Rising Fuel Prices Create Rising Demand for Ford F-150's EcoBoost V-6

Rising Fuel Prices Create Rising Demand for Ford F-150's EcoBoost V-6

Ford’s all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 isn’t just a high-performer on the road. The fuel-efficient engine is also tearing up the sales charts faster than expected.

Sales of the 365 horsepower, 420 pounds-feet of torque gasoline twin-turbo direct-injection six-cylinder are 35 percent of all 2011 Ford F-150 half-ton pickup sales in April and currently account for 40 percent of new orders from Ford dealers, according to Ford powertrain spokesman Richard Truett.

What’s likely driving the rapid adoption – much quicker than we originally estimated – of EcoBoost’s small-displacement GTDI technology? Fuel prices are more than a dollar higher than last year’s prices and rapidly approaching $4 a gallon for regular octane fuel, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

A two-wheel drive EcoBoost F-150 carries an EPA rating of 16/22 mpg city/highway but can also tow up to 11,300 pounds when properly equipped – the same as the Ford F-150’s large-displacement 6.2-liter V-8 that's rated 13/18 mpg. That makes EcoBoost very attractive to new truck buyers looking for the right combination of power and frugality.

EcoBoost is also priced aggressively. It’s $1,750 more than the F-150’s entry-level 302 hp 3.7-liter V-6, $750 more than the midrange 360 hp 5.0-liter V-8 and $1,245 less than the premium 411 hp 6.2-liter V-8.


Makes sense. The ecoboost seems to have performance roughly on par with the competitors big V8's, while offering better fuel economy under typical driving. If you're buying a new truck with a warranty it's worth it to give something new a try.

I'd be curious to know what the percentage break-down is for the other engines though? I'm guessing the 5.0L is beating it overall?


I would think that you are right. The 3.7L is ''though a good engine'' is to obscure for most people. And the 6.2L is ''though also a good engine'' is to exclusive for most. And that leaves the 5.0L.

The 5.0L still holds my vote, and is what I'll be buying in Auguest. The Ecoboost is a nice engine for sure. But the 5.0L is more attractive to me personally.

General Motors should take note of this "development", and put 21st centutry trucks on the development fast track instead of shifting efforts to the highly competitive car market. Does the steering board on GM really think a truck owner is going to drive a car? Maybe in bizarro world! The profit margin is much higher with trucks than it is with cars. Anyhoot, as a long time GM fan, I'm impressed with what Ford has done with their engines and trucks. I'll be in the market for a new truck within the next year and GM is not on my list. Great work Ford!

well boys i finally broke down and test drove a eco-boost for the first time it was a XLT super crew, 3.55 rears, all i can say is WOW what a truck it handled so nice and had a perfect ride, i started it and left it warm up for about two minuets i did all city driving i was a little upset with the dealer ship they did not let me have it very long, we went about 20 miles and the truck was very fast in the take off after a fast take off i reset the fuel economy this was something else it never drop below 20 MPG's for the city trip was talking to the salesman he said they sold 14 eco-boost this week alone

Whoever is calling the shots lately at the GM truck department needs to be euthanized.

Correction, the GM half ton department.

GM is saying they aren't pushing up their schedule, but they could be. They might know they have to produce a better lineup and even when pushing the engineering on a project it might still be a couple years away. It all depends on how serious they Ford's design a couple years ago. If they took a "wait an see" approach, then they are just starting now and are behind.

is it really a surprise that 35% of truck buyers "want" an option with better gas mileage?? think of the sales ford could do on the mid-size market if they offered the new T6 with the diesel or direct injected turbo-4 - look out tacoma.


On one hand, I'm impressed with the fuel economy of modern trucks. Even the V8 trucks are getting double the fuel economy of my first V8 trucks.

Unfortunately, gas now cost at least 4x what I was paying back then, so even though the trucks are getting better fuel economy than ever, it feels like they're doing worse.

