By on May 2, 2011

As TTAC explained last November, the EcoBoost engine might be the best argument for the Lincoln brand, as MKS and MKT enjoyed 30% and 46% Ecoboost take rates respectively, while Taurus and Flex convinced only 14.2% and 11%of their buyers respectively to plump for the turbocharged engine. So, what do you think the take rate was for the Ecoboost engine in the F-150? You know, the one which gets good fuel economy (unless you’re towing a lot), but has to fight for recognition amid a crowd of options? Well? Write down your answer and hit the jump…

Automotive News [sub] reports:

“We had a sales forecast, but it has jumped up a little faster than we thought,” said Marc Lapine, consumer marketing manager for Ford… Preliminary numbers for April showed that EcoBoost-equipped F-150s accounted for 36 percent of F-150 sales and 40 percent of orders, Lapine said. There is a 13-day supply of F-150s with the option, he said.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

44 Comments on “What Do You Think The EcoBoost Take Rate Is On F-150?...”


  • avatar
    Dimwit

    That DOES surprise. I would’ve thought that there would be more caution with a new engine, especially given its complexity. Of course, the Coyote is new too so there’s not that big of a difference in relative age.

    Does anyone have a yardstick on how the new engines from *any* manufacturer compare to the engines of yore? It used to be you never took the first year and even then dogs abounded. Lately it seems like there’s not many engine problems as accessory problems like Audi’s water pump fiasco or fragile trannies.

  • avatar
    Steve65

    Wow. I guessed single-digit percentage.

  • avatar
    JKC

    I’d like to know what the combined take rate is for the Ecoboost and the “plain” V-6. With gas now north of $4 a gallon, I bet it’s pretty high.

    • 0 avatar
      ptschett

      Per Autoblog it’s 50/50 for V6’s versus V8’s.

      http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/03/v6-offerings-make-up-50-of-retail-ford-f-150-sales-in-april/

  • avatar
    ExPatBrit

    Would love to see some feedback from some of the Ford Dealer sales people who post here.

    Did Ford bump incentives on this product to push these or actually do some actual dealer training?

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Early in March there was an extra $1,000 in rebate for 3.7 liter NA V6 trucks, and an extra $500 on EcoBoost trucks (which made the EcoBoost a $250 premium over the 5.0 instead of a $750).

      Early April the incentives changed to reduce the 3.7 liter V6 to an extra $500, and to eliminate the extra incentive on the EcoBoost. The F-150 also lost about between $500 and $1,000 worth of incentives on all trims and other engine configurations, in line with Ford’s across the board reduction of incentives for the 2nd quarter.

      The F-150 is Ford’s most important product, and dealer training has reflected that. ‘Ride and Drive’ events were held throughout the US before the ’11 engines launched to allow dealership employees to get a first hand feel for these new engines. Some of the TTAC staff attended a similar event to write the article that is mentioned in the original post. Ford has also sent teams of specialists around the country with EcoBoost trucks as well as trailers set up so that dealers can host events where customers can come in and test drive these trucks with trailers attached.

      So far, I haven’t had to do any hard sells on the EcoBoost trucks – the customers more often than not ask me about it first. Gas prices are on everyone’s mind, and seeing a truck that gets 16/22 while being able to pull the same weight as one that gets 13/18 gets a lot of attention.

      The real proof in the pudding comes during the test drive. The EcoBoost trucks just drive incredibly well – smooth power delivery, low amounts of engine noise, no vibration or harshness to speak of, and a faint yet delicious turbo spool whine. Ford planned from the get-go for the EcoBoost V6 to be the high volume performance engine for the F-150, and it looks like they planned right – we can’t keep the EcoBoost trucks in stock.

      EDIT:

      I forgot to mention the most fun part about the EcoBoost engine: when you floor it, it will pin you pack in your seat with the acceleration, especially if you are driving a truck with the 3.73 gears. It feels just as powerful as the 6.2 liter V8, you just have to trade the throaty engine growl for the fuel economy.

