Ford has pulled another 2011 Mustang-style power-train switcheroo. In what's become a leitmotif of Ford, the recently redesigned F-150 pickup truck is getting so comprehensive a power-train overhaul that we're going to start thinking of the 2011 model as the beginning of a new generation despite its unchanged body and chassis.
And just as the 5.0-liter V8 and 3.7-liter V6 engines have revived the 2011 Mustang. Like the Mustang, the current F-150 has been let down by its two available V8s (4.6 and 5.4). The 2011 F-150, in fact, comes with the same basic 3.7-liter V6 making 300 horsepower at 6,500 rpm (estimated) and 275 pound-feet of torque at 4,500 rpm. This twin-cam V6 will deliver what Ford is calling "class-leading fuel economy," although the company will not quote a mpg number. A 2011 F-150 will also offer up to 6,100-pound trailer towing capacity.
If that Mustang motor doesn't do it for you, how about a version of the recently introduced 5.0-liter V8? The F-150's version, which will be available at the launch of the 2011 model, makes 360 hp at 5,500 rpm and 380 lb-ft of torque at 4,250 rpm, "class-leading fuel economy," and 9,800-pound maximum towing capacity.
As reporter earlier, the 411-hp 6.2-liter V8 is offered as the premium engine for the 2011 F-150 and has already gone into the SVT Raptor and the 2011 Harley-Davidson version.
The other big new is the arrival long-awaiting of the twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost motor for pickup use. Ford isn't releasing numbers on that engine. It's saying only that the turbo motor will get 20 percent better fuel economy than the 5.4-liter V8 in the 2010 F-150 (14/20 mpg according to the EPA for a 2WD). The EcoBoost unit will not be available until early 2011.
*Update: Tow rating for the 3.5-liter Ecoboost has been stated as 11,300 lbs)*
*Update II: 411-horsepower 6.2-liter V8 will be available in Platinum and Lariat trims with the Tow Package. These packages will be able to pull 11,300 lbs)*
All of these engines will be bolted to an updated version of Ford's 6R80 6-speed automatic transmission.
6.2-liter V8
3.7-liter V6
jeepsrt says:
09:27 AM, 08/11/10
Any idea if the 5.0 will be the base engine in the 2010 Raptor or the 6.2 will be the standard engine?
bodyblue says:
09:36 AM, 08/11/10
Ford is on some roll. If anybody thinks that they are not serious about staying in business they are crazy. The Ram is a great truck but the Hemi is not exactly state of the art any more and the Cummins, while a great engine is way behind the new Powerstroke in technology. And GM? cough cough.....nevermind.
cruiserhead1 says:
09:49 AM, 08/11/10
The 5.0 sounds like a great all-around improvement over the 5.4
I am skeptical of the V6's. It will be interesting to see how well they pull and how durable they are.
If you have to thrash them to get the power, it could get annoying really quickly.
On the flipside, the V6's are probably perfect fleet sales trucks for companies looking to save money.
half_ton says:
09:54 AM, 08/11/10
The enhancements to the powertrain are significant but the F150 needs to loose weight.
The 5.4L V8 was criticized for feeling anemic and weak so I shudder to think how a base 3.7L V6 will perform. I've already stated in previous posts that Ford's 6.2L is an even match "on paper" for GM's 6.2L but GM's trucks are a good 450-500lbs lighter so they have an advantage there.
pradden says:
10:28 AM, 08/11/10
@half_ton
What is responsible for the weight difference on the F150? I mean, what the heck is making it 450-500lbs heavier?
half_ton says:
10:49 AM, 08/11/10
@pradden
The design of Ford's cab has a lot to do with it.
Ford elongated their cab some 6 inches during the design. Some of the positive results of this was increased interior room and the flat load floor (no center "hump" down the driveline like you'll see in the Ram).
By stretching the cab however, that requires a larger structure for the cab frame which in turn leads to increased weight. I'm not saying the cab design alone is responsible but again, that is a major factor. You also have more componets and material being used in other areass of the truck; the rear suspension uses longer leaf springs to support larger payload abilities, the bed walls are a bit higher and the step integrated into the tailgate. All of these things collectively add weight.
throwback says:
11:02 AM, 08/11/10
"A truck equipped with the EcoBoost engine can tow 11,300 pounds, versus a towing capability of 9,800 pounds with the 5.0-liter V8, he noted."
That is impressive, especially when you add the increased mpg. Truck buyers are a stubborn bunch however, and getting them to believe that a V6 is superior to a V8 will be a hard sell.
3pedals_only says:
11:57 AM, 08/11/10
so 14/20 on a 2X4 5.4 2010 F-150 + 20% = 17/24. SWEE
greenpony says:
12:18 PM, 08/11/10
The current class leader for fullsize trucks is GM with 15/22/18. Or, if you consider hybrids, GM has 20/23/21. So in order to be "class leading" Ford would need to at least match one of those numbers. 17/24/19 wouldn't be out of the question. Although my less-than-ten-years-old, less powerful, more aerodynamic, and lighter weight Mustang is rated worse. *frown* It's amazing how far drivetrain technology has advanced in the last ten years.
smallblock350 says:
02:35 PM, 08/11/10
Gm need to change there line up with there 6.0,4.8,5.3. V8's. keep the 6.2. Gm please stop makin the 4.3 V6's. Damn been out since the 80.s
half_ton says:
02:49 PM, 08/11/10
@smallblock350
The 6.0L is no longer an option for GM. That engine was phased out for the 2010 modem year.
klapper says:
06:01 PM, 08/11/10
"...The Ram is a great truck but the Hemi is not exactly state of the art any more..."
State of the art is what? I believe this statement is nonsense. The hemi and Ford 6.2 both take advantage of the latest casting technology, alloys, computer machining, VVTiming, combustion chamber design tools etc. Both are clean burning and long lived engines. I think your point is that the hemi has pushrods.
Pushrods or overhead cams are essentially not relevent to the equation. What counts is: engine weight, size, build cost, maintenance cost, fuel consumption, area under the torque curve, and reliability. An overhead cam engine needs more complexity and is dimensionally bigger for a given displacement. And what does it give back in return? One thing only in reality and that is reduced valve train inertia.
Valvetrain inertia isn't probably too important to a truck engine, especially given the extra build cost the overhead cam engine entails. In essence the pushrod engine is a still valid engineering answer to the question: how can we build a powerful fuel efficient, cost efficient, reliable powerplant.
greenpony says:
07:53 PM, 08/11/10
Way to try to turn this into a boring "pushrod verus overhead cam" debate. *yawn*
klapper says:
05:17 AM, 08/12/10
"...Way to try to turn this into a boring "pushrod verus overhead cam" debate. *yawn*..."
Only boring for those who don't like to know the engineering detail. Boring or not hopefully you can see my point.
lostboyz says:
06:56 AM, 08/12/10
If only regulation was reasonable we could see some light duty diesel trucks, but no one is going to pay a $5k premium for it.
pflyer says:
06:56 AM, 08/12/10
Ford is to be commended for offering a smaller V6 in the base truck. The Ranger is noncompetitive and expensive, but a base V6 single cab short bed full size P/U is a very functional vehicle.
If the fuel efficiency and durability are there, Ford has the lower end of the P/U market covered.
The GM 4.3 V6 and Dodge 3.7 are ancient and down on hp/torque. They are reliable, but old.
As a Tundra owner (2008 5.7L) I say well done.
festus67 says:
09:13 AM, 08/13/10
Any hope to see a smaller displacement diesel in the F150?