you buying the truck to do a lot of towing and heavy hauling? If so, then go with the V8. I have heard that fuel economy of the Ecoboost engines in the field has been disappointing.

If you do decide to go with the turbo 6, religiously follow Ford's recommendations for fuel and oil selection, and maintenance intervals.
What most people don't realize is it takes 300 horsepower of gas to make 300 horsepower. So a little engine in a heavy vehicle will not really show an improvement having to be into the turbo more often than not.
 
Quote:
I would rather due without a turbo in a passenger vehicle .
189,000 on my turbo Volvo and it is still running strong with excellent gas mileage.
Quote:
What most people don't realize is it takes 300 horsepower of gas to make 300 horsepower.
Not exactly. Any engine can be designed to run more efficiently (but possibly at an added cost in manufacture), and can be designed to run most efficiently at a certain power level. All this is up to the engine's design engineers. Buying the wrong engine for the intended job will result in poor mileage.

I'm in agreement with avoiding buying anything new in its first year on the market...pioneers get arrows in their backs.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
What most people don't realize is it takes 300 horsepower of gas to make 300 horsepower. So a little engine in a heavy vehicle will not really show an improvement having to be into the turbo more often than not.


The thing is, it only takes X amount of horsepower to move the vehicle down the road or to maintain a given speed. The thinking behind the EcoBoost engine is that it should act a lot like a N/A V6 (remember, it's still a 10:1 engine) under part throttle conditions with little or no boost, but has the turbo in reserve when you need it. It seems Ford has done a lot of work to keep the EcoBoost running stoich A/F ratios under light throttle conditions to preserve fuel economy not normally seen with boosted engines.

But yea, at WOT I agree with you, the EcoBoost will get no better mileage than another engine of comparable power, if not slightly worse due to richer A/F ratios required under boost.
 
I use my truck to pull my boats, haul people and things on fishing and hunting trips, drive in snowy weather, occasional hauling, and some commuting. I typically use my car for commuting, but the truck gets driven at least 2-3 times per week for various things. I need something bigger with more room due to a growing family, and the fact that my current 22' boat gives my current truck all it can handle, regardless of what it is supposedly rated to tow (5500lbs). I'm also leary of buying a new motor in it's first year. I wouldn't worry about the 5.0, but the Ecoboost is new and unproven technology for Ford. I do, however, appreciate the supposedly better fuel economy, as I typically put 15-20k miles per year on a truck, in addition to the miles on my car. It is the direct injection that really scares me, after seeing pics of valves on various VWs and Audis that were very fouled up. Anyone know if Ford has done anything to address this?
 
Originally Posted By: Alex38
I use my truck to pull my boats, haul people and things on fishing and hunting trips, drive in snowy weather, occasional hauling, and some commuting. I typically use my car for commuting, but the truck gets driven at least 2-3 times per week for various things. I need something bigger with more room due to a growing family, and the fact that my current 22' boat gives my current truck all it can handle, regardless of what it is supposedly rated to tow (5500lbs). I'm also leary of buying a new motor in it's first year. I wouldn't worry about the 5.0, but the Ecoboost is new and unproven technology for Ford. I do, however, appreciate the supposedly better fuel economy, as I typically put 15-20k miles per year on a truck, in addition to the miles on my car. It is the direct injection that really scares me, after seeing pics of valves on various VWs and Audis that were very fouled up. Anyone know if Ford has done anything to address this?


Read this thread: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2144423&page=1
 
I have never been a ford supporter until recently, past 5 years. I'm impressed with what they have become. I think it'd be worth the gamble. if I had to clean valve deposits with a seafoam/bg treatment every 2 years, how is that different than what I do now? I would support the technology.

Mike
 
Alex, with your use, either engine would be plenty. I think the only advantage you'll see with the Ecoboost is EMPTY fuel economy. When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Alex, with your use, either engine would be plenty. I think the only advantage you'll see with the Ecoboost is EMPTY fuel economy. When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.


+1, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the 5.0L get better towing fuel economy.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Are you buying the truck to do a lot of towing and heavy hauling? If so, then go with the V8. I have heard that fuel economy of the Ecoboost engines in the field has been disappointing.


Agreed. I definitely wouldn't pay a premium for the 3.5L. You can almost bet it won't meet owner's fuel economy expectations, especially based on what you have to pay for it. Look at GM's Vortec/Atlas in-line truck engine series. The I6 was supposed to be a fuel sipper. They used as much as a V8.

I dunno. For a truck, save the V6 for the basic model.. Or do they even make a basic one anymore?
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Alex, with your use, either engine would be plenty. I think the only advantage you'll see with the Ecoboost is EMPTY fuel economy. When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.
This is why I posted about the gas MPGs . Then the MPGs empty depends upon driving style.
 
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Alex, with your use, either engine would be plenty. I think the only advantage you'll see with the Ecoboost is EMPTY fuel economy. When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.


+1, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the 5.0L get better towing fuel economy.


You may be right, PUTC got ~9.5mpg while towing with the 5.0, which was 9,000lbs vs. the 6,500 on the Ecoboost(I know the drive was short, who knows how mpg would have been on a longer test?).

You're right Steve, all depends on the driver.

I still am really liking the 5.0. I'd get this engine if I were in the market for a truck.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Alex, with your use, either engine would be plenty. I think the only advantage you'll see with the Ecoboost is EMPTY fuel economy. When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.


See, there is a reason for diesel engines: My Dodge/Cummins gets 14-16mpg towing a 5300-pound trailer at 75mph. The GVW in this situation is ~12,000 pounds. Up hill and down, just leave it in double-overdrive, and let that Cummins mill twist out its 600ft*lbs of torque at 1900rpm.

Gasoline engines cannot operate like this and get good fuel economy. When running under continuous boost while climbing grades at highway speeds, EGT's in gas engines can exceed 1800 degrees. This kind of temperature will RAPIDLY burn out the catalytic converters, and lead to warranty claims. Ford must protect for this by injecting a lot of excess fuel in the engine, far past stoichiometric, and far past LMBT. This is what kills the fuel economy. I wouldn't be surprised if the V8 gets better fuel economy while towing.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
When PUTC drove the ECO w/ a 6500lb trailer, they got 9.42mpg IIRC.


I averaged 11mpg towing my Jeep/trailer to and from Moab, UT. Most of the trip I had the cruise set to about 70-72mph. The only time I had to lay into the 5.4L was on I70 in Colorado.

I would probably test drive both, but in the end I think I would take the 5.0L over the 3.5L.
 
The Ecoboost is the first of many to come. Smaller displacements that are force fed are the future. No reason to have all those CIs of displacement for the few times that most people tow. Sure mileage will be similar or even SLIGHTLY worse when towing a heavy load, but the vast majority of people will only tow a limited amount of the time. For those that pull a lot, the big V8 is the ticket. Every year the automakers are squeezing more HP and higher MPG out of smaller displacements. I would buy the 3.5 Ecoboost for sure if I was in the market for a light duty pickup. The only question that remains is how the DI engines will do with the current oil technology. It appears that shorter OCIs will be the order of the day with these engines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top