By on May 3, 2016

2016 Ford F-150 Limited

Ford Motor Company didn’t want an opportunity to claim bragging rights to pass by, so it sent its 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine in for a massage.

The result was a torque (eco)boost of 30 pounds-feet, raising the engine’s output to 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft. That places Ford’s F-150 ahead of its closest full-size six-cylinder competitor, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, which claims 420 lb-ft.

The next-generation engine and the company’s new 10-speed automatic transmission (jointly developed by Ford and General Motors, but built by Ford) debut in the 2017 F-150 due out this fall.

Ford foisted a number of improvements onto the engine to create the increase in twist, but also to make the motor leaner in preparation for its 10-speed partner.

A dual-direct and port fuel-injection system delivers fuel to both the intake port and cylinder, while the turbochargers now have a lighter turbine wheel and electrically activated wastegates. Hollow camshafts in the new roller-finger follower valvetrain have weight savings in mind, and beefier intake and exhaust valves are a nod to long-term durability.

A start-stop system will come standard on the model, to the chagrin of owners who dislike the gas-saving feature. Ford tosses them a bone by shutting off the system if the vehicle is towing or in four-wheel-drive mode.

Fuel economy ratings aren’t available for the new F-150 drivetrain, but Ford is being careful not to make any promises about its start-stop technology, warning owners that “actual fuel savings vary depending on driving patterns.”

Production of the cog-heavy gearbox is backed by a $1.4 billion investment in the Livonia Transmission Plant, but it’s money well spent if Ford continues to rake in the dough from its lucrative truck lines.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

138 Comments on “Ford Crowns Itself V6 Torque King, Debuts Next-Generation EcoBoost Engine...”


  • avatar
    I've got a Jaaaaag

    Coming soon to a TV near you, a Chevy ad stating Turbos are black magic and produce fake Torque.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I’d love to see GM actually throw down with Ford and release a 7.0L V8 along with massively increase the availability of the current 6.2L.

      Instead, they’ll do nothing new, continue to only offer the 6.2L on the top trim levels and in 5 years introduce a turbo V6 for the trucks that is worse in every way than the EB.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        they’ve already got twin-turbo GDI V6s in the engine line-up, I don’t see how a GM 3.6 GTDI would manage to be “worse” than the EB 3.5.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Jimz

          I think the GM turbo 6 are way less efficient, at least that’s what I am seeing when you compare the 3.5 power/MPG in the cars anyway.

          And the trucks do well, considering their weight.

      • 0 avatar
        johnny_5.0

        This is one thing I think Ford does right with their trucks. You can get the “big” motor any way you want it.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        A LT 7.0 wouldn’t do well in a truck application, at least not if it was engineered like the LS 7.0. That engine wasn’t made to pull a lot of weight around at low speed. It would likely have cooling issues (siamese bores without water jackets in between).

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      If they’re more realistic, they’ll point out a wide ratio 10 speed, reduces the advantages of the broader torque spread of turbos. While making shift programming trickier.

      Eventually, GM will stick turbos in half tons, as well. They’ll be forced to, to keep up in the EPA race on one end, and the torque race on the other.

      Much more interesting from a functional POV, is if Ford can make the turbos pay off for 1 ton fleets. Many of whom are looking at employing more gassers than they traditionally have been.

      Personally, for actual “truck” usage, I believe Nissan is getting it right with the XD. The twin half ton trajectories of “Better EPA bigger capability” that Ford (and others) are pursuing, will run into internal contradiction. Simply from an ever growing trailer/tractor weight ratio resulting in too much tail-wagging-dog for comfort and safety when max towing.

      Won’t necessarily hurt Ford, as by far most of their truck customers don’t really use a fraction of the advertised capability. Most half ton usage is, after all, really just rolling reminders of the foolishness of abandoning BOF passenger cars and especially wagons, simply because US auto execs started believing the hype and contracted Bimmer envy. :)

      • 0 avatar
        Frylock350

        @stuki,

        I’m one of those consumers that may never have purchased my first truck (I’m on truck #5 now) had there been a new full-size RWD BOF station wagon to buy. I’d happily own a 2016 Roadmaster Estate if it existed. I owned a B-body wagon to well over 200,000 miles and its still my favorite car I’ve ever owned.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          As much as uni body construction is theoretically “better” than plopping the body on a frame, their advantages shrink, and their complexity skyrockets, as vehicles get longer. The average NYC and DC 1%er may not see the problem with that as they cruise along in their LWB S-class Sedans and Q7s, but when developed to the level the new F150 is, mere plebeians can get an even larger, and virtually as good wrt NVH vehicle, for half the price or less. And with a quarter of the maintenance cost.

