Spied! Underhood Photos of the 2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost V-6

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

Last week, Ford officially introduced the all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 for the 2011 Ford F-150 by showing a cutaway of the technically advanced six-cylinder mounted on an engine stand. But if you wondered what the 3.5 might look like fully dressed in an F-150, our spies have snapped the first photos.

These underhood shots show the powerful EcoBoost engine sitting at home in the engine bay of a test F-150. The large plastic cover that masks its composite intake manifold is stamped with “3.5L V6” and “EcoBoost.” Interestingly, the cover also has four deep grooves on each side, which cosmetically hints it’s a V-8 engine with only a quick glance. A subliminal message from Ford?

Spied-eb-35-2

The gasoline direct-injection twin-turbo engine is positioned next to Ford’s premium 411-horsepower, 434 pounds-feet of torque 6.2-liter V-8 in the F-150 engine lineup. It’s Ford’s effort to shrink engine displacement for improved fuel economy while delivering tons of low-end power for trailer towing (up to 11,300 pounds) and heavy hauling. Ninety percent of peak torque is delivered at a diesel-like 2,000 rpm but continues across its wide gasoline rpm band. It also features twin independent variable cam timing.

Ford hasn’t announced power or fuel economy figures yet for the 3.5. We’ve previously said we expect it to make about 400 hp and 400 pounds-feet of torque, but we’re revising our estimate a bit to about 390 hp and at least 410 pounds-feet. We'll expect to find out officially by the State Fair of Texas in September.

Production and sale of the 3.5 EcoBoost is expected to start in the first quarter of 2011. It will be available for every F-150 model, like the high-end Platinum model shown here, except for the special-edition SVT Raptor and Harley-Davidson trucks.

Spied-eb-35-plat
Note the EcoBoost engine's turbo intercooler seen through the inlet in the front bumper.

Comments

I like it, however I think I will still go with the 6.2L V8... there is just something about the comfort you have knowing you have a V8 under the hood. As far as the plastic cover, I wonder if it is the same cover ford is using on the 5.0 V8, just stamped for the V6...seems it would make financial sense to use the same cover, just different stamps for the two engines.

If this Eco Boost thing works in a pickup application GREAT but I cannot for the life of me see how a turbo v6 is going to hold up to the abuse that most pickup owner put there truck through. I guess time will tell but I for one am NOT holding my breath on this one and for sure will NOT one of the first guinea pigs to buy!

@D57H: If a turbo I6 (Cummins diesel) can withstand the tortures of a HD truck, why can't a turbo V6 withstand the tortures of a half-ton? I'm thinking you naysayers will be proven wrong!

I am also very intrigued by this engine. I am planning on getting an F150 in a year or so and I know that if this engine turns out to be exceptional on its fuel economy I’ll be considering it very seriously.

Mike,
Thanks for the information. Along with the information on the sources are providing for the engine and the interior, have you heard anything about the availability of the electronic locker on trucks other than the FX4 and Raptor? I know it is avaiable across the board on super duty other than the dually. I think this would be a welcome addition as opposed to just the limited slip.

Is the cover camouflage or the final product? I was hoping it would look a little bit sexier. But with the hood shut it won't matter.

I don't believe those are 4 recessed dimples, if you look closely they are inside an outline with eco boost at the bottom and surround 3 raised areas per side signifying the 6 cyl.

Sorry, no subliminal V-8 Messages. 390 and 410, I think an ECOBOOST might be in my future. All the naysayers are against change. Same ones that fought against Fuel Injection over caburation back in the day. This engine will prove to work wonderfully in a truck as it has in other Fords, and go to FORD.com and find the video showing the torture testing this engine went through, i believe its under the video for the new police interceptor.

Matt.

@Brian: No comment.

Hey, um, Mike? I'll take a truck load of these F150's please. Thanks! Outfit them with Firestone Destination A/T's if you could be so kind ;)

@ fordmantpw

Dont even compare a I6 Diesel to a V6 gas motor. Diesel is a totally different ball game! With diesel engines deigned with VERY stout low bottom ends that can take the abuse for a lifetime that a turbo dishes out. Diesel also runs at much lower RPMS thus holding together much easier and to last much longer. I am willing to bet these turbo gas motors will not last much longer than the provided vehicle warranty without some type of major, EXPENSIVE repair! My guess is 100.000 miles before a turbo issue of some sort! Most people have no idea how to drive/operate a turbo motor and give it a proper cool down and in a truck application it will only be worse!

@DH57 Ford is using water cooled turbo's on this truck. No need to let it idle and cool down like the turbo's of old. This is one area they have tested, tested, and tested again and the turbo is designed for 150,000 mi before any work needs to be done.

Want to see an EB F-150 in person? RSVP here to join us for dinner (it's on PUTC!) before the State Fair of Texas. If we get 20 readers together, Ford will bring out an EB F-150. Sound good? You betcha!

http://www.facebook.com/pickuptrucksdotcom#!/event.php?eid=128079230571100

No need for a turbo timer then? I'm all for that.

