By on July 22, 2014

15FordF150_04

Ford has announced power figures for the 2.7L Ecoboost engine powering the new F-150 – and later on, other Ford models – while also announcing a sub-5,000lb curb weight.

The new 2.7L engine makes 325 horsepower and 375 lb-ft of torque, with a maximum tow rating of 8,500 lbs and a 2,250 lb payload capacity. The venerable 3.7L V6 will be dropped for a 3.5L version that makes 283 horsepower and 255 lb-ft of torque. Towing capacity is up 900 lbs from the 3.7L to 7,600 lbs while payload capacity sits at 1,910 lbs.

Curb weight for the new trucks should sneak it at under 5,000 lbs, with the new Lariat trim shedding 732 lbs versus the 2014 truck. According to Ford, a 2015 Lariat will weight 4,942 lbs, though the actual fuel economy numbers weren’t announced alongside these figures, nor was any indication given regarding the power figures for the 3.5L Ecoboost or 5.0L V8.

All in all, we still don’t know a lot about specific weights, trim levels, engine options, axle ratios or fuel economy numbers. Without that data, it will be hard to make cross-comparisons between the new F-150 and competitor trucks. As it is, some GM trucks also weigh less than 5,000 lbs, so Ford’s PR boast is a bit meaningless without the proper context. But without more information, all we have to go on right now is Ford’s corporate messaging.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

179 Comments on “Ford Announces 2.7L Ecoboost Powertrain Details...”


  • avatar
    319583076

    A complex, tightly-coupled system has catastrophic potential.

    The 2.7 ecoboost seems plenty complex and obviously tightly coupled. I wouldn’t volunteer to do any reliability testing on my dime.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      If they put one in a Fusion for me, I will volunteer to do reliability testing.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Yes, all this complexity must be why cars are so much less reliable than they were 30 years ago.

      Oh, wait.

      • 0 avatar
        319583076

        I’m specifically referring to Ford’s 2.7 liter ecoboost with innovative features like:

        Two-piece block cast from Iron and Aluminum

        Integrated front cover – a stressed member with integrated water pump, oil passages, oil filter, and accessory drive components.

        Piston rods connected to the pistons sans bushings. But hey, they applied some sort of space-age coating in lieu of a bushing.

        I’m not concerned about modern turbos, but this engine seems to have a pretty high level of boost. The two-piece bi-metallic block may or may not be a long-term reliability issue. The tightest coupled component is the integrated front engine cover.

        But I guess I’m not really a smart guy, just some luddite poseur on the internet. You smart guys go ahead and buy one of these and then come back and watch me eat crow because your “car” is so much more reliable than they were 30 years ago.

        • 0 avatar
          maxxcool7421

          Oh yes because the 3.5 eccoboost you complained about at release has been ssssssoooooooooo aweful as well.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            “The two piece bi-metallic block may or may not be a reliability issue”

            If it were, don’t you think its use in the Power Stroke over billions of miles would have revealed that by now?

          • 0 avatar
            319583076

            Right, because diesel and gasoline engines don’t have any operational differences.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “If it were, don’t you think its use in the Power Stroke over billions of miles would have revealed that by now?”

            Yeah, they did. They leak like sieves and are a PITA to fix. Using the Powerstroke engines as an example of reliability is contradictory.

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Ford couldn’t successfully combine aluminum with steel in constructing a hood; can’t see why they’d be any more successful at what goes under the hood.

        • 0 avatar

          Where are you getting all those juicy engine details?

          Sounds like an amazing engine, I not sure why are they putting it in a truck, and hope your reliability concerns don’t come to pass.

        • 0 avatar
          cammark

          What you’re describing could also describe every Honda passenger car engine made in the past 20 years. Those seem pretty reliable. To add to that they are commonly boosted by teenagers on stock internals and remain reliable with a good tune.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Now you’ve done it, whether intentionally or not…

            …you’ve broken my self-imposed rule of not commenting on the last 75 or so Ford related TTAC articles unless I had something pleasant to write.

            Suffice it to say, comparing Honda ANYTHING (with the exception of certain Honda/Acura transmissions from a very specific period and put into a few minivans and TLs) with Ford anything, and even more pointedly, comparing the reliability of Ford motors (the lovely and durable 5.0 excepted) to Honda motor reliability….

            Diplomatically speaking, that’s a real stretch.

            Oh yeah, curse of the 2.7, and anyone purchasing the upcoming aluminum clad F series, especially with a 2.7 ecoboost motor, should get a “Beta Tester” 12 year/120,000 mile unlimited everything extended warranty gratis from FoMoCo.

      • 0 avatar
        anti121hero

        Lol. I’d take my old 4.9 straight six over this any day. I could almost guarantee its reliability compared to this

    • 0 avatar
      beefmalone

      These smaller engines are wound way too tight to hold up under the heavy loads that pickup applications will place them in. I’m sure the soccer wagons will do ok but anybody actually doing pickup truck-type things is gonna be severely disappointed.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        That depends on your definition of “pickup truck-type” loads. Based on what I regularly see where I live, it won’t have any difficulty at all as half-tons hardly carry or pull any kind of load at all (maybe 3-4,000 pounds at most if they’re landscapers) and most run absolutely empty 95% of the time. Despite my own owning a long-bed F-150, the heaviest load I’ve carried may come in at 500 pounds or so in the form of sacks of mulch and stone while the max volume I’ve carried is a bed load of event tables for yard sales–maybe 400 pounds of plastic that measures 30″ by 96″ and fills the deck between the wheel wells in numbers (i.e. 22-24 standing on their edges). I’ll then add a few chairs to fill the spaces fore and aft of each wheel well and hold everything upright. Funny thing is, I simply don’t need that size any more and I’m getting by just fine with 200 horses.

