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

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

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

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

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

EB F-150 Intercooler

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

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

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

EcoBoost F-150



My understanding is that Ford has been running these kinds of engines in Europe for some time now.
We need to wait to see how they perform once they hit the streets.

I'm always amazed at how viciously people resist change or something new. I'm looking very forward to this new engine and have been ever since it was rumored. This very well may be the truck that converts me to Ford.

Even if it turns out that the EB gets no better fuel mileage while towing than the 6.2, I'd still prefer the EB. Like someone above said, at elevation is where a turbo really shines, and living in the high desert of New Mexico (5000 ft. and above) a turbo is a real asset.

The F150 badge on the front fender has something written on it. Can't quite make it out in the photos. The data cables taped to the fender partially obscure the view.
I'm suspecting that is the other "tell".

The EB is an excellent engine, however better applied to a sports sedan / car. Now if Ford has done their home work they will run a EB with larger displacement, and rely less on Turbo for low rpm. Even as such it seems everyone is discounting the potential of direct injection to enhance the efficiency of the v8.

why doesnt ford jusr put in the brand new high tech aluminum mustang engines? the six could be retuned for more weight and probably get 25 mpg or better.

@ G-Street

It's the temperature of the spool of the turbo 1700F. I work for an aircraft engine manufacturer and I see temperature up to 2400F as a normal working temperature and engine last thousands of hours.
The secret is the material use to achive these numbers.

I think Ford has probably built the engine to last at least 200K miles for a light to medium duty use I saw pictures of the connecting rod of the ecoboost engine next to a normal rod and I can tell the ecoboost rod is really really big compare to a standard rod.

Honda with the Ridgeline (not a real truck) use a 3.5 liter naturally aspirated engine build for high rpm operation in a 4600 pounds truck wannabe and no one seems to care.

@Bodenjager. I don't think people are forgetting about DI on V8s. From what I know, the Coyote was planned to have DI, but Ford says DI on it's own only gave a 2% increase, and wasn't worth the price increase. It was only when you combined DI with turbocharging. Hopefully we will see an EcoBoost 5L v8. I think GM has proved Ford to be correct with it's overly disappointing DI 3.0 V6. In Australia, this engine has proved to be less efficient in the real world than Ford's aging 4.0 I-6 (non-DI). 2% increase is not even tangible. You would get better increase by adjusting your driving style.

If you look at the front end the licence plate frame is moved to the left side of the bumper so it does not restrict airflow to the intercooler.

I hope it does get 24 MPG,but I just don't see it, my wifes turbo charged Forester can only muster that on a good day average is around 19.

I have a feeling this thing will hit it's projected numbers. And it should be an impressive engine. Every owner of EB equipped vehicles that I have talked to have been happy with the numbers they have been getting...usually meeting or surpassing the EPA estimates.

Someone said something about it only lasting 120k miles. What? Do you understand the abuse these vehicles endure during development and testing? I'm sure this vehicle pictured will easily surpass the 120k mark in it's lifetime.

Also, I have yet to meet any truck owner with a V-8 powered truck who has gotten near the EPA's estimates. Since I work with guys who own trucks from pretty much every automaker, I have an understanding that breaking 13 and possibly 14mpgs in a Ram 1500, F-150 or a Silverado is a challenge in itself...especially when city driving is something you do everyday. 11 or 12mpgs is more realistic.

I see this thing hitting 15 or 16mpgs easily.

@markmark: See this story - http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/01/sources-say-37liter-v6-coming-for-ford-f150.html

@ tons of fun

i think you are mistaken. while i am fortunate enough to only have to drive 4 miles to and from work, i think my city mpg is probably smack dab 20. i do not calculate how many miles i go to empty, because i know better than to drive below a quarter tank of gas. so you may not believe what i say is true, but if i can go a whole week with a full tank of gas that filled up on payday, im getting a lot better than what you assume. which could be in the low 20s for city. think about it. 5 days a week. 4 miles to and from work. that 20 miles. while yes, if i only travel 20 miles a week, then 20 miles per gallon is what i get lol XD. now im starting to get confused. by the way, i keep my foot out of the gas pedal, and i accelerate slowly. i drive a 2001 f150 extended cab with the 5.4l v8, and i have been blessed to buy it with under a 100,000 miles ( 83,000 exactly). it will last for many years. to conclude,i am getting way beyond the 11-13 mpg range you tend to think of. im way up in the 20's :)

i can drive a whole week and still have a full tank of gas, basically is what im trying to say.