      • 0 avatar

        The success of Ecoboost is quite good for many reasons, I just hope the long-term reliability and robustness is there to match.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        NulloModo,

        Do you know or can you guess at the breakdown between “regular” and fleet sales on this engine? I would guess that for the take rate to be up that high, the EcoBoost has got to be popular with the accountants who are trying to do some damage control on their fuel budgets.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        Silvy –

        I can tell you that as far as retail sales go, the roughly 1/3 number seems right. Fleet/commercial sales at my dealership are handled by a separate department, and we don’t ever really compare numbers, so I wouldn’t be able to tell you how many EcoBoost trucks are going to companies. Off the top of my head, I’d guess it would be similar to the retail numbers as a percentage, but that’s really just a guess. Fleet buyers certainly care about operating costs and fuel economy, but they also tend to be a bit more conservative than retail customers when it comes to embracing new technology.

        For any heavy duty constant use type application, most fleet buyers will opt for a diesel truck, as the fuel economy while towing heavy loads is still better on the diesel trucks, even considering the higher price of fuel. Diesel pickups also allow the use of PTO gear, which is vital for certain applications. For general purpose work trucks, the 3.7 liter NA V6 is probably the go to engine. It has enough power to tow utility trailers, can be configured for a lot of payload, and offers a lower cost of entry as well as low operating costs.

  • avatar
    JMII

    Glad its selling well… now just stick the same engine (or a slightly smaller version) into a Ranger size (F100?) and Ford has a customer – ME! I owned a Ranger before but the old 4.0 V6 wasn’t cutting it for towing duties, so I bought a Dodge Dakota V8. When it comes to towing torque rules and turbos generate lots of low-end torque – its a match made in heaven. The only thing better is a turbo diesel, but as gas prices climb a vehicle that runs on 87 gas is more desirable.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      I believe that the Ecoboost actually makes less torque than the NA 5.0L under 2000RPM. There is an article on pickuptrucks.com where they confirmed this.

      Considering the take-rate, Ford had better hope they don’t have the intake port carbon build-up issues that lots of other DI engines have.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        Check out this article:

        http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html

        Pickuptrucks.com re-ran the tests to try to account for the differences they found in their lab test and the real world results they were experiencing. Apparently getting accurate numbers from a dyno are difficult, but even the dyno agreed that the EcoBoost motor makes more torque earlier on once things were calibrated.

  • avatar
    Urlik

    I knew it was 36% I saw it on Dailytech.com on 28 Apr. :D

    Today they have a story on the diesel Porsche Panamera.

  • avatar
    Acubra

    I’ll wait till these turbos start accumulating some substantial mileage (100K) and then we’ll discuss this again. Given a low maintenance discipline and understanding with traditionally domestics-buying public I would not be surprised to see ever-increasing numbers of sludged/shot/blown turbo/…. units.

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      The Garrett T3 turbocharger in the ’87 740 Turbo I drove in high school was original, and worked fine when my parents sold that car at 180k miles. YMMV.

  • avatar
    cRacK hEaD aLLeY

    Gotta be nuts to buy a first-year, low-displacement, pressurized engine if for long-term ownership, especially under heavy-duty work.
    Lease-rent? Sure. Else, wait at least a couple of years.

  • avatar
    nels2727

    I don’t know enough about the engineering so I pose this question to the knowledgeable eidotrs and readers of TTAC who I have come to admire. Is it possible to shorten the F-150 platform and build an X6 competitor with an ecoboost and better off-road chops than the X6? I think Lincoln needs a shocker of a hot car that truly rich Americans can fall in lust with. BMW sells over 100K X6’s despite their impracticality, and maybe even because of it. I’d be willing to bet that Ford could draw in the nouveau riche crowd with a smartly styled luxury baja off-road racer equipped with the Lincoln interiors that, at least to my eyes, outdo anything coming out of Bavaria these days. I’d venture to guess that the scale they get out the F-150 platform could even keep costs low making it a low-risk proposition.