This is one of the reasons why I'm agreement with you....I would like more vehicles with small diesels. It may cost more for the fuel; but, just as I was tired of seeing single digit fuel economy in the 60's/70's, I'm tired of seeing fuel economy in the teens now.

I had a diesel 4x4 hilux I rented while down in Aruba and no matter how I drove it I never saw less than 20mpg, and it felt plenty powerful to boot. I can't say that about any 4x4 truck I've driven at home. I just wish I could buy something like that stateside.

I can say here in rural Iowa, EcoBoost is all we're selling. With all the tractors, etc, people are used to turbos so they aren't afraid of them like I'm sure some areas are fighting. Every sold order I have in the system right now is an EcoBoost.

We've been selling some 5.0's since they're on the lot and EcoBoost availabiltity is just finally starting to get better (Dearborn finally shipped all my early build units).

I suspect by mid summer, EcoBoost sales will be limited by production, this month our allocation said to plan for 45% EB (35% 5.0), and if they'd let me I'd take 90% EcoBoost and 10% 5.0L (we sell all 4x4's so 3.7L isn't in much, and 6.2L isn't moving due to the fuel economy).

If things work like I expect, I'll bet you'll see EcoBoost have reduced incentives compared to the V8's (or V8's have extra incentives over EB, if you prefer to look at it that way) as I think you'll see availabilty problems, much like we're having on 3/4 tons right now (gas engines selling out, can't get enough, being forced to take Diesels, and now Diesels are getting $1000 more rebate than gas, still not enough).

Leave it to FORD Motor Company to be an innovator and leader! No big surprise.

To the person on this forum that said; People are not ready to replace their V8 pickups for a twin-turbocharged V6 pickup.-

The proof is in these sales numbers...People are accepting the new 2011 Ford F-150 3.5L V6 EcoBoost with open arms!

Now we all know that nobody is going to give up their v8 for a v6 with turbos......oh wait

I'm excited about the 3.5l getting out there in the real world as that will show us how reliable it is. The best part is the competition will have to find an answer to this motor and we'll see ford further improve upon it. I can't wait to see the results of the tow test with the 6.2 3.5 and 5.0 as we'll know how well the motors work and which is most efficient while towing a heavy load. We already know the winner for unloaded.

@paul810 agree. This kind of efficiency has been available for a decade in diesel engines. I don't get it.

Emissions laws have made diesels become extremely complex and expensive. In the HD trucks its around 8k for a diesel. Now if ford would bring the t6 here I'm sure it would lose its diesel option but if they stuff an ecoboost in there, I'm sure it would get great mileage. Hell if they just stuffed a tiny ecoboost in the current ranger it wouldn't be a bad little truck. Just wish the extended cab was a little bit bigger

This is exactly why I thought that GMC was making a mistake by not pushing the development of new 1/2 ton trucks. It seems that in every thread there is a GM owner saying they are interested in a Ford or have bought one. Ford took a risk with the EB 3.5 but it looks like it is paying off.
I did a calculation based on the average fuel economy of an EB and my current F150 5.4. At current gas prices I'd save 1,200 dollars per year. My only consolation is that I got 12,000 dollars off of a year end 2010 truck. I could of got roughly 5,000 off of an EB. It would take me 6 years to gain back the price advantage I got on a 2010. Just in time for me to replace my truck. I'll probably add some fuel economy and/or power goodies to my truck once the warranty is gone.
The EB looks better every day. I'm still inclined to chose the 5.0 if a had to buy a 2011. I am eagerly awaiting the results of the fuel economy challenge.

After the Ford gas F-250 won the 2010 Heavy Duty Shootout Dan and Frank and others predicted that gas trucks would be the future of trucks. Fast forward a few months and the future is here. With the huge demand for EcoBoost and 3/4 gas trucks selling out like dealers like 02tirdbird says, the future is now. That's why Ford is the leader. Ford F-series, the best selling trucks for 34 straight years. This year will be 35. Yeah, baby, yeah!