      • 0 avatar

        Indeed most trucks that will have this motor will not be real work trucks. At our dealership we sell so few XL models, in suburbia it’s all about leather XLTs and higher. We sell a decent number of STX for budget minded folks. This motor does better for most things than my 5.8 in my 1995 on paper, and I’ll bet it does just as well on the street.

      • 0 avatar
        lzaffuto

        To me, it isn’t just pickup trucks. I have a rule when it comes to turbocharged engines. The rule is, never buy a turbocharged powerplant if the engine isn’t large enough displacement to adequately power the vehicle it is in without the turbocharger.

        An example:

        1.6 turbo in a Fiesta = Awesome!
        1.6 turbo in a Focus = Ok
        1.6 turbo in a Fusion = Meh
        1.6 turbo in a Taurus = NOPE!
        1.6 turbo in an Explorer = Try not to let your piston hit the international space station on it’s way into orbit.

        Basically, if a turbo only adds power then it is fine. But if the engine would be stressed to pull the vehicle without that turbo then it is placing too much stress on the drivetrain even with it. It will definitely last longer than the same setup did 20 years ago (or even 10) but still more risky than I want to be with my cars. A 2.7 V6 is pretty small for something that weighs 4400lbs, and then run boost through it to increase the stress…

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          You win a cookie for paying attention.

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          That’s a good rule. I think it is why the 2.0T in the Verano feels so well matched.

          (only using the Verano as an example because I am quite familiar with it…)

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          I personally think the 1.5 turbo Fusion is downright idiotic, but I would at least consider a 1.5 turbo Focus. What the Fusion really needs is a 270-290 hp 2.3 turbo to really compete with some V6s, the 240 hp 2.0 turbo is close but no cigar.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          That makes enough sense to qualify for a “Golden Rule” – you got my vote!

          But until carmakers can’t game the EPA’s treadmill test with undersized, overboosted motors, well…

        • 0 avatar
          Eyeflyistheeye

          Great post.

          The 1.0 EcoBoost I drove in the Fiesta was barely adequate, and I hate to think of it in a Focus.

          While that might be fine for European driving, it is woeful for North American driving styles and conditions.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “while also announcing a sub-5,000lb.”

    Sentence no finish!

    At least all 2.7L engines fare well in the long term. What was that one awesome Chrysler 2.7 unit?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    If they’re dropping the 3.7, doesn’t that mean cars like the MKS and such will be dropped back down to the 3.5?

    Which is the same 3.5 they put into the Taurus/Sable, ya?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The 3.7 is still around. It will be in the Mustang among other vehicles. Don’t expect it to be around for long.

      The 3.5L in the F150 is “new”. I’m suprised that the 3.5L in the F150 has less HP and torque than the 3.5L in the Explorer.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      New 3.5L?

      The 3.7L is a bored out version of the (old?) 3.5L Duratec that was used in their trucks and is the same block used in the 3.5L ecoboost.

      Is this 3.5L that 3.5L, or something different? The power & torque figures are pretty well in line with the old(?) 3.5L.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      So Ford is basically crippling the base F-150 engine in order to sell more Ecoboost engines.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The 3.5 is lighter. It has a 5% power to weight advantage over the outgoing 3.7.

      • 0 avatar
        BuzzDog

        Seems to be a trend over at Ford.

        They’ve slightly detuned the 3.7 in the 2015 Mustang, as well. In this case it could be due to a space/packaging issue, but it’s been speculated in the media that it’s being done to position the V6 below the new Ecoboost mill.

        In any event, it’s obvious that Ford is moving its V6 engine as far downmarket as possible, when it’s offered as a base engine. From what I can tell by building a 2015 Mustang on Ford’s website, you can’t certain options (such as leather) with a V6. I wonder if we’ll see similar restrictions of certain trim levels and options with the V6 F150 – perhaps it will only be available in the XL and STX trim levels, and possibly the XLT, as long as you don’t go too crazy with certain options.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        .

  • avatar
    thegamper

    The 7-800 pound weight reduction over the previous model in the Lariat trim is pretty remarkable. Personally, I feel that this trend toward smaller displacement engines and lighter construction represents the reality of the vast majority of truck owners. Most truck owners are probably only occassional users of towing, hauling and other capabilities. Most truck owners will be commuting, using trucks as most of us use cars and only occassionally (if at all) do anything that requires heavy duty capability. For those whose trucks will actually be workhorses, I dont see small displacement turbo engines and aluminum construction catching on very quickly. I think I would want steel construction and NA engine for my truck if I was towing, hauling often.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      If you were towing and hauling often, you’d want a Super Duty turbo-diesel. And aluminum because every pound saved on the body is an extra pound of hauling capacity.

      It’s funny that so many B&B are dead-set against aluminum. What I hear from pickup owners is “I wish my current truck was aluminum, cause it wouldn’t have rusted so soon.”