Allistar I'm really confused by your post and I cant help but think that if your daily round trip is 4 miles then why don't you ride a bike?

I dont think thats a license plate bracket it is some type of cold air induction. Does the SHO have the same thing?

The mpg I posted are accurate,that is what I get !!
I drive a 50/50 mix of city and hwy,I dont beat on my vehicles but I usually take off faster than the guy beside me...I take off smooth and steady but fairly quick,and drive a bit faster than the posted limit..My Hemi Ram gets 16-18 and MY 2005 Ram SRT-10 quad cab gets 13-15.5 average mpg driven the same way !! Now if I floor it all the time,do 150 mph yeah...its going to get 8 mpg..but I drive my vehicles properly and that is what I get ,with MY driving style..I dont care what mpg some clown you know gets because they probably drive erratically..Another thing with Dodge I notice the mpg is lower when new and keeps getting better with added miles,I got 2.5 extra mpg's after 20,000 miles !!

Hemi 300's and Chargers average 17-21 and higher if driven more on the highway..some people get 26+ mpg when mostly hwy driven ..

Stick to cleaning cars (probably underqualified for that as well) ...obviously you dont get it,these are MY trucks this is what I get with MY driving style !! I know some other SRT-10 drivers that get what I do and some are worse,as they always floor it same goes with the cars and trucks..I drive a 50/50 mix of city and hwy !!

US Gallons....

Just have to look at some Dodge forums when they talk about mpg,some people get better than I do !! Like I said it all depends on your driving style !!

Car and Driver tested a Ford Flex and it got 15 mpg...A F-150 will get lower mpg.. If you have a driving style like mine you may get out another 2-4 mpg,but the ecoboost 6 shooter will be the same as a Hemi Ram mpg wise !! Plus you have to run Premium on the Ford ,as it is "recommended"and you have the extra problem of having turbo's another costly part to fail after the warranty is up !!

Dodge, the Flex is constant AWD. You can't compare a Ram 1500 in 2wd mode to a Flex AWD, because the AWD is going to bog down the performance and fuel econ. You gotta compare the Durango Hemi AWD to the Flex EcoBoost AWD. Similar size, weight etc but the Flex performs much better. I looked at buying a Durango Hemi for my wife, and the 13mpg avg readout kind of put her off.

Also if you're going to bring up the "premium fuel recommended" for the EcoBoost, please don't forget to mention "89 is recommended for the Hemi." The EPA rating for the Ram 1500 4x4 is 18 on the hwy. Dodge fans quote the 20 from the 2 wheel drive models. I haven't got close to 20 from either a Hemi, a GM 5.3 or the Ford 5.4

From Ford's website: "Fuel Type:
The EcoBoost engine can use standard octane fuels, excluding E85 and diesel. High-octane fuel delivers optimal engine performance. Lower octane fuels are the choice for the budget conscious." That is a little far from your claim "Plus you have to run Premium on the Ford."

So, looking at the Motortrend review....
"Although our mix of city and highway driving yielded about 17 mpg"
They didn't give a strictly highway figure. But Ford's claim of 22 doesn't sound like it would be far off. I don't know how C&D got 15, thrashing it? They didn't say how they were driving or where, and that makes a difference. The thing i noticed about that engine, is it really invites you to drive it hard, and it is so thrilling.
The F150 will have the advantage over the Flex of not having to drive all 4 wheels at once, but the disadvantage of added weight. So let's wait till it comes out before we judge it, hey?

Allistar...Not sure if I can believe you considering that the mass majority of the people I work with drive trucks. And a few of my friends do, too.

Some of the guys I work with may have been able to hit 15mpgs on a city commute (some living within 5 miles of work) but none were ever able to get into the high teens...no matter how much they tried.

