What Do You Think The EcoBoost Take Rate Is On F-150?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

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.


Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
10 of 44 comments
  • SkiD666 SkiD666 on May 03, 2011

    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.

  • Carlson Fan Carlson Fan on May 03, 2011

    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.

    • See 1 previous
    • Z71_Silvy Z71_Silvy on May 03, 2011

      @Craig Drabik What are the rear gears in both trucks?

  • Jaje Jaje on May 03, 2011

    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.

    • Ptschett Ptschett on May 03, 2011

      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.

  • Z71_Silvy Z71_Silvy on May 03, 2011

    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.

    • See 2 previous
    • 13withinfinity 13withinfinity on Aug 14, 2011

      @Z71_Silvy Could be worse. GM hasn't lived up to the hype GM has printed about itself for years.

Next