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        “It’s funny that so many B&B are dead-set against aluminum.”

        I don’t either. What is the fear?

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Not very many commenters are against aluminum being used in vehicles at all. There are more than a few to like to gloss over any comments illustrating very real application concerns like galvanic corrosion, repairability and increased costs as “hating progress”. As if taking a critical eye to new material applications is disruptive to the circle jerk over this progress.

          • 0 avatar
            koshchei

            Galvanic corrosion is a very interesting challenge that the Ford folks will have to overcome. Is the body totally isolated from contact with the frame, or will it be grounded through it?

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Exactly Danio. This is also Ford we’re talking about, who rival GM in their ability to demonstrate how not to execute new ideas. Remember their CVT? Their first decade of aluminum hoods? Their first generation turbos? The first model year of aluminum F150s will more than double the number of aluminum intensive vehicles on the road while we hardly have the repair infrastructure to deal with the few cars there are now. I’ve already spent 3 months waiting for collision repair on a new Ford vehicle due to their failure in logistics. Sorry if I learned my lesson.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Current pickups suffer from good old iron corrosion, so galvanic corrosion is a sideways step (especially for those of us living in the rust belt).
            I wonder if Ford engineers went through their Land Rover/PAG files in order to benefit from 60 years of experience building “aluminium” bodies.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not to get too off subject but I’d be very impressed if body panels -or even a layer over the body- were made of the plastic like material used on Saturns. If you’re looking at a big purchase like today’s highly priced cars and trucks, it would be comforting to know rust on body panels would be a non-issue over time.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            28 cars, have you seen how those Saturns have aged in places with weather extremes? They get brittle and disintegrate.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @CJ

            I took a 98 through eight Northeast winters, two of which were particularly brutal, and it suffered eight more before in the hands of my family. My bros is going on its twelfth winter. Neither SL suffered any disintegration issues in winter or the occasional extreme summer heat wave. Now in the heart of Alaska or deep in Death Valley for years at a time? Perhaps disintegration occurred. I personally had never heard of issues with the Saturn panels other than they were expensive to produce and are getting pricy in yards. I envision perhaps as an option a plastic shell be bolted/glued onto the body panels prior to painting the car. In this way if you would benefit from them in your climate, you could order them. If you did not, such as in the desert, then opt for the standard steel body. I’ve seen plastic bits be used on trucks and some Jeeps around the wheel well for this exact purpose, why not the whole car?

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “What is the fear?”

          It’s Ford. I have zero confidence they can pull this off at launch.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I have confidence this launch can be successful because of the engineers who have been working on it for years. I don’t always feel that way about Ford launches.

            The people that I know that have been working on the F150 are now done, but they spent more time on this product than any other single project while working at Ford. The man hours are staggering because of how much this means to FoMoCo. F the Focus transmission up and you’ll get it fixed in a year without too much headache. This is different.

            That being said, I don’t know how hard they hit up Alcoa or other suppliers to keep costs down and meet deadlines. Those kind of problems could make the best engineering worthless.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            Ford cars & Ford trucks are two very different things.

            I think Ford may be able to pull off the Al F-150 with minimal & manageable heartburn (not *no* heartburn). Do I think they could do the same with one of their cars? Hell no.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @bball – It’s tough to guess how long Ford has been working/staging with Alcoa. I know Alcoa wheels became standard equipment on all Super Duty above 1 tons with XLT trim and above, since ’04.

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            The launch is actively happening as we are currently discussing the 2015,F150. MotorTrend has a Ford video showing the weakness of Dodge ecodiesel and GM’s 5.3L http://m.motortrend.com/wot/2015_ford_f_150_2_7l_ecoboost_rated_325_hp_375_lb_ft_tows_max_8500_lbs.html

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Aluminum corrodes too, just differently.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I am all for lighter vehicles, Im just generally against being a beta tester.

      • 0 avatar
        healthy skeptic

        You forgot the B&B’s being dead-set against turbos too. (But they don’t seem to have a problem with turbo-diesels.)

    • 0 avatar

      I’m sure Ford will be able to replicate—or exceed—the utility of the current, traditionally-constructed F-150 without issue; it’s durability and repair costs that are of concern. But once those are sorted, it’ll probably be a seamless transition.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      I sound like a broken record, but Freightliner/Kenworth/Peterbilt etc have been using aluminum in their cab structures for decades without problems. If it holds up to dump truck & concrete mixer duty it should be fine in pickup trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Diesel engines have been very reliable and Oldsmobile makes good V8 engines.

        Therefore I expect no problem with this new Oldsmobile diesel offering.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Ajla,
          Did you type that response on your PC jr. or your Apple II? I am only asking because sometimes new technology is a good thing.

          I really have to believe that before Ford releases the new F-150 that they will do some reliability testing first. It’s the kind of thing the Board of Directors would insist on given that this is quite possibly the #1 earning vehicle on the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            What is this? An appeal to tradition, or authority?

            Either way, your faith is admirable. After having worked at Ford in the relevant departments that have to deal with the kinds of problems that these major design and material changes create in service, I’ll keep my skepticism until they prove themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            If you trust Ford QC enough to be the tip of the sword on this truck then be my guest.