          Where BOF falls short, is at triple digit speeds, and fast driving on twisty roads. Both of which are banned in the US anyway. As well as at maneuvering and parking, in most of the world’s cities. But only in very few North American ones……

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        The greatest boom to pickup sales was adding seats and doors. That does play to the large sedan/wagon theorem of truck sales.
        If one believes Ram, they claim the average pickup buyer only hauls 1,000 lbs and tows 5k. The 5k part appears to make sense from what I see. The 1,000 lbs part is probably incorrect because most buyers are clueless as to what contributes to payload.
        Chevy claims that the average HD buyer tows 10k. Many jurisdictions require different licencing for greater than 10k ‘ish’ trailer weight. Nissan’s XD doesn’t quite have the proper cargo ratings to go with its tow ratings.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          I don’t really doubt the hauling spec, for the most part. In my experience, the vast, vast majority of people who even look at the payload spec of a half ton they are interested in, do so in the context of trailer tongue weight. Very few non-pros buy a new $50K half ton with the intent of filling the bed with rock.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @stuki – it isn’t so much the intention to fill the box with rock but the need to understand what constitutes payload. A large number of 1/2 ton crewcab 4×4’s eat up 60-75% of their payload ratings by filling the seats in the cab.
            You mention tongue weight, many don’t realize that tongue weight has to be factored in with passengers and any other load on the truck. My F150 is rated to tow my friend’s 9,400 lb trailer (9,600 lb tow rating) assuming a 10% tongue weight. I’d have to leave most of my family at home and the truck would have to be near empty to not exceed my cargo ratings and GCVW ratings.

  • avatar
    Firestorm 500

    Sounds like another development towards the discontinuance of the 5.0, at least in the F-150.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      If I were in the forecasting business, that would be my prediction as well. But only for the half-ton class, F150.

      People that want a V8 will have to step up to the F250 and F350.

      And they will.

      Sure glad I got exactly what I wanted before the V6 squirrel-engine sh!t hits the fan.

      My guess would be MY 2017/2018 will see the discontinuance of the V8 in a F150.

      • 0 avatar
        Frylock350

        People that want a V8 will have to step up to a Silverado/Tundra/Ram

        And they will.

        @hdc,

        Fixed it for ya.

        Of course I feel that that percentage of buyers won’t be very large; but still I think they’re more likely to defect than buy an F250.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Thx Frylock350. I already got exactly what I wanted to last for the rest of my driving life.

          But if my 2016 Tundra had not been available with the 5.7L, I would have bought a Ford F250 with the biggest V8 I could find.

          It’s really hard to forecast or anticipate buyers’ behavior.

          Who would have thought that when the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis and Towncar were phased out, many of those buyers chose a four door pickup truck instead?

          • 0 avatar
            Frylock350

            @hdc,

            I kinda expected it simply because that was me. I had a b-body wagon with nearly two decades and 200k under its belt and decided I wanted something with modern safety equipment (I still kept the b-body for a few years after that as I couldn’t bring myself to part with it). I bought a four door pickup truck because I couldn’t justify the expense of a Suburban/ExpeditionEL and there was literally nothing else comparable. Your choices are full-size SUV or full-size four door truck.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            “Who would have thought that when the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis and Towncar were phased out, many of those buyers chose a four door pickup truck instead?”

            Who indeed? That explains all the 80-year-olds driving Super Duties, the Silverado airport limos, and the Ram Highway Patrol cars!

            HDC, it sounds like you got yourself a nice truck, enjoy it.

            The pickup buyers I know are still in their prime working years, so they are glad to have a choice of more efficient engines. In some cases, that’s an extra $50 to $100 a week they can put away for retirement.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            hh, thx. I’m highly pleased. Here are the specs:

            2016 Toyota Tundra SR5 5.7L V8 w/FFV Truck Crew Max 4×4

            MSRP:$41,623 incl SR5 Plus Pkg and TRD Off-Road Pkg, Sill Protectors, Plush floor mats, Stainless Steel Exhaust Tips

            Dealer Discount:$1,750
            Factory Rebate:$750

            I agreed to $39K even plus NM TT&L (Sales Tax 3%, Doc Fee $299 and DMV $95)

            Got it on 1 Feb, 3pm.

            Much of the time my wife finds me just sitting in it, parked in my driveway, admiring the truck of my desires…..

            Really!

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Frylock350, the Suburban/Expedition/Excursion is what I thought would take the place of the discontinued four-door sedans.

            But the annual government-demand for the Suburban-type vehicles is greater than the production capacity in Arlington, TX.

