IL Track Tested: 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost Lariat SuperCab

Impressive numbers for such a massive piece of iron. I'm still waiting for this engine to show up in the Mustang.

Or, better yet, the next gen Fusion with AWD and a manual transmission. Fusion SHO, baby.

Mid range is great but you don't drive down the road using mid range.

Low end is where V8's shine and that why people love them in trucks.

When you are towing a trailer down the hwy you don't want to have to downshift a couple gears to keep the boost up just to keep up with traffic.

I suppose it might well well to urban drivers who don't tow or carry a load but even they will likely prefer the sound of the V8.

With peak torque being 420 lb-ft at 2,500 rpm it sure doesn't sound like you'd need to be downshifting much.

But then, I guess that initial start is where you might notice it. Starting off on a hill while towing something is when you might wish you had a V8.

Mid-6's is about as fast as any V8 on the market
And it should get 20% better gas besides
BD

If you need lots of low end torque, buy a diesel.

For the occasional towing adventure, I could see this truck being a good choice. My only question is regarding longevity. Will this engine hold up as well as a V8? A few of my friends here in Texas (whom happen to be farmers) have Fords with over 300,000 miles on them. They're required the basics (fluid and belt changes, spark plugs and minor tune-ups). Otherwise, they are bullet proof. Not sure I could say the same about a turbocharged engine.

That's really fast for a 5400 lb. vehicle. Very impressive.

They have the track performance part of it down but mention nothing about the whole working smarter thing with the improved fuel economy. Turbo engines have more things that could go wrong than a straight forward V8, if the fuel economy gains aren't there my working smarter would be the V8 that won't have turbo chargers and intercoolers to be replaced. I hope they at least have a sturdy skid plate protecting the bottom of the intercooler for when it may encounter something that could damage it.

Not bad. Dyno test anyone?

Hate the name EcoBoost at all, but more so on a truck. Not exactly rough and tumble sounding. Once this is used on the Mustang, they'd be smart to call it a turbo again. Unless you want geeky green ECO letters on your Stang that is.

faster than a civic si lol !

Given what the world is learning about steering feel, I'd like to see these data tables start to specify whether the electric power steering system is column-mounted or rack-mounted.

OK. But hook a 5,000 lb trailer to it and compare it to the 5.0. That's what we really need to know.

my uncle being a... well... shall i say a chevy only guy (has 6 chevy work trucks) just bought one of these as an extra truck and now uses it to tow his boat instead of his usual truck (bio diesle) because he says it feels better and smoother... which i find shocking since for as long as i've known him he's always hated fords and now he owns one... i think if i ever saw a dodge in his driveway i'd drop dead though... either that or my uncle moved with out telling me lol

Actually, I would prefer to have this for towing purposes. We camp quite a bit, pulling a 3500lb camper(dry). Most of the camping is at some high altitude with at least three mountain passes along the way.
With the altitude, I think this truck would be perfect in sucking in what little air there is left. Mainking it not try as hard.

I also would like to get this added to the fleet, at the very least to see if the mpg claims are anything near 15/21(4wd).

Yup, time for an F150 shoot-out. 3.7 vs 3.5t vs 5.0 vs 6.2
Get geeky with towing, fuel economy, dyno, charts, graphs, and dollars.

I'd probably go for the 5.0. Basic, reliable, V8 torque curve. Still a big step up from my GM 5.3 with 290 hp, 310 lb ft, which has never really felt down on power. 360/380 with a 6-speed transmission seems like, dare I say it?, more than enough. At least for my purposes - average sized boat or modest travel trailer. If I tow more than 5,000-6,000 lbs with any regularity, I really ought to get a 3/4 ton.

"Turbo engines have more things that could go wrong than a straight forward V8,"

When Ford started putting OHC engines in its trucks the GM and Dodge fanboys screamed that it would never be as reliable as a OHV engine because of more moving parts....that was BS then and the turbo argument is that as well. I read that the EcoBoost take rates are sky high, even surprising Ford.

Ford ran some tests when the eco-boost first came out showing how it out towed GM and Dodge V8s. Nobody remembers that? Fords gasoline engine line up is miles above GM and Ram and it shows in performance and sales. Take a look at the base engine numbers between the 3 and Ram and GM look really bad.

I wonder how this would handle extreme heat situations. Remember the problems IL had with heat soak in the (I think) Regal to too long ago?