    • 0 avatar
      Dimwit

      The problem with that is that the X6 is a car. Even a cut down F150 is still too truck for the market. They would have to use the Edge platform (D2?3?) which gives you a rebodied MKX all over again.

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      the X6 didn’t even sell 7,000 units in the US in 2010, and Ford doesn’t sell the F150 worldwide, pretty much only North America. It wouldn’t be worth them wasting their resources on a vehicle like the X6

      • 0 avatar
        nels2727

        I checked and my X6 number was global so that makes more sense. Still 7K units is an 8% increase over 2010 Lincoln sales, which are trending down (I think -11% YTD) in 2011. In my mind without a something big to turn Lincoln around they are wasting their resources with the whole Lincoln brand even if they are rebadged Ford’s.

        @Dimwit, the X6 is based on the X5, which is a unibody, but a truly capable SUV. I’ve driven the X5 and while smooth by SUV standards its no car. I haven’t driven the current gen F150, but I actually found a friends 2007 F-150 comparable to the ride on the 2007 Range Rover we had at the time, which comes from the same frame as the X5. So if it could be done that wouldn’t be an issue in my mind.

        I know I’m clutching at straws with the suggestion of an F-150 based X6 competitor from Lincoln. I just think Ford needs to throw down the guantlet with something outrageous to turn around the Lincoln brand then they can turn out Ford based Audi competitors with the brand cache to bring yuppi’s in the door.

      • 0 avatar

        Ford could do a LHD Territory with ecoboost thats a car not truck based

    • 0 avatar

      Regarding the sales of F-150 abroad, I saw some Lybians riding F-150s on TV very early in the conflict, clearly imported before the hostilifies.

      On the original question, F-150 is a frame based architecture. About the best you can do with it is Lincoln Aviator.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    Dang I was gonna say 40%! So close. Look I’m not suprized. It confirms the notion that most pickups are being worked about as hard as an El Camino was in the late 1970s. If you don’t really normally tow or haul, if the pickup is the second vehicle in the family (which actually makes it Dad’s commuter vehicle) the EcoBoost makes perfect sense.

  • avatar
    Doc

    I guessed 5%. Very surprised.

    • 0 avatar
      toxicroach

      Dunno why you would be. At least around where I live, half the trucks you see are pretty obviously lifestyle trucks. Pristine paint, little badges in the tow kit (or no tow kit at all!), cumbersome truck covers. Most truck buyers are not very concerned with towing capacity or whatever. They just want to look like they care about towing capacity. For a good chunk of truck buyers, they own a truck because that is what the dudes in their social circle drive, and it’s nice when they hit Home Depot. That’s about it. A relatively fuel efficient truck that can get the job done on the blue moon occasion where it’s actually required to work near its capacity is all most people need or want.

      Also a lot of guys who needs trucks for a living wouldn’t mind reducing their fuel overhead these days and don’t need it to tow 5 tons, just haul tools and a truck bed full of supplies or tow some light equipment. So there’s two really big parts of the truck buying market that would be interested in the truck.

      P.S. The engine is under warranty for 5 years. Or 125000 miles if you get the ESP plan. So you’d have a reasonable amount of safety if your worried about the turbo.

      • 0 avatar
        epsilonkore

        Logically, an efficient “urban light duty/socially lusted farm vehicle” makes sense. Around this part of the South though, that same social circle of guys want the throaty V-8 sound to go along with the sound of beating their chests in front of each other. I guessed 5% as well, though I am excited to be wrong! Perhaps we are evolving into a less glutinous and decedent “keeping up with the Jones\'”nation after all?

      • 0 avatar
        toxicroach

        Yeah, the v-8 purr is nice. But I’d guess that wears off after dropping $100 to fill the tank a few times.

