Why spend all this time and money to develop and modify gas engines to be just like diesel engines when you already have plenty of diesel powerplants laying around. Didn't Ford say they had a baby diesel already developed, or is that just GM?

Also, forgot to add this, in case Ford,GM,Dodge are reading our comments. I am looking to buy in the next year or two. THE FIRST TO MARKET WITH A 1500 LIGHT DUTY DIESEL GETS MY MONEY!

It's gotta be tough for car makers. 2007, everyone wanted a smaller diesel. 2008, diesel was $1 a gallon more than unleaded. Nobody wants diesel. Late 2008/early 09, gas is so cheap, who cares about fuel economy? mid 2010 fuel prices are back up, unleaded and diesel are almost the same price: "Come on! Where's our diesel?" (and everybody forgets about the past and future possibilities).

We also can't forget the need for 2 different fuels in the most diesel-like EcoBoost design. That's a pain in the arse.

Just cause it says diesel does not mean it needs to be a power king. What most of us want a simplistic Diesel engine that gets good-to great millage and that is somewhat economical to drive. I know it is getting harder to do with our wonderful emissions standards but with a little time and effort and with today tranny technology it can be done! Sure the ecoboost engines might work but they will never have the longevity of a well built diesel in a pickup truck!

I keep saying it. The truck makers don't want to put diesels in the light duty trucks because they don't want to post fuel economy numbers. They make a lot of money from heavy duty diesel sales, in part because the consumer believes that they are much more fuel efficient, as in the past. But new emissions equipment has ruined the fuel efficiency advantage. Diesel truck sales are big bucks and the makers don't want to wreck it. Ask any 6.4 Powerstroke owner what kind of mileage he gets. A lot less than he thought when he bought it.

I agree Patrick. I'll be looking to buy in the next 4-5 years and the first full-size truck (assuming it's not foreign) will get my money. Ford, Dodge, Chevy I don't care. I want a diesel.

The technology is there for both big and small diesels to be more efficient even with the current state of emissions. The problem is not that they don't want to use smaller diesels as much as marketing them to be profitable. In other words they need to stick them in more vehicles than just trucks, such as the Europeans do!

"Also, forgot to add this, in case Ford,GM,Dodge are reading our comments. I am looking to buy in the next year or two. THE FIRST TO MARKET WITH A 1500 LIGHT DUTY DIESEL GETS MY MONEY!"

Same here. I've been nursing my 2002 GMC along for the last three years waiting for the first small diesel. All I want is to be able to tow 8,000 pounds and get 25mpg empty. And I don't really want an incredibly complex engine with exotic materials that runs at very high temps. Just want a simple, small, efficient, reliable diesel.

Still skeptical that all this using-diesel-technology-on-SI-engines is really as effective as Ford, among others, forecast, at least on a relative basis.

BMW has virtually identical 3.0 liter engines, one diesel (used in the 335d and X5 35d) and one DI turbocharged gasoline SI (used in the 335i, among others). The 335d and 335i are virtually identical cars, similar horsepower (265 hp for the "d", 300 for the "i"; torque is 425 lb-ft for the diesel, 300 for the gasser), similar performance (0-60 mpg ~6.0 sec for the "d", ~5.6 sec for the "i" with auto transmission - the 335d is only available with an auto transmission).

The EPA fuel economy rating for the 335d is 27 mpg "combined" and 20 mpg for the 335i. Taking rounding errors into account, the 335d has 36.3% better fuel economy than the 335i, and over 20% better efficiency even when taking the higher heating value of diesel fuel into account. This is with all of the supposedly efficiency-robbing emissions technology required for the diesel (and I can make a strong case that the diesel has significantly lower emissions overall than the gasoline equivalent).

New versions of these engines have recently been developed in Europe (BOTH have 306 hp). Both supposedly improve efficiency of the respective predecessors. The minimum BSFC of the diesel is 197 g/kWh, gas engine is 245 g/kWh. That's over 25% more efficient on an energy-equivalent basis. Appears the gap not only isn't narrowing, it's actually getting wider again.

I can cite other examples (e.g., VW, Mercedes-Benz), but the BMW case is typical of the downsized DI turbo gasser vs. diesel comparison.

Sweet jesus!! Why the hell both with changing gassers to be like diesels!! A gasoline spark ignition engine will NEVER EVER be as efficient or powerful as a comparable diesel engine....EVER!

