Ford Offers $500 Cash Back on F-150 XLT with EcoBoost


Ford's all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 comes with $500 cash back for 2011 F-150 XLT pickup trucks, according to Ford.

The gasoline direct-injection twin-turbo EcoBoost six-cylinder is Ford's premium engine for the F-150. It's rated at 365-horsepower (at 5,000 rpm) and 420 pounds-feet of torque (at 2,500 rpm) and can tow up to 11,300 pounds when properly equipped.

The F-150 XLT model is Ford's middle-of-the-road light-duty pickup. It has the highest sales volume among the F-150's 11 distinct models.

Relative to the new 3.7-liter V-6 entry-level engine and new 5.0-liter V-8, EcoBoost carries a $1,750 premium over the 3.7 and $750 premium over the 5.0. With the discount on XLT models, that gap shrinks to $1,250 over the 3.7 and just $250 over the 5.0.

The large-displacement 411-hp, 6.2-liter V-8 costs $2,995 more than the 3.7, even though it's rated to tow up to 11,300 pounds like the EcoBoost six.

The $500 bonus cash for 2011 Ford F-150 XLT pickups with EcoBoost is good through the end of March. Check with your local Ford dealer for details.

[H/T to Barclays Capital]


In other words, the manufacturer's profits are probably largely in stone, where the dealer can control costs and sell high and make serious loot.

@chris burke
I'm assuming you said that backwards? If not, I wouldn't be surprised given government involvement....

I wrote it correctly.



When you said apples to apples, I have a pretty good idea of what you're looking at. Chevy packages some things together that Ford makes you purchase in pieces...LT and XLT each have a little bit of what you want, and when you have to purchase the rest it seems that Ford ends up being higher. I'm a gasser, can't afford to step into diesel, but I would agree with you on the Chevy. No other way to say it, Mike proved the Chevy was the beast of the bunch.

@Chris Burke

If that were the case, I would think Chevy know...go out of business. This isn't xbox where you make up money on video games. A loss would be a loss.

wy not get one,and we give another truck free for the part..

I have always said you need to supercharge, turbo charge any ford engine to make em run. A naturally asperated engine by Ford is just not competitive. So supercharge or turo charge away ford.

Ford knows the eco-Boost is not the fuel miser people thought,so the interest is down..Time to slap monies on the hood.


At least Ford know how to use supercharger/turbocharger technology. The 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1, with a supercharged 6.2L, puts out 550 horsepower and 550 pound-feet of torque. The 2011 Ford Mustang Shelby G.T. 500, with a supercharged 5.4L (.8L smaller than the 6.2L), puts out 550 horsepower and 510 pound-feet of torque. Chevrolet needs almost a whole liter to produce just 40 pound-feet of torque more than the Ford? General Motors' engineers should be proud?

It wouldn't surprise me if GM (correction: You and I) was losing money on their trucks. They know...declare bankruptcy. I know GM publicly stated they lose (correction: You and I lose) money on our Volt sold.

Obama’s greatest achievement to date: propping up an automobile company that sells cars for less than they cost to make.

@Bob - so the Duramax is not turbocharged?
and the 5.3 doesn't need forced induction because?
I'd like to see an N/A 3.6 GM V6 do better than the Ford EcoBoost V6, if it "doesn't need it."
Explain why the 8.1 feels like a dog to drive.

GM doesn't need Monopoly money....they have the bailout. Then GM said they repaid the money in full and 5 years ahead of schedule with interest.....ummm no they didn't. They in fact paid only a tiny fraction – and did so with other government money.

Now GM is giving out 50% bonuses. Rolling in your dough, and sloshing it around as if it didn’t cost them anything. Because, after all, it didn’t.

@Bob - stop trolling.
We've danced around this one a few times already. there are some engines GM makes that are more powerful than Ford and vice versa. Hot Rod magazine compared 4 muscle car engines and Ford was ahead 3 out of 4.
Maybe you should join the 21 century by sending your '93 S10 to the crusher and trade your Astro van on something new.
Mind you, based on the quality of your comments - I'd suspect your still stuck at a '93 income driving a '93 product.

You missed out on cash for clunkers, but all is not lost. Scrap metal prices are pretty high so now's the time to get a few bucks for your ride and go buy a truck with a naturally "asperated" engine that outperforms the competition.

Yes GM's 5.3 doesn't need turbocharging LOL. It only puts out about the same amount of power as Ford's naturally aspirated 3.7L V6! Nobody has a V8 that is so gutless! NOBODY! I wonder when we will get to welcome GM to the 21st century? Probably in the 22nd century! :)

Bring that 3.7 liter V6 over Alex, the 5.3 liter will leave it in the dust and make it seem your only using 3 cyliders. I told you ford panty waste fan boys, you have to turbo and supercharge them ford engines to make em run. Not only turbo charge em, but put TWO turbo charged engines on it to make it run.

FORD, engineered to make you wish you drove a truck from GM. Hay you ford fan boys, watch GM and Chevy win another Daytona 500. When was the last time Ford won a nascar championship??? Dale Jarrett was a LONG TIME AGO!!

Chevy, "the car more champions trust" Chevy will win another title this year and manufactures championship!


Do you really think that the current N.A.S.C.A.R. cars are actually Chevrolets, Dodges, or Fords? They do not use production; motors, chassis, or bodies. They are all identical "cars".

Let's take a trip down memory lane, like the '60s and '70s, when this race circuit actually had race cars that resembled stock cars. Dodge (Charger Daytona), Ford (Torino Talladega), Mercury (Cyclone Spoiler II), and Plymouth (Road Runner Superbird) were all giving the General Motors teams beatings.