            The GM dealers in my region have a very difficult time getting as many Suburbans/Yukons as they can sell, and the ones they get are most often optioned to the max.

            Whatever happened to buying a Suburban without all the upscale trim? My wife’s dad owned a 1973 4×4 2500 Suburban 454/400THM with the pleather seats and it lasted him all the way until 2013 when he replaced it with a 2wd 5.3L Suburban LTZ.

            And it was a DOG!!!

            We sold it after my wife’s parents moved back to Germany in Jan 2015.

          • 0 avatar
            wadehnelson

            Honestly, size (or girth) alone has forced many previous buyers of those makes into pickup trucks. 6’4 guys and folks above a certain wait simply can’t fit behind the wheel of a lot of lesser vehicles. In the wheelchair van biz we always said that accomodating the “bariatricly challenged” would be the next successful niche vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          “People that want a V8 will have to step up to a Silverado/Tundra/Ram

          And they will.”

          You crazy? I own 2 GM trucks. If I was looking for a new 1/2 ton PU tow vehicle I’d probably go Ford just to get that Ecoboost engine. The number of people that defect from Ford because they can’t get a V8 will be smaller than those that defect to Ford because they offer a V6 that will spank the competitors V8s and get better fuel economy doing it.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I take that as… you no longer want a V8.

            But for those who still want a V8…….

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Maybe he just needs torque, and doesn’t get wrapped up in cylinder counts.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            Sorry the Ecoboost engines have been out long enough that it’s completely obvious by sales numbers I’m not the only one who doesn’t want/need a V8 in a 1/2 ton and sees the advantages of a twin turbo V6. Especially for towing.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “Maybe he just needs torque, and doesn’t get wrapped up in cylinder counts.”

            Bam! And put 4 ton behind that V6 Ecoboost Ford and it will mop the floor with any V8 Tundra towing the same load, getting better fuel economy while doing it. But then the Tundra takes the 1/2 ton crown for being the biggest pig on gas so that’s not hard to do..

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Ultimately, it is a personal choice. People buy what works for them.

            Anecdotally, my former assistant and current contractor, Nguyen, traded his shiny black 2013 F150 4-dr Platinum EB 4×4 in on a Blue 2016 F250 SRW XLT 4-dr 4×4 with the gas V8.

            I haven’t pressed him on it, but maybe the EB was just not ringing his bell.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Or maybe it’s because you can’t get the EB in a F-250 and he wanted the payload/towing of one (without paying $8000 for the diesel).

          • 0 avatar
            DC Bruce

            I own a 2015 Sierra 1500 with the 6.2 V-8 and the 8-speed. Have put nearly 36k miles on it, mostly towing a 27-foot Airstream travel trailer. The 6.2 still out-torques the boosted boosted 3.5 by 10 lb-ft. and has meaningfully more horsepower (420). Real world mileage is 12-13.8 towing (400-mile average) and 22-24 with partial load on the highway (65 mph for the high range; 80 mph for the low). The smaller displacement Ford probably beats the GMC in stop-go-idle commuter driving (which is not where you should be using a pickup), but once the Ford is working and on boost, it has to run rich to avoid detonation from the resulting super-high compression ratio. That hurt fuel economy. The big V-8 doesn’t do that and cylinder deactivation under light load increases mileage. So, both engines are, in effect variable displacement engines -one using forced induction and the other using cylinder deactivation. Interesting that Ford is copying Toyota by using port and direct injection on this new version. Reportedly, the crud buildup on the intake side was a problem with this engine because of use of DI. Having turbos precluded the use of “sea foam” treatment to clean it out. So far, no issues with my engine, which has a very fat torque curve.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            @DC Bruce: Nice choice. Give me a well-designed, long lasting and reliable V8 every time over a high-strung, hard working 6cyl turbo, no matter how sophisticated.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            My friend, who is a diehard Ford F150 guy, is finally, after being hosed by Ford over and over again, is about ready to jump to GM. What finally pushed him away? The Ecoboost engine. And it’s problems. His brother’s truck ate a turbo just before the powertrain warranty expired, so that was a freebie, but right after, it was problems galore, to the point he’s driving a Chevy now. My friend’s EB problems began with a check engine light that turned into some sort of module failure. The came the turbo issues, right after the warranty expired. Ford refused to cover it, even though it’s apparently a common issue. They wanted over $2000 to fix it. The dealer came up with some “goodwill” cash, so it only cost him ~$900. His truck has a noisy rear end now that Ford is refusing to fix, even though it was reported well before the powertrain warranty ran out, and he’s got some oddball intermittent check engine light that goes along with a drop in power. So far, the dealer is mystified as to what is happening. The mileage the truck got was OK, but only came close to what was claimed when it was driven in full “egg under your foot” mode. If he drove it anything like how he wants to, it gets almost exactly the same mileage his previous ’09 V8 F150 got. And if he towed his little trailer with his snowmobiles on it? 9-10 MPG. Worse than the last V8 truck got pulling the same trailer. I suppose the current aluminum cab would help a lot versus his truck’s steel one.