American or say Bye to America!

Ford leading the way?

What happened with the Ranger?

it's not bcuz of the eb motor. this is america..... americans will always buy fullsize domestics trucks over foreign even if its the crappiest truck on the market. It's a given.

now.... the eb does look good on paper n the little test putc did but it's still too soon to conclude bcuz we have no comparison against the competition other than using old data which is irrelevant. plus no history for reliability. the notion that a forced induction motor will wear faster than a n/a still applies.

@ Oxi - please refer back to the news story on MPG.http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/03/2011-most-and-least-efficient-pickup-trucks.html#more
The Taco V6 was/is a pig on gas.
Small truck with big truck fuel economy.
How is that leadership?
Ford is doing a good job.
Accept that fact and walk away before you make yourself sound like a bid duffus.
(refer back to the Tundra drive shaft thread and you'll see what I mean).

Uh huh let me get this strait, because there is no coparison from another company we shold not say the eb is a good motor? Maybe of another company would get to makibg something comprable we coild see, personally I can't wait for the next generations of engines from RAM. And they are selling a ton of thme so if there are problems we should start hearing about them pretty soon.

Oxi, why do you post the same thing on every news item? An F150 with an eb or anyother half ton on the market will run rings aroind a tacoma when trying to do real work. As for the ranger, most think its silly of ford to end its run, but that issue has been beaten to death and is in no way related to this article.


As I posted on a recent post, ranger is the leading sales in 1/4 ton trucks in Canada. They over doubled seconded tacoma. I know tacoma is better but, it's friggin expensive.

I'm glad V6 engines are starting to get credibility again, would like to see EB in other vehicles too.

You can't include your tradein for figures.

You said you got 25% off your 2010, and another 10% for your tradein. I will leave the trade in out.

Discounts are anywhere from 15% to 35%.

Year end 2010 $40k truck at 25% off is: $10k total off.

Beginning year 2011 $40k truck at invoice or x plan: $4000 off, $1500 incentives, plus $750 coupon: $6250k total off. Add Ford Credit bonus another $1000. $7250.

So only a $2750-$3750 difference if you had waited.

I use a 2009 F350 Diesel to haul an 8-horse trailer and the F350 has not been trouble-free. It had to go in for warranty repair six times in the past two years, as did our previous Fords, Chevies and Dodges . So all you wannabe experts who claim certain 'working' trucks last better than others, have got it all wrong. It doesn't matter which weight-class you buy, each class is going to have its problems. I expect the EB V6 F150 to have its share of problems. Put the EB V6 to 'work' within its own envelope and limits and the same problems inherent to Ford will pop up. Always does.

@Deano - I did not include trade in. I got 3,000 for my old GMC Van.
I am talking about fall 2010 when I bought a new truck. I wanted something new before winter. We had record snow falls so I am very happy that I did not wait.

I am more comfortable with the new engines since they have been out a while and we are seeing real world results, but with that being said - I am happy with my purchase, and still would wait a few years to see how the EB 3.5 holds up.

Using your $2750-$3750 numbers = 2.3 - 3.1 years on payback on fuel economy.

I haven't said one negative word about fords new engines except the ford fans bragging about fuel economy and then finding out that it was two wheel drive models they were quoting and then finding out they were quoting the 3.7 liter mpg at 23 and not the ecoboost at 22mpg.

Ecoboost has great horsepower and torque, but then it should have both as it has TWO f....ing TURBO'S that spool up the power. Great engine for ford, but GM'S 5.3 liter matches the Eco boost for 4 wheel drive fuel economy at 15 city and 21 mpg highway and both engines are rated at 22mpg on the highway on their two wheel drive models.