We need MORE DIESELS! They've been the best since Rudolf Diesel developed the first working diesel engine in 1897 that ran on peanut oil.

To bad most people are stupid and dont know how good diesels really are. The BS emissions standards are a real killer too.

Guess we (U.S.) doesnt want clean, efficient, renewable, and home grown fuel..... Diesels can run on regular diesel, bio-diesel, hydrogen, CNG (compressed natural gas), methane, propane, methanol, jet fuel, WVO, SVO, etc, etc!

Honestly, gas engine are just wastes of good metal.

Advanced EGR in general scares me, but scares me even more in a gasser. Ford had a lot of issues with the EGR system in the 6.0, specifically with the EGR cooler. I cross my fingers with the EGR system in my 6.4, which I hope turns out to be untroubled for the life of the truck. I have heard only a few people complain about EGR problems on the 6.4. If my EGR system crapped out I would immediately install the blocking plates and an EGR delete/wastegate. I realize it defeats the purpose of emission regulations, but just like the DPF...I don't want it ruining my truck and costing me $$$ if it fails. I am all for cleaner diesel, but until these technologies stop killing fuel mileage and stop breaking...I don't want them on my truck!

I applaud Ford for trying to make more efficient gasoline engines. The ecoboost models do show a lot of potential.

With that said, there are those of us who would just rather have a diesel. I mean, if I am going to have an engine that is just as complicated and nearly as expensive as a diesel....why not just buy a diesel and be done with it? At least then I know I'll have the greater energy content of diesel fuel.

At the very least, diesel engines should be available as an option. Especially in all vehicles designed for heavier work like towing/hauling (e.g. all trucks, suvs, vans). Since those vehicle tend to have the worst mileage, especially when loaded. I would love to see that 4.4L diesel used in the F150, Expedition, Ranger, E-Series, and even in the Super-Duty; as a more fuel efficient engine option beside the 6.7L Diesel.

Honestly, the first manufacturer to bring out diesel 1/2 ton Trucks and Suvs alone will make a killing. There are plenty of people who have been asking for that for years.

I think people on this site far over rate how may buyers will choose a light diesel over a gasser IMHO. Look at the target market for 1/2 tons. It isn't commercial people. Most average buyers stil associate diesel with noisy and dirty and will choose a gasser. Another disadvantage is cost. Unless they also use this diesel in the SD's/HD's it would be a 1/2 ton exclusive engine and as a result be expensive due to limited production. What they are doing with Ecoboost makes sense as the cost is spread out over the whole Ford lineup and the engines seem like they are pretty flexible and tunable.

There is a reason why so many cars share engines with just different tunes.

Good job Ford!

Diesel half tons are as good as dead. Even IF they can get respectable mpg out of 'em (from factory) it pushes up the intiial cost up too high, no longer makes any sense. It only makes $$$ if you tow 80+% of the time. And guess what.... then you don't buy a half ton diesel. Thats why 3/4 ton diesels are still being made.

Unless your towing all the time the cost savings from buying a gas engine will buy all the extra fuel you'll need and then some.

And if the EB gives you: - better mpg - the low end tq, - the turbo factor (elevation), the flat tq "curve", and also the "tuneability" of a diesel... then who cares... be happy your geetting what you want, you just don't realize it.

@ Power Kid

That is the best post I've read in a long time.

Great Job.

A few problems problem with a EB motor. First is the EB motor has yet to be proven in anything much less in a pickup application. The EB motor itself being new cannot be much if any cheaper to build than a diesel motor that is already at any MFG finger tips! You can argue all you want about the cost of ownership of a diesel but anyone who chooses a diesel to begin with obviously needs it for a certain application weather that being for towing or for fuel mileage and is willing to pay for one. In short a Diesel can do it all and not any one application.

All in all every MFG has a chance to do something big with the technology available to them why just limit it to gas? Just because the government and gas companies do not like diesels doe not mean the public cant ask/love them!

Adding to what Power Kid said, it appears with the addition of cooled exhaust recirc the engineers are getting closer to making optimized gasoline/ethanol blends the fuel of choise. Ricardo has shown this works very well with diesel like power and torque and excellent fuel economy with about 50/50 ethanol and gasoline. The engine is half the premium cost for and equivalent diesel. The fuel blend cost would be about 25% less than diesel fuel too at current prices so the result is a much better economic case than for light diesels. These engines will use home grown fuel and will continue to decrease our imports of oil from countries hostile to us.