            He’s not liking the GM styling much, but it looks like he’s going to ignore it and buy one soon. If I was in the market for an F150, I would avoid the EB engine like the plague.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I can’t see Ford getting rid of the 5.0. There are enough buyers that think turbo V6’s don’t belong in a pickup or they prefer the rumble of a V8. You don’t get the same obnoxious “look at me” brodozer appeal with a piped V6 as you do with a V8.

      Less and less people care about number of cylinders or their arrangement. They care about power, performance and feel. The EB 3.5 is an impressive mill that does not require revs. It feels more like a diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Last weekend I saw a brand new Mustang GT 5.0 in dark red, with some multi spoke (12-spoke-ish) wheels. Man that looked sharp. Just need a bit of tints.

        • 0 avatar
          nrd515

          My friend, who is a diehard Ford F150 guy, is finally, after being hosed by Ford over and over again, is about ready to jump to GM. What finally pushed him away? The Ecoboost engine. And it’s problems. His brother’s truck ate a turbo just before the powertrain warranty expired, so that was a freebie, but right after, it was problems galore, to the point he’s driving a Chevy now. My friend’s EB problems began with a check engine light that turned into some sort of module failure. The came the turbo issues, right after the warranty expired. Ford refused to cover it, even though it’s apparently a common issue. They wanted over $2000 to fix it. The dealer came up with some “goo

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            No, no, no.!

            Get with the times!

            Turbochargers are the best thing to happen to vehicles, especially 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton gasoline engine mall parking lot cruising pickup trucks, since…forever.

            Your friend didn’t know how to accelerate, or cool the turbos, or drive, or whatever…

            …naturally aspirated V8 motors in pickup trucks are so, so lame.

            Ecoboost FTW!

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Nrd, I didn’t mention any EB engine, but only the 5.0, so your repeated rant wasn’t necessary here.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    “B-b-b-but I thought only diesels could make big torque!!!!”

    Couple this with that 10 speed tranny and the fact that gasoline is only like 5% less energy dense (per unit volume) than diesel…. boom bye bye stinky fuel and pee tanks.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      people thought that because for decades they were comparing turbodiesels to normally aspirated gas engines. and because diesels are immune to detonation, they’ve been able to use high pressure turbocharging since forever. It’s *turbocharging*(*) which gets you torque, not diesel (**). GDI’s chamber cooling effect has let gas engines crank up the static compression ratios and boost levels to where they’re making more torque (at the same low rpms) and a ton more horsepower than a similar-displacement diesel.

      the diesel will of course always win on fuel economy.

      (*) technically it’s forced induction which does it, but turbochargers work based on engine load and not speed, so when the driver calls for twist they build boost right away.

      (**) I’m sure mason will be along shortly to remind me that I’m an idiot.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Difference between gasoline and diesel torque is much more complex than NA vs turbo or even Energy Densities. Additional differences that need accounted for between gas/diesel:

        otto cycle vs diesel cycle

        Compression ratios

        Injection timing and sequencing

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          no, they don’t need to be accounted for. that’s a load of word salad which is nothing more than desperately trying to cling to the myth.

          • 0 avatar
            nickoo

            I’m a mechanical engineer in the diesel and gas turbine propulsion field, so excuse me for being such an idiot, I didnt know it was all about the turbo and that otto vs diesel cycle, compression ratios, spark ignition vs compression ignition or injection sequencing and timing shouldnt be considered..I suppose piston shape, combustion chamber shape or injection points and pressures don’t matter either. Its all about the magical turbo, dont even need to consider the charge air cooler either I suppose. I’ll just see myself out..

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            well then next time maybe you should do more than just toss out a few sentence fragments with no further explanation.

            the stuff you’re talking about is important to the engineers developing the engines, it’s meaningless to the end users.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Diesel will win on fuel economy measured in miles per gallon, but if you measure fuel economy in terms of energy efficiency it’s not so clear. Diesel has 12% more carbon per gallon than gas.