Definitely needs to be added to the LT fleet since they are currently without a work truck (the Raptor is not a work truck, it's an off road toy that can do some work)

@gbriank:

Agreed about unknown long-term reliability. Ford may not be new to turbos, but they sure are new to mass-produced, cross-platform turbos. I think the EcoBoost F-150 would make a lot of sense for an around-town work truck, but for heavy duty towing and farmwork, diesel all the way. Still and all, I'd be happy to be wrong about the EcoBoost. It's a hell of an engine. Time will tell.

Nice numbers for a 2 ton truck.

@lateloop- I wish the next Fusion Sport would incorporate the twin turbo 3.5, but so far the base model will yield the base 2.0 4 cylinder in the Focus and a turbo 2.0 to replace the current 3.0 liter. One of my contacts at R/T says that the next Fusion Sport will again house the 3.5 liter, but will make close to 290 then the current 263 HP. The good news is the chassis will not share the Mazda 6 platform and will instead go with the Ford euro Mondeo with an all new exterior and interior to match.

Back to the truck. I have yet to test drive the new F-150, but the GMC Sierra Denali is fantastic with an interior which GM obviously paid attention to detail much like they did when they improved the upcomming Malibu.

Ecoboost engines are already showing some of the standard direct injection intake deposit issues. So, they'll probably need regular intake cleaning. Beyond that, outside of occasional turbo replacement (one of the biggest failure points on turbo diesels), the engine should be pretty reliable.

I hate Armor All
BD

@firstwagon:

"Mid range is great but you don't drive down the road using mid range."

This engine still makes 300lb-ft of torque @ 1750RPMS compared to 250lb-ft for the 5L V8. The engine peak torque arrives @ 2,500RPMs. The 5L V8 "only" makes 380lb-ft @ 4000+ RPMs.

"Low end is where V8's shine and that why people love them in trucks."

This engine still makes significantly more low-end torque than any half ton V8 from GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Ford.

"When you are towing a trailer down the hwy you don't want to have to downshift a couple gears to keep the boost up just to keep up with traffic."

How would this apply to a V8 when in your previous sentence you're boasting about the V8 has superior low-end torque?(Despite the fact it doesn't)

"I suppose it might well well to urban drivers who don't tow or carry a load but even they will likely prefer the sound of the V8."

So you went from 'Get the V8, it tows better down low' to 'Get the V8, it sounds better.'

Your comments are useless. The V6s account for 60% of the F-150's volume so what you suggest doesn't make sense.

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20133f46a779d970b-800wi

No need to get a V8. This engine still makes 300lb-ft of torque @ 1750rpms and 420lb-ft @ 2500...

Even the most powerful 6.2L from Ford "only" makes 434lb-ft @ 4250rpms and by the time it revs to the RPM, the 3.5L TT pulls ahead.

Your beloved 8 cylinders can't match that, sorry.

though the more i was thinking about this the more i was like wait im confused... i thought diesles naturally had more torque and that was what was needed for towing.... i could be wrong i dont own trucks / tow / haul anything... also fuel milage / cost is something else i ponder... he makes his own bio diesle and per gallon it costs him bout 1$ a gallon.... he has rouphly 500+ gallons on hand at any given time so now im really confused as to why he'd get this truck and use it over his other diesles.... maybe he's getting old... lol

bankerdanny says:
07:14 AM, 07/13/11
I wonder how this would handle extreme heat situations. Remember the problems IL had with heat soak in the (I think) Regal to too long ago?

I'm curious about this too. Being a phoenix native it has potential to be a real issue. I had a 2006 wrx. When it got into triple digit temperatures, performance really dropped. With that being said, Very impressive numbers in a fullsize truck.

If people who purchased trucks REALLY needed a truck they would buy diesel engines. I think most truck drivers are trying live up to a country image they have of themselves....I can't wait for gas to cost $10/gal.

If people who purchased trucks REALLY needed a truck they would buy diesel engines. I think most truck drivers are trying live up to a country image they have of themselves....I can't wait for gas to cost $10/gal.

If people who purchased trucks REALLY needed a truck they would buy diesel engines. I think most truck drivers are trying live up to a country image they have of themselves....I can't wait for gas to cost $10/gal.

Missing the Point???

Ford knows that most people buying their pick up trucks use them as daily drivers with little in the bed or on the tow ball. Every time fuel prices spike, truck sales drop off. So what to do?? Ford puts a V6 Turbo in their F150 to act like a V8 but use less fuel (say like a V6).

