What in the hell is with the shaky torque curve of the Toyota engine? Mike L, this has to be the next engine you dyno. Someone screwed up, I'd like to know if it was Fords graph makers or Toyotas engineers.

Man, its tough seeing a v6 replace a big v8 ford always used...

Makes me wonder what a 5.0L V8 ecoboost could do.

I see they've added a big peice of plastic that hangs way down under the front bumper, I guess a shroud to protect the intercooler.

Very excited about this motor!! Something new instead of another V8. Too bad it'll only be a matter of time before everyone starts thinking about the numbers an EB-V8 could manage...

@Mike: Any word about that EB 4-cylinder F150? Still looking forward to that!

So whats the MPG ratings?

What is the cost of this wonderful Ford....?

@Hank

The lower airdam helps the truck's aero profile. It gives a very small boost in mileage numbers. More importantly than that though, it produces a low pressure area behind it which helps pull air more efficiently past all the coolers.

I can see an intake, tune, and exhaust doing wonders for this truck. The engine is very stoutly built, but was lacking a tranny that could keep up with its power production capabilities. The 6R80 should take care of that. I'd expect to see some nice gains from an intercooler upgrade too.

Offset plate will look stupid. May be deal killer.

And really why not compare it to the GM 6.2L? Like the 5.3L is a worthy advisary re tq?

My guess is Fords 6.2 is the comparison to GM's, Not the ecoboost.
6.2 vs 6.2
Ecoboost vs 5.3
5.0 vs 4.7
3.7 vs 4.3
My guess.

Even the 5.0 will kill the GM 5.3

I'd like to see real testing figures on a single EB engine. Not accumulated hours on various engines. I'm assuming they are giving total hours on all engines because 13,000 hours at only a simulated 30 mph would be 390,000 miles... somehow I doubt the engine will last that long, or even half that long.

And...2500 hours at full boost, 5,000 rpm, let's say that equates to 100mph ...that's 250,000 miles at full throttle. Yep, I have a hard time believing a single engine withstood either one of these tests.

I think the figures stated are the cumulative testing hours on numerous engines. Worded in such a way to make it appear that a single engine took all that abuse and lived.
JohnnyB

Hmm No whining about premium fuel required to get strong numbers anymore I see? :)

@Mike Levine

Have you heard any rumblings about Ford Racing developing a 93 octane tune for the F150 spec 3.5L EcoBoost? Ford Racing has developed 93 octane tunes for the Mustang GT and GT500 that add a pretty reasonable amount of power over the factory 91 octane tunes. An added plus is that the Ford Racing tunes allow you to keep your factory warranty and still pass emissions tests. I could see this being a popular add-on for F150 EB buyers, especially if the tune still allows the engine to adjust the timing for 87, 89, and 91 octane gas when the user wants to use cheaper fuel.

I wonder if there will be some kind of grill or grate in that big ass opening in the bumper to protect that intercooler. It's going to get beat all to hell unprotected like that.

I'll still take a Hemi.

Living in Colorado, I have been waiting for a 1/2 ton truck to finally have a turbocharged engine. I live at 5,000 ft but most of my truck use (towing a TT, 4wheelers, boat, etc.) is around 8,000 ft (and I cross 10K and 11K ft passes).

At 8,000 ft (assuming 3% loss/1000 ft):

5.0L V8 is making 274 hp and 299 lb-ft of torque
6.2L V8 is making 305 hp and 330 lb-ft of torque

For the ecoboost, being turbocharged it will lose very little power at altitude, but let's say it is 5% at 8,000 ft:

3.5L V6 is making 347 hp and 399 lb-ft of torque

The HP figure for the 6.2L is based on regular gas (as the ecoboost numbers are on regular).

For someone living in Colorado, the 3.5L ecoboost makes a big case for itself over the 5.0 and 6.2L V8s... IF... you need the towing power.

THANK YOU FORD for giving us high altitude people an engine!

Another comment, I don't know if fuel economy for the ecoboost is going to be as high as everyone hopes:

Ford Flex AWD ecoboost weighs 4,800 lb and gets 16/21

An 4x4 Crew Cab F150 with ecoboost weighs 5,600 lb and will have worse aerodynamics and more drivetrain loses.

I am going to guess 15/20 at the max for a 4x4 ecoboost F150, which to be honest is still a good figure for an engine with that much power in a pretty heavy truck.

