Ford Sells 500,000th Turbo V-6 F-150


By Aaron Bragman

We'll admit it, most of us in the automotive media thought Ford was nuts — putting a twin-turbo V-6 into the iconic F-150 pickup truck seemed like blasphemy at the time. No true red-blooded American will want a turbo V-6 pickup, we cried! And how wrong so many of us were.

Ford just announced that it has sold its 500,000th EcoBoost-equipped F-150, the pickup with the twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter gasoline direct-injection V-6; the engine first became available in 2010. It has become the best-selling engine in the F-150 lineup, representing 45 percent of the total volume of F-150 sales. The company says that the fuel savings realized by customers who opted for the EcoBoost motor instead of a similarly powerful V-8 engine comes to 56 million gallons of gasoline — more than all of the fuel saved through the sale of all electric and plug-in electric vehicles ever sold.

When one includes the naturally aspirated 3.7-liter V-6 that is the standard engine in the new F-150, Ford says that V-6-powered F-150s are responsible for 91 percent of the massive growth in V-6 pickup registrations during the last three years.

"We expect those numbers to hold for the rest of the year," Doug Scott, Ford truck group marketing manager, said in a statement. "It really is amazing when you consider we are doing that with just two V-6 engine choices — the 3.5-liter EcoBoost and the 3.5-liter Ti-VCT engine. When we come out with the new 2015 F-150, we will offer three different V-6 engines, so there is potential for further growth."

The current 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine produces 365 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, easily as much as most modern V-8 engines, while delivering an 11,300-pound tow rating and improved fuel economy. An EcoBoost-equipped F-150 won our 2013 Light Duty Challenge last year, in fact. The updated all-aluminum 2015 F-150 even gets a second EcoBoost V-6 option — a smaller turbocharged 2.7-liter motor meant for buyers who like power, value and efficiency but may not need a towing rig. This means three of the four available powertrains for the 2015 F-150 will be V-6 engines. Losing out will be the big V-8 option currently available — the 6.2-liter V-8 goes away, with the only V-8 engine available scheduled to be the 5.0-liter. photo by Evan Sears


Good job Ford but I would still get the 5.0 just for the exhaust sound :) Any word on what will power the next Raptor? Supercharged 5.0?

I'm sure they work great when they're nw, but it'll be interesting to see if these complicated monstrosities last...

I would not want a turbo anything under my truck's hood after it is out of the warranty period! I want to wait 5-10 years down the road to see how many are still on the road!

Its a good motor, but don't save much if any gas.

"The company says that the fuel savings realized by customers who opted for the EcoBoost motor instead of a similarly powerful V-8 engine comes to 56 million gallons of gasoline — more than all of the fuel saved through the sale of all electric and plug-in electric vehicles ever sold."
- Compared to what?...their other pig motor? this fuel efficiency of a V-6 with the power of a V-8 myth really needs to go away. The Ecoboost is not fuel efficient. I test drove one for a $50 gift card and the engine power is awesome! (it should, it has 2 turbochargers) but it's not fuel efficient and I predict it won't be a long lasting, trouble-free engine.


Ford's turbo'd mini engine solution doesn't answer stingy fuel requirements down the road.

I am glad you feel that way since the only engine that makes as much lb ft in the Ram 1500 is the Ecodiesel so take the turbo off of that.

I am glad you feel that way since the only engine that makes as much lb ft in the Ram 1500 is the Ecodiesel so take the turbo off of that.

Posted by: AD | May 16, 2014 11:10:26 AM



A) Longevity of this engine simply will not equal a traditional V8

B) When you work this engine hard, we've seen proof that the EcoBust gets WORSE fuel economy.

You can cut this watermelon a hundred different ways, but a twin turbo V6 is NOT the best choice for a full size work vehicle and Ford is selling them based upon the "wow!" factory ONLY. Well, that and the promises of great fuel economy which never come true.

I'd take the Coyote any day of the week.

Wow, still can't get over how ugly fords are, hopefully the 2015 will look better when I see one in person.

Can Ford, RAM and GM stop insulting their customers with all of this garbage about ECO this and that? Same turd, different diaper.

People always say it isn't 'fuel efficient'; even for those folks who talk about mid teens numbers, the 5.0L V8 does the same and makes less power. Even when talking 'more power, same fuel economy', that's still a pretty good situation. I'd take an extra 40 ft-lbs from my 5.0L if I could maintain fuel economy.