This report misses the point of what most truck buyers want to know. Can I have my cake (truck) and eat it to (get better fuel economy)??

So, Inside Line, what is the answer??

For those of you complaining about the lack of fuel economy figures in this article -- remember that this was a *track test*; it wasn't going to yield any useful fuel efficiency numbers.

EPA has the EcoBoost V6 pegged at 18 MPG, compared to 14 MPG for the 6.2L V8. The fuel cost differential is $862 per year, based on EPA's basic assumptions of 15,000 miles per year at $3.64 per gallon.

I tend to think that this *is* a smarter truck. Of course, it won't be favored by those who equate engine size with body part size.

Just because some people use their trucks as daily drivers doesn't mean they never have any need to tow. If you need to do occasional hauling, why waste money buying a second vehicle, when one truck will do?

Greenpony, it all depends on how much towing capacity you need even if it's just "occasional." If the towing capacity that is "occasionally" needed is low, a Taurus sedan, for example, makes a lot more sense. My suspicion is that the "occasional" towing a large number of people who claim that they need to tow are both less frequent and less weighty than they claim.

"If people who purchased trucks REALLY needed a truck they would buy diesel engines. I think most truck drivers are trying live up to a country image they have of themselves....I can't wait for gas to cost $10/gal. "

Who in the hell are YOU to tell people what they REALLY need? What a stupid comment......just who do you want to choose what people drive...the government, like Europe does with its disgusting tax rates?

Keep stereotyping....it makes you look really small.

I don't know this setup well, but it's fairly easy to improve fuel economy more by using alternative fuel mapping on turbo engines.

Simply hit an "eco" button (or whatever) and have the engine keep the wastegate open and not let boost build until the engine hits a higher rpm. The more you drive without using the turbos, the less fuel will be used. Then decrease the sensitivity of the throttle. An economy mode.

This technology was present in my 1988 thunderbird and is present in my 2008 Subaru Legacy GT (turbo engine). It does make a further difference, especially when cruising on the highway.

Sorry for the angry comment above but when someone "hopes" that fuel goes to $10 a gallon they are pure evil. Does that person realize what that will do to the economy and to poor and middle income folks all over the country? How about food prices? Jeeeezzzzz

A termendous achievement on simply the best truck in America. But for me, I must pass. While all the numbers look good, a truck is a work vehicle. Not a fine tuned sports car. I have no idea about durability, or price of fixing thing or how to when time comes. A work vehicle needs to be simple and durable. This is a nice choice, but no doubt will remain a play toy

Some info about how it tows:

"Doubts about towing comfort started to ease after we hitched up one of the trucks to a car hauler ballasted to 9,000 pounds...As we’ve previously reported, the EcoBoost F-150 is a firecracker when it’s empty. During the first drive of the truck last year, we clocked a zero-to-60 mph time of just 6.82 seconds behind the wheel of a two-wheel-drive FX2 SuperCrew with a 3.73 rear axle. Our unloaded truck felt at least that quick, as we’d find out later in the drive.

But we were most curious about how the EcoBoost would feel pulling a four-and-a-half ton trailer. In short, confident. The V-6 has a flat, mild exhaust note that doesn’t change much unless you’re at wide open throttle, when it sounds like an angry blender. Contrast this with the aggressive, macho sound we heard when we drove the 5.0-liter V-8 several weeks ago. Still, the EcoBoost had remarkably little difficulty pulling the double-axle white brick behind its bumper up to highway speeds on I-15 and felt every bit as strong as the eight-cylinder engine."

Some info about its fuel economy, towing: A 4x2 3.55 model

"Of course, we also wondered why we averaged only 7.2 mpg towing in the EcoBoost truck. We quickly figured out – as you can see in our detailed fuel economy chart – that the mountain climbs, windy conditions and consistent cruising speeds above 65 mph robbed us of the efficiency we were expecting from the EcoBoost engine. The turbos were often spooled up in tow/haul mode when the truck was holding a lower gear for power"

Not towing: 4x2 3.55 model

"In contrast to the truck and trailer combo, the unloaded truck amazed us with its fuel economy. Dropping back from 70 mph to 60-65 mph raised its gas mileage from 18 mpg to the low 20s without even trying, even when we were high in the Rockies where the air is thin."

Gotta say, very good acceleration numbers, better than with the 5.0 V8.
Of course, you miss the aural presence of that engine.

