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?


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.

Note the EcoBoost engine's turbo intercooler seen through the inlet in the front bumper.


I will get 2011 RAM 1500 6.4 HEMI with MDS, 8 speed transmission and leave competition in the dust. So enjoy while you can. I have 228000kms on my 2005 Hemi and I didn't change anything but spark plugs, oil and filters.Let's see how EB is doing after 5 years. I am not going to be ford test driver.

I'm not picking, but I don't see the point of this engine. Energy content in fuel is a constant. It takes "X" amount of energy to move "X" amount of weight. If you drive the exact same truck the exact same way, but with the different engines, I would think fuel economy would be very similar.

2 examples of this that I have seen. Chevy Silverado, 5.3, 4.8, 4.3 all carry similar epa fuel ratings in the same truck. Also in the recent truck shootout, for the gassers, the fuel economy between the three seem to be in close relation the the vehicle weights.

Interesting you are getting the Ecoboost 3.5 and in Australia we get the turbocharged 5 Litre Coyote V8.

@ zviera: I don't think the 6.4 Hemi v8 will be offered as a truck engine. So you'll have to stick to the 5.7 Hemi v8.

The intercooler will take the stream crossing about the same as the bottom of a radiator would on any other truck. It shouldnt be an issue.

I think many of you don't get what direct injection is, nor do you understand turbocharging and engine that was meant to be turbocharged. This is not like Ford took the old 4.0L V6 and bolted a turbo up to it. The Ecoboost was designed to be a turbocharged engine from day one. I also think you are missing the term "deisel like torque curve" that has been mentioned on this motor since day one. It will make its power lower than an NA V6 and hold power longer. Not peaky.

To the Hemi mileage fan - If MDS had that big an advantage how come the current Ram only beats the current F150 by like 2mpg highway? FWIW at 75pmh aerodynamics play a bigger role in fuel consumption than MDS. On my truck dropping to 65pmh gets me better economy by 2-3mpg.

I smell a 4.7L Ecoboost in the near future.... 485 HP 500 FT-LBS Sounds good... If the 3.5L was a V8 it would be a 4.6-4.7L... add two cylinders and wuaaallaaah!

We will see. I don't have to stick with anything.
I can pick what's best for me.
To everybody, who think EB is revolutionary and offers best of the two worlds.
Diesel engines have energy efficiency of 45% and petrol engines of 30%. So good luck to get good MPG on EB with "diesel like torque curve". It will eat grass and kids when on the way to the job site.

@ Kieth and Corey It seems to me that you to are not fully grasping what the DI is for. Historicaly turbo engines has to run much lower compression to advoid knock at hi bost levels. DI has an intercooling type effect which allows any engine to run higher compression. The DI allows the EB to run a compression ratio that would be normal in non turbo engines. Because of this very high CR, DI MUST be used. It will be just as prone to knock as older turbo engines. Now if they had kept closer to the CR of turbo engines past then one could argue that this was done to prevent knock. I'm not convinced it will be ideal but I will never be the owner of a Ford unless its a Mustang. Let us now how it goes when you trade in your Titan.

@zviera: Offcourse you should pick what's best for you. Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. I thought you wanted another Hemi. That's why I wrote it down like that.

Jordan L. - Titan is paid off. My next truck will most like be a CC F250 with the 6.2L as I plan on towing my travel trailer more and further. I also can't throw out possibly upgrading to a 5th wheel. :)

@mike levine. That's awesome what you're doing at the state fair of texas. I'd be all for it if I wasn't so far away. I love this website! I like the whole ecoboost idea. I can't wait for a 4 cylinder ecoboost in the f-150. Any word on when that will be? My hemi and superduty have plenty of power for when I need to haul big loads or just have some fun. I'd love a full size truck that gets mid 20s mpg and has just enough power to get the job done

For those talking about no 6.2L in the FX4, I say this. Rember if you need to off road and want a 6.2L the Raptor will be available in Super or Crew for 2011. Now if you just want the image of the "Off Road" and don't want the real thing, there is the Lariat and you can get a 6.2L. You can also order option code 55A "OFF ROAD PKG" which I'm sure will include stickers. (55A shows up on XLT's as well)

Also the computer won't process the order so I can't confirm what engine gets what gearing, but on a Lariat it lists 3.15 and 3.55 regular (I assume 5.0L same as 5.4L was), on the Limited slip front it lists 3.15LS, 3.55LS and 3.73LS (betting 3.15 is for 3.5 EB), and finally option XL6 3.73 Elocking shows on Lariat. On XLT the same options are listed but 3.73 open is also on the list. On FX4 3.73 Elock is the only option.

@ Nathan,

if only it was so simple as to say get the Raptor or Lariat instead. Reading your post it sounds as if you have access from a Ford dealer computer. Do you mean to day that the Raptor Crew has been confirmed by Ford?