That one person,
i respect your opinion. it is hard considering how big the engines are and how heavy trucks weigh if i can do it however, and if you don't believe me, come ride in my truck and i will show you how ridiciously slow i accelerate. i feel like my foot is never on the gas pedal. im not an old person though lol! :)

@G: The key is a melting point higher than the operating temp. :)

Why don't you all just wait untill it comes out and see what it can do, instead of arguing about what you don't know?

ill take it in regular cab long box!!!Ford Inline 6 4.9l300ci, V6 4.2L 256ci, all own chevy and dodge V8's

@Dodge: trucks with smaller engines than the V8 option do not all necessarily get worse mileage than the V8, look at the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon 5 cylinder vs V8. I get 25 mpg hwy with the 5 cyl, the V8 gets at best 20mpg in the same model with same equipment/options.

I am glad to see Ford thinking outside the box. Its because of all of the federally mandated fuel economy increases that we are seeing powertrains like this (not just in trucks). Many makes are going to smaller displacement plus forced induction. Since the EPA requirements on diesels have become so stringent, any previous advantage in reliability and fuel economy has been ruined by the emissions equipment and urea systems.


The engine does not operate at 1700 degrees, areas of the turbo system do. All turbo systems have areas that are very hot, mainly around the exhaust and the exhaust side of the turbine.

Reference 2%..
True if only applied by itself. Pair the cooling effect of DI with higher compression and the knock resistance of ethanol you get more than 2%. With the current engines getting 20+ MPG under conservative lite throttle. A small increase combined with less complexity of the naturally aspirated engine could prove to be a smarter buy. Now as most of us know the Turbo will not respond to very lite throttle input as it will not spool up correctly. At lite throttle there's not enough heat or flow. Now you can tune it to spool down there but at the expense of top end. This works for diesel engines as they don't rev high. Turbo has never produced the real world efficiency it has promised. Not even in the SHO.

Look folks MPG differences will always come down to maintenance! My buddy has a 5.7 ram he was getting 17 MPG till I added air to his factory setting now he averages 20. I own a wrangler with the 4.0 I6, 3.73 gears, and 31" tires. I get 21-22 combined city/hwy. One of my trail buddy's has a stock wrangler with 3.08 gears, and 30" tires (stock). He gets 16 MPG! I run 38psi in my tires, keep it aligned, and a lighter synthetic oil. The moral is it is completely possible for people to get higher than normal efficiency depending on driving style, and maintenance.

So quit re-inventing the wheel already. If they want to build an engine that performs like a diesel, then build the diesel. Take all the costs of research, development, production start up and building this new engine and throw it out the window. Save a few million or more and re-invest that in a small diesel for 1/2 tons and get a diesel for the super duty that doesn't rely on urea to clear the air. Can't believe lowly little Dodge and Cummins can do it, but not Ford or GM.

Let's keep something in mind. In 1969, a big-block Chevy would get around 500 hp and 500 ft/lb torque. You can get that now out of an engine that is around 100 cubic inches less. Technology has changed the hp and longevity tremendously. In the 70's, you did something if your vehicle made 100,000 miles. Now, with the much better engines, ECMs and lubricants, 100,000 miles is nothing and 200,000 is not extraordinary. So, can a turbo V6 do what Ford claims? Absolutely, yes.

Now to address the fuel octane rating issue. If you build a naturally aspirated engine to run on premium fuel it would gain 2-3 MPG compared to the same set up on 87 octane. The higher the octane rating the slower the fuel will burn. This allows for a higher compression, and less aggressive fuel advance curve. Think of EB as a smoother more refined version of variable displacement. You start with a smaller displacement, and increase it with boost instead of cutting cylinders to reduce displacement. DI helps to cool the air fuel charge which controls knock allowing higher boost / compression for better response, and efficiency.

As objective as I sound I think it is a good plan. Ford needs to correctly apply the technology though. The F150 EB should displace between 4.0-4.5 liters, and have the turbos tuned for low rpm lite throttle response. For this to work you have to start with an engine that can comfortably power the vehicle without the Turbo. 3.5 is to small for a full side truck!

Good Gawd is right, (funny frank) this truck ain't so snazzy.
Thank god fer Chevolets! yes (Chevrolets).

