• May 21, 2010
The 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost is one of the worst kept secrets out of Dearborn, and the crew at PickupTrucks.com have managed to snag some of the first shots of a SuperCab FX4 model undergoing testing.
While the changes to the exterior don't divulge much, the cut in the lower air dam clearly shows an intercooler mounted in front of the radiator.

The direct-injected, turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 is rumored to be rated at around 400 horsepower and more than 400 pound-feet of torque, enough to keep up with the standard 6.2-liter V8's 411 hp and 434 lb.-ft. of twist, while returning fuel economy somewhere in the range of 23 mpg on the highway.

Sales are expected to begin later this year or in early 2011, and it's safe to assume that the EcoBoosted F-150 will carry a slight price premium over its V8-powered counterpart.

[Source: PickupTrucks.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 55 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      Looking forward to a new era of full size trucks with good power and good MPG. I'd buy a f150 if I good get some decent mileage. I just hope this is just a sign of good things to come. I personally might consider a full size Ford Truck Again. Who knew?
      Richard Johnson
      • 4 Years Ago
      First
      On
      RACE
      DAY
      Read it & weep!
      • 4 Years Ago
      please name a few other 400hp engines in ANY vehicles let alone a 6000lb truck that have similar numbers and can carry a couple of tons and tow let say 8000lbs ( and thats conservative, as they sit they can tow up to 11300 right now )....so in that light it IS pretty impressive, plus Ford has a habit of sandbagging as of late....412hp Mustang anyone?
      • 4 Years Ago
      i know way back when towing was not recommended with a turbo or a supercharger, has something changed since then...and to the person who said something about the gm trucks having about 315 horsepower... depends on the year. the new ones have up to 403 horsepower and the torque is 417...if we are going to talk turbos and such, why doesnt someone get ahold of bentley's newest version of their 63/4 v8(that is what they call it, a 6 and three quarter liter)! it is a 412 cu. in. and with its two turbos makes 505-horsepower and the torque is 752! just remeber people, horsepower means nothing, it is the torque that makes the difference! the more torque you have, the smaller the number from 0-60... oh and for those who are addicted to sound systems, the bentley mulsanne offers a system with somewhere around 21-speakers and cranks out 2100-watts....yes you certainly pay a very high price, but not may auto makers can say their vehicles are hand made... everything from the hand carved wood to the hand-stitched leather...for the horsepower queens out there, the continental gt has performance models that produce clear over 600-horses... lets stuff that in one of these new trucks!
        • 4 Years Ago
        if horsepower is more important, then why is it the bentley mulsanne is almost as fast as the bmw M5(last generation, since the 5-series was just redesigned and the new M5 is not yet available)! the M5 had 500-horses and the mulsanne has 505, the torque on the M5 is only 383, whereas the bentley puts out 752 and can go 0-60 in less than 5 seconds? we are talking about one cars that is what, about 4000-lbs and another about 6000-lbs, if horsepower was more important, then that bentley should be more around 7-seconds 0-60... maybe it is the 8-speed automatic that is shared with its slightly smaller and cheaper version at audi, the A8- yes the mulsanne is on an enlarged version of that platform, just like the rolls-royce ghost is on an enlarged version of the bmw 7-series platform...the new up-comming M5 is even more powerful, i cant remeber what the torque is, i believe it is in the 500-range and the horsepower is it be 555... that combination will smoke the last generation with it 5.0 liter v10. the new ones will have the twin-turbo v8 from the X5 m...
        • 4 Years Ago
        Turbochargers have improved dramatically in ensuing years, both in efficiency and in reliability. This will be an excellent engine for towing, with a torque curve that is plateau flat.
        • 4 Years Ago
        No, horsepower is the critical figure in 0-60. HP and gearing. Torque at the shaft means nearly nothing.

        Remember, torque is just ability to do work, HP is a measurement of how fast you can do it. And when asking about 0-60, you are asking how fast you can get to 60. So HP is the key figure.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Read this a few minutes ago on PickupTrucks.com. Looks promising as it was essentially the inevitable. I'm looking forward to it. Will I buy one? Probably not. I use V-8s, V-10s, and Powerstrokes pretty much to their fullest if not more. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
        • 4 Years Ago
        If you use powerstrokes to their fullest, why don't you go and get a full commercial chassis? Like an Isuzu or MAC?
      • 4 Years Ago
      While I haven't looked it up yet, the turbo'd engine is probably heavier when you include all of the extra plumbing.... I'll see if I can find the weights and post them.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Is this a dedicated truck engine or is the same engine doing mid/ full size sedan duty and truck (plus towing) duty? Crank, rods, bearings, block.... that would concern me VS the durability of a truck V8 especially while towing heavy.