        • 0 avatar
          nickoo

          Diesel cycle engines can be up to 60% thermally efficient. Otto cycle engines arent even close, but gasoline direct injection has helped a lot by allowing higher compression ratios. Slow speed 2 stroke diesels are amazingly efficient considering how ancient they are.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      This comment (agreeing with your sentiment) is spawned by much anger as a result of an incident on Saturday, whereby I was stuck behind an idiot in a F Series diesel for a span of 5 to 7 miles, who took every opportunity to roll coal (at least a dozen times).

      It it was not illegal, and dare I say, non-constructive, I would have followed him you til he arrived at his destination, and then waterboarded him with 100 gallons of urea.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        This comment was sponsored by the Volkswagen TDI family of green* vehicles.

        *Clean Diesel: The environmentally responsible choice! Da!

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Cementheads like that should be able to roll coal at will…provided, of course, that they are sterilized and thus unable to unleash their Forrest Gump IQ on the world’s gene pool.

        Something tells me a lot of ’em would make that deal.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I daresay Michigan has to make it such that the police are able to write *NON-WAIVABLE* fix-it tickets for turds who do that. A few $120 citations here and there and maybe they’ll put the damn DPF back on.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          A $300 strictly-enforced penalty for rolling coal, enforced on a continuous, unrelenting basis, would go a long way to getting these absolute morons to modify their imbecilic ways.

          As a bonus, it’s really easy for law enforcement to spot as these brodozers spewing black, smelly-a$$ fumes are so easy to spot.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I have a feeling the problem here is that a lot of cops are simpatico to the whole coal-rolling thing.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            NM cops think the Charger Police Cruiser is too small, too cramped, and underpowered.

            And while it is nigh impossible to roll coal in one of those Chargers, tromping on the gas pedal from a dead start and holding it there until they reach max speed for a pursuit, doesn’t help fuel economy or mpgs.

            Is it even illegal to accelerate hard and spew unburned exhaust gasses and carbon into the air?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “NM cops think the Charger Police Cruiser is too small, too cramped, and underpowered.”

            to be fair, when you’re wearing soft body armor and the standard police utility belt/equipment, anything is cramped compared to the Crown Victoria.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “think the Charger Police Cruiser is too small, too cramped, and underpowered.”

            Underpowered? Did the NM police have a fleet of Audi RS6s before this? The V8 Charger Pursuit’s acceleration is about tied with the Caprice 6.0L, is a tick better than the EB Interceptor Utility, is a tick slower than the EB Interceptor Sedan, and is way faster than the old P71, Impala 9C1, or Tahoe PPV.

            What is their comparative expectation here?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “What is their comparative expectation here?”

            I don’t know.

            For decades NM cops drove a wide variety of cruisers ranging from Crown Vics to Impalas to Tahoes, F150s, and now the new Explorers.

            It is only with the Charger that complaints have been raised. Some have said the Charger Police Pkg is a dog accelerating from a dead stop. Everyone I know with a Charger has told me their car runs like a raped ape!

            Maybe it has something to do with engine-firmware programming in the Police Cruisers to get the best fuel economy.

            As far as being too tight, JimZ is right. When my #2 son worked for the CA Highway Patrol, the sh!t he had to wear was astounding.

            But he drove a Camaro and worked the Rosecrans Division out of San Diego that included I5, I805, I15 and I8.

            Just try jumping out of a cruiser and running after someone with all that sh!t you’re wearing hanging offa you and holding you back.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            HDC,

            forgot to add earlier, but interior space is supposedly one reason the Explorer police utility is selling so well. The Taurus is even worse than the Charger despite the removal of the center console.

            as for performance, Charger Pursuits can be had with either the Hemi or the V6. if their experience was with the pre-Pentastar cars, then I can see how they’d feel slow.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ” interior space is supposedly one reason the Explorer police utility is selling so well”

            Yup, I can believe that. And regardless of Cruiser, all that Specialty Gear/Electronics also has to fit along the center stack.

            And to be completely and brutally truthful, some of our cops have been overdosing daily on burritos, donuts and 64oz sodas from 7/11……..

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            ajla, not all Charger police cars are created equal. Some have the Hemi, others have the Pentastar.

            Now, if I could find a gently used Chevy Caprice plainclothes cop car with the 6.0…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            FreedMike, I believe that for highway duty in NM they all have the 5.7L PP.

            And for city/county use, the V6 PP.

            Likewise the Durango PP.

            But I could be wrong. There have been times in the past when a municipality ordered PP vehicles and what they got was what was pre-positioned and available off the assembly line run at that time.

            Waiting for another configuration could take months of delay.

            Even dealers often have to settle for what’s already on the distributor lots.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “NM cops think the Charger Police Cruiser is too small, too cramped, and underpowered.”