Now the diesel will cost much more. THe CGI block requried for a "light" diesel, the complex exhaust system etc.

If this was prior to Jan 01/07..... yes I agree with you.

The only advantage a LD diesel has over the EB is longevity.

The advantages the EB has over the LD diesel have been listed...

Yo Patrick!
You should get at GM. Half-ton diesels were popular back in the 1980s and 1990s. You listening GM?! Bring back a pickup that can carry at least an 1000-lb payload and a diesel engine!

I bet it would be too costly,a 1/2 ton would be the price of a 3/4 ton I would bet.With rising fuel costs,repair costs,lets face it new vehicles are not as reliable as the old ones..it would be 50 grand for a 1/2 ton diesel..you gotta be fuggin nuts..

I don't get the explanaion for EGR in the article. Egr won't give you a bigger bang. You get the opposite. Egr is inert in the combustion chamber. Egr takes up space in the cylinder that would otherwise be used for air. More air= bigger bang. And the EGR being drawn into the engine is hotter than the air coming in through the throttle. This will cause the air entering the cylinder to heat up becoming less dense. Less air that is also less dense = less power. So why does the article say "bigger bang"? If EGR causes a "bigger bang" than why do engine computers disable EGR systems from functioning at wide open throttle? This seems similar to Fords claim of huge MPG from the new power stroke and as we saw from the Motor Trend article that was not the case.

@ Power Kid

That is the best post.

Great Job.

Many people were wondering why Ford would build an in-house diesel as it would be hard to recuperate developement costs based on HD pickups sales alone.
We now have the answer to that question.
Use the technology in other applications.

This ought to be interesting. I would like to find where the limit is; where it is physically impossible to get any more efficiency out of any engine. The beast itself isn't very efficient by it's nature but no one has come up with a better solution.

I think if we could live without some our luxuries (SatNav, A/C, Satellite radio, Heated/cooled seats, mahogany dashboards <-who needs that seriously??) we would see tremendous boosts in fuel efficiently.

It's not like the woodgrain adds any weight. It's just colored plastic. Gives the interior a bit of contrast I think.

My 2000 Silverado 1500 currently got 200,000 miles on it with original motor and tranny. I'm waiting for the first manufacturer who comes out with a 1/2 ton work truck with a diesel. No, i don't want a 3/4 ton because i don't need one, I can load 1 ton and haul 4-5 ton now!

If emissions standards weren't so strict and the average person wasn't afraid of diesels, then I don't think there would be very many gasoline trucks running around.

I understand that much of the internet forum world wants diesel trucks, but the automakers need to appeal to the masses if they want to remain profitable.

"A few problems problem with a EB motor. First is the EB motor has yet to be proven in anything much less in a pickup application. The EB motor itself being new cannot be much if any cheaper to build than a diesel motor that is already at any MFG finger tips!"

You really need to do more research about the EB engines. They are already on sale. The Taurus SHO uses one and there are a few in the Lincoln line up. Those engines are currently in production. The diesels you see are only one offs. They may be at the fingertips, but they are not in a manufacturing line. They were also only slated for 1/2 ton trucks. EB stretches across the whole lineup. That is where the savings are. One basic engine utilized in 4-5 different vehicles under different tune or programming. Even the big diesels have market share on many different applications in the SD/HD class, not just 3/4 or 1 ton trucks. Bear in mind that in the HD's the diesel is around a $6,000-$7000 option. They aren't going to give away diesels in the 1/2 ton class either.

Good article. Diesels do point the way to the future, but ironically the future isn't diesel. Diesel engines are just to costly to clean up. Many say they would purchase a diesel 1/2 ton, but the manufacturers know that when hit with a $45,000 price tag for a base 1/2 ton diesel, the consumer will not buy. 2015 is the next new set of diesel emission standards. Let's see what a diesel costs after that. Diesel buses are just about gone from California, and all vehicles that work in the Port of Los Angeles are required to be alternate fuel. The major commercial truck manufacturers are working hard on alternatives like gasoline and CNG.