          • 0 avatar
            05lgt

            The only time I spoke with someone from Ford QC he coughed *buyahonda* a couple times. Then again, he was thinking about transmissions in the 90′s.

          • 0 avatar

            Of course they will.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @thegamper – to a great degree I have to agree with you and Vulpine. Most 1/2 tons especially crewcab trucks are SUV alternatives that rarely if ever see any real load.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    I can’t wait to read dozens of comments about how insufficient and unreliable the 2.7 will be. All of them from people who have never driven the 2015 F-150, who have not done any reliability testing of it whatsoever, and have zero access to the reliability testing. But they do have access to the internet and a burning need to denigrate progress.

    To be followed by a wave of anti-aluminum rants.

    • 0 avatar
      CoastieLenn

      x infinity.

      Also, I posted this in the article about the 2016 Raptor but it’ll do well here, too.

      This whole idea of “If it aint stuffed with a 9.5L V8, it isn’t going to win any favors from me!” mentality will hopefully die a quick and painless death in short order.

      The days of the large displacement, iron block, huge displacement, huger inefficient rating V8′s are going the way of the do-do bird. Get used to it. Embrace it. Love it.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        So you’re expecting BTSR to leave.

      • 0 avatar
        heavy handle

        Bring back the side-valve straight 8!

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          Ironically, there’s an aircraft engine company (http://www.dmotorusa.com/) that has a new side-valve engine for light aircraft. They claim a number of advantages over conventional OHV engines.

          Up next: Kingpin front suspensions!

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I love the idea of a 2.7L V6 with HP and torque that beats the 5.4 in my F-250, and presumably, when cruising at 2kRPM on the freeway, uses less fuel.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Ideas/Concepts are fantastic.

          Many, many things look terrific sketched on drafting paper.

          The challenge is typically getting them to work even remotely close to “acceptable” (never mind “well” or “excellently”) in the real world, with things like harsh conditions, environmental variables, less than optimal inputs, subpar fabrication, and the huge/limitless variable of the inclination towards less than ideal human maintenance that spoils even the best conceived ideas.

          Think F35…or Hindenburg……or Edsel.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            The F35 will be fine. All new aircraft have some teething issues. The F-14 was an underpowered pile when it came out but it went on to be the backbone of Naval Aviation for some time. The capabilities are fairly impressive. They said the same about the C-17 when it came out and it is a workhorse now.

            The Hindenberg was a victim of politics. Had we not decided to not supply Germany with Helium (with good reason as it turns out), it would have not blown up.

            The Edsel was just ugly but it was by all accounts a pretty good car and pretty advanced. You can buy good ugly cars today (Crosstour comes to mind). Ugly does not make it a Chevy Vega.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “Embrace it. Love it.” … while you wait for that AAA tow.

    • 0 avatar
      jeano

      You mean like the usual anti-german rants here?

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      koshchei

      Aluminum is a great idea, especially given that the outer body skin for most vehicles is cosmetic only — anything to reduce weight, especially on non-structural bits and pieces should have a positive effect on fuel efficiency/towing capacity, etc.

      I’m not sure that a highly stressed 2.7L engine in a dirty, heavy duty work environment is the most sensible idea, but honestly, it’s Ford’s problem, not mine.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I don’t think they are trying to sell the 2.7T to someone that is in a “dirty, heavy duty work enviroment.” If I could fit an F150 SuperCrew in my garage, I would consider buying one with the 2.7T. It probably has better fuel economy than a large crossover and can tow 8000 lbs. Since I have to tow stuff on occasion, I like the utility of a truck, and my wife wouldn’t mind having this as a daily driver, I would own one. However, the shortest F150 is 213″. Our 207″ long MKT barely fits in the garage.

        • 0 avatar
          koshchei

          Like it or not, but lots of general contractors will purchase these things, and they tend to put them through hell.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Hey, my uncle’s a general contractor…and he just bought a ’14 Limited. The most hell it’ll probably be put through is when he passes anyone going the speed limit–he consistently goes 5-10 over and cannot tolerate anyone being ahead of him.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        I’m not sure “heavy duty work environment” is really applicable for the majority of F-150s (or Silverado/Ram 1500s). Sure plenty of them get beat on, but for may folks it’s just a modern full size sedan with a big ass (open) trunk.

        • 0 avatar
          koshchei

          Modern?

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @johnny_5.0 – yes, a SUV with a balcony.

          The replacement for that 26 ft long V8 2 barrel powered family stationwagon.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Big-ass open trunk? Sometimes I wouldn’t even go that far. I have no qualms with a roll-up “soft” tonneau cover, because I’ve seen plenty of trucks with those get used for work, but putting a hard tonneau cover on your truck basically says to the world, “Yeah, I wanna project the image of masculinity and DIY-ness without chipping my nails.”

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      The questions stem from the fact that the 2.7 Liter Ecoboost is a new engine with an abundance of new tech – contrary to your opinion, I am surprised that everyone isn’t a little skeptical about this powerplant. Unless you don’t know anything about the engine, then it makes sense.

      Have you done reliability testing of the 2015 F-150? Do you know what reliability testing is or how it is performed?