      Nothing against a V6 tho. I had a '66 GMC PU w/ a 305 CI V6, it was a long stroke torque monster. It had a 351 CI V6 big brother too for medium duty trucks. Damn, I loved the sound of those engines.
      • 4 Years Ago
      For those who want to know how turbocharged V6s run in cold weather, they run great. You are squeezing more air into the combustion chamber, therefore producing more power. And at altitude, my 87 Buick Regal Limited (same as a Grand National) ran like a champ, actually going faster uphill, like it was happy to run-run-run. In the winter in the Northwest, it fired up right away, ran great, the only issue was the occasional crank sensor problem (which meant you had to check to see if it was loose and not in correct position, then fix that so it would fire). The 3.8 liter V6 was marvelous. Faster than Porsches back then, faster than Vettes. You do have to accept that you will have a high maintenance bill each year. Changing oil at the right mileage interval also has to be followed religiously. Turbos back then seldom lasted more than 120,000 miles. I wish I still had mine. It also had a really great high-tech digital dash.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'd like mine in either Regular Cab or Supercab, with a short bed. I wonder how much lighter the Eco-boosted model will than the various V8 models.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Nice Pics.

      Latest Ford and other Models are also present

      http://www.carbroker.org/Top-Latest-Cars/Ford/index.php
      • 4 Years Ago
      I can get a Silverado that gets 22mpg highway already. Putting all that stuff in to get 1 more mpg? That seems kinda of against the truck mantra, which is keep it simple and cheap.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I have to agree.... why add all that complexity and potential failure points just to end up with a package that makes the same power and similar economy? It seems like it might make more sense if they were REPLACING the V8 with this; weren't they going to get rid of the 6.2, anyway?

        I did think of one reason you might want this engine in a F-150.... towing at altitude. This engine would stay closer to its rated power than a N/A V8 (and therefore its tow rating) at altitude.

        • 4 Years Ago
        People will be attracted to the V6 with turbos (since the EcoBoost is typically praised) and that it produces that level of powers. And if efficiency proves better, then no complaints need to be filed.

        But as for the "truck mantra," that kinda fell through around the turn of the century. More luxury-filled trucks are starting to be sold to the average consumer than the strip down models. People love creature comforts. It's becoming more fleet and commercial for the "simple and cheap."
        • 4 Years Ago
        @ alex

        Yes, you are wrong.
        A modern turbo'ed engine should have next to no lag, and chances are this 3.5L 6 makes MORE torque down low than that 6.2 V8 (depending upon how it's tuned of course).
        It should be essentially transparent to the driver what is under the hood.
        • 4 Years Ago
        believe it or not, there are places called "cities" where one would expect the gas mileage of the v6 to be decently better than a v8 counterpart.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The 23MPG is pure speculation by AB and the real target for Ford is actually 25 MPG highway to really distance themselves and gain big competitive advantage in the truck segment.

        And the power is way up from the transverse mounted 3.5EB in the SHO to 400 HP and 400 Torque comes at a very low (diesel-like) 1500 RPM... very impressive! It may also be released as a 2012 model, depending on the economy and if vehicle sales continue to rebound. (Same story for th enew Explorer...)
        • 4 Years Ago
        Wow, so you completely overlooked the possible rating of 400hp and 400lbft, with a highway rating of 23mpg. Your GM has what 315hp? And nowhere near the power curve this brute will have. Think before you post.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I'm with LS2LS7

        The difference between 315 hp and 400 hp is notable, aye, but if I encounter situations where 315 hp is grossly inadequate, i've failed as a driver and I don't think 400 hp would help me. So to me, I don't see the virtue of the power difference.

        Here is the difference to me, a small block chevy gets 22 mpg on the highway. A turbo'd v6 gets 23. If I used the truck as a work truck, or as a truck (as opposed to a suburban cowboy) I'd get the small block in a heart beat. I know that the small block chevy will be durable and reliable to a million miles so long as the oil is changed. However, I can't speak to the durablity of the turbos in the V6. Sure, they might last a million miles, but chances are, they won't. I can't have major things failing in a work vehicle, I need to know it will work. So if the cost is 1 mpg highway, that's the cost. I'll pay it.

        Though I won't ever buy a new truck, so take this with a grain of salt. My one qualm is, how do turbos fare in extreamly cold places? It's just for work I have to make a 2.7 mile trip every day from November to March in a Minnesota winter, some days, the car's coolant temp doesn't even register! Surely, that would kill a turbo? Turn it on after a cold soak to about 0-5 degrees F run it 2.7 miles though suburban traffic, then shut it off? Wouldn't that eat the turbos alive?
        • 4 Years Ago
        25mpg would make a big difference. If they actually deliver it (and not with a final drive that no one orders), it'd be worth the extra expense and complexity. IMHO.
        • 4 Years Ago
        i think airchompers is onto something

        i can't imagine short trips and cold (or extremely hot) weather would be a good thing for a turbo engine like this.

        hell i cant imagine this engine going 150k easily without repairs...i mean if it does happen thats great but ANY halfass v6 or v8 will run 150k without a damn thing besides oil changes, turbos seem scary to me.

        if they work thats great, but hopefully they dont start having failures like VAG's clusterf--- of turbo engines.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about this stuff, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

        to me a turbo V6 that achieves V8 like power in a truck is not all that useful. In a car, that works fine, but in a truck, the turbo V6 will will not match the V8 for towing. You will essentially get the power of a NA V6 off the line and then once the turbo kicks in you'll get the power of the V8. So basically the tow rating will be more like a NA V6 than a V8.

        Am I wrong???
        • 4 Years Ago
        I have to agree.... why add all that complexity and potential failure points just to end up with a package that makes the same power and similar economy? It seems like it might make more sense if they were REPLACING the V8 with this; weren't they going to get rid of the 6.2, anyway?

        I did think of one reason you might want this engine in a F-150.... towing at altitude. This engine would stay closer to its rated power than a N/A V8 (and therefore its tow rating) at altitude.

        • 4 Years Ago
        mact:
        Pushrod V8s are not know for their poor torque curves.

        MetikalSVT:
        Maybe. But it's also likely that this engine like recent Fords will come with a very high final drive and you'll have to opt for the lower one to get the truck-like results you expect, and that will hurt the mpg.

        alex:
        If the turbocharged engine is rated for continuous output (i.e. towing) it should tow as well as a V8 does. It'll have less engine braking, but that's about the only difference you would notice.
        • 4 Years Ago
        This v6 basically replaces a large v8 in power, having an even better torque curve than say.. Ford's 5.4.

        So compare it to the uprated v8 motor, not the base v8 of a truck of this size.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Real world fuel economy should be better with a turbo-6 than a V8. You won't always be in the boost (like on the highway) which would give you the efficiency of a 6 with the full power of an 8 when you need it. And this 6 is almost HALF the displacement - that alone will net you efficiency gains.
        • 4 Years Ago
        And in those places called "cities", 90% of the people who drive pick-ups don't need them and are only causing more unnecessary pollution, compounding traffic woes and screwing up parking for others since they can't seem to pull the things into a space straight...
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'm not sure why anyone is saying the 6.2L is going away. So far, the engine has only been available in the SVT Raptor and the 2011 Super Duty - it's not even offered in a normal F-150 at this point. The F-150 has the 5.4L, 4.6L 3V, and 4.6L 2V engines in the 2010.

      I've already been behind the wheel of a F-150 w/3.5L EcoBoost (2010 Dealer Intro Show the first week of May) and came away extremely impressed. We weren't given any kind of power numbers or fuel economy, but the engineer did hint at "Dodge Hemi" levels of horsepower/torque. There are other engines also coming for the 2011, but I'm not going to spoil the surprise since they haven't been announced by Ford yet.

      And assuming either the 23 or 25 mpg numbers mentioned are semi-accurate - that's with an engine putting out something in the neighborhood of 400/400 - compared to the current best Chevy (5.3L 315/335 @ 22mpg XFE-only) or Ford (4.6L 292/320 @ 21mpg) or Dodge (5.7L 390/407 @ 20mpg) that's a big improvement in fuel economy with huge hp/torque numbers.
        • 4 Years Ago
        its not, but it will end up being an option on the highline F-150s ( King Ranch, Harley etc ) It will also remain steadfast in the Superduty lineup. Around the corner is the 5.0, so gone are the 4.6 & 5.4 mod engines, lineup will be 3.7 V6 ( speculation there ) 3.5 eco, 5.0V8 and 6.2.....( there were also rumours of...GASP...a 4 cyl eco engine....evn i have a hard time swallowing that one )
    • Load More Comments