I know turbos and direct injection have remedied most of the performance/response issues associated with turbos. But I wish people would stop quoting manufacturer dyno sheets when comparing turbocharged engines with N/A or belt supercharged. Granted the F-150 is a heavy vehicle, and that will help add load to spool the turbo. But, you can't quote the manufacturer wide open throttle engine dyno chart, based on who-knows-how-much load to create boost at a low rpm. And that's just WOT. Part throttle is not accounted for at all. Sure they can dink around with the throttle calibration but if Ford creates boost at part throttle, I'd be surprised if the gas mileage was really better at all. I think the only time it can truly be superior is completely unloaded, which, coincidentally, is how a truck like this will be most used. So that isn't a bad thing.

But my point is, you have to either use a chassis dyno or actually test the thing, to determine how it drives, and not just at WOT, either.

@bodyblue

Do Triton motors still blow spark plugs out of their heads, destroying their ignition coils in the process?

Wow, these are some incredible numbers.

I love the passion with which people think about and treat their trucks. I often mistake trucks for work vehicles, but when people define themselves as a "ford truck guy" or a "chevy guy," there's alot of emotion, loyalty and passion in truck ownership.

I think even the Eco-boost would be overkill for me. I tow a 5200lb boat a few times a month, nothing that requires a dually with a twin-turbo diesel V8. Actually, the Honda Ridgeline (as noted by IL's LT a while back) could do the job. Also, I'm not a fan of "I have a V8" just to have a V8, I'd rather performance, packaging, and economy over a moniker to tattoo on my arm. So despite the V8s and the V6t, I choose a NA V6 that'll just meet my needs and provide the best 'round town truck (because I don't pull tractors out of ditches or need to shift the foundation of my house on a weekly basis).

IL - what about a comparo between a top of the line Ford Ranger (or equivalent) vs a V6 F150 (or equivalent)? both come with very different V6s, have *way* different tow packages and tolerances, but can be cross shopped by a weekend tower like me? Anyhow, thanks for the data on the EcoBoost - definitely the wave of the future.

Kevin

bankerdanny: "I wonder how this would handle extreme heat situations. Remember the problems IL had with heat soak in the (I think) Regal to too long ago?"

Ford liquid cools the turbochargers. I don't think Buick does.

church123: "Ecoboost engines are already showing some of the standard direct injection intake deposit issues"

Have a source? Ford claims they've solved that problem (I forget how).

Mike Mcgrath: "gottta keep the mouth open to air-out the front-mount intercooler"

Sounds like a potential issue with sucking up water.

0-60 in 6.5? Great. Now all the yahoos in my town that drive 90 mph on the freeway in these rigs have an even faster option. Dummies that don't even know where the back end of their truck bed is when weaving in and out of lanes. They understand how fast their truck is but can't comprehend that it doesn't steer or stop worth crap.

Good job on that powertrain, Ford, it really is impressive to me. Now could you stop selling trucks to morons? And pass the memo on to Dodge and Chevy.

+1 to emajor. Are the jacked up 6 feet in the air in your town too? They are here. And love to get right on my bumper, er, trunk lid when behind me at stoplights too.

emajor & atomic13-

Thanks for piping up, always good to see fact based hatred on IL. Lord knows this engine will make Indy 500 drivers out of truck owners. Not to mention they're the only ones that drive bad.

Oh, how if we could only get rid of trucks, then there would be no crime, be no hatred, nothing bad in this world would ever happen again.

Rant over.

This is an Ecoboost F150 with 162,000 miles on it out powering a brand new Silverado and Ram equipped with brand new V-8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_bbzRLdDM

No doubt Ford's EcoBoost V6 is one hell of a engine, but I still question the long term use of mass production of turbos that have flooded the market in response to boosting fuel eco, while still having V6 or V8 like power.

For many applications, I'm not finding many of the turbo motors really having much of again in mpg vs. V6 or V8s.

For instance, the F-150's, the 5.0 V8 is a cheaper option vs. the Ecoboost V6. The epa mileage for the two engines are about the same. I've read test results ,with trailors, where the V8 needed more downshifting vs. the Ecoboost, but, honestly, most F-150s sold are mostly used around town and that run to Home Depot or Lowes on the weekend. Not heavy towing. For that purpose, most folks will step up to an oil burner for that application and long term use.

atomic13:
How'd you know?

smilez,

Not sure I advocated for getting rid of trucks. Pretty sure I was ranting against people driving them poorly. I am commenting on my daily experience on the freeways in my area. Unless you drive your truck 90 mph, tailgate, and weave between lanes, I am not sure why you have a problem with my comment. You think it's a good idea to drive that way?

