Ford's Second-Generation 3.5-Liter EcoBoost is More Powerful Than We Thought

by Steph Willems

July 12th, 2016 7:13 AM

ford s second generation 3 5 liter ecoboost is more powerful than we thought

Ford clearly low-balled its power figures when it issued a sneak peek of the second-generation 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 back in May.

The newly massaged engine, which will get its debut in the 2017 F-150, was thought to gain 30 pounds-feet of torque. Now, Ford claims the mill will gain 10 horsepower and 50 lb-ft, for a total of 375 hp and 470 lb-ft — a torque figure that beats the F-150’s V8-powered competition.

Ford will mate the twin-turbocharged mill to its new 10-speed automatic transmission, which was the result of a joint project with General Motors.

Engine tweaks include a dual-direct and port fuel-injection system that delivers fuel to both the intake port and cylinder, and turbochargers with lighter turbine wheels and electrically activated wastegates. The EPA hasn’t weighed in with fuel economy estimates, but Ford says buyers can expect improved acceleration and overall performance.

The new EcoBoost’s twist easily tops that of its domestic competitors. A Ram 1500 with a 5.7-liter V8 makes 395 hp and 410 lb-ft, while the 5.3-liter V8 in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra makes 355 hp and 383 lb-ft. A move up to GM’s 6.2-liter V8 still isn’t enough beat the EcoBoost’s torque — that mill only boasts 460 lb-ft. The 6.4-liter V8 in the Ram 2500 makes 429 lb-ft.

Sales of the Ford F-Series could clothe and feed the families of a modest-sized country. The automaker has no trouble achieving massive sales figures, so an even brawnier EcoBoost will only help broaden the lineup’s appeal. However, the new mill does make the F-150’s available 5.0-liter V8 seem somewhat disposable. Come this fall, that engine will offer just 10 hp and 17 lb-ft more than its six-cylinder brother.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

#3.5-literEcoBoost #EcoBoost #Engines #Ford #FordF-150 #Full-sizePickups

Comments

Join the conversation

14 of 98 comments

Nickoo on Jul 11, 2016

Long live the v8. The v8 is dead.

Like Reply
- See 9 previous
- Highdesertcat on Jul 11, 2016
  
  nickoo, I would mourn the demise of the V8, were it to happen during my lifetime.
  
  Like
- Frozenman on Jul 11, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat If Ford gave the 5.0L the eco-boost treatment all would be well in the world.
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Jul 12, 2016
  
  frozenman, yeah, giving the Ford 5.0L twin turbos would be something, but also unnecessarily more complicated and involved. My opinion, the best normally aspirated V8 currently on the market is the Tundra's magnificent all-aluminum, 32-valve, DOHC, 5.7L V8. It's the Rolex of V8 engines for common people like me. Now the Ferrari 40-valve V8 and the Ferrari V12, along with the BMW V12 are the most sophisticated engines on the planet, but how many people can afford to buy one of those?
  
  Like
- Art Vandelay on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat The Tundra's 5.7 is excellent at turning fuel into exhaust, that is for sure. It is likely very reliable but so are all of the others by objective standards. Glad you like your truck though but there are some pretty darned good NA V8's out there from all the makers.
  
  Like
- Frylock350 on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat Its funny that you use Rolex for your analogy. Did you know that a Rolex can't keep time as well as a $20 Timex? Turns out inexpensive quartz movements are several orders of magnitude more accurate than highly intricate mechanical ones. Same thing applies here. There's nothing inherently wrong with Toyo's 5.7, but the competition has surpassed it. The best naturally aspirated V8 is GM's 6.2L. Nothing else offers near the combination of performance and fuel economy. Under a Silverado's hood, it'll outrun a Tundra and use less fuel doing so. Under a Camaro's hood it can embarrass an M4. Under a Corvette's hood its a giant slayer.
  
  Like
- JimZ on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat it's so magnificent it makes less power and torque than the pushrod 5.7 in the Ram, and manages to get worse fuel economy. Go Toyota!
  
  Like
- Dan on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat "The best naturally aspirated V8 is GM’s 6.2L. Nothing else offers near the combination of performance and fuel economy." There are certainly no flies on the performance of the 6.2. But the fuel economy is entirely a function of the vehicles that they put it in. Take the snow plow front end off of a Silverado, give it a 2" body lift, 32" AT tires, and another 300 pounds of heavier duty running gear to move around and you'd be looking at 15 MPG no matter what's under the hood. Just like the Tundra which has all of those truck features stock.
  
