Spied! 2011 Ford F-150 with EcoBoost V-6

Spied! 2011 Ford F-150 with EcoBoost V-6
Photos by Brenda Priddy & Company

Ford is about half a year away from starting production of the first six-cylinder EcoBoost-equipped 2011 F-150 half-ton pickup, but our spies have caught a tester SuperCab FX4 model racking up the miles.

In the picture, you can see a turbo intercooler framed in the middle of the lower bumper.

The EcoBoost twin-turbo system runs at up to 1,740 degrees, according to Ford. An air-to-air intercooler is used to cool the compressed intake air before it enters the engine's combustion chamber, and water cooling protects the internal turbo bearings in the high-temperature operating environment. Using two turbochargers, rather than one larger one, helps fight turbo lag.

EB F-150 Intercooler

In an interesting reversal of tradition for trucks, it's expected that the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 (which also features direct injection) will be a premium engine for the light-duty F-150, along with the new 411-horsepower, 6.2-liter naturally aspirated gas V-8 that makes 434 pounds-feet of torque.

Ford has officially said the F-150's EcoBoost engine will arrive by late 2010 with improved fuel economy and low-end torque with a broad, diesel-like torque curve through most of its power band. Our sources say it will be rated at about 400 hp and more than 400 pounds-feet of torque. Gas mileage is expected to be at least 23 mpg on the highway.

What do you think? Would you buy the new EcoBoost V-6 or stick with a conventional V-8?

EcoBoost F-150


@ Dodge - yes I got it.... USA gallon - 3.785 litres
As opposed to a Canadian or Imperial gallon which is 4.55 litres. Canadian or Imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallons.

@ Bodenjager

Your friggin hillarious! Your actually going to drive your truck without any coolant for an extended period to a point where your old V8 would not have permenant damage, but the turbos would be. Fine line there. I would suggest in whatever scenario your dreaming of, you'd continue to drive even with potential turbo failiure. Just make sure Woody Harelson is shooting all of the zombies!

So based on your old military std, I guess you'd never drive any highway tractor, an ag tractor, any diesel pickup.... you sure limit yourself.

This test is leftover from old military standard requiring the Jeep to be able to go a specific number of miles without any coolant in the radiator. This is a survival issue.

@ Irwin - he probably lives in a neighbourhood where he gets shot at a lot. LMFAO

For those of you bagging on the reliability of the turbo, keep this in mind:

turbochargers have been used on commercial trucks for years, trucks that run 100-250k annually, for exactly this reason. Increase power without increasing displacement.

The turbo technology is reliable. Whether or not Ford's execution is up to snuff will be interesting to see...

Yep laugh it up.. Your speculative humor only shows how little you know. This is real world piratical medicine. Case study #1.. 1985 f250 traveling along a lonely Virginia highway at 3 am when the temperature started rising sharply. The then construction superintendent needing to get home to his wife in North Carolina. He had to try to find a location to get water. Stopping at a closed gas station provided a water spout but the radiator hose was busted. He wrapped his leather belt around it, duct taped it, refills the radiator. It works for another 70+ miles but he has 150 left, and now he can't find a gas station. The old 460 is getting really hot yet it is still there for him. Soon the old truck locked up.. He pulls over, pops he Hood, and revealed an orange glow. The starter wouldn't turn the engine over. He let it cool, tried again, and the old Ford fired rite up. He drove another 7 miles to a gas station to get water. This is a true story! The man my father. If I had to guess any of you who care about your son, your father, your mother, your daughter what would it be wo.

Worth to know that in a critical moment they could still go if they had to.? Why is this so hard to understand? That same truck and engine lasted another 180k miles, and had close to 500k on it when it was sold! You can have your 1 or 2 MPG. ..

Now I don't think when Ford engineers designed that test procedure back in the old days they envisioned Woody shooting at zombies. LOL Your so caught up in wanting a Turbo that you rant even face reality. That test procedure that you "LMFAO" at is what made Ford the reliable truck it is. Ford had a reason as did the military to demand such a standard. Yet you laugh at a test procedure that was invented by the greatest generation this country has ever seen. The only reason it is being changed now is to appease the fuel conditions. It never fails to amaze me at the disrespect people have for history today! Or for that matter our preceding generations! Both of you would be well served by a history lesson or two. .