"Not to mention they're the only ones that drive bad."

Never said they were. But they sure do a lot more damage when they hit someone else. And driving badly increases the chance of that. Two recent wrecks in our area were caused by pickups rear-ending passenger cars at freeway speeds. Didn't have time to stop. Crushed both cars clear up to the driver's seats. There were children in car seats in one of them. No, they didn't survive. And no, that wreck wouldn't have been as bad if it were another sedan.

I drive full size pickups as part of my job. They are wonderfully useful and I understand why people own them. But they are extremely dangerous to others if not driven with respect to their mass.

Ford didn't do the Ecoboost concept first, but they did do it best.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the F150 Ecoboost
http://www.youtube.com/user/fordtrucks

The Ecoboost F150 running wide open at a NASCAR track
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxN3JnQ47b0&feature=channel_video_title

Sounds like no one here is a truck owner. Trucks are not about numbers. They are all about WORK! Trucks are expected to haul, tow, and work in abusive environments that will obliterate any so call super cars. All the guys that talk about horsepower ratings, NASCAR, and gas prices are completely out of touch. A truck is a tool that is there to help you make money...not some chick magnet like VW GTi or whatever. We will see how durable the Ecoboost will be when they are tested in the real world. Idling all day long in heat and freezing cold, neglected maintenance, cheap gas, dusty roads, rocy roads, no roads, towing and carrying oversized loads. Those stupid commercials show the engine breathing clean air, no mention of oil & filter changes, and probably running the cleanest gas. The lumberyard is nothing. So what, pulling logs up a smooth dirt road. They should have started there and run for 100K. Remember a warm engine running in laboratory conditions will probably have very little wear.

Great test and video! I'd love to see a comparison between this in a 5.01

"Ford liquid cools the turbochargers. I don't think Buick does."

I would wager that most OEM turbos are cooled with engine coolant. I believe the LNF is, which means the LHU probably does.

What a broad overreaching comment to say that if people really need a truck they'd buy a diesel. I've run a business for nearly 20 years with gas trucks of varying sizes and brands and have never wanted or needed a diesel.

For starters, you'd need to spend about $10,000 more than a comparably equipped light duty V8 truck. Try finding the cash to buy a fleet of those. For many uses a V6 will suffice.

Then there's that payback period. Not everyone tows 10,000 lbs every day. But you still need to tow a light trailer and haul moderate loads. If that gas truck gets 13 mpg and the Diesel 18 doing it, that sounds like big savings, right? Not really. The $600-$900 saved each year in fuel on 10,000 miles of use won't quite pay back the added cost of depreciation and interest on the more expensive HD vehicle. Plus you deal with the downsides of a heavily sprung vehicle.

Which brings up that comfort/driveability thing. I drive a HD truck personally now. I much prefer the ride/handling/braking experience of a lighter duty truck in most situations. The old Dodge ram was almost like a sports car handling in comparison. The Tundra was like a limo in comparison. There are trade-offs involved.

Lifestyle/convenience issues. They're noisy on the exterior. Ever try to hit a drive-thru window at a food place, dry cleaner, bank, etc in one? You have to shut it off to be heard usually. Ridiculous. (I forget, real men don't use drive-thrus and only eat bear meat).

It's also nice to know you can park your HUGE RIG THAT IS 40' long at any spot at a crowded gas station. With Diesel you have to be pretty strategic to find that green pump in some places and often have to wait for it to open up. All this is really relaxing when your rig is blocking incoming cars at the station. If you have ever tried to get into a specific spot at a station when towing a trailer with minivans and geo's darting around you'd know what I mean.

Time will tell if the turbo engines can handle long periods under load towing and hauling. If they can they're a big win. If they start developing big problems they could become resale nightmares 5 years down the line.

"Thanks for piping up, always good to see fact based hatred on IL."

Yep, stupid stereotyping goes both ways......we have equal oppertunity hate of both hybrids and trucks on here! :)

The bigger point is that Ram and GM need to get their act together quick in the gas engine department. Ford makes both of them look downright silly.

I think it is awesome that Ford has introduced turbocharging to it's trucks and ditched the dogged V8s of the past. However, I don't really understand all of the oohs and aahs about the acceleration times. The 2007 Tundra ran almost identical numbers with its 5.7 and weighed almost 1000lbs. more. Just sayin'.

emajor -

a) Where did I say it was a good idea to drive that way?
b) Of course they would cause more damage in an accident, they're kind of heavy. Of course if you have a whole city full of STI's, Mustangs, GTI's, EVO's with their coffee-can exhausts playing traffic slalom at 95 down a city street, that is never dangerous because they aren't as big, right?
Of course that would be generalizing on my part.