It sounds like there is a lot of confusion about what exactly this technology represents. It's not a bad idea to think of EcoBoost as Ford's attempt to apply diesel technology to gasoline engines. In a diesel, higher efficiency is achieved by compressing air in the cylinder to a pressure far above where the fuel would detonate - but because there's no fuel in the cylinder yet, it can't. Then the fuel is directly injected into the cylinder, and immediately ignites from the pressure. Higher compression = higher efficiency. Compression in a diesel is limited pretty much by how strong you can make the engine and therefore by how heavy you can afford to make the engine in order to increase its strength. Gas engine compression has historically been limited by a different factor. Because the gas and air are mixed before entering the cylinder, the mixture is ready to explode as soon as it reaches adequate temperature or pressure. So, if you were to run at at the same compression as a diesel, it would detonate while the piston is still compressing the mixture and the engine would knock. What Ford has done is to A) direct inject the fuel into the cylinder, at the right moment for ignition, so much higher compression can be reached and efficiency increased, and B) add a turbocharger in order to greatly increase the incoming air pressure, and further increase the compression. This wasn't possible before for a few reasons. One, materials science has come a long way. To do this with the alloys available in the 1970's would have taken a HUGE lump under the hood - I'm not certain the truck would have been able to move it very well. Also, this requires pumps that can reliably pressurize fuel far higher than in conventional fuel injection. This is both expensive and technically difficult. Finally, it requires more complicated engine controls, especially when you have to make it run reliably on low-octane fuel. The turbo is probably the simplest of the technologies - the core tech for it is basically lifted straight out of the turbodiesels we're all familiar with that can run for 100's of thousands of miles. Obviously, as mentioned above, turbos DO put stress on an engine, but as long as the engine is engineered for that stress from the ground up, it shouldn't be a problem. I suspect that the EcoBoost block and internals are probably significantly stronger than those in any of the V8's we're all familiar with in trucks today.

Obviously, with any new engine, we'll have to wait and see for real-world reliability and efficiency. However, if this has been well-engineered (and I suspect it has), it should offer the acceleration and torque of a V8 with the cruising and idling efficiency of a V6. Whether it's the right engine for you probably depends entirely on your usage and driving habits. If you keep it floored and keep the turbo spooled up, it will suck through gas as quickly as a V8. If you use the turbo to accelerate and then cruise at speed, or if you spend a lot of time idling, this could save you a lot of mpgs.

Alex; As a Jeep man I can tell you the difference in 4x4/awd vs 2wd is roughly 1mpg. This comes from the EPA ratings. All Jeep 4wd systems (the least efficient in the market) turn the whole drive train even when not engaged. As far as the difference between your system and a comparative fwd the difference is 1mpg or less on the hwy.

This will be the base motor. Which will have much more power than the currnet V6. Looks good so far.

How the engines will be in 2011 I think:
3.5L EB V6
5.0 V8
6.2 V8

If this is how it goes then the EB V6 will be a great base line motor.

WOW - some very impressive posts.
I don't think these engines will be fuel hogs or as problematic as some people are making them out to be. Ford's website says that they plan on using EB engines in 90% of their vehicles. I'd say they are confident that they will perform as expected.

Ford quietly demo'ed the F150 with an EB 3.5 in a comparison test the the old 5.4 liter. The EB 3.5 liter completely buried and destroyed the 5.4 liter in all measurable performance metrics. Including 0-60 both unloaded and towing a 5000lb trailer.

The only data we do not have is durability and longevity.

Also the 6.2 liter is only available on the Raptor and Harley Davidson models, otherwise its not available.

Ford's website says that they plan on using EB engines in 90% of their vehicles. I'd say they are confident that they will perform as expected.
Posted by: Lou

Excellent point.

Also, Shawn, you aks why not just go diesel because Dodge doesn't used urea? Take a look at this. Dodge canceled their diesel light duty, and they are looking to bring in urea. If the diesel is so great why did they cancel it and why are they thinking about brining in urea???

"Chrysler Postpones Light-Duty Diesel Ram Pickup
legon said Chrysler and Cummins are trying the determine the best emissions approach to use.

"Emissions (regulations) keep getting tougher and the equipment keeps getting more expensive," Klegon said. "We were hoping to use our current system (NOx catalyst trap), but the extra cost is a reason to bring (urea) SCR forward in time."