            Taurus too, which I am told is one of three main reasons why PBP switched to Explorers (the others being 2) Explorer is also pursuit rated like Taurus despite being ungainly in dimensions and 3) Explorer started at 1,000 more than Taurus).

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The Explorer is the police vehicle of choice because of everything mentioned here, plus the factory support from Ford. It’s worth the small premium over the various police sedans to most departments.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Just throw a three-day-old dead fish into his window to make up the stink karma.

        And report him to the police.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        DW,
        If you drove a Tesla X, you wouldn’t have this problem. The onboard HEPA filters are the most powerful ever installed in a production vehicle, and scrub pollution and biohazards to levels that are imperceptible.

        Yet another reason for you to stop hating on Tesla.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I neither “hate” Tesla nor Musk.

          I simply am not buying Texas’s long-term business model as a viable, sustainable one.

          The fact that Tesla has a true HEPA cabin filter in the Model X is a really great idea (really).

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Don’t get sucked in by a peak number, unless Ford has ditched the throttle gasoline engines are still limited by less than optimal cylinder filling where a diesel completely fills they cylinder everything ( better VE through the Rev range) as engine speed is controlled by the fuel rather than the throttle.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Acually, gasoline contains about 13% less heat per gallon than does diesel, which is why it makes sense for diesel to be more expensive than gasoline, at least in those jurisdictions where taxes on the two are similar.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        diesel is more expensive (here) because our refinery techniques are slanted towards getting more gasoline out of a barrel of oil. then the “middle” distillates have to be separated out into diesel, heating oil, kerosene, and jet fuel.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        “Acually, gasoline contains about 13% less heat per gallon than does diesel, which is why it makes sense for diesel to be more expensive than gasoline, at least in those jurisdictions where taxes on the two are similar.”

        You’re not paying for “the amount of energy in the fuel” – that’s simply not how the fuels are priced.

        You’re paying for extraction costs, taxes, and profit margin (the latter smaller than you probably think), relative to the demand for each fuelstock and the *proportions* in the crude (plus any costs for cracking/reforming to alter the proportions; as JimZ points out it’s often profitable to alter them at a small cost to meet demand).

  • avatar

    First of all – I AM THE TORQUE KING. I’ve got over 650 Torques.

    What you gonna do when the Ram HELLCAT gets here?

    Nothing…

    Cause you ain’t serious bout dis life.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I’m waiting for the 1.9 liter ecoboost V6 coupled to the 21 1/2 speed automatic transmission in the F150 before I buy it.

    A weight-saving re-skin using recycled French’s Mustard bottles would be nice, also.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    When I were a tot and stood eye-level with the headlights on our family’s vehicles, the effect was one of bonding. Rounded, welcoming curves everywhere, warm “breath” radiating out of the grill when first parked, gas (real) and oil aromas…

    Now you’ve got those gargantuan Fox football-robot faces like that photo. Scare a child.

  • avatar
    matt3319

    The 2.7L eco is still the best value in the lineup. The 5.0L is all but doomed in the future. Ford knows this. I can’t wait to try the 2.7L Fusion Sport. Now that’s going to be a rocket!

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      It’ll basically be the Edge Sport, with less weight and less ground-clearance.

      And I already like the Edge Sport.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        A manual Fusion Sport would basically be my old Taurus SHO, but much faster and without the terrible build quality. It would be very highly tempting.

        With the automatic, it’s a nice package, but nothing that’s going to make me trade in a LS460.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          For me, it would be worth it to spend an extra $5000 on the MKZ 3.0TT AWD. But then I remember that I want to get a few years out of the C-Max with no payments…

    • 0 avatar
      zip89105

      I’m with you here. If I got an F150 it would definitely be the 2.7T for the best combination of mpg & HP. The start/stop nonsense I’m not so happy about.

  • avatar
    cgjeep

    I haven’t driven the new Ford Trucks, Is the 3.5 Ecco Boost as smooth as the 5.0? I would gladly give up some power and performance for more smoothness and refinement. For example I prefer the 3.0 in the old BMW 328 to the new 2.0 Turbo in the new ones.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      I’ve test driven both; the 5.0 feels smoother. The 3.5L IS faster, the 5.0L FEELS faster. It also sounds a helluva lot better and burns 87 octance instead of the 3.5L’s premium recommendation.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      If you’re looking for entertainment, get the 5.0 or 2.7T. If you are buying something more for utility or towing needs get the 3.5T.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The 2.7T is the engine to have for most consumers. It’s actually become the volume engine. It’s especially attractive because of the sub $1000 premium to go from the regular 3.5L tk 2.7T on basically any trim level/configuration.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      “I haven’t driven the new Ford Trucks, Is the 3.5 Ecco Boost as smooth as the 5.0? I would gladly give up some power and performance for more smoothness and refinement. ”