Any vehicle is dangerous when driven like you talked about.

"Now could you stop selling trucks to morons? And pass the memo on to Dodge and Chevy." Maybe you're not saying to get rid of them, but pretty dang close.

Yes taking moronic drivers off the street would not only make it safer, but probably reduce traffic by about 75%. But this post is about the performance of the EcoBoost engine, not about your frustration with dirvers in your neighborhood. Yeah, I know, blog's are free speech, etc.

I just....I, just need some caffeine. I'm not posting about the engine right now, hypocritical a little? Just don't like broad generalizations.

Scratch that. They weigh exactly the same. That's what I get for reading someone's comments instead of the facts. Either way, that's pretty damn fast considering speed is not their purpose in life.

cortezcortez -

The ooh's and ahh's are because this is a V-6 turbo vs the Tundra's 5.7 V-8. This can tow over 11,000lbs and supposedly get 15/21mpg in 4x4 guise.
Isn't the Tundra 13/17?

If it lives up to it, this is going to just cement their #1 status until Dodge and Chevy retaliate.

Hello everyone, I own an F-150 XLT Ecoboost. I can tell you that daily driving is what this truck does very well. It's comfortable, plenty quick and has great brakes. I've had it for 3 months and have about 6300 miles on it. I've gotten as high as 23 MPG for a 200 mile highway trip, but my overall average is about 17mpg most of the time. I run regular gas in it. I thought about a diesel, and drove the new 6.7 Power Stroke. That thing's a beast! But for me and the stuff I use this truck for, I couldn't justify another $10K in price, plus all the extra I'd have to pay in diesel fuel. I've got horses but I haven't towed a horse trailer with it yet. All that said, it's got the max tow package and supposedly an 11,300 lb towing capacity. I have no doubt it'll do everything Ford said it will do. This is a great truck for the everyday person. The torque it generates with just a little throttle is very impressive. Drive one and I think you'll be impressed too!

pas1964 -

Thanks, we need more owners to give personal experiences. 23 is great and 17 is better than most for daily driving. Let us know, not only how well it tows thehorses, but what the mpg goes down to.

topdog240: "For many applications, I'm not finding many of the turbo motors really having much of again in mpg vs. V6 or V8s. For instance, the F-150's, the 5.0 V8 is a cheaper option vs. the Ecoboost V6. The epa mileage for the two engines are about the same."

While it is true that the 5.0 is cheaper, you still need to consider that the 3.5T has 1% more horsepower, 11% more torque, and 5-11% better fuel economy across the board. That's pretty solid proof that the 3.5T is a better, albeit more expensive, motor.

greenpony, don't forget the torque also comes on sooner and sticks around longer.

sohcammer, in the case of the ecoboost ford outpulling the competition V8s, let's not forget they chose to perform the test at a high altitude for good reason. NA vehicles lose power at altitude. At sea level, the results would have been much closer.

Personally, I'm excited to see where this tech goes. Let's get the 1.6L ecoboost in a sedan already.

brn,
Fords brilliant Ecoboost is selling in record numbers in Europe,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShR30tryBXo
well I guess you can fool some of the people some of the time.

Kudos to Ford for giving Americans a choice. V6, Ecoboost V6, 5.0 V8, 6.2 V8. Choose what fits your wants "needs" and roll with it.

Kudos to Ford for giving Americans a choice. V6, Ecoboost V6, 5.0 V8, 6.2 V8. Choose what fits your wants "needs" and roll with it.

What Ford is doing here is a lot of PR work. They have to convince people that a V6 can be as powerful, or more powerful than, a comparable V8. They also have to convince people that a turbocharged direct-injection V6 can be as durable as a naturally aspirated V8. They also have to convince people that Ecoboost lives up to its "Eco" name with better fuel economy than a comparably-powered V8. They must be having some success, because their PR work has translated into sales.

But honestly, if I was in the market for a brand new F-150 today, the 3.7L V6 would be *more* than adequate for me.

What I would like to see Ford do is slot in a new Ranger below the F-150, and perhaps place the Focus 2.0L in there. An EPA rating of 24/33 should be possible. That would be a good, economical ride for very light duty truck users such as myself.