GM achieves 15 city 21 mpg highway with a six speed automatic and Active Fuel Management and a 32 bit microprosser can turn off half the cylinders when you don't need all the power. Ford achieves 15 city 21 mpg highway with their 4 wheel drive models because they ony have 6 cylinders to burn fuel in. So Yes, the ecoboost does produce more power than gm's normally aspirated 5.3 liter pushrod V8. Put two TURBO'S on any normally aspirated engine and of course it's going to produce a LOT more power and torque.

Just look at Arctic Cats 4 stroke F-1100 engine. Normally aspirated it produces about 120 horsepower but with ONLY one turbo it produces 177 horsepower and is quoted as the fastest production snowmobile on snow. So what's my point? My point is the ecoboost is a great engine and will be a grand slam for ford but to anyone bragging about how much more power than gm's 5.3 V8, well your just not comparing apples to apples. Fords 6.2 liter V8 and GM'S 6.2 liter V8 would be a much more fair head to head comparison.

For the record, I love turbo engines rather it's a snowmobile, truck or car. So while the ecoboost is impressive with horsepower and torque, it should be. It has TWO turbo's that produce that horsepower and torque. So congradulations to ford for being the first to use turbos in their trucks.

@Bob, good post! I think most of the Ford crowd don't really care about the new 6.2 V8 to be honest, as it is not the star of the show. There are some who like the old-school nostalgia, who think they are older than they really are, who like to talk about the "cubes," and that is the niche market this engine was made for. Hence this is probably why you will only find the 6.2 in "toy" models, like Lariat Limited and Harley Editions, that only come in crew cab, short bed configuration with low profile tires, plus the Raptor (another toy model). You will find that most of the Ford fans only care about the 5.0 and EcoBoost, because we all know we have to pay for that expensive stuff that's required to keep the engines going. Really, I couldn't care less which truck wins between a Vortec 6.2 and Ford 6.2, as I wouldn't buy either.

The comments to this entry are now closed.

So at 25% off, $12k would make your XLT priced at $48,000. That's one hec of an expensive XLT and you got ripped off.

A 2011 4x4 6.5 EB SuperCrew is only $41,675 with every option added.

IMO, Ford nailed it with the 5.0L and 3.5L EB, both of them beat any other engine in the class in the combination of power and fuel economy.

I have a Ram 1500 with the Hemi, it's a strong engine, but it is thirsty and held back by the 5spd transmission. The 5.0L is a few ticks quicker than the Hemi and gets better mileage. A good six speed would really be welcome, but for now it's not in the same league.

The Toyota 5.7L is a bit stronger than the Ford 5.0L, but I don't think it's a match for the 3.5L EB. It doesn't seem to score too well in fuel economy either. It's probably the closest to the new Fords in the combination though.

Neither the Ford or GM 6.2L is really relevant to me. Both require 91 octane for peak performance and both suck down gas like it's going out of style.

The GM 5.3L is fuel efficient, but I was never impressed with the power output. It's too soft down low, it feels like a car engine. You really have to rev it to get anywhere, especially if you are snake oiled into the XFE package.

The old 5.4L had good torque, but it ran out of breath too quickly and wasn't enough for such a heavy truck. Plus, it was never all that fuel efficient.

@ Bob
nice post
over the weekend i got to drive my friends 2011 1500 gmc, it was nice and last night i got to test drive a eco-boost don't take this the wrong way but if i was to buy a new truck i would take the eco-boost it just smoked the gmc in every category handling, better ride,FE, power, i mean what else can i say, the gmc's have run there course and it is time for a up grade

If Ford re-geared that Eco-boost F150
It could still pull 7,000 and probably push 30 MPG HWY
Not every one needs to pull 11 grand, but every one needs
an efficient daily driver.
3.09 rear end gear
7 speed with high and low gear lockouts
Show us what you really can do Ford!

@Deano- you are making assumptions as to which market I am in. Try Ford.ca

So Lou is Canadian. Then you can just throw out your whole argument about pricing.