Yes, I work at a dealer and the powertrain announcement says:

"The new powertrains are in addition to the already exciting 2011 F-150 news:

SVT Raptor will be available in SuperCab and SuperCrew both with standard 6.2L engine
Harley-Davidson F-150 will have a standard 6.2L engine"

I guess I don't see what the issue about getting a Lariat is, I mean other than the E Locker the FX4 had nothing special for off roading you couldn't get on a Lariat. New the price is very close on the FX4 to a Lariat (especially with Luxury package, I've seen cases where FX4 was higher) Also when you go to trade the Lariat will bring more than an FX4 on the used side as well.

I think too many people are assuming that these new engine lineups are in the same ballpark as superdutys and that is just not fair.We all have to remember that we are talking about a half ton F-150 and so far all of the new engine numbers of the new ford engines are just unbelieveable.I currently drive a 99 model F-150 with a 4.2 v6 and I can honestly say that this has been probably the best ford truck I have ever owned.This motor has been by all accounts bulletproof.All I want to say is a new FORD v6 with the kind of numbers this ecoboost puts out is too bad for the competion.All of the neysayers worried about how reliable it will be just remember it is a FORD enough said.I will drive a broke FORD any day over anything else.

If I was in the market for another 1/2 ton I would consider the 3.5 eb. I would have to test drive it with a loaded trailer, and if got better mpg than the 6.2 with a loaded trailer and pulled just as good as the 6.2, then I would get the 3.5!

Although I like the ideal of the EB the 5.0 will be just as capable of a motor and you won't have to use premium in it. Just plain old regular. IF you ask me 360hp/380tq (5.0) vs. 400?hp/400?tq (3.5EB) is plenty enough for a truck. So what if you can tow more with an EB, if you plan on towing 11,000 pounds you better have a Super Duty. I don't know what it is in other parts of the country but reg is 2.58 here in Delaware vs 2.78 for premium. Think of the money you would save in the long run and know you will have a good motor because its a V8.

On another note did anyone catch where GM is teaming up with China to make DI motors for global use? I guess its time to play catch up to Ford yet again... I don't want anything that comes from China. Just saying!

Though it sounds like a great option - I just think that with the premium cost and the questions about longevity. Saving some gas and saying you have the latest gas saving engine even with the HP and Torg level, will not be worth the extra cost. We will stick with the V-8s when it comes time to replace. And it will be hard to look away from the 5.0

I know, you didn't want to hurt my feelings.
If I can't get 4.5L Cummins V6 tested 4 years ago, or this from Fiat in to RAM 1500 sometimes on the end of this year,
I will stick with HEMI for Regular Gas and enjoy Power, reasonable MPG and most important proven Reliability. Torque is nice, but
it doesn't make sense to me to buy EB for extra 10Hp, Premium Gas, Premium price an questionable MPG and reliability. But I am happy,that Ford is pushing competition to think of some new engines. Would I buy any Ford?
No. Personal preferences. Their were just lucky to get huge loan with small interest before recession started to spread. They would be exactly in the same position like other two. This is again just my point of view and nobody needs to agree with me.

@ Shawn & Zviera

For the 1,000 time the EB does not require, desire, need, want premium gas.

Quit spreading BS.

I see this engine as at most a Light Casual towing vehicle this may just be my opinion and you can argue it if you must but I doubt its towing performance. I am sure it will tow fine but saying it can do something on paper is different than real life situations. Like I said this is my opinion. If I were to buy a 2011 Ford I would go for the 5.0L or 6.2L V8s because I know they can take the abuse. Also if your going to load it up 80-90% of the time get a HD/SD there is a reason they call these light duty trucks.

the engine needs only regular-grade gasoline to run, though premium fuel is recommended.
Ford Flex web site:
*EPA-estimated 16 city/21 hwy mpg. Power ratings: 355 hp @ 5,700 rpm; 350 lb.-ft. of torque @ 1,500 rpm with premium fuel.
I want to know, whats the power, torque and MPG with regular gasoline. Nobody wants to tell me that.
But I agree. You are right. It doesn't require Premium. It's just Recommended by Ford.

Same can be said for the new 6.2L Ford (with exception of SD), and the GM 6.2L. And the 5.0L in the Stang.

Heck the 09-10 5.4l got 10 more hp and 25 more ft.lbs of tq on E85 but you guys didn't trash it cause e85 sux?

