Thanks for the heads-up! I am setting my D.V.R. right now!

@Mike Levine,

Is this something different to what we have already been watching here and online?

GM? Hello? Anybody home?

PVR's set. Thanks Mike!

Cool! Just bought mine yesterday!

i will be watching

Bring it on! Stay tuned for the rebuttal from Howie Long. AMCI testing for the win.

@Uncle Bud, GM will be following with their own version called the GovtBoost. ;)

GMs rebuttal program will air on CNBC after some other socialist programming

Heck no! I've overflow of info of ecoboost right here, sick and tired of it already.

@Fred, we haven't even read a full review of the engine on this website yet. I'm looking forward to it, even if you think there should be more reviews on engines that have been around for a decade.

@Fred G,

Want some cheese with that WHINE!

ALT + CTRL + DELETE.

Good day Sir!

YAWWWWNNNN!!!!...... These aren't news?

@ford850, GovtBoost? REALLY?? Get with the days MORON!

Overrated engine, nothing really special about it other than its a high stress little V6. Sure it puts out decent power, but with only a 1 mile MPG rating than a V8, whats the point? Doubtful it will be reliable with high miles, thats real world miles not Ford's "torture test" simulated miles with no load on the engine. The Baja was the only thing noteworthy that engine did.

I completely understand the "homer" comments from all three camps but GM and Ram fans totally miss the MPG point. The 3.5 compares to the largest V8 your camp offers. 1 MPG gain is not a relative comment.

I decided to do the Eco Boost test drive and walked away impressed by the small displacement motor. I doubt I would buy it but I certainly applaud any manufacturer for thinking outside the box. I love having options and this motor is a great option.

Dear Greg,towing two Nascar cars with the extra weight to equal 11,300 at full throttle for 24 hours is "no load" then I don't know what constitutes "a load". I remember when Chevrolet ran the 454 SS for 24 hours around a track by itself. I guess that was a big deal for Chevy. It wouldn't matter how much load or how many miles Ford ran the Ecoboost, people like you would still TRY to have something negative and smart to say. Wait and say these things when GM gets enough money from Uncle Sam to get their Ecoboost equivalent out on the market.

The 24 hour endurance test has shown that EcoBoost is the future.

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150

The few people who I have talked to on farms or in parking lots actually have nothing but good things to say about them. No complaints whatsoever except they wish it sounded more like a V8, or they wish ford would make a small diesel. But the one thing I have gotten loud and clear is that they are getting better MPG than what the EPA has rated if for.

Dear Keven, it couldn't have been at full throttle the whole time unless its not powerful enough to accelerate that trailer past say 65? Other than that its just cruising and by todays standards i'd better be able to handle situations like that. And when did this turn into a Ford Chevy argument? I couln't care less what Chevy's done, i'm talking about the EB.

@ trashman, yes that is a valid point because it was supposed to be the winning point to this engine, but its not, so what it? it costs more? I just don't see this type of engine being the future, sure the power is there, but the jump in MPG is not which is the other big issue. It's a lot more high strung than conventional V8s and every body knows high stress equals unreliability.

Greg, If you had watched the video you would have known it reached speeds approaching 100 mph and averaged over 80 mpgh pulling 11,300 lbs. For 24 hours straight.

GM 6.2L
13 city, 18 hwy on *premium*

Ford 3.5L EcoBoost
17, 23 on regular gas

EB is 21% better in the city and 28% better on the highway.

The fuel economy is there.

I for one am looking fwd to Mike's loaded/unloaded real world F150 EcoB fuel economy test results. I still think Ford should've made a maintream F150 EcoB with fuel economy as a the primary goal.

Ford's throwing some advertising $$ around. Normally these televised dog/pony shows are on channels like Speed.

Wrong again ecoboost bob, the ecoboost is 16 city and 22 highway in two wheel drive and 15 city and 21 highway in 4 wheel drive just like GM'S 5.3 liter V8 at 15 city and 21 highway. So stop distorting the truth or flat out lying about the ecoboost fuel economy.

@ bob with the blinders on again ecoboost bob was comparing the 6.2 not the lame duck 5.3. the only thing the 5.3 has in common is mpg's it isnt even in the same zip code when pulling

@ Bob - you cannot pick and chose statistics to make your brand look good.
The new Ford line-up in comparision to Ford's old motors and GM's motors is as follows:

Ford old 4.6 2V = Ford new 3.7 V6 = GMC 4.3 V6 or GMC 4.8 V
Ford old 4.6 3V = Ford new 5.0 V8 = GMC 5.3 V8
Ford old 5.4 3V = Ford new 6.2 or 3.5 EB = GMC 6.0 or 6.2

Ecoboost Bob is right on the money when comparing engines.

I prefer to see magazine/e-zine tests as opposed to manufacture sponsored infommercials regargless of badge on the engine.

Hey Mike, Bob is at it again...time to warm up that "Delete" button.

Not impressive at all when a V8 (6.2L, 7.4L, or 8.1L) only matches the power of a V6 (3.5L)!

I drove an 8.1 recently, and it felt pretty similar to my 5.4 3 valve. Being completely honest. The 6.0 feels like it revs a little better up high, but doesn't have the low end grunt of the 5.4... and the 5.3 feels like a car engine.

In response to Bob's comment. You are right about the EPA ratings, but of course the reality is dependent on the configuration, as it is with any brand of truck.

This guy got a Supercab EcoBoost with 4x2 and 3.15 LS rear axle, and says he is averaging 23.5 mpg.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1057261-goodby-v10-hello-ecoboost.html#post10203543

I had a drive of a Super Crew with a long bed, 3.73 rear axle, and I got about 19.5. I think I would go for a 4x4 with 3.55 LS axle if it were me.

Looks like he's quoting the trip computer which can be inaccurrate. Need an unbiased source of info, enthusiast forums are notorious for exageration.

For is screening the questions. I don't think they are very serious about answering anything that would not look good for them.

I dont want any posts about fuel economy that state I heard from or I knoe a guy that is getting this alleged fuel economy bullcrap. Unless pickuptrucks.com does a test on said engine, none of what you heard from so and so. I am not impressed that a V6 can only match a V8 for fuel economy. And to the person that goes by the handle of Synergy, are you not man enough to handle my posts? Or do you have to cry like a baby and ask mike to delete my posts.

Ecoboost makes good power with TWO turbos, but fuel economy is nit that impressive for a engine with only six cylinders vs gm's 5.3 liter V8.

@Mike L.

Were you asking any questions?

@Jeremy O: No. I've already asked too many questions. ;-)

Chevy Vortec 5.3L V8 315 HP 335 lb-ft TQ 22 mpg (XFE)
Ford Ecoboost 3.5L V6 365 HP 420 lb-ft TQ 22 mpg

Now really, the 5.3L just gets simply beaten by the Ecoboost. Considering the power advantage, how could anyone say the Ecoboost isnt impressive? I'd say Ford did a pretty good for getting v6 mpg and v8 power, but I guess Bob was expecting 30 mpg out of the Ecoboost.

But if it matters any the 3.7 V6 gets up to 23 mpg with 302 hp, thats respectable, and something the 4.3 V6 cant touch

As far as the online questions, I asked if the Ecoboost was gonna be offered in the E-Series or Superduty, my question wasnt posted nor did I get a response, same went when I asked if Ford had any plans for an Ecoboost 5.0 or if the Ecoboost will be offered in the SVT Raptor. All of those seem like good ideas.

@ bob if you dont want to here mpg that other people are saying there friends are getting and you say the 5.3 gets better than the ecoboost than what are you getting from your 5.3

@ Bob - you are tenacious as a clingon and hurt just about as much when removed.
It must be real sad for you.
The only shining star in the Chevy 1/2 ton Galaxy is a vague MPG advantage with one engine only (maybe 2 if you include a $12,000 more expensive hybrid).

My condolences.

I wonder hw much longer we will have to wait for the GM/Chev 1/2 ton funeral...............................................................................I mean PUTC 1/2 ton shootout!

I saw the episode. I think I saw only pieces of it on the Internet, but I saw the whole thing on TV! Loved it!

The TV show was ok,. For me too monotonous, amazing how many times info was repeated in 30mins. Better to stay on the internet or make a 15min television show.

@Bob, if I quoted a guy saying he got 25 mpg with a Chevy 5.3, I don't think you would have a problem with that now, would you? People are allowed to give reports from their EXPERIENCES on these forums, most people here appreciate it.

Lou,

The more you talk about Bob and bring him up the more you are going to make him post... You people say you hate bob but hes all you guys talk about...

If you want him to go away, Ignore him... Its not that damn hard.

Question for Ford (coming from a guy who grew up the biggest Ford fanatic around): "Does it embarrass your engineers to know that a 1980s-era Cummins 4BT will still whip your EcoBoost engine in every conceivable category except NVH?"

I'm betting they'll skip over that question.

@ Jake - ignoring Bob is like trying to ignore a raging boil on your ass.
You must be a zen buddhist master.
Teach me the way - enlightened one.
OOOhhhmmmmm.
OOOhhhmmmmm.
OOOhhhmmmmm.
OOOhhhboooobbbiiissssaaaaaannnnaaaaaasssss............
Hey - it seems to be working.
I feel so much better all ready.

WXMan, you really don't know much about diesels do you? You misquoted the specs on your 2.8L VM Motori unit to make it sound better than it is, and now you think a Cummins 3.9L has more power and torque than the EcoBoost? Please stop talking such crap!

Cummins 4BT: 105 hp @ 2,300 RPM
265 lb-ft @ 1,600 RPM
Plus it uses 10 quarts of oil!

Ford EcoBoost: 365 HP @ 5,000 rpm
420 lb-ft @ 2,500-4,000 rpm

@Alex,

Whoa! 10 qts of oil. No Thanks!

@ Frank How much did your 7.3 use for an oil change. Not sure on Fords 6.4 or 6.7 but the 6.0L took like 14L. Big bucks for an oil change there esspecaily if a person uses synthetic.

Jordan L - I did a quick internet snoop.

7.3 runs 15 USA quarts or 14.2 L. So that would be 5 quarts more than the Cummins 4BT.

@ Frank - "Whoa! 10 qts of oil. No Thanks!"

Why?

Because it isn't a Ford?

Thanks Lou. I suppose I could have done the same but with good friends like you, theres no need :). The snow has finally receded enough for me to get the old 93 diesel out of storage. Time to do a 10 qt oil change I guess. Thats one down side of diesels.

Does anyone know how much oil the ecoboost takes?