@ Billy - the diesels Chev put in their 1/2 tons "in the good old days" were crap. Nothing but problems. It was rare NOT to have a problem. They were far from popular(once they started breaking down). I would suspect that whole fiasco is another reason why the "domestics" are reluctant to put diesels in a 1/2 ton.
It was a good idea and I think we would of seen 1/2 ton diesels around today if those engines had been reliable.

@ Keith All Eco Boost engines run premium fuel. And with a turbo engine, any lower octane than the recommended octane will cause engine damage. Especialy when the engine is under load like when towing. That is a deal beaker for me.
Another problem with smaller turbo engines is that they don't get that good of mileage. Your SHO example got 1MPG worse mileage then a Chrysler 300C. Given the large number of expensive components on these engines I really don't see how these are the solution. More empty promises.

Edit to my last post

The ECO Boost and 300C mileage results were from Car and Driver road tests.

The EcoBoost engines DO NOT require premium fuel in the Taurus/Flex/MKT/MKS and will NOT require premium in the trucks.

@Jordan,
One of the selling points with EcoBoost was that it was supposed to run fine on regular unleaded.
Also, when I compared the mpg of the Taurus SHO to the Charger/300C Hemi, the Chryslers used significantly more fuel. Remember to compare using the AWD Chryslers.
Real world, a good comparison would be the Durango HEMI vs the Flex EcoBoost. When I drove the Durango HEMI, it was getting between 13-16mpg, forget what the sticker says. I have driven the Flex EcoBoost but didn't get to do an mpg comparison, but if 16-22 is what it gets, then there is a significant increase. I know the Flex doesn't have low-range 4x4 and a body-on-frame chassis, but some people might compare both anyway. Plus that EcoBoost V6 just makes a traditional V8 feel like a dinosaur. It has an awesome feel to it.

Jordan, A quick check of 5.7L Hemo AWD 300 C and Taurus SHO show the following:

300C - 16/25 mpg

SHO - 17/25 mpg

SHO is getting it's mpg's with no gizmo's like cylinder deactivation as well. Add in that the SHO is a performance tuned version of the Ecoboost in a performance tuned car, not one tuned for economy. Without looking I am fairly sure the SHO is geared far more agressively than the off the lot 5.7L Hemi 300C.

I seem to have hit a nerve with the Ford boys. Thats fine. If you don't believe me then don't. These are the facts go to fords web site, go to the Car and Driver website. All the info is there. The Durango is much heavier than a Flex, they are not even in the same category so that is not a valid comparison. Fords competition to the Durango is the Expedition. You think that the Hemi is tuned for fuel economy? Why? Because its has cylinder deactivation? Give me a break. The 2 cars offer similar performance and similar mileage. The SHO is the performance version. The SRT 8 is Chryslers performance version. The Sho is a closer match to the 300C and they put up similar #'s. Forget what the EPA says. What matters is real world tests. Thats where I got my info from, how about you guys? If you run regular fuel in an ECO Boost you will most likely damage the enigine. And I can garauntee that the engine will not produce the advertised HP and TQ on regular. I can see why Chrysler is not doing that well in sales. The knowlegde that people have about their vehicles is limited. Do you guys use this same logic to come to the conclusion that Ford is the best? Unbelievable.

@Jordan. Why the anger? I've driven a couple of Hemi's and 1 EcoBoost vehicle, I just don't think they are as close in fuel economy as you think. The real world fuel economy of the Hemi is crap. I did consider buying a Ram 1500 with the Hemi at one point, and the owners on Dodge forums were saying the Hemi prefers premium fuel. So it would be the Hemi that wants premium and the EcoBoost that wants regular. We're all entitled to our own observations, opinions and conclusions. The Expedition is MUCH bigger than the Durango, I would say the Flex is very close in size. But even the Expedition gets better mileage than the Durango. You are not hitting nerves with any hard truths, you are just talking crap.

@ Alex I Take it from your comment that you still haven't done your homework. The Hemi is recommended for midgrade not premimum. And it runs just fine on regular. I have an 04 Durango with a HEMI. If you had gone to the websites that I had yold you about you would see that The #'s I posted are accurate. But instead of looking you tell me I'm talking pure crap. Let me get this straight. I have no problem with Ford's or the people who like tham. What I have a problem with is when people start making claims hat arn't true. I checked Fords website again after reading your post. The ECO Booost still requires premium. The facts have not changed since last night. If you like EB over The Hemi then buy one, if you want to cross shop a Flex with the Durango then go for it. I don't care. I am a car guy, I am a mechanic for a living, I subscribe to several car mags, and spend most of my time on internet on various sites learning all I can about them. This is my passion. Thats why the anger. Please, before you respond (if you do) go check out the websites. I'm trying to educate not to bash (except the last few sentences of my last post, those were definitly meant to bash). I don't feel like repaeting myself.