@ Stanely If the EB needs premium to make 350 HP in the Flex and others than it will make less than that on regular. Mike says that the EB application in the F-150 is expected to make roughly 400 HP. Given that the engine doesn`t change displacement increased power will be achieved by higher boost, higher compression ratio, or a combination of the two. Given the truck application a larger intercooler is also likely but that would account for very little power gain. Higher compression and or higher boost means that running premium fuel is even more important to make max HP. So I ask you this: since the 350 HP EB needs premium to make that kind of power, how will the F-150 version make more than 350 if you run regular. Logic says that it will make less than 350 HP on regular. This is not BS. If you or anyone else has an explanation that proves me wrong I want to hear it. But back up your arguement with facts please.

So you are stating for the record that its highly unlikely the F150 EB will make more than 350 hp on reg gas...

You guys said it needs premium. It doesn't. Thats BS.

Your making many assumptions there. You keep forgetting that the fwd EB are limited due to tranny maximums. Direct injection changes things too. This isn't your 80's turbo here.

Taurus SHO makes 365 on prem. I have not yet seen how far it drops on reg. But in any even if the truck is at 395 I highly doubt it'll drop below 350. Find out in Texas!

@ Stanley The EB needs Premimum to make max HP. Thats not BS. That on Ford own website. I will make it as simple as I can: If premium is required for 365 it will also be required for 400 regardless of the tranny it is attached to. Care to try again?

Well, after looking to prove that EB doesn't require premium, I can say both parties are right. On 2010 Models, Flex and MKS recomended 87 octane fuel and SHO recomended premium (and that was the reason for the 10 Horsepower difference, note the torque rating remained the same with both fuels, since thats limited due to transmission constraints). If you ran Premium in your MKS you had the same power as a SHO, on the flip side you could run regular on your SHO safely (it says so in the manual), but you loose 10 horsepower.

The rules require whatever you certify Horsepower and fuel economy on be the recommended fuel. On SHO power was more important, on Flex regular fuel made a better story.

Now on the 2011's, I see premium is the recomended fuel on MKS. Not sure what the story is as they're still quoting the lower power ratin, but my bet is that the Premium fuel kept the EPA economy rating up (20.5 is 21 on the sticker, 20.3 reads 20), thats just a guess but that would be my bet. I see Flex EB lost 1 MPG for 2011

On the F-150, I expect regular to be recomended UNLESS the premium will jump it to the next number on the fuel economy chart. Also remember the transmission won't be holding the engine back so the extra horsepower without extra torque won't be an issue with the RWD 3.5EB.

Although on further reaseach, I'm questioning even more. If you go to the www.fueleconomy.gov website it lists all of them as "regular gasoline", If you go to a Shelby Mustang it says "Premium Gasoline", so I don't know what the fuel recomendation is right now. I'm assuming the EPA site is wrong since I know SHO recomended Premium in 2010, and its listed as regular on the gov't site.

@ Nathan

Thank you for your comments and info RE: fuel type vs. power and RE: Raptor crew. It's good to have people like you posting actively on this site.

Take care,

Are people really arguing over regular versus premium gas? What's the price difference? A whopping $.20? If it gets the projected better mpg you'll roughly be paying the same at the or less than the old 5.4L and be getting better performance. FWIW stating fuel requirements is old news. Especially like Lincoln did and Ford did with the Taurus. In the Nissan truck world the Armada recommends 87 octane yet the Infinity version calls out 91 octane "for best performance". Note that the Infinity is/was rated for around 10 more HP. Please stop like running premium is like buying liquid gold. It is a lame excuse.

@ Jordan L. We are splitting hairs. When you read your posts you say it requires prem, you didn't say it requires prem to get max #. We're both right. (and wrong)

Lets not forget he GM 6.2L and Ford 6.2L also require it for max #. Will the rating have it on the F150? We'll find out. 6.2L needed to so they could claim most powerful engine in a 1/2 ton. 5.0L (truck)doesn't but mid-pack engine doesnt' need absolute max. It may require premium for max # BUT there is no way it will be under 350 hp on reg. You have to give that one to me. ;)

@ Nathan
Thanks for info! I missed that when I was looking last night.

@ Keith
My ask is that we compare data apples to apples. Lets list all the engines # on reg gas. For example I've read the GM 6.2 has @ 384 hp on reg fuel, but I have no idea what the tq is?

Stanly - In the case of My Armada/QX comparison, they shave the same engine, trany and rear ends. The only difference found has been recomended fuel. 87 for Nissan, 91 for Infinity. Nissan does not state "for best performance use..." like Infinity does. Granted these are noth NA engiones, but there is maybe a 10hp difference.

IMHO normal driving you will notice no difference as there is no real load on the engine to cause knock. Add payload and knock will start and begin to retard timing and cause HP loss due to it. Honestly not sure what effect DI and turbocharging have on that process. However, like I stated before we are splitting hairs over around 20 cents a gallon. A whopping extra $1.00 per 5 gallons. Around here even premium is cheaper than diesel. $6.00 extra over 87 octane for a 30 gallon tank. Big whoop.