Biker Dad.. I have the most respect for your response than any yet.. I do agree that Turbo can be reliable. This all started with a few folks getting jumped on for stating that the old v8s would be more reliable. The statement was fact. I jumped in, only drawing the attention off some good folks who were right but couldn't seem to win the debate. At this point you mite be wondering why bother? Well Daddy raised me to take up for those who need help..

@Bodenjager - my post was a joke, it was not meant to offend.
I've enjoyed reading your posts.
You know what you are talking about.

I'm not offended, I got a chuckle out of the woody thing. I love the blue oval.. Over the years I have watched them let some new designer with good ideas miss apply them ultimately shooting their self in the foot. Screw ups cost big.. My aggravation is what we have lost industrially in Detroit. I have watched as one golden opportunity after another was pissed down the drain. Take the Lincoln Ls for example. That car could have put Lincoln on the map! A BMW 5 competition. Someone thought it was a good idea to build it with only 252 HP. I remember the statement being made this is a Lincoln not a mustang. Someone at Cadillac saw the light and put the muscle in the CTS boom sales success! Point is the wrong engine in the right vehicle = pore sales/press/ a bad reputation. EB is a great engine, and a great idea but it don't replace n/a v8s. This could be good for Ford but it could hurt them if they start selling it as something its not.

Sure an old V8 is more reliable, thats fine. But in a uber small scenario.

If I told everyone I knew that had a turbo under the hood(powerstrokes & duramax etc ) that I wouldn't own one in case I ever lost my coolant and I'd be unable to drive... I'd be taken to the the local mental ward. But to each his own.

And I'm not a turbo "lover" (copyright Judas Priest) . I'd much rather have a 6.2L and give up whatever MPG but I still doubt I'll get the option.

I hope Ford don't take that option away, or try to sell this as a replacement for large displacement V8s. Turbo has proven to be more reliable in diesel applications because the diesel can handle load without using much throttle or boost to maintain speed. That means the diesel isn't heating up the Turbo much. A 3.5-4.0 diesel would be much more reliable as it could happily move the truck without loading the Turbo. As it stands this v6 would need some horribly low gears to do the work without the Turbo. So it will be constantly relying on boost even to go get groceries.

Why doesn't Planet Edsel quit beating around the bush and put a small block diesel engine in the F-150? A six cylinder diesel that can match the performance of the old 300 cubic inch in-line six and get 28 to 30 mpg on the highway? I'm so tired of hearing about the latest whiz-bang technology coming out of Detroit. How long do you really think a turbo operating at 1700 degrees is going to last? Give the people what they want. Over at the official thefordstorydotcom site they asked people what they wanted and 100 to 1 the people said they wanted diesels. So you know what Ford did? They will let you post an idea but they turned off the comments section so you can't discuss the issue. That's the mindset of management at the Big Three i.e. You'll Buy What We're Selling. That's why they are in trouble.

Damn straight! Their attitude is you'll drive what we tell you to.. Its like a gestapo communist mentality up there...

Numbers don't lie. 400 HP, 400 Ft-lbs torque and 23 MPG means it will be working less hard than a comparable V-8 with 350 HP 325 Ft-lbs of torque pulling the same load. Working easier, running cooler (turbo hot) and running more efficiently than its normally aspirated counterpart. I'm gettin' one!

Get you one, and learn the hard way that your presumptions are wrong..

I think the truth lies in the middle. It won't work easier than a large new V8. However some don't seem to grasp that technology advancements have really improved these trubo engines. DI and advancements in programming do wonders.

We'll know soon enough who was right.

As far as a diesel goes, you need to get out of <2007.
What advantage does a small diesel give you?
i) MPG when towing: OK if your towing 75%+ of the time why did you buy a half ton?
ii) Potential longer engine life: Given how long todays gas engines run this is not a factor for 95% of the population. It matter is your keeping yor truck for 300,000 miles.

When diesel was much cheaper, and prior to emmisions equipment killing diesel mpg, then it made $$$. Not now. You can't make back the steep initial investment. Pencil it out.

Plus with the kick azz gas engines 6 months away, the baby diesel wouldn't out pull em anyway.

wow this is only a turrrrbboooo,is nithing new on this system...they use this in europe,,,,,wow discovery the turbo...big deal.......ecobost clean name but old technologie...

I truely don't understand all the comments on picking the V8 over the turbo V6. Forget past development of turbos. That is an apples to oranges comparison. The PEAK torque curve on the EB V6 is completely flat (PEAK torque from a low 1500 to a lofty 5200rpm (because of turbo waste gate). This peak torque at 1500 will leave the Hemi, GM, and Tundra trucks in the dust. Check out the Dodge website. The Hemi is a high end motor which makes less torque below 2800rpm than their own 4.7L! The GM 5.3L has always been in last place for torque and will stay there I'm sure. As a turbo and engine engineering for 15 years, I know that the engines are designed MUCH better than they were for decades, where engines were kept for 25 years and modifications to architecture were made for improvements (such as for 3.8L to 4.2L V6). Now engines are clean slate (such as new Ford 5.0L, 3.5L, 6.7L diesel) and are engineered to last in the applications where they will be put in duty. The V6 will leave the 5.4L in the dust from the torque curve alone. This V6 will out tow the Hemi , Vortec 5.3L and Toyota with ease and get much better economy doing so (remember, getting rid of 2 cylinder pumping losses increases efficiency quite a bit.). Way too many opinions out there without the facts to back it up. It won't be long until 2.0L highly t/c engines will replace the bigger V8s. Only two things neoeded to make this happen, and the advances are almost there. The combustion control is getting close enough to be able to run 25-30 psi diesel like boost with a diesel block (CGI) and head architecture to make the gasoline engine last as long as a diesel. When people say gasoline engines will never last as long as a diesel they are flat wrong. It just has to be engineered for the longevity. Any gasoline engine CAN be made to last as long as one desires. It's just a balance between weight, cost, and performance.

Better have a great warranty.

The Ecoboost motor sounds promising but Ford will have to convince old school guys like myself who still subscribe to the K.I.S.S. rule. Turbo motors perform well and are long lived in over the road trucks, farm equipment, and industrial applications but in passenger cars their reputation is spotty. If Ford has done their homework and the Ecoboost lives up to the hype and the longevity is there I might consder one.

Nice to see the relatively high torque numbers for these engines. I was hoping for small diesels to be developed, but I guess I see Ford's strategy . . . that being that we have limited diesel refining capability here in the U.S., and that consumers (except your heavy towers) would typically bulk at the higher diesel pump prices. Look forward to driving one when they're released.

"If V6s are to replace V8s in the future then that's just one more American tradition that we have ben [sic] stripped of. "

American tradition = wasting gas so the vehicle sounds cool?

Then get a sound system and pipe some '72 Chevelle 454 noises out the tailpipe. If you need a V8 to do work, go ahead. But don't get one because of how it sounds.

Trucks ain't cars...they are for doing work, brother. Hard work is also an American tradition.

Let's see how this high-tech V6 does in a working vehicle, not a status-toy.

now just wait until they make an "eco-boost" 6.2L

every one keeps talking about diesel well lets talk about whats different from a Ecoboost compared to a diesel Ooo ya all most nothing hi compression ratio ya both have that direct injection both have that two. turbos ya they both have that. well whats different SIZE and the metals that they use diesel blocks cost a lot more. the direct injection cost more on a diesel do you see the size of them and the turbo cost more did you see the size on the diesel. well the diesel will cost you alot more but only give you a title better in fuel economy. but i am going to here from people "NO diesel give alot better Torque and MPG" well take away the turbo and direct inj. and the diesel will get the worst MPG and have alot less power. i think the new flex fuel ecoboost is great idea and will save alot of money for consumers

400 HP?? and 23 mpg? Why not 300 hp and 26 mpg or 250 hp and 28 mpg.

1) Jordan, The AWD system in the Flex is always on and does add drag. It does not go 100% FWD. There is always some extra drag in the drive train. We also went down the Durango comaprison road and what I found showed that curb weight and dimensionally they were very similiar.

2) KISS rule? On any of todays engines? Yeah. Right. About all the shade tree mechanic is going to do is simple bolt ons, oil and filter changes and part swaps. Lets face it, modern engines are getting way dependant on electronics and such and are just not as simple to work on.

3) Bodenjager - You are way off on your lag comment as well as your turbo charging statements. The twin turbo's do indeed allow for much reduced lag. Auto trannies can be programmed to function many ways and designed many ways. The auto in the F150 is likely not the same unit as found in the Flex or SHO. Gearing is not the same either. You are also ignorant as to what was done to the Ecoboost engine for th is application over other applications. The 4.6L and the 5.4L Triton V8's are not the same as the versions in the Mustang. Probably the same here as well.

4) Dodge - Calling BS on your mpg numbers. Especially if you are using the onboard mileage meter to give us what you are getting. You are trying to tell us your SRT10 Ram gets the same or better mileage than a 5.7L 2500 Ram or a Viper? To add to this you say you tend to accelerate quick? Jackrabbit starts are one of the biggest things that rob mpg economy. Your numbers might be believeable if you drive around town never revving above 2k rpm. If that's the case why own an SRT10 Ram?

this is only a 6 turbo,nothing ecologic ,,if you believe this wow go work for ford..is nothing new whit this engine...America ..Europe existed..

Ford is missing the mark on this one. People who want a full size truck don't care about the gas mileage. People who want a truck with good gas mileage don't care about the size. Put a 4-cylindar Eco-Boost in the Ranger!

@david damn - People who want a full size truck don't care about the gas mileage.

I disagree - when the price of gas spiked a few years ago, the local dealerships in my town could not give away larger displacement engines like the 5.7 or 6.0 or 6.2 V8's.
Diesel truck sales tanked when the new emission standards came out and mpg dropped.

Guys who work with their trucks have to suck it up because they have no choice. It cuts into profits and productivity when fuel consumption is high.

Many guys used to buy diesel trucks for work because they could see a return on investment with fuel savings.

There has to be a reasonable compromise between MPG and capability.

As one who's towed with turbocharged gasoline engines for 25 years, if Ford did it right, then it will work and last.

I just hope they don't make you buy an overloaded overpriced truck to get the engine or I'm not interested.

So I'm worried here.

Call me a traditionalist or what ever you want. But I'm am very worried that Ford is going to try and knock out V8's completely in their 1/2ton trucks. And I could be wrong, It just seems hard to find any solid evidence on whats going to happen with the 2011 and beyond F-150's. But I think that it would be a terrible mistake to kill the V8 even as an option. I feel very strongly that a V6 should ONLY be offered as a base engine in 1/2 tons. Or anything that weighs over 4500lbs for that matter. I mean gas V8's of today's day and age are more than capable of getting 20+mpg and having 400+hp. And that's not bad considering that 20 years ago a 5.8L V8 made 210hp and 325lb/ft of torque and got about 10-12 miles per gallon. I mean with Cylinder deactivation (MDS) and Direct Injection (DI) among the few items of technology that didn't exist in the (Mainstream) Automotive world 10 or 15 years ago. Its completely attainable to expect decent power and mileage from modern age small block V8s.

I've herd that GM's investing more money into a new Generation of Small Block V8's for GM cars and trucks. I believe it was Gen V V8's. That is the direction I want to see Ford going to. I have heard some rumors that Ford is going to be slamming the new 5.0L V8 in 2011+ F-150's but the evidence doesn't seem as concrete yet as the EB does. The 5.0L and 6.2L both make excellent candidates for the F-150. Even if the 6.2L was de tuned as it has been for the Superduty line up. I believe in Superduty guise it makes either 385 or 390hp and about 400 to 410 lb/ft of torque.
Even those numbers would put the Ford F-150 right up there with GM's 6.2L And Dodge's 5.7L Hemi, And the Tundra 5.7L.

I am planning on buying a new truck in about a year and I have never owned anything but a Ford, and I don't really intend to own anything else on that note. But if Ford does not offer a V8 of any flavor in the F-150's I think would be Forced to buy an F-250 simply to get the 6.2L I don't really want to pay the premium of getting an F-250 over an F-150, And I really don't need the capability of the F-250, But I' am such a firm believer of V8 power in large trucks that I just don't know if I could own an V6 F-150. And I know that I'm not the only one that feels this way. Their are many people out there who would much rather own a Naturally Aspirated V8 over a Turbo Charged V6 in their 1/2 ton truck. And even if the N/A V8 didn't get the same mileage that the Charged V6 got, It would still be more simple with less moving parts, (Hence lack of Turbo Charger). I would gladly sacrifice say 5 to 7 mpg for a N/A V8 vs having a V6. I've earned the money for this truck and I'll pay for the gas it use's.

I don't mean to sound like I'm raving but I'm just really worried that my favorite car company is about kill part of its heritage and tradition.

I don't think V8's are going away anytime soon.

However with the reality of the upcoming fuel economy standards and the possibility of gas prices going up when the world economy improves, reduced displacement engines are going to be the norm.

As Americans don't really want their vehicles downsized, the only alternatives are reduced weight and/or displacemnt. Engine friction is the largest consumer of fuel in a vehicle and that friction is linear with displacement. Boosting the smaller engines will give Americans the power they are used to.

Nate - Todays V8's are not the V8's of the 70's through 90's. They all have more moving parts. Multiple valves per cylinder, OHV's, OHC's, various forms of fuel injection, VVT, VVTL and a multitude of computers orchestrating their operation. While V8's are still very much needed and wanted, lets be real here and face facts that todays V8's are not the ones of old. Todays truck engines are not just large displacement lumps od iron. They are utilizing much technology from racing and other performance venues to do more with less and more efficiently.

Go look up Fords last gen 351 V8 and look at it's numbers compared to the current 5.4L.

maybe they have a new engine, but the trany the same garbage....ford always have trany problem Wye...

As far as an Eco-Boost F-150 goes, we have to be able to embrace new technologies; that's the way advances are made. You have to try.

I'm really worried that Ford is going to try and kill off V8's completely. I think they would be making a grave mistake if they did that. To many people myself included would just rather have a V8 to a V6. You know I suspect the 2011 F-150's will most likely have a V8 at least as an option and the new 5.0L V8 seems to be the most likely choice. But what bothers me is when I read articles online claiming that by 2014 Ford is planning on downsizing once again!!! This time offering a 4cylinder 2.5L in the F-150! It suppose to be able to make power with in the realm of Fords current 2v 4.6L V8 which currently makes 248hp at the crank.

I have no doubt that the 3.5L EB engine is a pretty sweet drive. I personally haven't gotten the opportunity to get behind the wheel of one yet. But I did read a comparison test of an EB powered Flex which weighs alot less than an F-150. And the Flex was recorded at 16mpg average. If a Flex which weighs 1000lbs less than an F-150 can only manage 16mpg I would speculate that the F-150 would be getting 13mpg or less. And that's if driven gingerly.

What really scares me is thinking further down the road. For the foreseeable future I can see the F-150 having at least one V8 as an option. Most likely the 5.0L. But what about 10 years from now? or 20 or even 30 years down the road? Will Ford even offer V8s then? Or will they be the kind of thing you have to the Henry Ford museum the read about.

I personally would much rather have a 5.0L or 6.2L Powered F-150 than an 3.5L EB powered F-150.

Dont be too suprise to see an ecoboost v6 diesel engine. Ford has said in 2010 there looking into a diesel in the f150 series. There are v6 diesel out there. This may sound like a radical statement but a v6 ecoboost diesel will get some pretty impressive gasmilege and proably around the 400lb of torque and Hp. Also unlike the gas ecoboost it will get the max torque at lower rpms and will hold up longer then the v6 gas engine. Also diesel runs cleaner then gas.

also forgot to mention but suppsoily ford is putting there 6.2L v8. just like the raptor had in 2010. The 2011 superduty already have them. but usually people get the 6.7 powerstroke diesel in the F250/F350

As I look at many of the comments here, I see why Ford is keeping V-8 options. There are those who are slow to accept change and new technologies. Don't be surprised if the EcoBoost out-tows the 6.2 V-8. Why? More torque available at lower RPM; peak torque at 1,500 RPM. No unaspirated gas V-8 can touch that. Ford would not be offering the EB if it did not provide improved fuel economy. And they know that it needs to meet towing requirements. Turbo reliability is vastly improved from the early days and much more capable. I have a VW turbo 4 cyl and it is amazing. 4 Cyl fuel economy with the power of a V-6. It has 115M miles on it and runs like new. The EB will do the same thing for the F150.

No replacement for displacement...when naturaly asperated. More fuel + more air = more hp and tourque. Bring on the turbos. It's about fricken time.

I must say I would like to see this myself I am the proud owner of a very rare truck that was built in the early 90s as a similar experiment I have a 92 gmc z71 with a 4.3 v6 and hd manual transmission 3.42 gears fully loaded I have had this truck for 14 years and have not parted for many reasons and 1 of wich is that thus far it is irreplaceble my in town mpg is around 20 highway is 23 to 29 depending on weather and driving speed i have towed over 13000 pounds behind this truck wich is insane to do behind a half ton and probably illegal and have never got worse than 15 mpg pulling all shes worth at 70 mph with the pedal to the carpet and this is technology of 20 years ago and i have over 300000 miles on this truck and have no loss of anything so for the non believers I must also add i own a newer v8 z71 5.7 v8 with 3.73s wich is a guless turd compared to the v6 as far as pulling power goes so my point is one if your towing alot you should by a super duty with a diesel but if a half ton suits your needs a v6 is all the engine you would ever need

Now if I could get that eco boost in a Ranger I would be happy. 2.3 and 4.0 is offered now, so a 3.5 would fit right in.

@Ken. You would be right about that. Towing with any turbocharged petrol(gas) engine is not a good idea at any time. Different with a diesel.

I think you guys are crazy your all forgeting somthing...... I'll take the 5.0l plenty enough power to tow what is needed. I would not pay a extra $3000 for the ecoboost. like my Grandpa use to say the more stuff you add the more thing will break.. KISS(keep it simple stupid)

Yep, everyone is assuming that the gasoline magically burns perfectly. Turbo will introduce more heat into the combustion chamber resulting in a build up of heat during towing. Towing can overheat a naturally aspired engine, and you want to make the problem worse with Turbo? By the way diesel fuel is way more stable than petrol or ethanol, that's why it works for towing. A EB V6 in F-150 is a in your face assumption that people who buy V6 powered full size trucks have no intention to do any towing. This marketing analysis is as ridiculous as those idiots that sed Jeep wranglers should be 2 wheel drive because they spend more time on the highway.

I believe this is because they aren't selling Rangers in the U.S. after 2011. The F150's with these motors are basically compensating for Ford's line of small trucks.

I don't think that the intercooler will last too long on the California freeways. You would think they would guard it a little better.
Maybe they will have some sort of protection for it, without hurting air flow.
What do you think ?

My 2 cents, I have read 2 pages of comments, but not everything, so if anything has been covered, give me a break. I see the EB engine as the next great thing, the horsepower and toque ratings are inmpressive. I am not a ford homer, but I can remember when the triton engines were launched and similar discussions were had. What's wrong with pushrods? if this tech is so good , why hasen't everyone done it? I think I can speak for most, weather you are a ford fan or not the OHC engine in a truck WORKED! Give this a chance, diesel guys will tell you these temps are not uncommon. Looking at the past with ford this is a step forward. I think in 10 yrs we will be saying, "why did we need all of those V8's for so long? the testing has been done, this is a solid choice.

the ecoboost they are putting in the f-150 is not the same that comes in the sho or the flex and if u have any doubt on the reliability go to fordvehicles.com and watch the torture test on the motor

Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us