Jordan - My mpg numbers I posted came from both manufacturers web pages. If you want to bring the SRT into this go ahead. It has a 6.1L Hemi and for sure does not beat the SHO in mpg.

FWIW here are the curb weights:

Durango 4X4 loaded with Hemi - 4,984lbs manufacturer claim
Ford Flex AWDw/ Ecoboost - 4,839lbs manufacturer claim

The premium fuel is recommneded in the Flex, not required. BTW, what is the price difference between 89 and 91-93 octane? All of 5-10 cents? If one took 87 octane you'd have a valid point as fuel would be significantly cheaper. I can vary my price by 10 cents just by going to a different area of my state in some cases.

So much for "much heavier" and your mpg claim. You want truth, you are getting it. It just isn't what you wanted to hear.

Pretty funny a Dodge fanboy and employee calling out people who are Ford fans LOL. I drive a Nissan Titan BTW. LOL Ford fan boys.

Here we go again. Keith you posted MPG #'s for the SHO and 300. This proves the point that I was trying to make that smaller turbo engines don't mean better MPG. Two similar cars, similar power, similar performance. One smaller engine with turbos the other larger naturaly aspirated. Look at the expensinve tech needed to make the EB perform like the HEMI. And with no MPG benefit. And more expensive fuel. Where I live premium is 10 cents a litre more than regular and 5 more than midgrade. That adds up fast. If you run regular fuel in the EB you will not see the advertised HP and TQ. And by the way: THE DURANGO DOES NOT COMPETE WITH THE FLEX. Its competition is the expedition. Just so we're clear. I wouldn't describe myself as a Dodge fan boy. More of a truth fan boy. I have owned close to 20 different vehicles since I started driving and my favorite was my 86 Mustang GT.

If you want to compare the Durango to the Expedition fine. It loses miserable in all catagories but engine output. The Durango is more comparable to the Explorer/Grand Cherokee/Traverse than a full size SUV. Having a V8 does not put it in the class of the Tahoe/Yukon/Expedition.

Flex loses to the Durango slightly in power and more so in towing and off road. If I want to tow 6,000lbs I am looking bigger than a Durango and off roading is self explanitory. Go look at the dimensions of Durango vs Flex. It is 100% conceivable someone might cross shop them if they do not need to tow and want AWD or 4wd.

FWIW you are trying to compare mpg numbers and yet you are breaking out cost per liter when I am talking cost per gallon. Which is it? You can compare mpg's then use your cost per liter as a cost basis. You are also glossing over where it shows premium is not mandatory, it is recommended for best performance. You could technically render the 89 octane vs premium debate null at that point.

umm, sorry to break it to you guys but the dodge durango is dead, they stopped making those months ago. also i wanted to clear up a few things. the durango competes with the tahoe/expedition not the ford flex. the ford flex is a crossover, the dodge is not. i would of accepted the comparison of the flex and the durango in about a year when it moves to the 2011 jeep grand cherokee (crossover) platform. next i wanted to put up a few stats showing why the durango was/is in the same class as the ford expedition.

expedition-flex-tahoe-durango

cargo cap.(cu. ft) 108-83-109-102
payload (lbs.) 1640-N/A-1705-1600
towing (lbs.) 9000-4500-8200-8750
mpg city 12-16-14-13
mpg hwy 17-22-20-18
fuel tank cap. (gallons) 28-18.6-26-27
fuel type unleaded-premium(rec.)-unleaded-unleaded
weight 5801-4839-5894-5035
length (in.) 206.5-201.8-202-200.8
width (in.) 78.8-75.9-79-76
height (in.)77.2-68-76.9-73.4
wheelbase (in.) 119-117.9-116-119.2
seating 8-7-8-8

expedition- limited 4wd 5.4l v8 6a(2010)
flex- limited awd 3.5l turbo v6 6a(2010)
tahoe- ltz 4wd 5.3l v8 6a(2010)
durango- slt 4wd 4.7l v8 5a(2008)*could not find higher trim level, or non-hybrid hemi v8