      • 0 avatar
        alsorl

        319.toLet the pot stirring of the 2.7 to people that have actually had issues with the engine. Putting it up against out dated technology ex: Toyoda 5.7, GM v8′s that are still not reliable and suck up fuel like they are living in the 1960′s It’s a stretch by all means. Change can be scary for some people. But it can also open up new doors for many. This is not a new double blind study for the masses. The engine was probably put through more advance testing then other engine built to date.
        If this engine can produce those power numbers and let a F150 get 28mpg hwy, the engine will be a success.

  • avatar
    johnny_5.0

    This engine needs to find its way into the Explorer/Flex/Taurus ASAP. Then figure out how to cram it into the Fusion/Escape, and make it the base engine for Lincoln in anything that can’t fit the 3.5EB or 5.0.

    • 0 avatar

      The Explorer? Sure. I still don’t like it because it’s too cramped and doesn’t wear well, but it’s a competitive product that’s making Ford a lot of money. Lifting the Freestyle/Taurus X and putting Land Rover-esque styling on it was one of the best ideas they’ve ever had. But the Taurus and MKS? I don’t think it’ll help. I don’t have a problem with the Duratec engines in those cars; it’s the cars themselves that are the problem.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        No real disagreement there, the packaging sucks. But if for whatever reason I had to/chose to buy one, I’d prefer the torquier engine. Obviously only the AWD versions would make sense, 375 lb-ft in the FWD ones might redefine torque steer (even though it would likely be detuned a bit for car duty).

  • avatar
    mcarr

    I’m going to go ahead and say that if anything but the base model regular cab short box 4×2 truck is under 5,000 lbs, I’ll eat my hat. Do they make a Lariat model regular cab?

    Seriously, that is an amazing claim, that is also too good to be true. My guess is that a Lariat trim crew cab 4×4 will weigh in a 5,500 lbs, which is still better than the current version.

  • avatar

    I’d wait a year or two to see how early examples fare, but yeah, after that…it’s fair game. That seems like a pretty competent drivetrain choice, as long as the upcharge isn’t too steep. Really, if that’s going to be a volume option for the new F-150—and it looks like it will—then the company won’t be able to afford a whole bunch of engine failures. Turbos or not, these trucks are still supposed to last for a very long time.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Ford expects that the 3.5L will account for about 15 percent of F150 sales. The other three engines (3.5EB/2.7EB/5.0L) will each capture about 28 percent of sales. It is definetly a volume engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @bball40dtw – the 3.5 normally aspirated V6 will be the fleet queen work truck darling. I doubt the 2.7 EB will find its way into fleet hands in any significant volume. I WAS surprised to find out that the local Budget Rental Co. only had EB 3.5 powered 1/2 tons. So stranger things can happen.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I don’t disagree. The 3.5 will be the XL special. Those were just the numbers given out today. They didn’t expect the 3.5EB to have such a high take rate last time around though.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @bball40dtw – I always felt that the reason Ford had the 6.2 in the F150 was as a plan B.

            If one were to believe TTAC B&B and the mouth breathers on every truck site I’ve ever frequented………….

            the only thing that sells is big assed V8′s.

            Ford has proved ‘em all wrong.

  • avatar
    tuffjuff

    While I disagree with Ford’s stance on putting these EPA-gaming EcoBoost engines into everything, and appreciate any opportunity to choose a naturally aspirated alternative, this idea seems to keep with the mentality of fuel economy with these new aluminum F-150′s. Also, as these EB engines seem to take a hit when actually doing work, this makes a heck of a lot of sense for the 50%+ of the pick-up truck population, who seems to almost never use their trucks for anything they’re actually made to accomplish.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      This engine should also make sense for the work truck population that is not hauling around a lot of weight: a little lumber, plastic pipe, some landscape or surveying tools, etc. Most work trucks are not working that hard. I would not be surprised if Ford offers a de-tuned version for fleet use with less power and better fuel economy.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        Bingo. On paper this engine would be about perfect for my father. Good FE, but a relative abundance of torque when needed. The bed of his truck probably gets used more often than 75% of trucks on the road (which is to say almost every day), but it isn’t filled with gravel or wet sod every time.

        It wasn’t that long ago that the “big” V8 optioned light duty trucks were only making ~250 hp/~330 lb-ft and managing < 15 mpg city while being a thousand pounds lighter than today's trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          That’s a point I’ve been trying to make for several years now–most people simply don’t NEED a huge, overpowered monster you can’t even fit in your garage. My own, old F-150 is more than enough truck for most users and it only has 200 horses under the hood. Pickup trucks today are as often a status-symbol/muscle car as they are a true working vehicle. In fact, I saw a Tacoma and an S-10 carrying more load yesterday while driving around than I saw in 95% of full-sized trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            Yeah.

            I used to regularly put 1,000 pounds of historical re-creation gear in and on my old Toyota pre-Tundra wiht the 2.4L I4 (overload springs and extra transmission cooler…).

            It was awfully pokey getting up a hill when loaded, and I outgrew it, so … F250.

            Now I have maybe 1,200 pounds of stuff, but a lot more room for it.

            And I can go up a hill at more than 40 mph, which is nice.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            “1,000 pounds of historical re-creation gear”

            Wow, that’s like 6 or 8 dead peasants, give or take for the era.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            “Bring out yer dead!” *Clank* “Bring out yer dead!”

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          Not so long ago? Check out any full size Japanese pickup mpg numbers. A Nissan v6 Frontier avg about 15 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      The boosted Fusion, Escape, current F-150, etc. have already shown that just moving the car and its driver around at real world speeds is already enough actual work that their paper fuel economy advantage never shows up.