Nice engine. Ford is really doing well. Now people can choose between v8's or this new ecoboost v6. I wonder what the gasmileage is in real world driving.

"Diesel engines deigned with VERY stout low bottom ends that can take the abuse for a lifetime that a turbo dishes out. Diesel also runs at much lower RPMS thus holding together much easier and to last much longer. I am willing to bet these turbo gas motors will not last much longer than the provided vehicle warranty without some type of major, EXPENSIVE repair! My guess is 100.000 miles before a turbo issue of some sort! Most people have no idea how to drive/operate a turbo motor and give it a proper cool down and in a truck application it will only be worse!"

The 3.5 EB has a splayed 6 bolt mains with forged alum pistons. Its built pretty heavily for a V6. I have no doubts it will survive 100k of severe duty work. If your looking to beat your F150 into the ground at max load 100% of the time you should be looking at an F250. Come on use common sense, no vehicle should be beaten at 100% load for its entire life. It doesn't make sense to do that to as expensive of a tool as a truck.

Hmmm the e-locker on a Lariat would be good given we need to go up to a Lariat to get the 6.2L.

Hopefully Ford has done their homework with the F150. The 09 showed some bad tendencies with the leafs and TCS at launching, NEVER MIND thats what knee capped the new SD 's perfomance at the HD shooout. You add 100 hp to a F150 and they better have their sh@t together.

@Meat

That’s another thing that doesn’t make sense to me. Why wouldn’t Ford offer the 6.2L engine with the FX4? At least make it available with the FX4 luxury package if exclusivity is the concern.

Or even FX4 Max Tow w/ Luxury pkg. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I guess Ford figures guys that like large V8s, like wood grain trim?

Not that (excluding $$$) a Lariat limited pkg in black wouldn't be nice!!! ;)

Now your talking!

They can't keep the front plate on one side like the test mules..... can they? Hope not.

Oh goody...

Now....we have a Taurus/Lincoln Taurus that gets V8 mileage with this limp wristed V6...the Flex gets V8 mileage with this limp-wristed V6, and now the poser mobile F-150 will get V8 mileage with this limp wristed V6.

Must be the way forward.

So 'P' will you still call it limp wristed when it kicks some azz on the other V8s currently offered by the competition?

Just curious?

I pretty sure I could get a EB to suck fuel like any 'ol V8. Pretty easy infact! But I'm also thinking if I take similar apples to apples levels of a '11 F150 w/EB and a '11 Silverado with a 6.2L and set the cruise at 75 and blast down the interstate for 6 hours, my bet is the EB will have used less fuel. (also insert Turd 5.7 or Ram Semi Hemi in that sentence)

I haven't personally drive one yet so a bit of speculation on my part, but hopefully Mike will answer the questions as soon as he's legeally allowed to. ;)

This is why the 6.2 is not in the FX4: "The Obama administration finalized the first national rules curbing greenhouse gas emissions Thursday, mandating that the U.S. car and light-truck fleet reach an average fuel efficiency of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016." - April 1, 2010

Everyone who voted for Obama and the libs in Congress have you to thank for the 6.2 and other engines like the diesels being messed with.

@Brian

In the SD, FX4 is no longer a trim but a package that's available on all models. That's my guess as to what is happening with the F150 as well.

That said, a 2wd STX Standard Cab Short Bed with the 3.5L EB would be almost like a Lightning, except it will be able to tow and haul significantly larger loads, get much better FE, and would cost under $30K. That would make for a nice commuter/tow vehicle.

@ Allen.

FX4 remains its own trim level. Yes it did change in the SD for 2011, however the FX4 did not sell nearly as well in the SD and the interior was not as unique as the one in the F150 FX4.

And I think a 2WD Reg cab short bed would already HOWL with a 5.0L.

@ Shawn

Great even more expensive to fix!!!!!

@mackintire
Great I will buy a diesel or even a 6.2 Gas and we will see which lasts longer under regular or heavy duty use! Dont matter to me!

@ D57SemiH

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=29657

You would think a V6 would be less cluttered that this.I pity the guy who has to repair this engine when the warranty expires.....Sure dont make service as easy as they used to.

@DH57: You think maybe Ford thought far enough ahead to build a stout bottom end in this V6? Come on...open up your mind a bit!

That plastic cover looks pathetic. My 2 year old can produce better looking stuff with his playdoh'!

Mike, I hope you guys are right and ford is throwing out a subliminal message. I would love a TT 5.0 or 6.2L V8. And now that im thinking about it your article about the new f150 engines did say the 6.2 would be reworked in a couple of years with the addition of direct injection, sounds like the perfect time to add a couple of turbos... Come on Ford, make me a 6.2TT! I know ill buy one if they do.

@FINEEDATURBO35TTDITI-VCTEB

Thanks for a Ford predicted durability tests link. We will see what the REAL world brings to these Eco Boost motors then wont we????

"So 'P' will you still call it limp wristed when it kicks some azz on the other V8s currently offered by the competition?"