*edit I used the Edmunds auto comparison
link:http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?op=0&tab=pricing&isbasecar=false&modelid=&styleid=&refid=&maxvehicles=5&vehicleindex=&removestyle=&numCars=4&just=center&disclaimer=false&modelId0=100525936&styleId0=101054577&modelId1=100528470&styleId1=101183125&modelId2=100528251&styleId2=101169796&modelId3=100529371&styleId3=101204219

*mistake i said the durango was from 2008, it should say 2009

Was going to mention there was no 2010 Durango listed on Dodge or Ram's web pages. Must have been so superior no one wanted it LMAO

@ cdjred Thank you. Help is always appreciated.

@ Keith Just because someone may cros shop a Flex with a Durango doesn't mean these 2 vehicles are comparable. Its like comparing apples to oranges. They both serve the same function but do it in different ways. When my Durango is worn out I will have to choose a new vehicle. It will be either an SUV or a truck. I will have to cross shop, compare pros and cons. That doesn't mean that these 2 compete. All it means is that I will have to decide which of these 2 completly differnet vehicle best suits my needs. The Durango was axed under the management of Cerberus as a way to cut costs. A new Durango is due in 2011 or 2012 on the new Grand Cherokee platform.
Where I live, fuel is sold by the litre not the gallon. I'm more comfortable with MPG as a mileage reference. I'm sorry if this confuses you. There arfe roughly 3.78l in a gallon I believe. This works out to 38 cents difference PER GALLON between regular and premium or 19 cents between midgrade and premium. That is significant. Now that you have brought use way off topic, let me bring you back. Ford says turbos allow for smaller engines to have similar power to larger engines but with better mileage. That is not always the case. If you haven't figured that out by now with all the info provided above then you probably never will. You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"? Try this " you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him learn". Have a good night.

Jordan, my "homework" was driving them. My wife liked the Durango for a while, but it really feels like an Explorer inside, not an Expedition. Driving the Hemi Durango around, I averaged 13-point-something mpgs. My wife quickly decided she didn't want it.
Driving the Flex EcoBoost was the opposite. I wasn't convinced totally that going to a crossover was something I wanted. But driving it was pure pleasure.
two cars compete when I consider buying one of two different vehicles. A bit like when my friend in Australia was looking to buy a fuel efficient car, I recommended he looked at the Passat TDI and the Chrysler 300C CRD (diesels), and the Chrysler dealer was shocked I was comparing the two, like that was illegal or something. LOL!!!
See, I don't hate Chryslers. I don't hate traditional V8s. I just really like the Ford EcoBoost, and it does use less fuel.

Jordan - You were shown that the Ecoboost in the SHO beats the mpg rating of the 5.7L Hemi in the 300 in EPA ratings. The fact that you can Google the web and find somewhere the 300 got 1mpg better is irrelevant.

BTW I wouldn't make any plans to buy a new Durango in 2011-12. It has been on the chopping block for more than a few years now. It really serves no purpose in Chrysler's line up seeing they now have the Journey and the Grand Cherokee. All the Durango will do is sell in small numbers and siphon sales off the current sellers all while not generating much in the way of sales itself. Whenever they kill a vehicle totally off for 1-2 model years and say it will be coming back redesigned it is usually dead and buried. Bear in mind the Dakota is just about dead too for the same reasons the Durango is failing. Big truck mpg's with mid sized truck room and overrated tow ratings.

@keith BTW I wouldn't count the Durango out, its still coming, and they are going to sell lots of them and theres nothing you can do about it. the durango name has been dropped, replaced by magnum. theres a brand new interior, and a ram truck like exterior. it will ride on the brand new 2011 jeep grand cherokee/2011 mercedes-benz ml-class platform. it will also have a brand new pentastar v6 engine, and a updated hemi v8. it is not "dead and buried". also the dakota is coming back. with small sized truck mpgs, mid-sized truck room, and unoverrated tow ratings.

@ Keith If the Durango tow rating is over rated then the F-150 is way overrated. But thats beside the point. The MPG #'s you posted prove my point. What good is a V6 that makes V8 power if it gets V8 fuel economy. Especaily when you need expensive tech like 2 turbos, direct injection, over head cams, variable valve timing, etc to accomplish this. I'm sure the EB is a decent engine I just don't see the benefit. Different isn't always better.