      Color me considerably skeptical that this iteration will do any better.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Yup, I’m with you on this, skeptical.

        There’s more to a truck in the real world than there is on paper.

        I live in the mountains, and from personal experience I can tell you that an F150 Ecoboost cannot keep up with my 5.7L Tundra going up the mountain with a similar load.

        These blown tiny engines may be the wave of the future in half-tons because of EPA and CAFE mandates, but that does not make them better than the gnarly and torquey V8s.

        People who want a V8 will just have to step up to the F250 or F350.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s only the European influence. High strung little turbo engines, half the size of normally aspirated, but doing the same work. No other real reason for them. MPG improvements are meh.

    When the F-150 goes global, it’ll have the right engines already in place, tested (fixed), refined.

    For me, it’s just not an F-150 without a V8. Same as Mustang GTs.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      So every 300 I6-equipped F-150 from 1975 to 1996 “wasn’t” an F-150? How about all the F-100/250/350′s with straight-sixes?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Nothing wrong with straight 6s. Bring them back.

        My dad was the ultimate cheapskate and his 1/2 ton pickups were bought new with only an AM radio, long bed and V8. This was all through the ’60s, ’70s, till they forced FM, then CD.

        I’m a cheapskate too and know nothing beats a V8, over all. They can keep trying, but I won’t be a tester.

        • 0 avatar

          Those straight sixes aren’t coming back.

          It’s do-or-die time for the Big 2 1/2 and the name of the game is “how do we keep selling our profitable trucks without incurring the financial bloodbath that’d come from a tangle with CAFE fines?”

          Hence, you’ll see the truckmakers find new and novel ways of squeezing out enough fuel economy to safely continue selling their best-sellers. If that means throwing smaller-displacement turbocharged engines in light-duty full-size trucks, then it is what it is.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Mike, if a buyer really wants a V8, all they have to do is step up to an F250.

      If the Tundra ever drops the 5.7L by the time I want to buy my last truck in 2015/2016, that
      ‘s what I will have to do: step up to an F250.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        You do realize the NA 5.0 isn’t going away in the F-150 right?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Maybe, but they are not as readily available as they once were on dealer lots.

          Now it is all about 6 this or 6 that, that’s all they’re pushing — wannabe and make-believe trucks.

          And I was referring to a beefy V8 in my comment, like Tundra’s 5.7L. That’s what I have now.

          Why would I want to downsize to a 5.0 or 4.6? Not the same as a 350/5.7 or larger.

          I believe all this EPA and CAFE crap is going to affect the half-ton class to where our only recourse for a decent V8 may have to come from the 3/4-ton class or higher.

          If Tundra is indeed forced by EPA and CAFE mandates to drop the 5.7L, I would have to step back into an F250 or F350 to get a real truck with a real V8 engine.

          I know several people who have already bought the last truck they will ever buy and they opted for the largest V8 they could find for their truck. Some are even lumbering along in their V10 F250. They’ll drive that until they croak.

          For many people size matters, especially when it comes to their vehicle of choice. Mpg is not even a consideration.

          Push any squirrelly engine hard and you blow the mpg all to hell. But nurse along a big V10 or V8 and you can still get decent mileage and plenty of utility.

          That’s why the big V8s are still popular in cars and trucks today, although more difficult to find. But they’ll sell every one of the gas-guzzling monsters, until the EPA tells them they can’t sell them anymore.

          And that day’s coming.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @johnny_5.0 – there are enough people out there that still want a V8 and the 5.0 will remain for that very purpose.

          Whether or not Ford adds forced induction is to be seen.

          The 5.0 is supposed to be designed for it.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        I’m guessing the F-150 will always offer a V8. In all models. Even in Europe.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          That would be reasonable to assume, and my guess would be a 4.6L, like that of the Mustang GT4.6 with its high performance ignition system and cam.

          I once owned a 1999 V10 F250 I bought from a guy on active duty in the military. Kept it a little while before someone made me an offer on it I just could not turn down. Boy that was a stump-pulling behemoth!

          Now I see that old geezer lumbering along in that fire-engine-red V10 and I feel a twinge of envy. Wish I had kept it, if for nothing else but a show-off piece or Sunday driver.

          Coming down the pike next from Ford, the 1.3L Ecoboost F150 SuperCrew in Aluminum!

          You betcha!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @HDC – My previous Super Duty was a ’97 with the fantastic 7.5/460 V8. I miss that truck! It needed a rear end, clutch, synchros to name a few. 350,000+ miles on that truck, so it had to go. My biggest mistake was opting for the new ’06 with the Power Stroke. Long story short, I’m shopping for a V10 Super Duty right now.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Mike, I don’t know if they still offer those. That’s why the guy I sold the V10 to is still holding on to his.

            I owned a 2006 F150 XLT with the 5.4. Had lots of problems with it but kept it going by doing my own repairs.

            By the time I sold it in 2011 to a young airman getting out of the Air Force I had replaced a lot of things in it, including the cruise-control brake sensor twice and a bunch of seals and gaskets.