Bob, Ford's engines have been turbo'd for decades. I used to own an F350 Banks Turbo Diesel until I blew the lower end out of it. Wear and tear with any turbo'd engine increases exponentially and oil changes are usually increased to every 1500 miles. I don't expect the EB V6 to be any different than any other turbo'd engine. You guys better be sure that this engine can hold up and that it has a sufficiently reinforced bottom end to withstand the increased pressures. I use 20-50 Rotella in mine because it is especially formulated for stressed engines like diesels and turbo'd engines.

u misunderstood me. aint talking about that another company dont have anything new to compare. am talking about there's no comparison as in a recent shootout with the current crop of engines from the other makes. so far it's been f150 engines against its own other engines. id like to see a head to head against the others. as of now, their numbers look good but them tests r done on a diff day n diff time. ford is tootin the eb alot about its great hp n tq but u know what, never once has ford made mention of the eb vs gm 6.2 nor toyota 5.7. ford did however compered it against ram 5.7 but in a uphill climb to elevations that puts a n/a motor at a disadvantage vs a forced induction. even in that test, i recall the ram 5.7 hanging close to catching up but the test ended bcuz of limited distance. fuel eco isn't much a concern for me as long as its in the ball park for other makes comparable engine. other than that, power is more important.

as i said the eb looks great on paper n even on its own test against its own self, but its too soon to conclude.

"So congradulations to ford for being the first to use turbos in their trucks"

actually, the mid '80s 4runner was 1st to have turbo in a truck, though a weakling turbo n granted it's a capped n carpeted bed truck, its still a truck.

uh huh-

Ford only competed the F-150 EcoBoost versus the Silverado 5.3L and Ram 5.7L because Ford wanted to show how much better the V6 EcoBoost is than many, NOT ALL, V8s from the competition. The end all be all Ford engine, to go head to head with the Toyota 5.7L V8 and G.M. 6.2L V8, is the 6.2L V8.

@ Buy American or say Bye to America! - I understand why Lou is so against the United States of America and so out to prove that you shouldn't care about buying American now. Lou is a socialist liberal from Canada. Wow. I should have seen this coming. All of the clues were there.

This explains why Lou was very Anti Ameican, pro Toyota, hates George Bush, was very pro Obama, wants socialist healthcare, and is a UN-loving free trade communist.

Only the Free Trade Communists push the BS that buying American doesn't matter, all companies are "blobal" and....and that it is great to “Free Trade” and transfer wealth to these countries. Likewise in America....you cannot create a job in Canada by shipping it to Communist China.

@Buy American or say Bye to America!

actually, gm 6.2 only equals toyota 5.7... yeah only equals.. take the lastest shootout by putc...... 2... that's right.... 2 gm 6.2... one 6.2 nudging ahead by fractions n one trailing behind by fractions. now if both gm 6.2 edged out the toyota 5.7, then u can say it's the motor to beat. reason i said that is bcuz, not every engine runs the same, close.. but not the same... to see the toyota 5.7 fall right in the middle of the gm 6.2..... its a shame when u have a bigger displacement motor with more hp n tq n even in a lighter truck to just match ur competitors smaller displacement motor in a heavier truck.... gawd thats sickening... makes me wonder how we americans r rating our trucks..... hmmm... over inflating for bragging rights?.... who knows, i don't make them, i just buy them...