  Like
- Heavy handle on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat Frylock, Last I heard, the most consistently accurate watch you could get was a lady's quartz Rolex (they do make them). The difference between cheap $20 quartz movements and expensive ones is that expensive ones can be adjusted. I find digital clock accuracy to be over-rated. My Subaru drove me mad, there were two clocks (radio and dash), and they couldn't keep within the same minute for more than a few weeks. One was slow and the other fast, so I averaged them to get an approximate time for the local traffic report.
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @highdesertcat Frylock350, keep in mind that Rolex was the standard of the world in timekeeping long before the cheap Timex could take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. And were it not for Toyo's 5.7, the competition would still be giving us pre-2007 incarnations of the F150 and Silverado, tiny brake calipers and 4-speed automatic transmissions. Hey, I've owned both a 1988 Silverado 350 and a 2006 F150 5.4. Why in hell would I want to go back there again? The reason I like the Tundra 5.7L so much started with my 2011 Tundra. Sweetest motor for a half-ton truck I ever owned, bar none! I like that 5.7L so much, I bought two more, one in the 2015 Sequoia and one in my 2016 Tundra CrewMax SR5-plus TRD 4x4. I found the V8 engine that I want for the rest of my driving days. And it's the 5.7L Tundra V8. However, if you want to give kudos to the 0ver-6L class of V8s, I would prefer the 6.4L SRT8 engine in the 2012 JGC SRT8 my oldest son gave to his daughter as a wedding present last year. Tundra's largest V8 for North America is the 5.7L. But if Tundra offered a larger displacement, yes, I would buy it, more than likely.
  
  Like
- Frylock350 on Jul 13, 2016
  
  @Dan, Here's the thing. Despite 300 lbs of "heavier duty running gear" the Tundra's capacities are no higher than the Silverado's. The Tundra is a fat ass. That "snow plow" can be removed in 10 minutes. I know because I took mine off just to see how difficult it is. Why is it a problem that GM (and Ford) put them there to enhance NVH and mpg? Seems more like an oversight on Toyota's part to me. The vast majority of pickups are not purchased to take offroad. Mine certainly won't see more offroading than a 2-rut road or a logging trail. So the real question is why isn't Toyota offering an easily removable mpg/nvh aid that the competition does? @heavy handle, My point was the Rolex is an ironic choice to use as an analogy for how great an engine is. Rolex sells on image and reputation; while its actual function is inferior to the competition. The opposite of the point HDC wanted to make. FWIW the most accurate watch will be a smartwatch; they're self correcting. @hdc, Toyota absolutely lit a fire under Detroit's ass and surely spawned the quick adoption of 6spds and engine improvements from Detroit. They just didn't keep the flame lit. All it would take is direct injection and a .2L bump in displacement and they're back in the game. However I've long held that Toyota doesn't really care to own the market; just to sell out their annual production capacity. They don't need to win; they just need to compete. I wish they would come out swinging like they did in 2007; its better for the market as a whole when everyone plays to win. I'm not brand loyal, when I buy any competitor has a fair show as long as they meet my requirements: 87 octane fuel (no premium/midgrade requirement/recommendation), E85 capability, ideally V8 power, brown/tan interior, and boxier styling. The HEMI 392 is a sweet motor; with all the Hellcat buzz I forget it exists. I still think its silly the FCA chooses not offer it in the half ton Ram. It should be the default engine in the Challenger R/T and the 5.7 should be dropped entirely.
  
  Like
CincyDavid on Jul 12, 2016

A Rolex is a pretty piece of jewelry with a mediocre timepiece built into it. I love mechanical watches but for accuracy you can't beat quartz. Cincinnati had the old Gruen watch company in town, and when they closed up in the 1950s, I'm told that many of their watchmakers who built their movements in Switzerland went to work for Rolex. I also read somewhere that Rolex bought Gruen's office space in Switzerland. That's your useless non-automotive trivia for today. On the subject of DI gas engines, the technology makes me nervous. There's something to be said for Toyota's habit of sticking with older technology...

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- PrincipalDan on Jul 12, 2016
  
  But even Toyota has quickened the pace of advancement. The 3rd Generation Highlander (2013 to present) debuted with the same old 3.5 V6 and new 6-speed automatic, replacing the ubiquitous 5 speed that they had used for a long time. In 2016 the body stayed the same but the engine got DI and the transmission became an 8-speed. For Toyota such a mid-cycle update is fairly radical.
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Jul 12, 2016
  
  @PrincipalDan Yeah, you're right, but DI engines can have problems of their own. For one, they are hypersensitive to the cleanliness and quality of gasoline used. And we all know that we have little to no control over what we put in our gas tanks. We have to rely on the honesty and integrity of the people that sell us our fuel. Too many horror stories on this board and others of people getting contaminated or under-par gas while traveling.
  
  Like