            I’m too old to do all that tooling and wrenching now, but I can still appreciate a good thing when I see and hear it. And the V10 is sweeeeeet!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I’m in the F-550 class, I should’ve explained, where the V10 still lives on. Thankfully so.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Oh yeah! I know a retired Air Force Colonel who owns a Monaco Motor Coach with the F550 frame and the V10; 20″ Duallies at the rear. It’s pretty old though.

            He’s been traveling/touring in that setup for decades, with a Wrangler in tow.

            I didn’t know they were still making them for non-commercial applications and individual sales.

            I thought all of the 450/550/650 production went to commercial OEMs, like motor homes, vans, commercial trucks, etc.

            But, hey, if you can still buy one, I say go for it!

            For me, a half-ton is all I need. But in order to get a 350/5.7 or larger I may have to step up to a 3/4-ton in the future.

            Several of my Elks brethren have already bought their last truck and most of them have chosen the F350 Banks TurboDiesel, but that’s because they tow a travel trailer.

            My brothers and I share a 1971 Southwind 30-ft Motorhome with the Dodge 440, initially bought by our dad. So I don’t have to tow a travel trailer behind my truck. Hence I prefer a half-ton.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Mine’s a commercial flatbed and that’s the only way they’re sold. As cab/chassis’ to be upfitted. Upfitters will build you a private pickup in any cab/chassis you choose. Ford sold a civilian F-450 pickup from ’08 to ’10 only. It was a true medium duty. The current F-450 pickup is the F-350, but it forces all the tow options, diesel, crew cab and 4X4. The V10 is available up to, and including the F-750.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            The V10 is also still available in the E350 E450, F53 and F59 as well as the F450-750.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @DenverMike – coming from a guy who just recently was saying that the SVO Mustang was the greatest thing ever or was that a different Denver Mike??

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @Lou_BC – The SVO is just a blast to drive, even in stock form. Try one if you haven’t. Just over 3,000 lbs and crisp all around performance not found on the GT. KONIs and disks all around. Loud A$$ turbo that doubles the engine’s output in a dramatic surge the $ucks you deep into the Recaros with a SWOOOSH that sounds like a Lear Jet taking off…

        Of course the GT from the same era is a kick in its own right. Different animals. Its looks are more dramatic too. People ask if it’s a modded or customized GT. Lots of fun to drive around.

  • avatar
    rockets

    I’m not buying any Ford truck until they offer a brown manual 4 door, turbo-diesel 8 passenger eight foot bed with station wagon option that gets 35mpg and it’s under 200 inches so it fits in the garage.

    (Wait… sorry… that cold medication hit me hard)

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Wait, is this new 2.7 motor a V6?

  • avatar
    crm114

    These “V” engines are all suspect. Only a cast iron straight six is tough enough for my pickup.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Although some of you very much understand FoMoCo, I never really did. I have to say their overall strategy seems fraught with risk. I’m seeing tiny engines in small Euro spec’d cars and big ass Detriot spec’d trucks except for a few higher trim trucks which get the good motors they can build and other very different models such as the Volvo derived P3s or Mustang (which at the moment does make sense to me) and until recently misc legacy models such as Panther, Econoline, and Ranger. The brand has essentially been all over the map in the past ten years from a product standpoint and even now they are still a little bit mixed in terms of product offering. Given all of the Ford recalls everyone has now forgotten about, I’m concerned the path they are on will not be sustainable for their customers in the long term. This is not an anti-Ford or anti-Mullaly thing, I’m just concerned many of the moves they are making are not the right ones. Mfgs such as GM and Toyota you could set your watch by in terms of product strategy and predictability. Despite everything, some of GM’s product moves seem to have been the right ones, and most of Toyota’s have panned out well (excepting Scion and the whole BRZ/FR-S thing). I never paid much attention to Chrysler until maybe two years ago, but their strategy in the past seemed to be Jeep, Dodge Ram, “has it got a Hemi?” catchphrases, and somehow stay in business. Now maybe its those things plus LX platform, Fiat derived models to be named later, and generally building product everyone else is [mostly] too afraid too such as a *mainstream* RWD sedan platform. Chrysler has done well with what it had in terms of money and product, as has GM for the most part. What about Ford? If F-150 takes a nose dive can the company withstand it?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      The Ford brand has been all over the place the last 10-15 years. Trying to adapt Ford, Mazda, Volvo, and Jaguar platforms into the brand created good, bad, and ugly. I would argue that the vision of the Ford brand of the future is clear and consistent. The last signs of PAG will be gone by 2018.

      There are three basic car/CUV platforms. There are variations for things like the Mustang. There is a two truck strategy with the F-series here and the Ranger elsewhere. There is obviously a number of other platforms, but the global B, global C, CD4, and F-series make up a tremendous portion of Ford’s volume globally. Similar bones, different hats. We can lament the loss of RWD sedans, small trucks, or whatever else, but Ford has been stronger for it. If you are building a Ford from scratch, the parts bin isn’t confusing.

      The other part of the equation is engines. Downsized, turbocharged, direct injected, etc. They are out in front of that movement, but its not like they are the only brand selling a turbocharged 4 in a midsizer.

      Even though you and I may not like all the decisions Ford has made, they are in a better position now than they have been in a long time. The F150 will continue to be an excellent product, but Ford will (and has) becomes less dependent on it. The wild card is Fields. He loves Lincoln and ran Mazda and PAG. He hasn’t laid out his personal vision yet.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      28-Cars-Later, it’s the wave of the future, brought on by the greenweenie movement trying to save the environment and planet, and failing miserably.