      • 0 avatar
        Educator(of teachers)Dan

        @toxicroach, 2004 F140 Heritage, 4.6V8 4-speed auto, $85 to fill tank at most recent fill up. 13 real world mpg city. A V6 Mustang is staring to look real good right now. (BTW the F150 was never intended to be my commuter vehicle. Stuff happens.)

  • avatar
    Ian Anderson

    This is great news for those of us eyeing the Ecoboost for future engine swaps.

  • avatar
    photog02

    I wasn’t too far off and I am not surprised. Go to Ford’s website and compare the EcoBoost V6 to the 5.4L V8. The torque specs (max and range) of the V6 are much more appealing to people who buy trucks to actually use as trucks (like my father, who has an EcoBoost F-150 on order right now).

  • avatar
    ajla

    What I want to know is how did Ford manage to make the 3.7L F150 such a riot?

  • avatar
    Sam P

    I guessed 10-15%. I figured it’d be niche at best. Glad to be wrong.

  • avatar
    SkiD666

    Not surprised.
    Where I live (Alberta), F150’s typically would not haul/tow – F250+ with diesels are used for that.
    So the EcoBoost’s fuel economy disadvantage as compared to a V8 when working hard will rarely appear in typical usage for most owners and the much better fuel economy then V8’s under light loads will more than make up for that penalty.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    I’m still not convinced in the real world that an EcoBoost in a crew cab, 4WD, F150 would return better fuel economy than the V8. In a much lighter standard cab, 2WD, F150 most likely.

  • avatar
    jaje

    Ford is full ahead of most automakers in completely revising their drivetrain lineups with fresh new V6s, turbo’d inline 4 and v6 engines to replace the need for displacement.

    I’d wish they’d bring us a light duty diesel engine for the truck lineups as that would make a substantial fuel economy increase. GM was to do this but again delayed plans. Imagine a stout 4 cylinder turbo diesel that has the broad torque of a v6 engine and the fuel economy of a 4 cylinder gasoline engine. As gas gets higher and higher that 30% fuel economy advantage diesel has over gasoline engines gets more enticing.

    • 0 avatar
      ptschett

      Ford and Dodge had light duty diesel programs going too, then the carpocalypse and the collapse of fuel prices killed those programs.

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/05/ford-puts-f-150-diesel-on-ice/
      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/10/ram-1500-diesel-option-dead/

      Honestly you don’t want an I-4 diesel in a full-size truck… at the kind of displacement you’d need, the NVH will be agricultural (this is partly why all these light duty diesel programs were with 4-5 liter V8’s.)

      The biggest problem for a diesel engine is that US light-duty emissions are the strictest standard in the world, stricter even than the 2014 Euro 6 standard for the PM and NOx that are the most difficult emissions to control from a diesel. You might gain 20-30% fuel economy but are people willing to pay the upfront cost of buying $5000 worth of emissions controls? In most cases people won’t go for the fuel-saving technology unless it can pay for itself while they’re still making payments on the car.

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Wow…that’s a lot of stupid people.

    The engine is a gimmick. Ford has to make the 5.0 look WORSE just to sell the high-strung V6 that gets V8 mileage.

    Oh well…people are like sheep…they’ll believe anything that’s fed to them.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Or maybe a lot of people like their truck to sound like a minivan.

      I just want to why Ford feels the need to make the 5.0 a WORSE package…just to make the TwinForce V6 sell better.

      Actually…I know why. Simply put, the TwinForce engine…from DAY ONE…has not lived up to the hype Ford has printed about it…it cannot stand on it’s own ,merits…so they have to make the proper V8 worse in order to sell the high-strung V6 that’s tuned within an inch of it’s life.

    • 0 avatar
      Silvy_nonsense

      “Oh well…people are like sheep…they’ll believe anything that’s fed to them.”

      I know. It explain why Chevy has sold so many of its crap cars over the years.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States