@mike levine
I'm with alex. I thought I heard something about an ecoboost 4 cylinder in the f150 too. Has ford said anything about that or is it just some rumor? The ecoboost v6 is pretty exciting, but i'd be more excited about an ecoboost 4 cylinder that gets even better fuel economy. I hope these new ford engines really are reliable.
I never hear anything about engine plans from other makers on this site. Have chevy dodge toyota etc. announced any plans showing how they are going to compete with these new engines from ford? If not I see the potential for ford trucks to gain a lot more market share in the next year. If I had money to invest, I'd probably buy some ford stock.

How do you select one operating mode over the other? And why does the dotted line stops at around 2000 rpm? Anyone...

Good luck with those twin-turbo's! Reliability is a question mark!

@MMP - my guess is the blue dotted line merges into the solid blue.
I am nervous about the cold air intake being in the left bumper pad.
The licence plate must provide some protection but there are guys that will run the truck in deep water or plow into snow drifts.
The power figures are great, but it will have to generate some significant MPG gains over the 6.2 to sway traditional truck buyers.

my guess is the engine when in steady state mode will be governed at 2000 rpm, as this seems like a "low range" type of gear set. its like the difference between 4H and 4L...just my guess though.

x2 on cost.. adding Turbos are not cheap.

$1,000,000 here says GM will follow suit with a Turbo V6 in LD Trucks.

For those looking at Flex EcoBoost numbers, remember this is a different Engine. The Flex uses the regular 3.5L like the 2010 Edge, and its EcoBoost version is the same single variable timing setup. The F-150 Ecoboost uses the Ti-VCT 3.5L which has gained 2 MPG on the 2011 Edge (granted not Ecoboost).

I look for good economy, but I am concerned since it doesn't say "Best in Class Fuel Economy" on the press release. With the power advantage over the 5.3L and the price being resonable, I think it will sell well if it can match the 21 MPG on a 4x4 that the 5.3L gets, but would be a home run with a waiting list of buyers if it could be 23 MPG on a 4x4 (but I don't expect it to happen now).

As to the testing, I have no doubt that Ford did the rediculous testing they are claiming. I read an article about the 5.0L Mustang this spring and they were talking about heat cycle testing where they got the engine glowing hot and then dumped below freezing coolant through it and continued to do this repeatedly. I have no fear of engine durability on its own.

The question mark is the things that will vary with real world use. For example, what happens when towing and the intercooler can't get air due to snow pluging the opening? I suspect in the cold temps it will be OK, but same example using seed/grass/etc from driving out in the field on a 100 degree day, may be a different story. On the Super Duty's we've seen a lot of overheat issues at 80-120K miles with farm trucks as the space between the condenser and radiator fills with seeds/grass not allowing air to pass through. Granted this aplies to the non-turbo engines as well, but its a good example of what Ford can't anticipate happening that could affect real world longevity.

My bet is that the computers will be smart enough to keep it in a fail safe mode before any damage is done. My next concern is on air filtration. We had a lot of trouble with 7.3L Super Dutys due to air filters not lasting even a full oil change (and therefore plugging and curling allowing dirt to be injested). The 6.0L on used the Donnelson air filter (and a kit to retrofit 7.3Ls was introduced) fixing the problem. I hope the remembered that on the EB F-150 (if it sucks the massive amount of air that the diesels turbos do).

My dad had an 88 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for 5 years. The original turbo only lasted about 3 before it needed major servicing. Why? Because Dad (who was 50 in 1988) couldn't break himself of his decades-old habit of turning the key off immediately or slightly revving the engine as he did so. The result: the turbo got a quick shot of RPM then was shut down immediately after - it didn't get the cool-down time that it needed. Didn't matter how many times I tried to explain that to Dad, or that when I drove it, I made sure to give the turbo a proper cool-down period before turning the key. On the rare occasion when Dad has borrowed my HD turbo diesels, he does the same thing... yes, I cringe, but I know it's not often enough to cause a lasting problem.

I have to believe there are a lot more guys like my dad out there who are used to naturally-aspirated engines and will either forget the cool-down period after a while or won't bother with it at all. And when turbos start to coke, you're looking at expensive repairs because those do not qualify as warranty work - coking a turbo is considered abuse unless there's a visible equipment defect. Some say "what about those HD turbo diesels? Don't people coke them too?" It's not a straight comparison simply because a diesel is driven differently than a gas engine, so adding the procedures for a turbo are part of the learning curve.

If the 5.0 is cheaper than the 3.5EB, I see most customers going with the V8 for the "set it and forget it" operation, regardless of any fuel economy or emissions benefits thge EB may provide.