      But that’s just it your not giving up power or performance. Your gaining it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      The 5.0 builds power based on RPM so it is linear and that may be what you mean by smooth.
      The EB 3.5 hits peak torque rather quickly. if you aren’t a smooth driver then the EB 3.5 will magnify one’s poor driving habits due to its torque.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The 3.5 (and 2.7) is very smooth, but sounds more like a vacuum cleaner than a V8. The V8 sound is really the only reason to get the 5.0.

    • 0 avatar
      smartascii

      I’ve driven both EBs and the 5.0 in the 2016 F-150s, and although it might have been the gearing or the rear end (or the fact that it’s limited to the lower trim packages), I was surprised to find that the 2.7 felt the smoothest and strongest out of the lot. The 5.0 makes a nice noise, and while the 3.5 will fling you at the horizon with ease, it feels (to me) more like takeoff in a jetliner than a fast car – i.e., something very heavy is being pushed by something very strong. The 2.7 just feels effortless.

  • avatar
    raph

    Great for advertising but I suspect the Dodge has more average torque ( could be wrong since you would need to see the dyno sheet ) though.

  • avatar
    fwdoversteer

    I wish they’d throw the 2.7 liter engine in the EcoBoost Mustang

  • avatar
    NeilM

    “Ford foisted a number of improvements onto the engine”

    “Foist” and “improvement” contradict one another. “Foist” means to impose something unwelcome on someone or something.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    “Fuel economy ratings aren’t available for the new F-150 drivetrain, but Ford is being careful not to make any promises about its start-stop technology…”

    Steph,
    Any impact from start-stop technology is excluded from fuel economy calculations, which is why adoption in the US has been so slow.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      No it is not that is why a difference in MPG shows up on those models where it is optional.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        ScoutDude,
        The EPA does NOT adjust fuel economy ratings for vehicles with start-stop. It did allow M-B some credits as a manufacturer for using start-stop, but with a very conservative methodology.

        http://www.autonews.com/article/20141008/OEM11/141009782/mercedes-benz-rewarded-with-epa-credits-for-adopting-start-stop
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/stop-start-better-mpg_n_4551098.html

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    I wonder what the HP/torque numbers will be on the Raptor and next Navigator/Expedition. The Navi’s current gen 3.5 already had more HP and torque than this new engine.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      I have seen no mention of torque, but didn’t they already claim “at least” 450hp? 365hp is weak sauce for these things when a tune only mod gains another 60hp+.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I would think that the new Navi gets at least 400 HP. The Raptor will probably be 450+/450+.

        The new 3.0TT has over 400 HP, so the 3.5TT should be able to hit higher power numbers with ease.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I hope the engine is reliable. Or I should say the lightened spools on the turbo and the tricky fuel injection.

    I do see vehicles like the Colorado/Canyon, Tacoma and hopefully new Frontier becoming more attractive.

    As the capability of the 1/2 tons increase so does has the midsizers capabilities. Even the Colorado is able to tow far more than what most tow behind a full size 1/2 ton. The Colorado even carries more than what most carry.

    Even the over 300hp 3.6 is more than enough for most as is the gradual increase in midsize size. The midsize is already bigger than most any car on the market at the moment as well.

    CAFE will eventually make 1/2 ton pickups just too large for the 75% who just drive them as daily drivers. In the States I generally see one person in a dual cab pickup. Rarely do I ever see a family in one.

    They are just a sign of middle class success, no different than a BMW/Mercedes Benz, etc.

    They will sell.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      $hit, I haul more stuff with my C-Max than most half ton or midsized truck owners. If Ford throws the 2.7TT and 3.2L I5 diesel in the Ranger, and more importantly, Bronco, I’ll be a happy man.

      I’m sure you’ll see the 3.5TT trucks go up in price. These are some expensive upgrades. Top trim and 3.5TT truck owners are helping keep lower trim F150 prices from going crazy. Bless their hearts for throwing $65K at a truck.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        I’ll just be humble and admit it: I’m genuinely confused as I see massive traffic, 45k to 65k pickups, people eating out at restaurants (including hundreds of newly built “food strip centers” with fast-casual dining, such as Pei Wei, Qdoba, Five Guys, Mod Pizza, chain coffee joints, chain sub shops, etc) as if on a daily basis rather than once or twice a week, and the new round of subdivision after subdivision of 2,850 square foot to 4,600 square foot $hittily built McMansions popping up everywhere in Troy, Rochester, Oakland Twp, etc.