      My first V8 Automatic truck ever was the brand new 1988 Silverado 350 I bought. Before that all my trucks had a 6 and three on the tree. I’ve never gone back to a 6 in any truck I owned since, and I don’t want to drive a stick if I can help it.

      I see that old Chebby truck once in a while, driven by the Mexican I sold it too. He repainted it, re-did the interior in tuck-and-roll blue cloth, and it looks and sounds like a new truck. A real truck!

      Those were real trucks! They were not as economical as the new squirrel-powered ones, but they weren’t pretentious either. They were real trucks!

      Coming down the pike…. wait for it….the all new 1.3L Ecoboost F150 SuperCrew!!!

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Those trucks are trash compared to today’s trucks.
        As for trucks needing big engines, my father’s 1988 Ranger had a 2.3L I4 and it was every bit as real a truck as a big full sizer. Its still on the road too.

        Save the greeny movement crap for the Ann Coulter forum. We should be cautiously optimistic about a truck that cuts at least 625 lbs off its curb weight while bumping power.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Those original Rangers were built like downsized F-150′s and every bit as tough. I had an 88 and a 93 as well as a Bronco II. I still scour E-bay from time to time looking for a clean first gen 4×4 short cab short box. Most are pretty well spent.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @mkirk – I had an ’84 Ranger bought new. It was not as tough as a F150. I got tired of it not surviving the punishment I inflicted upon it and bought an F250. That survived much better in the backcountry.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    bball, “cautiously optimistic about a truck that cuts at least 625 lbs off its curb weight ”

    That’s been tried in various ways and forms before, as far back as the Fleetside Ford truck of the sixties. Even with composites in the modern applications. I think all the weight-cutting was done decades ago, and what we have today is the best balance of power and weight.

    While aluminum works well in aircraft, it remains to be seen how well this special-alloy for Ford’s new trucks will hold up. It has to be thicker than the current steel sheet and isn’t as flexible as steel in 360-degrees of freedom encountered for road use. That’s why it is still using the BOF design.

    Who’s Ann Coulter?

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Pretty sure all the Army’s H1′s were aluminum bodied. There were some issues of course but none that my truck would have…I don’t need my truck to stop bullets or take a blast.

      If this was a midsize truck with a diesel and a sombrero on the grill you guys would be tripping over each other to talk about how great it was and how Detroit had been caught flatfooted again by the innovative Japanese.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    If Ford can produce this F-150 at the weight they are discussing this engine will work fine. It will work in the current F-150.

    Reliability will be the key. With all of the friction reduction I wonder how engine wear will be and how expensive will it be to replace whole components instead of bearings and bushes. Hmmm??

    I wouldn’t be so sure yet with the weight of the aluminium F-150. Remember Ford was having difficulty forming the aluminium panels, it would be reasonable to assume that the panels will be thicker to allow for a malleable and ductile metal required to shape.

    I’ll bet my balls that the next F-150 will only drop around 500lbs from the current truck and how much heavier are they then the competition.

    This will be an expensive vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Yesterday, Ford said that the minimum drop in weight (regular cab 5.0L most likely) for any F150 model will be 625 lbs. Some will lose over the 732 lbs they showed yesterday. The most significant drop in weight may be the SuperCrew Raptor that hasn’t had any specs announced yet. It certainly has the most weight to lose.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Ok, let’s kick off a storm. How many people recall when Chevy’s pickup truck got by just fine on a 196c.i.d. I-6 at only 96 horsepower? That was a 3.2 litre engine that puts out far fewer horses than the 2.7EcoBoost even before you add the turbo to it.

    All this tells me is that there are WAY too many people obsessed with massive power for no purpose since most newer trucks never carry a decent load any more and the ones that do tend to already be the HD and heavier models.

    • 0 avatar

      Americans tend to get a bit antsy when they can’t have their daily recommended portion of cubic inches. More so when they see some government entity making a top-down decision that amounts to “eat your peas or no dessert for you.”

      Then there are those who are just gonna balk at any new technology and stick close to the tried-and-true, no matter how terrible the “tried-and-true” is when compared to the new stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I suspect it will take a long time to completely surpass NA Multiport FI gas motors in all contexts. Did you know GDI motors require higher fuel inlet pressures? How about the fact the injectors have much tighter fuel quality tolerances and must be kept cleaner? TTAC published an article on the subject a little over two years ago:

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/ask-an-engineer-gdi-problems-in-a-nutshell/

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Vulpine – one shouldn’t use the word “recall” in a discussion about GM…………
      that is too big a can of worms ;)

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lou_BC: Personally, I couldn’t care less. The last GM car I owned was a Saturn Vue and GM has killed off my three favorite marks–Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Saturn. While I never owned any Pontiacs, I’ve owned three Oldsmobiles and the Saturn and I would have been driving a Firebird instead of a Camaro had the dealership been willing to give up a mere $500–the only Chevy I ever bought.

        So far, GM has done nothing to regain my interest in them as a corporation and they killed a dawning interest in their newest trucks by making them still too big. For all that many here consider Chryslers as “imports” now, they at least appear to be interested in the types and sizes of vehicles I want.


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