@roadtrip - the new EB engine is designed to run coolant through the turbos when the engine is shut off to deal with the problem you described.

@roadtrip
Turbo Coking isn't a common problem as it used to be due to water cooled turbos. The 3.5L takes it another step as the turbo continues to cool after the engine is shut off.

"The EcoBoost engine’s turbo water cooling even works after the engine is switched off. The water cooling system is engineered to allow a process called reverse siphoning to take place. When the engine is switched off, the water pump ceases operation. The coolant in the extremely hot turbo boils and fresh coolant floods in behind it. This process continues until temperatures reduce, providing sustained, key-off protection for the turbo bearings."

http://www.motorportal.com/Ford%20News/ecoboost.htm

Lou and Nathan - that's good on Ford's part to have coolant flow off-engine. That will certainly keep coking to a minimum, but will not eliminate it completely.

What we won't know until after a few years of service is, will this hold up to "truck use". Obviously, with off-engine coolant flow, the coolant will need to be monitored and refreshed more frequently than with a normally aspirated engine. If someone lets their coolant weaken from this process, it will certainly affect the whole engine, not just the turbos.

Whether a commercial half-ton buyer is willing to be the guinea pig remains to be seen.

I too am one of those High Altitude People.
I live in Utah at 4,500 ft and regularly tow a boat, atv's, and snowmobiles up to over 8,000 ft. I have been looking forward to a factory-built, force-fed engine for the F150.
I was just about to pull he trigger on a 2011 SuperDuty 6.7L Diesel but couldn't justify the cost as I simply do not tow anything that would require the SD.
I don't think we'll see a Diesel in the F150 anytime soon. With the excessively strict EPA regulations on new Diesel engines in the form of EGR, DPF, and SCR, most of the 20-30% economy advantage of Diesel is being eroded (not to mention the cost of a Diesel engine, Diesel Fuel, and Diesel Exhaust Fluid).
I have no concerns over the durability of the EcoBoost in the F150. Ford, under Mullaly, has made epic advances in quality and durability testing of their new vehicles, engines, and transmissions.
If I can realize 15mpg in town and 20+mpg on the highway, with these power numbers, I'll be very happy.
Now, put this in the Raptor SuperCrew, paint it Orange and I'll order one today!!!

I'm excited about the Ecoboost, but after looking at the photos, I sure hope they put some kind of protection in front of the intercooler! I live in Montana, and it's not uncommon when the snow is deep, to get that area packed with snow, especially if I'm in the mountains.

My wife is the bookkeeper for our local Ford dealership, and I already have my name on the list to be contacted just as soon as and F150 with the Ecoboost arrives. Our plan is that IF it drives like Ford claims, we will be ordering a new truck when the ecoboost becomes available.

I suppose this is a sign of the times. The hp & torque figures are impressive and considering the times we are living in, it shouldn't matter if it is a V8 or a V6... 365 hp is 365 hp whether it is from a V6 or a V8. The article didn't give any mpg numbers. I'm curious to see what they will be. I definitely think this would be worth considering.

@ Mike Levine
-Mike, have you heard, or do you know, it is true the EcoBoost only comes with the 26 gallon fuel tank. Looking at the 2011 order guides that seems to be true. Wondering why that is, and why no larger tank??

@ Lou
- Lou, that is not the air intake, just the license plate holder. Look at the second pic from the top, you can see that the molded plastic doesn't go anywhere. You can actually see in that same picture the black plastic ribbed intake tube coming from the driver front corner. Battery on the passenger.

@ Road Trip
-Why do you say there will still be coking. There is no oil to get to hot or to sit and leave deposits. Just coolant/water. On the other hand i would be worried about extreme cold starts and how the turbos react to that. The anti/freeze should do it's job, but i would be more worried about that than coking where this no oil interatction with the turbo..

looks like a great motor and I would love to see these in the expeditions. Revive some life into that line.

@ Matt in NH How much do you know about turbos? Turbos require oil to operate. When an engine is at high rpm the turbo can be turning from 50-100k RPMs. Thats k as in thousands. Oil is needed to lube the bearings. The coolant is for cooling not lubrication. Turn the engine off and the oil stops flowing, what ever oil is near the hot turbo is in danger of coking. I would also be worried about cold weather lubrication for those turbos. I'd be interested to know what kind of oil Ford recommends for the EB.

I'm pretty sure it is the same 5w20, that was recommended in their V8s.