Mike Levine or any other person who may know:

I was wondering if they are goingto couple the 3.7L NA V-6 to a 4x4 drivetrain? I have come to the consensus that this would be all the power I needed since the truck I had before my latest supercrew was around that power range and seemed to get the work done fine. If so, then I want a 2011, if not...then I will hold onto my 2001 Supercrew as it has a lot of life left in it. I feel this would get me a good combo of power and FE, while allowing me to keep my 4x4. I just need a Ext cab, no crew cab. How do you find out the powertrain options? Anybody?

My take on the 3.5L EB:

Some are saying that it can be expected to have lower end trouble and the like turbo trouble etc. I disagree even though I have absolutely no desire for a race truck, therefore no use for a EcoBoost V-6 turbo pickup truck. But, if engineered correctly, you could make a 4 cyl have a stronger bottom end and block that a 7.5L V8 big block (Ford 460 CI). I think the EB has a good chance of standing the work that one may put to it, but my bets are more than likely the ones that will buy this truck will be more concerned with how fast they can get a load moving or race from stoplights.


In the dealer powertrain announcement it lists the 3.7L as available with the XL, STX and XLT 4x2. 5.0L is in everything except Harley and Raptor, 6.2L is in Raptor, Harley and Lariat/Platinum with Max tow. The 3.5L EB is a suprise as they list it as availalbe in everything but Harley and Raptor. I didn't expect it in XL.

Nathan, thank you good sir. I guess I will hold on to my older truck for the time being. Damn, I got my hopes up.


On re-reading the dealer announcement, the 3.5L EB isn't available in STX as I incorrectly posted. It is in XL.

@ Nathan:

what I find strange is that you used to be able to purchase a truck with an I-6, 4x4, and ext cab if you wanted to with a choice of either trim level, and manual or automatic transmission. Now, you are telling me, that Ford WILL NOT offer a V-6 in a 4x4 extended cab truck, even though that the motor puts out more HP/Tq than the V-8 they used to offer in my bodystyle truck (4.6L, 2v in a supercrew 4x4 model). And then to top it all of, Ford seems to be the opions king of the pickup trucks, but still you cannot couple a V-6 with 4x4. Why not?

Maybe I am not fully grasping reality here, but just a few years ago (late 90's and early 2000's) you had that opiton, but now society makes it seem that a V-6 is underpowered to move the 4x4 adequately. I am confused as to whether Ford really offers anything I want anymore, seems none of the manufactures do these days, you have to get a v-8 to get 4x4.

I don't need TT EB 3.5L, I don't need to race the truck on weekends (have a motorcycle for that), I go offroad to visit fishing holes and dune climbing with my little girls occasionally and tow a lowboy with at most 3500 lbs on it. A V6 surely would be up to the task, correct? I am not understanding why it wouldn't be, and if the 3.7L is so great, why not couple it with the 4x4. Must be a marketing strategy, as a matter of fact, I think it is sad that pickups are starting to become marketing tool. Most people buy into that HP war crap, but I don't. Why don't trucks have options anymore?

Stab. Control and TC, auto trans only, electric seats, curtain airbatgs, center console shifters and the like are nothing but fluff, not options to me. Any trim levelavailable in any cab confuguration and any powertrain configuration with the previous two is options in my opinion.

I didn't say you couldn't get a S/C 4x4 with a 3.7L, you can, but only in an XL or STX. The chart shows XLT 3.7L as 4x2 only. My hunch is that the economy will be about the same on a 3.7 and a 5.0 in 4x4 applications. So limiting the XLT to 5.0 and above is just a way to simplify. Much like 2010 F-150 limits FX4 and Lariat to the 5.4L while XLT can get the 4.6L 3V (and lower models get the 2V or 3V).

As a dealer, assuming the 3.7L and 5.0 get the same mileage in a 4x4, I fully support making the 5.0L standard in the XLT series and above. Leaving the cheaper models cheaper makes sense for marketing, but I like seeing the volume models simplified, especially with the availability issues were seeing with new trucks, having them more standardized will help the problem a little.

As I don't use my current truck for heavy duty hauling or towing. It's my daily driver. If I could get a V-6 Crew Cab with all the trimmings, (Platinum, Limited) then I would switch from GMC/Chevrolet to the Ford F150. This should be a wake up call to GM. I had a V6 Silverado extended cab that wasn't a base model (can't do that anymore) and it was perfect for my needs. Now I have to get a V8 to get the options/packages I want, it looks like Ford is awake and GM is falling behind.

Nathan, I am in agreement there with you. If the mileage were the same between the V8 and V6 in a 4x4 ext cab, hell....I'd go with the V8 if there was only a small fortune to upgrade. How do I price a new one?

The comments to this entry are closed.