Bob, I know you're upset. I feel really bad for you, I do. But you just have to deal with the fact that GM is behind on their gas engines. Don't worry though, Bob Lutz did say that GM will be "downsizing their engines, with the use of direct injection and turbocharging." (another way of saying let's copy the EcoBoost) You better do some more reading ;) Better late than never I guess hey? Speaking of GM getting there late as usual.....

You may think I'm crazy
But If I said I want a F150 now
Would you hold it against me?

It would be a little hard to hold an F-150 against you, but we could try?

I enjoy coming on this site and reading new info and hearing opinions. The only real negative has been the constant jousting many posters engage in with Bob. Here's a plan, if he bothers you, don't repond or acknowledge him in any way, thus he will eventually go elsewhere to get attention.
My story is I'm a GM guy for many decades. I have classic a GM collector truck, a 2008 3500HD GM, have had many other GM trucks, and guess what? I have an F150 SCrew FX4 Ecoboost arriving soon.
How did this happen? By driving and riding thousands of km's the last few years in F150's, Sierra 1500's, 3500's, with a crew of big men as we travelled every second weekend to biking events with all our bikes and gear.
Hands down, by far, everyone preferred riding in the F150's SCrews. More room and better features. Now with the ecoboost it has the power I need for towing and the economy while empty or lightly loaded for the 90% of driving situations. I have test driven all the 2011 trucks were suitable for me and the F150 was the winner by a long shot.
Am I a Ford fan? Nope, GM blood runs deep, but not enough for me to buy something that is not what I want or need. Sierra 1500 had it's day and is now needing a redo. GM HD's would still be the only HD for me right now, and the Duramax package is still best in class by far.
So I took emotion out of the equation and put my money on the best package for me. F150.
And this is still only just MY OPINION. No other explanation needed.

@ Bob - If I held my F150 against you it would be vehicular homicide.
A jury of my peers would grant me an aquittal after reading this site.
@ Dcfluid - I see your point but I wouldn't call it jousting. That would imply a fair fight.
I am willing to give it a try.
Thank you for your post.

Bottom line Ford, you have made something that is not selling as fast as you want. Lets slap a whopping $500.00 rebate on it! Wow that will make all the difference in the world. Oh and what a HUGE GAIN in fuel economy! Wow Ford rates it at what,... 22 to 23 mpg. If it achieved minimum 29 to 30 maybe it would be worth writing home about. My eleven year old K-1500 gets 20 when driven right. Maybe in Ford's world 23 mpg is an achievement,...but not mine,...come back to reality. All you Ford guys are delusional. Ford just built another boat anchor they call an engine.

Not a surprise that this option is slow out of the gate. Even if you put aside the EcoBoost's poor reputation for fuel economy (Look at the Taurus SHO message boards - you will see most are getting in the mid-teens and that in a pass car!) I doubt many V8 truck buyers will consider a twin turbo 6.

I could almost see the business case IF the fuel economy was there, but to quote Car and Driver "there is nothing Eco about the Ecoboost".

In time, this engine will fade from the order sheet unless it carries huge incentives.

@RPO F55. You haven't driven it have you? I drove a Lariat crew 4x4, long bed with max tow package (3.73 rear axle) seemed to average 17 mixed driving, and at least 20 on the highway while doing 75. That is about 5mpg better than my 5.4, which doesn't perform nearly as well. It's also a few mpg better than what I got in the Chevy 5.3 I had. Forget the performance difference there, the 5.3 has zero performance at all! The performance of the EcoBoost is awesome. It's also very refined, smooth and quiet. I'm sorry dude, but it blows away any engine from the competition, even the Hemi!

Looks like the buzzards from the airbag recall thread have found a new place to roost.
I agree that calling a pickup engine "ecoboost" is lame. It would be nice if PR hacks kept out of the faces of engineers.
How will the EB 3.5 engine fade from the lineup??
Ford plans on offering an EB variant in quote "By 2013, Ford plans to offer an EcoBoost engine in as much as 90 percent of its North American nameplates, which would deliver global sales of 1.5 million EcoBoost vehicles per year."
Quote " Lincoln buyers give the 3.5-liter EcoBoost™ V-6 engine some of the highest customer satisfaction scores ever for Lincoln".

The Ford 3.5L EcoBoost V6 went into production in Cleveland in 2009. The 3.5L V6 is already available in the Lincoln MKS and MKT, Ford Flex, and Taurus SHO
Ford plans on 1.5 million EB vehicles by 2013. Doesn't sound like a "fade out" to me.

420 ft lb of torque and 22 mpg. That's Eco & Boost. We got both. They don't.


Your eleven year old K1500 is only worth; 215 horsepower and 440 lb.-ft. of torque...from a 6.5L V8. According to wikipedia.

The Ford 3.5L (3 liters smaller and two cylinders short of the 6.5L) and has; 365 horsepower (that is 150 more horsepower than the 6.5L) and 420 lb.-ft. of torque! That is quite an achievement if you ask me...and most other reasonable people.

I would pay more for the V8!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps we can attribute this to actual savings incurred through Eco-Boost? This one is promising.

I bought a echo boost xlt 150 and i love it, But I have a little concern about a tapping noice that you can hear it. I been around a few other trucks that they dont have that noice, but ford said nothing to worrier about it ,all it is the high presure fuel system on the truck which it well make a noice once in a while but cant tell me how come the other trucks i been around dont make that noice.

The comments to this entry are closed.