Another Chrysler concern is the cost premium that diesel fuel carries over regular unleaded gasoline

@ Alex:

You should compair two similarly sized vehicles with AWD. The 300 is much closer in size, and weight, to the Flex then the Durango is. Once again the HEMI comes out looking much better. Less complicated, less expensive and gets much better then the 17MPG that motor trend got when driving the EB Flex.

@Mark Levin

Wow, you bring up an artilce that is 18 months old. Cummins and Chrysler/Fiat are looking into the 5.0 again.

Don't you look foolish now.

BTW Cummins is develping a new EGR only system to meet new emissions standars. The new system is going to be so efficent that it won't even need a DPF. That came from a Diesel Power magazine about 6 months ago.

I think the other way of telling this is an ecoboost is the fact that Ford has NEVER in the past 10 years mounted the front license plate bracket off center to allow air flow...

What I want is a small block diesel in a light duty truck. But I'll look at the EB V6's MPG carefully. If it it's good and comes in a contractor plain-Jane version, I'll buy one.

It was hard tossing down $40 every weekend, when gas hit $4, to do chores around our property and "go to town" in my old F-150. And anyone who thinks gas won't go up again is, well, dreaming.

Manufacturers have to get it that many farmers need a light-duty and minimally appointed work truck, not a race-car or commuter box with lots of toys. And we'd like it under $30K.

Well if it comes down to comparing red apples to green ones then there's one undeniable fact.... A V8 sounds really good with duel exhaust. If V6s are to replace V8s in the future then that's just one more American tradition that we have ben stripped of.

After people see the MPGs...this should catch on. A lot of people post complaints, but the vast majority of people here don't understand and the most they use a pickup for is a bag of seed or a few 2x4s at Home Depot. Or you see some fat housewife carting the kids around (then off to a fast food joint). This is a brilliant idea to improve fuel economy when most users don't need anything more! Go ahead deny it.

@USB, you can compare the 300C and the Flex if you want... nothing complex about the Hemi? apart from this displacement on demand which does practically nothing for the added price.

But I would put the 300C Hemi AWD against the Taurus SHO, and the Flex against the Durango. Not that the Durango is available anymore, but it was the closest thing in all fairness.
People don't cross shop the 300 with the Flex, but Durango buyers would probably consider the Flex.

@ Alex

The flex and 300 are much closer in design then the Durango and flex are. Durango is body on frame and is much heavier then the Flex, not to mention built to tow much more, and has off road capabilities. The Durango is a straight up SUV and anybody looking for one would be more likely to look at a Tahoe or an Expedition then a Flex. The Flex and 300 are unibody and have similar capabilities. If anything a potential Flex buyer would be shopping a Magnum (if they still made them) as well, which is on the same chassis as a 300.

BTW the HEMIs MDS is a very VERY simple design. The system requires new rods and a rod solenoid, that's it. MDS does work very well too. Before the VVT was introduced it was less effective and didn't really work on the pickups, but worked well on the Charger, Magnum, and 300. But now with the VVT the HEMI is a fuel sipper, even in the pickups.

The 3.5EB will get no better fuel mileage then the current 5.4.

I forgot to add that the MDS is also a cheep system. The price of the HEMI option didn't go up any when MDS was introduced.

Ive owned both a 04 HEMI and 08 HEMI. Both costed the same in the option box.

Thanks for the article. I guess I should feel foolish because I did not use the word postponed instead of canceled. Same difference. It still doesn't change the fact that the Ram diesel is still postponed. Ford's diesel is also postponed. The diesels are postponed and they are looking at them. I feel foolish now.

"BTW Cummins is develping a new EGR only system to meet new emissions standars. The new system is going to be so efficent that it won't even need a DPF. That came from a Diesel Power magazine about 6 months ago."

The comment I was responding to said lowly Ram already had it. According to you they are still developing it. Thanks for the feedback.

I will quickly deny the obscure statement that a bag of seed, and 2×4s are all most trucks are used for! You must be from New York? A bass boat, a show car trailer, a tractor, your buddy that just tore his truck up from mud riding are a short list of common items I see every day behind trucks here in the south. Now if you live in Beverly Hills then I would invite you to see how real trucks are used here in the south.


The comments to this entry are closed.