@ Matt in NH - I believe it is the cold air intake for the intercooler. It was a hot topic of discussion a while back when the first pics of the EB F150 surfaced. The EB SHO has similar placement.

@Mike Levine - could you clarify? Thanks.

Maybe the torque, HP & durability will be there.... But now the manufacturers need to get the fuel mileage up to the compression-ignition engines (diesel or the "dual-mode"; spark/compression ignition combo thing that GM has been working on)...

@ Nathan

It sounds like the issue with farm trucks overheating is a maintenance issue. If the air pathway to the intercooler/radiator is getting stuffed with grass, seed, or whatever, it needs to be cleaned.

After long use/abuse the headgaskets will fail or the heads will crack , people will be lax in oil changes and cause turbo's to fail -Future nightmare as a used truck

@Allen
Yes it is a maintence issue, however, the only way to clean the space between is buy pulling the radiator. There isn't enough space to wash between them, but there is enough space for dirt to get in. Not saying its Ford's fault (the dust, I do fault them for not leaving space for cleaning), just using it as an example of real world events that Fords testing can't allways account for.

Those big radiators and intercoolers look like they need to breath. You better not be putting a winter front on that grill. Those turbos look like they run hotter than diesel turbos. I hope they have it figured out. I like this EB engine. It has a touque curve similar to a diesel and I like the idea of towing at low RPM. To keep your rads clean from debris just go to the hardware store and buy some door screen and put in front of the rad. I have done that with every truck that I have ever owned and it blocks insects, rocks and seeds etc. from plugging my rad.

The Tundra 5.7 has the flattest torque curve of all. 90% of 401lb ft. are on tap from 2400 to 5500 RPM. thats FARD's advertising there because with three new engines they STILL havent outdone the mighty Yota 5.7. It gets the power to the pavement much more efficiently than the Ford does period.

@HEMI LOL
The ecoboost actually easily out performs the not so mighty rice toyota 5.7

You say that 90% of the peak 401 ft. lb. of torque is availalbe from 2400 to 5500 rpm in the Tundra rice eating 5.7
The ecoboost (a V6 which out does ur all not so might toyota V8) lays down 90 percent of the peak 420 ft lb. of torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm. Plus the ecoboost is a v6 making it lighter than your v8)
The ecoboost also hits its peak horsepower of 365 at 5000 rpm, thats 600 rpm faster than it takes your tundra to reach its peak hp of 381 at 5600 rpm.
Ur tundra also has to wait till 3600 rpm to reach maximum torque of 401 ft lb, where are the ecoboost reaches maximum torque of 420 ft lb at 2500 rpm.
What this all equals out to is me waving to you in my rear view mirror and asking you to check if my tail lights are working as im easily pulling away from you in a race, even after your accelerator is stuck to the floor and ur brakes go out haha

Just drove one in the FORD DRIVE F-150. Blown away by power, a lot down low just off idle. Pulls hard and shifts good.Made me a believer

Fordman101:
That's what was hoping to hear!
Did you, or anyone else, get a chance to check fuel economy numbers?

Oops. I meant Phil.

I love everything Ford has done with the 3.5EB but the only issue I have is the 26 gal fuel tank. The V8s have 36 gal tanks which gives a 5.0 a @150 mile more range per tank full then the 3.5L and for me the further I can go on a tank of gas the better. My new 5.0 platinum is on order for that reason only.

@Lashbra

Why is that a deal killer to you? So what if you have to stop 50 or 100 miles sooner and fill up your tank? Id rather put 100$ in the tank and fill up sooner than drop 200$ in the tank and fill up later. You get the same fuel. It just seems less painful if you dont fork over a Benjamin every time you fill up. Yes, it might equal the same money, but psychologically it makes sense. You think ford wants their "BIG ECOBOOST" engine to have a label of "It gets good mileage, but it cost a fortune to fill up". The less you spend at the pump the better you feel. Even though you might be stopping 5 times a month instead of 3 or 4. You see what i mean.

And I for one and pretty impressed at this engine. The only thing im leary of, is how honest ford is being with the torture tests. Yeah, they are testing the engine, but what does that consist of? Are they going to tell weather the rear diff failed? Tranny? AC? Heater? Radio? I mean i would like to see the total tests. And i wonder what rear end they have in it? 3.73? 3.15? Locking diff? LS? Lot of things left unsaid.

Nobody asks about oil use between oil changes. A quart every 2000 miles , doesn`t take long to eat up my gas savings.