It won't. It will break down...and Ford will ignore the issues that caused it.

Ecoboost is a gimmick. I much rather have a big 'ol V8 that just loafs along while creating tons of power than a high strung V6 that is like a humming bird screaming to create the same amount of power--all while using the same amount of fuel.

GMs "old and ancient" pushrod V8s are just as efficient as Ford's new "high-tech" boat anchors. That is why a TwinForce Flex gets the same mileage as a V8 Tahoe...only with 1/2 the capability. The Lincoln Taurus TwinForce gets the same mileage as the Hyundai Genesis sedan V8...both of which weigh about the same. The Camaro gets virtually the same mileage as the Mustang...which has a much smaller, far more high-tech V8.

Ford can't build anything that's remotely desirable. Their products are cheap and mediocre, their engines drink fuel, and they charge too much for their throw away appliances. As the latest HD truck shoot out proved...GM builds the superior truck...and this website was "underwhelmed" by the 6.2 V8 in the Super Doody.

Took me a second to find out why the front bumper has two different pieces of black trim on it - this is the same way the spy photo from the spring was. The trim on the drivers side is not actually trim, it is the front license tag holder. Notice the bolt holes at the top. Kind of weird placement, but I guess you have to make room for that intercooler there in the middle.

Mike - will all F150s be like this for 2011 or just the EBs?

Hey P did you forget the part where the 6.2L & trailer pulled away going up the hill on the 16% grade? Your sister didn't want to read you the rest? Maybe tonight if you ask nicely?

Ok I'll save her the trouble... here it is:

"If any test turned our opinion around about Ford’s 6.2-liter V-8, it was the 16 percent grade. We haven’t embraced it like Ford’s old 6.8-liter V-10 because we didn’t think it lived up to that engine’s legacy -- until we put it on this hill.

The 6.2-liter V-8 ran up the hill a full 5 seconds and almost 5 mph faster than its next closest competitor, the Silverado. Its rpm seemed to pick up faster than the Hemi’s or the Vortec’s, and it was so fast that it shifted into second gear during one run, though it lost about 1,000 rpm and immediately downshifted. During the other sprints, the F-250 remained exclusively in first gear to top of the hill approaching near redline. The whole run the F-250 howled like a muscle car, not a three-quarter-ton truck with a combined weight of more than 17,000 pounds."


Seriously, the underhood view will be much cleaner when it makes production.

@P you are a idiot, chevy is the rebuild motor leader, most chevys are rebuilt trannys/motors, ford makes a better truck 305's make great boat ancors, chevy arent as god on gas as you think they are, you gotta rev it all the time to keep it up to speed.

I wonder how well that low mounted intercooler will take to stream crossings and fording any water over the bottom of the bumper, not to well I'm guessing.

If it has more power than a 5.4L V8 3V, and gets like 8-10 mpg more... I'm in.

@MIKE LEVINE,

THOSE ARE NOT 4 DIMPLES, but rather THREE RIBS

Will 3.5l EB be reliable in the long run? Who knows. What is interesting is that others, like GM, seem to like the idea and are developing similar engines. Insideline has an article on how GM is developing a dual-clutch transmission with similarities to EB tech.

Rednecks who just HAVE to go out and install a dual exhaust when they buy a new pickup will hate this engine and won't buy it. The V-6 sound is much different. Wait... oh crap, I'm thinking of Chevy owners!!

This is fantastic!!! Im guessin all it needs now is a mechanic.

@Liam and Johny Boy- Its back to school tommorow. Try taking an english class.

@Jeremiah: I see the 3 ribs but the 4 dimples seem way more prominent to me. Just sayin'.

Now I wonder if it would be easy to swap one of these into an 09 or 10'

The biggest issue I think not having stout pistons or a stout bottom end, but when you're towing up a grade, and you're running high boost, and the coolant is starting to get warm would be knock. That's the biggest difference between a diesel and a gas. In a diesel you want auto-ignition (and it's built for it) and a gas you don't. So I'd be worried about high temps and if they have to start pulling spark (and boost) when it starts getting hot, I think the power output would drop quickly. I'm not sold on this until I see true hard towing done on this engine.

Tim,

Thats why the ecoboost engine uses direct injection to further reduce the possibility of knock. This is also why direct injection is much more useful on a FI engine than a N/A engine. The real benifit with DI is being able to run higher compression ratios with higher boost (higher pressures, higher temps) without knock occuring.

@U
U are wrong. EB will have not used less fuel than HEMI, because HEMI has MDS. So at 75 it runs at 4 cylinders ( 2.85L) and EB at full 6 cylinders (3.5L with turbo).
If I am wrong, prove it.

@ Zviera

Well if the Semi Hemi can run on 4 cyl goint 75 mph+ down the interstate... maybe you'd be right.

We'll have to wait and see.

I've been in identicle cuvs with and w/o "mds" on a run like that and the diff between the two was less that 1 mpg. But the ram could be different.



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 | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com