        I’m sitting here with a pretty specific knowledge base of commercial, retail, office and residential real estate, demographics, household and business incomes and debt levels, etc., and am amazed that it’s bounced this high from the 2010-2011 lows, and am genuinely perplexed as to how things are being floated this high and without any clue as to how much longer that it is sustainable (given debt levels and real wages).

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          All the Big 3 trucks can be leased in mid spec Crew Cab form for $300/month or less with $0 down. I think most of the $45K+ pickups are leased (especially in the Detroit area).

        • 0 avatar
          redmondjp

          You and me both. Just saw a new F150 4×4 crew cab EB at a local event where the Ford dealer had some new cars – $65K and it was not even fully loaded. For a fracking 1/2-ton pickemup truck!

          Check out thehousingbubbleblog (dot) com for a view on how things are really going.

          In my local area east of Seattle, new homes that started out “in the low 900s” almost two years ago are now selling for $1.3-1.6M. Absolutely crazy, and certainly not sustainable.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Now all that is needed is the twin turbo V8. Oh my word. 500HP/TQ Mustang GT? You will need an NHRA license to buy one. 450/650TQ F150? Able to do the quarter mile in 13 flat…. WITH A CAMPER TRAILER. Challenge will be, at least for the Rustang, making it all fit, and not devolving the car into a GT500 style understeering pig.

  • avatar
    wsn

    High school physics tells you, when there are a large enough number of gear ratios available, torque is just irrelevant. It’s the power that counts.

    Not enough torque to tow? Lower your gear ratio! You have 10 of them.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Engines can only deal with so much load. Bigger engines = bigger bearings and surfaces for the loads to spread out on, as well as for heat to dissippate. This is one of my big fears with these insanely boosted OEM engines.

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    I was not impressed with the 5.0 in the F150, ended up getting a Ram because Hemi. Plus, it was less expensive. Yeah, that was also a big part of the decision. I also did not like the 5.3 in the GM trucks, mostly because that TC engages so slowwwww. The Ram just felt right to me. Been a good truck so far, no complaints whatsoever.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      GM doesn’t use a 5.7-liter. It’s either a 5.3-liter V8 or a 6.2-liter V8 for the gas engines.

      • 0 avatar
        Pinzgauer

        Good call, edited.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I have been told that the 6.2L GM V8 is only available in the top trims. Maybe someone can actually shed some light on this.

        Most people who actually use a truck’s full potential may not want all the extra nice interiors/electronics.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “I have been told that the 6.2L GM V8 is only available in the top trims.”

          They do and it very annoying.

          On the Silverado only LTZ and above. On the Sierra only SLT and Denali (and it isn’t standard on the Sierra Denali). Then it is standard on the Yukon Denali and Escalade. Not available AT ALL on the Suburban, Tahoe, or normal Yukon.

          GM also does similar lame restriction stuff with the 8-speed for the 5.3L, the Max Tow package, and the diesel for the midsizers.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Thx ajla. I have relayed your comment to two GM-fans who will be shopping for a new truck ~ Aug 2016.

            Because they use their trucks in construction and contractor work, and only keep their trucks 3-5 years to maximize trade-in value, they don’t want fancy packages and luxury interiors because they sometimes get their trucks dirty.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You can’t have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        If you go back far enough, Chevy did have a 5.7 small block.

  • avatar
    86er

    I applaud the return of hood lettering.

  • avatar
    AK

    The lead here is the addition of Port injection.

    That’s huge. Taking Toyota’s lead and eliminating the issue of buildup on the valves. Makes a lot more sense than Ford’s current fix (head replacement).

    • 0 avatar
      redmondjp

      Yes, this cannot be emphasized enough. My mechanic friend took an entire weekend’s worth of tech classes recently and the horror stories he heard about gasoline direct injection were enough to scare me away for a long time. Buyer beware . . .

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit33

      Does anybody know if this dual-injection system is in response to the future tightening of the particulate limits with the adoption of LEV-III?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • MyNameisGroot: Indeed. I’ve owned GoodYear, Michelin, Cooper and Continental – and by far, the...
  • Slawek: I ordered BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO. These should be good for Summer and Winter driving.
  • sgeffe: Or alternatively, for whatever reason, if you’re watching something online via a streaming service, or even...
  • Lou_BC: Anti-infidel’s and Russian Ransomware Hackers would have a field day with this as well.
  • Lou_BC: @FreedMike – LOL. Awesome.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber