By on July 11, 2016

3.5-liter-EcoBoost-engine-close-up

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]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

98 Comments on “Ford’s Second-Generation 3.5-Liter EcoBoost is More Powerful Than We Thought...”


  • avatar

    When do we get this in a Mustang?

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      You deserve one just for beating BTSR.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

      I want the Raptor V6 in the Mustang. 450+ HP and 500+ lb-ft. Wait, I don’t want it in a Mustang, I want it in a RWD Lincoln coupe or sedan.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Adam,
        I would rather prefer the Lion in the Raptor. Much better off road and the Raptor will still do 100mph on a desert track.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

          I would like them to add a diesel version of the Raptor. I won’t argue about that. People would buy them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Zero” lag turbo’s and changes in torque means this engine is going to pull harder than the lion diesel. The only real advantage to the Lion will be mpg.
            The “old” EB 3.5 was not a high strung motor needing revs. Revving it high is counterproductive.
            The only real negative to the EB 3.5 over a V8 or even a diesel is compression braking. I haven’t driven a “small” diesel so I’m assuming that compression braking is going to be better than an equivalent gasser V6.

            I do agree that a diesel option is a good idea in any pickup.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Much better off road”

          nonsense. the torque peak of a GTDI engine hits just as low as a turbodiesel, with the advantage that the GTDI gets you a hell of a lot more horsepower.

          it’s those whistling snails which gets you low end torque, not diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        modemjunki

        The Lincoln idea would be neat as an AWD variant exclusive to Lincoln.

        Yes. I said it. Not content to only see the Mustang chassis with an independent rear, I said I want one with AWD, a comfortable ride, and a beautiful interior.

        It would be a car set apart far enough from the Mustang so as not to cannibalize it and might be the ticket to woo the folks who buy high-po AWD from the other guys.

        Ford is on a roll with AWD.

        Do it, Ford. Make something that I will want to buy as that “last car” when I’m getting ready to retire, you’ve got some time.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Hopefully after they recycle GT500 and Mach 1 then maybe resurrect SVO or Cobra and stuff that hair dried bent six in there.

      I wonder if the Cobra guys would have a cow if it didn’t come with blown V8?

      Also skip over Boss and GT350 since it would be hard as hell to look in between the cooling fins on an air to air intercooler
      while trying to go around a track.

    • 0 avatar
      olddavid

      Why would you want this instead of an eight in a Mustang? The sound of a V8 is as important to me as the power. I notice the addition of dual fuel injectors to avoid the carbon deposit problem inherent in direct injection. You have to give Ford engineers credit. Since the Intec DOHC V8 intro, they have built a smooth and relatively powerful high feature engine that lasts. I think the latest is the Coyote with 440(?)hp. If it is either/or on cost, I will always go with the familiar. My experience has been that they rarely require anything other than maintenance and the regular “Italian” tune-up.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Are the plugs any easier to change?

    I dunno if its even related, but we had a Ford 500 whos 3.5 required a bit of work just to reach the plugs. Had to take a whole wheel well apart.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Yeah…pretty significant changes in FWD and RWD packaging and no, this 3.5 is all new and I believe shares nothing with the old duratec 3.5 or even last year’s ecoboost 3.5. Think it is closer in tech to the 2.7 ecoboost.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I dunno, looking at that photo it still has a 1-pc aluminum engine block. The 2.7EB has a CG iron block with an aluminum lower skirt/main cradle.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I thought this motor used a CGI block as well, but apparently not. I wish the 2.7 had gotten the port injection too…that is really the only thing I worry about at all on mine.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      And if you liked the 500, you should have tried the Yamaha headed V6 in the original SHO!

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      If it’s the Five Hundred, that had the 3.0, which was very hard to work on.

      Edit: At least my 500 had the 3.0, which caused great pains when replacing them. The Taurus/Sable since 2008 had the 3.5, which is easier.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      The duratec 3.7 in RWD applications needs the intake manifold to be removed to access the spark plugs. For what it’s worth MB’s 276 needs this as well. From google images it looks like the 3.5 EB’s plugs are easily accessed once the engine cover is removed.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        Oh yay, not as awkward as a Ford 500, but still a bit silly.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        On the 276 it’s not the intake manifold. It’s just an upper plenum that is removed with two nuts. You are supposed to replace the 6 seals at the intake manifold. The worst thing on the 276 is the wires sticking to the plugs. If you are the first one removing the wires, be sure you have a new set ready. Mercedes has updated the service instructions to add their own special dielectric grease to the plug boots.The torque is also very critical since you have to properly index the electrode to the fuel injector.

  • avatar

    If they could make it sound like the Boss 302 I could own one.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Blessed are the torque-makers, they shall inherit the earth.

  • avatar
    Dan

    “Come this fall, that engine will offer just 10 hp and 17 lb-ft more than its six-cylinder brother.”

    If Ford sold a F-150 with a V8 that made 487 torques I would have bought one.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “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.”

      I wish I had one of those in my F250.

      Because that beats the pants off my 5.4L, and honestly I can’t imagine – despite people talking fearfully about it – that the new 3.5EB will be any *more* of a self-destroying POS than the 3V Triton is/was.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    TORQUE… RAM… TOUGH LIKE A ROCK…..

    Can they chop this in half and put it in the next Fiesta ST? 4 cylinders sound so boring.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    I know I’m old school but still taking time to comprehend a cross section where the heads are bigger than the block.

    • 0 avatar
      CarnotCycle

      The outsized head and tiny block aesthetic is good indicator of what modern ICE is becoming – a gas turbine with a complex hybrid compressor/combustor; a different scheme to get the same high mass-flow heat-cycle pump than the increasingly illegal property of displacement.

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Since the quality bearings for turbines are becoming more reasonable, I’m surprised that nobody is considering a production gas turbine. The biggest factor in killing the turbine concepts in the 60s was the manufacturing costs, especially the bearings. Modern CNC machining and composite components should be able to bring the price in line. Especially considering every new engine has a small turbine attached to it anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          no, the real killer for gas turbines is that they effectively have a variable compression ratio, so their efficiency at anything less than 100% output power is disgusting. plus, even at 100% output power, they still have higher BSFC than a gasoline piston engine (and way higher than a diesel.)

          turbines have their place in applications where you need a lot of output power from a small, lightweight engine. Fuel efficient they are not.

        • 0 avatar
          indi500fan

          The big cost in turbines is the blades not the bearings, which need to be made of superalloys to take the heat (hotter >> more efficient).

          (My SIL is a design engineer for Rolls-Royce aircraft engines.)

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Ceramics. That’s the future of turbine jet engines. Both GE and UT/P&W are experimenting with ceramic blades. I had the article link but the page is now 404.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        not correct. you might have a point if the turbine was actually providing motive force, but (a couple of examples of turbocompounding aside) they do not. they serve only to increase the volumetric efficiency of the piston engine.

        the large size of the cylinder heads is due primarily to the need for a large angle between intake and exhaust valves. the greater you can make the angle between the intake and exhaust valves, the more you can shape the ports to be “straight shots” out of the cyilnder, improving airflow. This is why the 5.0 Coyote in the Mustang made 100 more horsepower than the 4.6 it replaced; the 4.6 3V heads had intake ports which were a straight shot into the cylinder, but the narrow valve angle meant the exhaust ports had to take a rather sharp turn from the cylinder out to the manifolds.

  • avatar
    Fred

    My old 1600 MG engine is such a lump compared to these modern machines.

  • avatar
    Grenade

    I wonder if they put the port injectors back in to alleviate the carbon build up on the valves that the first gen ecoboost engines had. Gasoline is a pretty decent solvent after all.

    Follow up thought: Does this thing have 12 injectors? We need answers TTAC!!

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      I’m sure that’s the major reason.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        but why only this engine? there are five other Ecoboost engines on the market.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

          Maybe because it wasn’t possible to redesign them all at once? The 3.5L is the oldest, makes sense that it gets updated sooner.

          C’mon Jim, youre better than that. That makes you sound like some of these guys who think a car goes from the drawing board to the assembly line in 6 months, lol.

    • 0 avatar
      davefromcalgary

      I just wanted to throw in my $0.02, I think this is a good move. I think combined injection for engine health is a good move and everyone should do some sort of action like this.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I think its more like 0.0154 cents :D

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          Lucky I’m not doing much cross border shopping these days!

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          Seriously though… Truck engines (to keep it topical) are powerful enough these days. I love tech but I’m also a firm believer that not all advancement is ultimately beneficial. GDI, in combination with the modern CPU, valve timing, and the like, provides more usable power band and better FE. However, studies have shown that its bad for valve health and also that it causes harmful particulate emissions. (I dont have links, this is just a friendly discussion).

          I would gladly take a bit less power, a bit worse FE, for an engine with tech one step back thats a bit more proven, and all the implications known. I mean, for what I want a truck for, towing a 22′ RV, the frame and GVWR will make more of a difference than pushing 400 hp. And I’d like knowing that my engine won’t sludge up.

          Just a thought.
          Edited to add: of course, with CAFE and the like, advertised economy due to magitech is more important. I get it.

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          28…

          http://www.kijiji.ca/v-view-details.html?requestSource=b&adId=1176398943

          Church approved if nothing else.

      • 0 avatar
        V4Rider

        Why not just a breather coalescer filter? Cummins has done closed crankcase ventilation with coalescer filters for years for on highway stuff and I’ve never seen one with intake valves as bad as a VW 2.0 TFSI or 3.5EB.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I wonder if Ford is beta testing these engines?

    When will they start to grenade.

  • avatar
    I_S

    “Come this fall, that engine will offer just 10 hp and 17 lb-ft more than its six-cylinder brother.”

    The torque figure needs to be corrected, the 5.0L V8 produces 385hp and 387 lb-ft. The new EB V6 will make 83 lb-ft more than the Coyote. The logic remains, though – buying the V8 is akin to buying a gas-burning pair of speakers; there is no redeeming quality other than the sound it makes.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    So what’s the verdict on these TT V6’s now that they have been out for awhile durability/reliabilty wise? Are they an easy 10year/200K mile motor? Meaning barring outliers is that what I can expect out of one without any major repairs. Love the all the torque they produce down low, exactly what you want in a truck.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      well…I guess I am not a true answer for this but my MKS now has around 77K.
      It drives like a dream. The power is unbelievable.
      But again, that is probably not the long term quality info you were looking for.
      And, to top it off and make many anti TT angry, it now is showing an ave MPG of 24. This is not a real number since my drives are 65 hwy/35 city.
      And I am really easy on the foot.
      I stole a peak at my sisters platinum F150 while I was in Austin…it was showing an ave 20 mpg. It is 4wd and pretty much used for everything around the ranch, including driving kids to school.
      Her truck has nearly 60K on it. No problems whatsoever.

      I have always used premium fuel, and I wonder if that prevents a lot of the build up folks on the internet talk about…plus I do drive a lot of hwy. I understand high speeds help keep the build up down.
      I think that’s pretty good.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        no, fuel grade has nothing to do with it. The build up comes from 1) the bit of oil which seeps down after lubricating the valve guides, and 2) the oil mist which gets drawn in via the crankcase ventilation system. since the fuel is injected in-cylinder, there’s nothing spraying on the back of the valve head to clean it off like there is in a port-injected system.

        now, I’ve not seen evidence of a Ford engine with a lot of build up; I’ve seen pics of valves with some starting to collect on the valve neck, but nothing as atrocious as some of the older VW/Audi GDI engines.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Thanks, Jimz.
          I didn’t thin the fuel grade had anything to really do with it.
          I wonder, however, if the abnormal amount of high speed highway driving I do DOES affect this.
          I only say such as I kinda recall forums where this was mentioned as a means of keeping these engines cleaner. Blasting at high revs was mentioned.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        If your sisters F150 is truly averaging 20 MPG that’s pretty darn good. But to me 60K is nothing for a modern vehicle and I consider something w/that kind of mileage still “new” for the most part.

        Wondering if anyone had any anecdotal stories with trucks that are up in the 150K or better range for mileage. If these things can prove their reliability/durability over the long haul I’d say Ford has a big hit with this technology in their 1/2 ton PUs.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Ya…I agree and that’s why I said it was not the info you were looking for.
          There really must be some high mileage cars out there now since the MKS came out with the TT way back in Oct 2009.
          There has to be data on this.

          But really, wouldn’t Ford have found this out in their pretesting on this motor?
          They had to drive it hard and long.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I am a shade over 20. I was up around 22 but summer hit and I started pulling my travel trailer more often. That is a big hit…like 10-12 with it hooked up.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      I’d feel much less nervous about buying a V8 F150 with 100k miles (say, for occasional duty ’round the ranch) than one of these EcoBoost jobs – the potential for nightmare repair costs is a big turn-off.

      It will be interesting to see where this goes – the used V8’s will likely demand a huge premium, while these will go to the crusher with a bad turbo.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Pizza,

        I’ve been reading this turbos-gonna-grenade cant for quite some time now but I wonder if it can’t be considered gratuitous mau-mauing by guys like me who gently drive everything they’ve ever owned and who, in my case at least, never tow.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          kenmore

          there is towing, then the is really towing.
          Seems my sister’s TT truck only sees light towing with trailer and mowers and stuff around town properties for care.
          But I would guess folks that do heavy towing will see issues no matter what truck they buy.
          Perhaps not the engine, but trannies must see the operating table often.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Since I have never desired to tow nothin’ after having to trailer backhoes and such on long ago jobs, I’ve decided to ignore all FUD about both turbos and trannys that I see on enthusiast sites.

            CR? Yeah, I’ll heed their cautions.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “Perhaps not the engine, but trannies must see the operating table often.”

            Factory transmission temp gages are the cat’s meow if you use your trucks to tow. I would never consider another truck without one. As critical to towing as the hitch itself IMHO.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    I’d still get the proper 5L. At least then I have a reason to get V8 level fuel economy and the engine will not be problematic.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      So, why do you keep repeating this crap?

      A) there is no widespread issues with the EcoBoost F-150s.

      B) the V-8 will always get V-8 mileage, the EcoBoost will get V-8 mileage when being worked like a V-8, and V-6 mileage when not.

      I know several people with EcoBoost F-150s and this has been the case with all of them. But, maybe if you post your drivel 16 more times, it’ll become true.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        I’m sorry the truth bothers you this much but if you do any amount of research, you will find a higher number of issues with the egobust engines than the proper 5.0L

        As for fuel economy, you are completely wrong. driven around town and to and from work, the egobust engines will get the same or worse mileage than the 5.0L. The mileage is pathetic.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Long live the v8. The v8 is dead.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      nickoo, I would mourn the demise of the V8, were it to happen during my lifetime.

      • 0 avatar
        frozenman

        If Ford gave the 5.0L the eco-boost treatment all would be well in the world.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          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?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Frylock350

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            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!

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            “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.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            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 4×4.

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Frylock350

            @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.

  • avatar
    CincyDavid

    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…

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      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.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        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.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lie2me: What the hell is wrong with you? Are you Q-Nuts?
  • s_a_p: I suspect that only the shell of those rank gas station stogies was ever smoked. Although the weapons grade...
  • CaddyDaddy: lIE2mE – See that dealer badge from the MEDVED group. Pretty darn close to Russian P.M. Medvedev. I...
  • PrincipalDan: As GM raced toward bankruptcy and the death of Pontiac shortly thereafter, dealers were being extorted...
  • Sobro: By the looks of it not a single part has been salvaged. From “Wide Track” to “Maybe...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber