Great Idea Ford. (unless it grenades LOL)

Although the doubters will still be doubters...

Will the peak torque be available down under 2k rpms like in the sho? If so then it should be better to tow with than any of the current V8's.

20% better mileage them a comparable V8 at the same power level, wins for everyone.

I will have to wait to see how the engine does after a couple of years before I can really decide. They can say all they want on paper but what happens out in the field that is the real proof.

Just "ecoboost" the 6.2! We don't care about V6s we want max power

The Ecoboost in Raptor is cool, and one question is longevity of course, but the big reason for the engine is fuel mileage. I mean, if the Ecoboost winds up getting the same mileage as a V8, why put it in there?

What I'm saying is I'm interested in seeing what the official mileage specs turn out to be. Not to mention what the price difference is between this and a gas motor.

Also, can't wait to see this motor in the production-model Raptor.

Putting the Ecoboost into the Raptor and it performs well, will make the poor selling Flex and other Ecoboost recipients a bit more desirable.

The big question is - will be durable and resistant for those off-road conditions? It's a twin-turbocharged non a naturally aspirated and that means potentially more trouble with engine...

A Ford Flex averages 15 mpg and its lighter than a F-150 !!

Remember it uses Premium fuel so,its not an economy engine,thus costing more than an engine running on lower octane !!

As they say it will be a costly premium engine on top line trucks !!

I would say stick with the 6.2,no turbo's,bigger engines last longer due to they dont have to rev up all the time,and Turbo's are troublesome..especially twin Turbo's..and a Truck needs a throaty V-8..not a wimpy 6 cyl sound...(unless its a Diesel with Diesel sound)...I just keep thinking Buick Grand National ,they sounded like a retarded import car !! Horrible sounding !! Horrible !!

A Ford Flex averages 15 mpg and its lighter than a F-150 !!

Remember it uses Premium fuel so,its not an economy engine,thus costing more than an engine running on lower octane !!

As they say it will be a costly premium engine on top line trucks !!

I would say stick with the 6.2,no turbo's,bigger engines last longer due to they dont have to rev up all the time,and Turbo's are troublesome..especially twin Turbo's..and a Truck needs a throaty V-8..not a wimpy 6 cyl sound...(unless its a Diesel with Diesel sound)...I just keep thinking Buick Grand National ,they sounded like a retarded import car !! Horrible sounding !! Horrible !!

i dont think the ecoboost engine can stand up what the 6.2l in the raptor R when they raced it in baja. the 6.2l has a cast iron block i dont think the ecoboost's aluminum block can stand up to what the 6.2l has done.

I have big hopes for this engine, and hope it is a huge success. It's good to see advances in technology like this! But there will always be the doubters. You know the ones, who think that the same basic V8 engine from a 1960's muscle car will always be the best choice in any situation, technology be damned!

The biggest hurdle here is longevity. If they have designed a turbo that can last 250k miles, this will be a great option. That's a big if at this price point, but only time will tell. If Ford steps up and offers a longer warranty on the engine (up it to 8 or 10 years from the current 5) then they could have a real winner. Without that extra security blanket, not a lot of people will want to take a chance on such a new design.

@ Dodge

The EB does NOT need/require premium.

@Dodge - First, the EPA numbers for the 2010 Ford Flex W/Ecoboost are 16 City, 22 HWY. Second, it DOESN'T take premium fuel. You also have to remember that the Flex is AWD...

I want to find out when the mpg benefit catches up with the cost premium. Are the average buyers ever going to get there?

@Brian, it's futile, he has been told over and over, but still insists on the EB requires premium, and when he babies his V10 going down hill, with the engine off, he gets ok fuel economy, but when you gun the EB engine (with premium), redlining it, while towing up a hill, you will use more fuel. Funny about that. Some people will always look for ways to prove their dinosaurs are better. LOL

Yes, turbos in trucks are terrible terrible idea...just...terrible. Direct injection also. Nope wouldn't want to but one of those in a heavy duty vehicle. I mean imagine towing, hauling, getting 300000 miles, driving it in 130 degree desert temps carrying 13000 lbs of armor using an engine with those parameters. Insane I tell yah. Good thing we have all these cyberspace experts looking out for our well being.
In fact If you hate DIT that much you should go out right now and check your truck to make sure it doesn't have this horrid technology in it and then beat yourself silly if it does for being stupid enough to buy it. Seriously beat yourself.

A little V6 in a big truck boosted or not is going to be a feat!!! Think about a V6 off boost in a big truck. Not so good. So unless they have such a loose converter to get the vehicle into boost as soon as possible it is going to be a turd.

In a race truck maybe OK where fuel economy and driveability are not of concern.

Regarding the Flex - if we all drive like the EPA cycle says we should then you'll see the 16-22 they list for the Flex. Drive it otherwise and 15 mpg is not out of the question.

These EB engines are premium engines targeting those that want to spend premium money for a smaller engine with good power and a chance for better fuel economy.

In a truck I'll take the more affordable larger displacement engines that when used like a truck is likely to produce better performance including fuel economy.

Those that need to worry about the EPA test numbers can do so, I'll take the actual on road fuel economy as my data.

Hmmm, sounds like a good way to add a little lightness to the front end.

I've heard that one Baja 1000 run is as hard on an engine as 5 years of normal driving ( correct me if I'm wrong - I know you will....Ha Ha).

Part of me wants to side with the guys whom favor the KISS principle when it comes to engines

but

Future emissions and fuel economy standards will kill any chance of a "simple" engine from existing.

Yep those Turbo engines sure are fragile. They have only been running them in rally cars and WRC for how many years?? LMAO

Let me see if I have this straight... I'm a bit slow.

Turbos are good in HD trucks and diesels which tow very heavy weights on a regular basis. Turbos last forever if they are in a heavy duty truck, BUT if you put a similar turbo in a gas engine then that's really bad as the turbo is too fragile. For some reason the turbo doesn't last in a gas engine but it lasts forever (250-300K miles plus) in a diesel engine. It must be some chemical reaction with the gas type and the turbo that causes this difference in turbo durability.

Also the EcoBoost which makes max torque at ~2,000 rpm all the way to 5,000 rpm (and reportedly more max torque than most V8's) is a turd. For some reason the HD diesel and even a light duty diesel has a far better power curve and performance than the EcoBoost even though the low end torque and flat torque curve are very similar. However a big V8 gas engine which makes less low end torque than EcoBoost and has max torque at ~4,000 rpm is the way to go - it'll have much better performance and power.

Also , a 6 cylinder Cummins diesel with turbos is great - it doesn't work too hard in a HD truck that'll tow 15-20K, but a 6-cylinder EcoBoost with turbos will just be working too hard in a light duty truck.

That all makes a lot of sense. I've got it figured out now. Thanks.

@ joe Here is an explanation. Diesels run a lower exhaust gas temp. Gasoline turbos run hotter. Hore heat is harder on the oil that lubes the turbos. Gasoline engines run much higher RPMs than diesels do. This means that the turbo's run at a higher RPM. Faster spinning is also harder on the turbo. This is why so many people are questioning the long term reliability of this engine, especaily in a truck application that will see much harder use. It is obvious you don't know all that much about engines when you compare a 6cyl cummins to an EB engine. I don't mean to offend but you are way out to lunch with that comparo.
@ kieth How many miles do you think they rack up on those ralley turbo engines? You think Collin MCrae drops his car off at the local dealership for a quick oil change in between stages? Good Lord man. Thats right up there with comparing a cummins to an eco boost.

Jordan - First off Colin McRae passed away some time ago. Second, the WRC's are running 4 cylinder engines and a pushed much further to the edge of their capabilities than a V6 Ecoboost in service in a truck. Even Ecoboost they are placing in the Raptor is tuned for power way beyond what the public will see. Your point on temperatures is will taken, but Ford ahs documented torture tests on this very subject and the engines held up just fine.

FWIW Joe was comparing how a Cummins is a 6 cylinder turbo diesel and is fine competing against V8 turbo diesels. Why can't a turbo'd V6 in a light duty truck compete with a small block? We aren't talking about the Ecoboost in a Super Duty. Also "Premium" usually means loaded, so don't plan on seeing the Ecoboost F150 being one with 11,000lbs towing or a high payload. Look more at an option on the King Ranch and Platinum.

The 6 cyl Cummins TD is 6.7L compared to 6.6L and 6.7L V8's. It's not an equal comparison at all to say that a 6 cyl Cummins compares well with TD V8's, so a 3.5L 6 cyl Ecoboost will perform well against 5.7L - 6.2L V8's. I think the 3.5L Ecoboost is an excellent engine for cars and crossovers, but I believe it will just work the Turbos too hard in a full size truck, especially if you ever decide to pull a trailer for any distance. Turbocharged diesels work very well in trucks due to the reasons Jordan L posted.

Direct injection changes ALOT. You are all assuming old school fuel injection for the Ecoboost. The torque curves are far different in this application. Think closer to diesel than gasser. Ecoboost makes power at a lower rpm than many V8's, thus no need to rev it up high and generate excees temps. If Ford is confident enough to tweak this think up to around 500 plus hp and run it in Baja I think it will handle civilain use just fine at 350 or so hp. Computers are wonderful things these days. One engine can do multiple applications simply by programming. Look how many shared engines companies use.

waste of money...y see one in the city what the f....you need this in the city,,wannabe...

@Wesley. If only Ford put the EcoBoost in the F150 first, then a year later, put it in the Taurus. Then you would have everyone going on about how the Taurus has a truck engine in it. Marketing is all about perception. I think it will be great in the F-150, and I am seriously considering getting it.

I guess I didn't get my point across very well. Here's my point. Lets say for example Dodge decides to use a 4cyl diesel at 4.5L but it makes the same power and torque as the 6.7l psd and the 6.6 d-max. Do you buy it? Its just as good, right?
As for the ralley car engines, they aren't required to last for years and years, meet emisions or fuel economy standards, have low NVH. If they did, they would not be pushing huge HP numbers. I have no doubt that a high output EB work make a good race engine but you can't compare race engines to street engines. Apples and oranges. Case in point Dodge 6.1 HEMI and 6.4 HEMI crate engine. 6.1 is street legal makes 425 hp. 6.4 is not emmisions compliant for new vehicles and makes 500 hp. Only 0.3L difference between the 2 but the 6.4 makes 75 more hp. Big difference. And thats what happens with engines that see use in street vehicles.

A lot of ifs and buts there Jordan, sounds like you're hoping the EB will be an unreliable POS. What is the structural integrity of this engine's crankshaft and pistons? Oh I guess none of that matters, all that matters is cubic inches right? It could be made of paper, but as long as it has more than 6L, it is tough and reliable.

@ Alex I really don't give a s**t how reliable the EB is. I'm a mechanic at a Dodge dealership. I drive Dodges and fix Dodges. If the EB is a POS that is good for Ford mechanics as it will give them something to do. It will have no effect on me. You want me to give engineering info on a hypothetical engine? You are reading between the lines (and there is nothing there to read). why don't you answer the question. Why do you just poke holes in theories, opinions, and ideas. Sounds to me like you have an opinion that is backed up by nothing more than hot air. You talk about tough and reliable. Fords preivious diesels in the Super Duty haven't been. And there gas engines have been having spark plug issues for years. If you want to buy a V6 that makes v8 power and gets v8 mileage and requires a lot of expensive tech to acheive it, go for it.

I FOUND IT. MAN I AM EXCITED!!!!
Here is the article that backs up what I have been saying about all the small turbo engine fuel economy.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/engine_displacement_downsizing-feature
Nothing wrong with a turbo engine. Just don't get sucked in by all the hype. Have a good night.

Jordan - One problem with your article. It is comparing hand picked NA vehicles to the forced induction vehicles. In other words it is a load comparison. Even the article states that Ford came out and said the Eco line will equal or better it's NA V6 counterparts mpg's while giving V8 power. From what I have seem they are correct. C&D tries to make a pointy but the fail. Why not compare the V6 or V8 Audi vs the boosted 4? It probably would not have made their article valid, thats why.

As gar as you Hemi comparison, you are way off. The Eco Ford is putting in the Raptor is the same displacement as the one they are putting in the F150. That is much different than adding cubic inches and removing emission components. Sure looks like the Eco is making well over 300hp reliably and they figure they can jump it to 500 hp and still have it survive Baja. The point with the rally cars is that their engines are production car based. They are tuned to insane hp and don't explode. That tech trickles down and is detuned for regular consumer reliabilty and durability.

BTW in all likelyhood the V8 versions of the F150 wiull be turning far more RPM to make power then the Eco versions. Which do you think generates more heat? Low or high rpm? IIRC the Eco's are not running very high boost either.

BTW Jordan, the spark plug issues were on the 2 valve head Triton V8's and V10. Since the 3 valve heads debuted in 2004 that has been a non issue. Nice try though.

Umm yeah, that article was backed up by facts LOL. I just wondered if you had any facts or any evidence at all to back your claims. Don't get angry at me for asking!

Also, just so you know. Ford never made a diesel in a Super Duty before the 6.7. But I still don't know of a Chrysler-built diesel engine. So far they have been outsourcing from Cummins, VM-Motori, Mercedes, and no doubt soon, Fiat.
But Ford has made some excellent diesels in-house from the DuraTorq range in Europe, to the Jag/LR 2.7 V6, 3.0 V6 and 3.6 TDV8, and soon a 4.4L V8. All were at the top of the game, very reliable and with the latest technology. I don't know of any that had any issues with them, I just don't know why Ford even bothered outsourcing to Navistar in the first place.

I'm just getting to think, that Ford wants to test the EB in real off-road (You know Baja) conditions to see if it ever makes a sense to put a (twin-)turbo engine in a full size truck when it could not stand everyday truck life... They introduce a bigger displacement Boss 6.2 gas engine for off-road/heavy duty, so it couldn't be something wrong here by making more displacement for harder dutys, insted of putting sme turbos to the 5.4 V8 or that!
You're American afraid of smaller turbocharged engines and it's not wrong - in Europe (where I live) scares this eco-frenzy downsizing some of us too, when we see 1.4 litres I4 producing about 170 HP (VW) or some Fiat 3-cylinders - of course turbos included!

@ alex and keith I gave you facts from an independent unbiased source. the numbers were obtained during instrumented testing on officail comparison tests that have appeared the magazines. BMW, Audi, and Mazda have all failed to build a small displacement turbo engine that get significantly better mileage than its NA engine counter part. Mazda as you know is mostly owned by Ford and seeing as how they had this engine tech first its probably safe to assume that Ford has developed this further. But they still haven't acheived the milage claims in the EB Tuarus when compared to the 300C. So what makes you guys think that they will achieve higher mileage in the EB f-150? You beliveve them just because they said so? They made similar claims for the new 6.7L diesel and when moter trend tested the truck they found that the mileage was not near what they said it would be. But I'm sure they are telling the truth this time.
As for the spark plug problems: you say that it was only in the 2v heads? The engine was introduced in 97 in 5.4l form through 2004 in the trucks, vans, and SUVs. In 4.6l form it was built from 91 to 05. And in v10 form 97 - 05. Given the large # of vehicles Ford builds its safe to assume that there millions of "tough and reliable" 2V engines running around out there. Its good to know that as of 04 it is a non-issue . I'll sleep much better tonight.
Nice try though.

Jordan - You miss the point once again. It was not unbiased. They cherry picked the match ups. I bet I can find NA models with 4 and 6 cylinders that offer close mileage and close HP ratings if I cross shop all manufacturers. You can't compare a Nissan to a Mazda and a BMW to a Mercedes. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Why didn't they compare Audi forced induction versus Audo V6's? How about compare the Ecoboost Fords versus the V6 and V8 counterparts? All the vehicles they compared have larger NA models in the same group, yet the article put manufacturer against manufacturer, not option engine versus option engine. FWIW I saw no data listed other than vehicle stats. NO sampling methods were mentioned and the article was in Car & Driver so I have no idea where you get this info was gathered from various magazines either. We went down the road with the 300C once before and the SHO did beat it in MPG's.

BTW I know of at least 3 200 MY F150's with 2V 5.4l V8's and none have spit plugs. In fact the RV forum I am on, I see it rarely mentioned. It does happen but is not as frequest as people like you would like others to believe. Kind of like Ram transmissions all being timebombs. BTW the 2005 models were the F150 classics that ran out the final production of the 97-04 body style. The F150 was completely redesigned in 2004 with the new 5.4L heads. The V10 followed suit as the V10 is the 5.4L block with 2 more cylinders.

Well Ford doesn't own most of Mazda, it once had a 40% share, which I believe doesn't count as most. Ford sold the majority of that.
2nd, what did ford promise for mpgs on the 6.7? and you need to give us the link to back that up.
3rd, out of all the examples you gave, BMW is the only one to have something similar to Ford's EcoBoost
4th, the Taurus SHO accelerates quicker AND uses less fuel than the 300C AWD Hemi.
5th, when you say failed to use less fuel than it's NA counterpart, are you saying the EB 3.5 doesn't use less fuel than the NA 3.5? That would be correct! They actually use about the same in the same application, but that's not what Ford said either. They say it uses less fuel than an NA engine that would put out that kind of power and torque.

In an F150, you will save what you lose in efficiency with having a larger engine. My 5.4 averages 13mpg. It loses efficiency with 8 pistons especially with the long stroke. The EB will be much better there. Diesel fuel has 50% more energy content than unleaded. So I won't expect to get diesel- like Econ exactly, but I won't have to pay an extra $5000+ for the engine and 20c/gal for the fuel either.
It's still going to have to push the weight of the truck around, so I'm not expecting 30mpg as you would with a diesel.

I know Mike has driven it, and partly based on what he says, I would expect 17-23 mpg, and MUCH better performance than the 5.4. - or 5.3 or Hemi.
I get 11 city/ 15 hwy. So that econ would be awesome to me.

@ Kieth you completly misread the the info in the article. The comparo was between the nissan and the Mazda, The BMW and the audi, and the Bmw to the mercedes.
Here is the article with the audi and bmw
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q2/2009_infiniti_g37_vs._bmw_328i_audi_a4_and_acura_tl-comparison_tests
Mpg is listed on the 5th page of the article.
Here is the article with the Nissan and the Mazda
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/08q2/2009_nissan_murano_vs._ford_edge_dodge_journey_mazda_cx-7_and_hyundai_santa_fe-comparison_tests
Of all the vehicles tested the Murano with the most power ful NA engine got the best acceleration and the mileage.
Here is the article of the BMW and Mercedes
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q2/2009_bmw_750li_vs._2009_mercedes-benz_s550-comparison_tests
Let me guess, you were the guy in high school that either bullied of paid other students to do your homework. And they did go engine to engine. The BMW/Audi compared are the smallest engines. The Nissan and Mazda, they compared the most powerful engines each maker offered in the class.
Again the Bmw and Mercedes where the smallest engines at the time of the article.
So there are 3200 engines out there that don't have problems? What does that prove. The fact is that the potentail for the problem is there in every single one of those engins because of the design. I see you brought up Dodge tranny problems again. Classy. That has nothing to do with our little discussion and proves nothing of the arguements you made.
As for Alex. The EB gets 16 city 21 hiway in the Flex according to Fords website. Given the F-150 is roughly 1000lbs heavier and less arodynamic I seriouslly doubt it will get better mileage than the flex.
You guys want to sling any more BS.
By the way I couldn't find the reference to Super Duty mileage that I metioned, so I retract that statement. Sorry. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. Not like you guys.

Come on Jordan, no need to get personal. It's just a friggen pickup truck. I wouldn't buy anything on day 1 anyway, so IF it doesn't get any better mileage, then I won't get it. But if people are buying them, and they get better than owners with the 6.2, then to me it's seriously worth considering. The best I have ever gotten with my F150 is 16mpg - That was from cruise control most of the time with a 65mph top speed, and average probably around 50mph. I can't get it on the interstate, and i can't get it around town. So if the EB F150 gets 16 city, and 21 highway like the Flex, I would be thrilled. Let's just wait and see hey?

Oh and another diesel that Chrysler did not make, but outsourced was the Volkswagen diesel engines for Caliber and Avenger (overseas models).

Ford makes the best 6 cyl Truck. 300 Inlint 4.9L is a Legend, and the 4.2L was a great motor is it was taken care of, and hauled wirth, i know a guy with 400,000kms on the original tranny, and 4.2L its a 1997 F-150 longbox.

Jordan - Look at the first page of the first article you linked. It does not compare vs same manufacturer. That was my point. You can't go search for an inefficient boosted engine and compare it with an NA that gets better mileage. Doesn't work that way. Do yourself a favor and look at mpg's on Fords NA V6 and look at the mpg on the Ecoboost V6. Ecoboost gets better mileage and more power. Pretty simple. Are there NA V6's that beat the Ecoboost? I am sure there are if I do what the magazine review did and look for a favorable match up. I was referring to the first ink you put up. It was one page. Not the other three irrelevant o nes you dug up that are just as irrelevant as the initial one you linked to for the same reasons.

I could give a damn what you think of me. Means nothing. You have been called out wrong more than once especially on your Ecoboost bashing but carry on with the same bad info. Feel free to continue.

BTW I mentioned Dodges old Ram weak tranny issue because it is just as irrelevant as you spouting off over a problem Ford had with it's Triton V8's over 6 years ago. Get the picture now? Probably not.

@ keith The last 3 links I provided are the proof that the mileages #'s obtained by C & D in the first link are indeed based on real world driving comparison tests. They are not just similar vehicles chosen at random to push aome anti turbo agenda. the proof is in the articles that small engines that make big engine power typicaly get big engine milage. I doubt that you actually read them through. I checked Fords website as you advised and yes the base engine AWD gets the same mileage as the SHO. All that proves is that the base 3.5 is not as efficient as it should be. If you only compare the various engines available in the Tuarus then its easy to get the impression that Ford has taken a huge step forward in engine tech. This is what they want you to believe because it will help them sell more of the premium engines that = more money in thier pockets. These cars just do not compete against themselves they compete with other cars in the same class. When you compare other vehicles as C & D has done you see the bigger picture. Try the same one vehicle comparo with all the engines on another vehicle like the F-150 since we're on the Ford subject. The base 4.6 (which is a 2 valve by the way, I just had to get that jab in) gets 14 city and 19 hwy. The 5.4L gets 14 and 18. Ford achieved more power in a larger engine and had no sacrifice in mileage. I can say from personal experience that poeple who have gone from the 4.7 to the Hemi in Durangos and 1500s have gotten similar or better mileage out of the larger more powerful engine. Seems like more powerful engines are more efficient regardless of how the power is achieved. You guys keep skirting around my question: what good is a small engine that makes big engine power and gets big engine mileage and uses expensive tech to do it and how will the EB provide better mileage in the f-150 than the Flex.

You still don't get it do you. All those comparo's you posted prove is that one particular vehicle beats out the boosted car. How about we toss in an EB Flex in with that crossover comparo? Would make it all V6's and it would make almost 100 more hp than the leader in the test and get almost the same mileage. But no, they are comparing them to a boosted 4 cylinder. FWIW the boosted flat 4 Subaru Forester gets better mpg than the winner of that comparo. In fact, the 4 cylinder STI makes over 300hp and gets the same mileage as those V6's. See my point? Probably not.

IIRC there are both 2 and 3 valve 4.6L BTW. IIRC also the 2 valve 4.6L is in the stripped out regular cab F150's. It gave more power with the same mileage as the previous 4.2L V8 so the kept it and killed the V6.

BTW in case you didn't notice, the current V8's aren't exactly outdated dinosaurs. So please save the whole "more complex" nonsense. The EB can't be that much more complex or it wouldn't be cost effective to put in to begin with. You act like turbo charging is this new arcane technology and it isn't.

@ Keith I see that you have chosen to disregard my question again. Is it because you don't have an answer? Lets swap in a Flex just for the fun
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_ford_flex_ecoboost_v6-short_take_road_test
15 mpg puts it at the worst in the test.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0910_2010_ford_flex_sel_ecoboost/index.html
17 mpg A little better but still the worst mileage.
You think that two turbs with there own oiling and cooling systems, direct injection which requires a second high pressure fuel pump and heavily reinforced fuel lines, and a electric water pump to keep the turbos from coking after shut down don't make the engine more complex or more expensive? The EB has the same technology that the Ford V8's use plus the extra hardware that make it an EB so yes actually it is more complex. I'm quite aware that the turbo is nothing new. Its been around for over 100 years actually. You forget that I am a fully licenced mechanic. They don't just hand these licences out either, it takes 4 years of shool and training. I doubt there is very little you could teach me. But thanks for trying. Now how about answering my question. How will the EB f-150 get better mileage than the Flex? Don't keep me waiting to long I'm excited to hear it.

SOME smaller engines are not as efficient as they should be, but that doesn't mean that you can infinitely increase the size of the engine without losing efficiency, which seems to be the point Jordan is making. If that were the case, I could have a 300L V50, and get 20mpg! For his example of a Dodge, he uses the the Hemi is no less efficient than the 4.7 (which is a false claim), but when talking about Ford, it's because the 3.5 is so bad LOL. Not very consistent there. Why not say the 4.7 is so bad, it uses as much as the 5.7? Ah but that doesn't tell the story he wants to tell.

So let's say Ford puts the 6.2 in the Flex, do you think it will get the same fuel economy as the EB 3.5? Is that really what you're saying? Jordan, you have been answered that question OVER AND OVER, the F150 does not constantly drive all 4 wheels. You can lie to yourself and say that makes no difference, but I have had enough experience, even having part time 4x4 uses more fuel in 4x2 than a standard 2wd uses. And that's not just from the weight of a transfer case, it's because extra mechanical parts are turned, causing an extra lack of efficiency. AWD is even worse again. If you throw a transfer case in to the bed of a 2wd pickup and just haul it around, your fuel consumption will not go down 2mpg!

Jordan - Do you even read the articles you link? The Motor Trend link states that the NA and Ecoboost get the same mileage but the Ecoboost puts out 93 more hp. Sure looks like V8 power and V6 mileage to me. You are also only using city mpg ratings in your last post. You are trying to skew numbers and fooling no one. FWIW I am not impressed you are a certified mechanic. Most dealerships require it. It does not make you a be all end all anymore than it does me. You are also choosing to ignore all the more than durable turbocharged vehicles out there right now. This isn't the 80's anymore. FYI direct injection has been around for quite some time as well.

@ Keith You don't seem to get the point I am making, maybe your just slow. I really like the part when you said my mileage claims for the 4.l and the hemi were false. Here's a question. HOW THE HELL DO KNOW? Remember your post where you claimed to know personaly of 3200 2v engines with no plug problems? That seemes pretty unlikely but because I can't prove you wrong and you really wouldn't have anything to gain by lying, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But when I draw from my past experience you say that I'm making false claims. How goddam arrogant can you be? You know more about my experiences than I do?
So lets get it straight. The 4.7L is made useless and obsolete by the Hemi in the Durango, 1500, Jeeps Grand Cherokee and Commander. I'll even go one step further and say that the 3.7L in the Dakota is as bad when compared to the 4.7L. I am a Dodge guy and I have no problem stating that not everything they make is gold. Anyone who says that everything there favorite company does is the best is, as you put it, lying to them selves. I am not one of those people.
What would putting a 6.2 in a Flex accomplish? Obviously it would get worse mileage due to the increased weight. I see yet again you have drawn from your own vast experience on AWD and 4x4 systems that AWD uses more fuel. I don't disagree. But to say that the Flex constantly drives all 4 tires is incorrect. In FWD based AWD vehicles the front tires are driven and power is sent to the rear when there is a difference in traction. This is accomplished by a viscous coupling or motorized clutch pack. It can be housed in the T-case or in the rear diff depending on application. So in good driving conditions it operates as a FWD vehicle. The decreased mileage comes from, as you said, increased drag on the drive train. Worst case senario: the rear drive shaft is being "driven". Everything else is just along for the ride.
Now as for 4x4 in 2wd its not much different. The front drive shaft and crown and pinion are along for the ride but C.V. axles and the spider gears are "driven". Given that all these same compenents weigh more on a truck. It will suffer mileage decreases comparable to an AWD vehicle. So adding the weight of the extra 4x4 hardware in the box wouldn't decrease mileage much if at all but the fact is the F-150 is still much heavier and less arodynamic. If you put that extra weight and drag on the Flex its mileage would drop. Thats physics. That is the real world.

My last post was for Alex. Sorry keith, was late when i repsonded and got the names all screwed up. I am done with this arguement. Its clear we will have to agree to disagree. It doesn't seem to matter what proof I show you. So we're done. I'm sure domething new will come up in the future that we can all disagree on as well. I look forward to proving you guys wrong and being called a liar for my effeorts in the future. :) Good day.
@ Keith Thanks for taking a jab at me in the chev hybrid story after I agreed with you. We rarely see eye to eye and I thought I should let you know that you need to learn how to take a comlement.