@ Deano - In my situation it would take close to 6 years to recouperate the extra cost of a 2011 EB based on when I bought (Labor day 2010).
Looking at the US and Canadian prices as well as factory discounts in September of 2010 - there were big discounts north and south of the 49th parallel on left over 2010's.
The EB 3.5 trucks on both sides were not seeing big discounts at that time (Sept 2010)
I'm not sure why you are up in arms over my post.
There are 2 distinct Ford camps forming - EB 3.5 fans and 5.0 fans.
I wasn't presenting an argument about pricing. If that is how you took it - so be it.
I chose a 2010 - better deal (for me), and a proven drivetrain. Those were the main reasons for chosing a 2010.
For the sake of argument - lets convert it all to USA.
My truck listed 47,500 Canada. USA 41,675. That is a 12% difference. Apply that to my discount. 12,000 becomes 10,560. Currently USA fuel 4.00 gallon? Canada 1.35/litre or 5.13 US/gallon. US fuel 20% cheaper. My fuel cost of 250 month = USA 200 month.
That would be 2,400 year. EB fuel savings of 40% = fuel cost of 1,400. I'd save 1,000 year south of the 49th parallel.
Using savings of 5,000. It works out to a 5 year break even point.
That would be based on a 2010 MY truck discount versus a 2011 MY truck discount, and discounts based on fall 2010 not April 2011.
I have read of people in the USA getting 12,000 dollars off of MSRP on 2010's, both Ford and Chevy's.
You haven't mentioned any discounts on 2010 trucks.
Just the discounts on 2011 trucks.
Using your current April 2011 price discount difference of $2750-$3750 that works out to 2.75 - 3.75 years. That is assuming you own a 2010 F150 with 5.4 and get similar mpg as I do.
Can we apply April 2011 discounts to Fall 2010?
Not really.
Does that mean your argument is as invalid as you say mine is?
Enjoyed the debate. thanks.

@ Fred
My arguments about where a product is made, or where the head office is located is valid regardless of which country one lives in.
How does my country of residence explain my views on Toyota?
Am I anti-American - NO.
Since you brought it up.
I didn't like George Bush (Junior).
The guy was an idiot.
Obama - don't care for the guy.
I like John McCain.
He would of been the guy I would of voted for.
Socialist- No.
Companies should not be bailed out by governments.
A country should be able to help their own citizens who can't help themselves.
That is biblical in nature not socialist or Communist in origin.
Liberal - definately not.
Why don't you look up the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
I like "Buy American" and respect his views.
Strange, all of a sudden my views are invalid.
Strange, what happened to freedom of speech.


1.35/litre? where you live, the Okanagan? I'm getting 1.179/litre in Calgary but it's supposed to get up to 1.50/litre by Stampede (beginning of July). I'm not looking forward to that, so thats why I just sold my 3/4 ton for a 1/2 ton.

@ Brad - Northern BC.

$12,000 off is common in Canada. 2011 F150's were going for $11,000 off in February.

$12,000 off in Canada is more like $7,000 off in the United Staes. Not bad. But not that great a deal either.

@Tone, give me one good reason for diesel emissions standards being tougher than gas. Anybody, please tell me one reason why we are paying $8000 more for a diesel engine in America? It's all lobbyist BS. I could care less except that we are all having to create twin turbo gas burners to meet the new MPG standards, which happen to be created by the same F-ing people that created the emissions standards that are making the MPG standards unattainable for diesels, aaaaaand we are paying out the nose to comply with it all. The EB sounds great but is is the next best thing to a diesel. You all know it. Asking for efficiency out of a gas engine is like asking for compassion from a house cat.

@the tone, sorry. I agree that a EB Ranger would be Bad A.


If your going to talk fuel economy about trucks, than buy an SUV!

The Ranger is old, nothing innovavtive, same boring platform hence lagging sales!

@ Jason - the discounts were dependant on model. A Platinum had a higher discount than an XL.

@ oxi - Most of the recent stories have centered around fuel economy. Rising fuel prices will see to that.
I do agree that the Ranger is an old, outdated platform. It sells well despite itself.

@unclebud - love the compassionate cat comment.
It is too bad that politicians are doing their best to kill diesels. An efficient diesel is the way to go. Ram is rumored as the most likely company to release a baby diesel. Hope it is true.

I hate to say it, but I don't know if I would buy a new diesel pickup. They are just too compromised due to the emission requirements.

For example, my folks have always had Cummins Rams. They have all had their share of problems, but the new Bluetec is a complete POS as delivered.

It has been to the dealer something like 4 times in 6 months for the stupid DPF causing the truck to shut down.

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