I have direct information that the Raptor will be getting an EcoBoost engine as it's only available engine, but it will not be a V8. It will be a V6, but one that is unique to the Raptor (Different Turbos, Tuning, ect). Expect HP in the 450-475 range and torque around the 500 mark.

I think the ecoboost is marketed to those who use the truck like a car on the weekdays and tow or haul a few times a month they desinged it so it could get good MPGs while commuting yet still have the power to tow on the weekend at reduced power. it also comes down to which gear ratio you option on the truck.

"The winner of our "empty" drive loop, with an observed fuel economy of 23.1 mpg, was the GMC Sierra 1500. The F-150 was in second place with 22.3 and the Ram 1500 was not far behind with 21.7. The Silverado recorded 21.4, the Toyota 18.2 and the oldest engine of the segment, the Nissan Titan, a 16.6."

Winning the trailering section of our fuel economy testing was the Chevy Silverado with an impressive 12.6 mpg, and its sibling Sierra was right behind with 12.5. In third and fourth place were the Tundra with 11.8 and the Titan with 11.4. Maybe the biggest surprise here was finding out the fastest trucks in our performance testing were the worst in our trailering mileage drive. At the bottom of the group was the Ram with a dismal 10.4 while towing; the F-150 wasn't much better at 10.9."

From the 2013 light duty shootout you can tell what Ford set the ecoboost to do and the test truck had 3.73 gears. the people who bought ecoboost to tow or haul with on a daily basis should have bought one of the two V8 power plants. the Eco Boost was Ford's way of gaming the EPA tests if the EPA test said that every vehicle needed to have a rating for towing at max weigh instead than large V8s would show better results. the Ecoboost does great at what ford built it to do, be a comuter vehicle that can tow 11,000lbs on the weekends.

The 3.5 Eco-Boost never got the 20+ MPG that Ford advertised, the most common complaint is when the F-150 is new it gets good gas mileage BUT the mileage drops off after about 4000 to 6000 miles. Its getting an average 16.3 MPG
Number 2 - The twin turbos are going to need replaced sometimes in the life of the truck,, its impossible for a turbo to last forever!
Number 3 - No matter how many times the dealer lies to you the turbos are NOT covered under the ESP Warranty
Number 4 - The turbos cost $2700 EACH ! no matter how many dealers told you they are $900 each.
I would be upset if I paid an extra $4000 option just for the Eco-Boost and found out I wasn't getting the 20+ MPG!
You're better off with the Ram 1500 with the 3.6 V6 NON-TURBO

I'll take a turbo over cylinder deac any day of the week. Just ask GM & Honda. the turbos are about $750 each, so not really as bad as the FUD pushers are saying. Dad's 96 Powerstroke with 200k miles has the original turbo still. turbos are more robust & reliable than previous designs.

"You're better off with the Ram 1500 with the 3.6 V6 NON-TURBO"


Are you talking a crew cab or a regular cab? With the Crew option at 5500 pounds or so, there's no muscle left to manage payload.

For customers who buy the RAM reg cab with the small six, maybe, not the crew.

anyone that's slamming turbos is a fanboi with their head stuck in the sand. seriously do I need to name off everything that has one?

@Tom3 how much is a new hemi when it fails due to cylinder deac? Chrysler is one of the highest priced domestics for replacement parts, so don't even go there buddy.

kmac anything can fail, but a normally aspirated V8 is a heck of a lot less likely too, especially the tried and proved Hemi.

Congratulations Ford Motor Company! A Job #1 well done!!!

All you guys suffer from "KNOW IT ALL" syndrome. You think you know it all, if you do, build your OWN truck and watch us talk $hit at how cheap it is. Bunch of Lames!!!!

Carilloskis has brought into the debate some interesting points and some valid ones at that.

We have had some debating on which truck is best for towing gear ratio arguments etc. Manufacturers are losing the ability to provide the best ratios for towing. CAFE is causing this.

Also a significant contributor for towing is the frequency at which you tow. I do think that even towing twice a month is quite a high frequency. More like twice a year if you are lucky.

So, even though a manufacturers might state a vehicle has a certain tow capability the reality is the pickup is setup to operate mainly unladen with one driver trying to obtain the best FE.

The 3.5 Eco Boost isn't offered in HDs for a reason, FE. Underload the EcoBoost will not perform to well in the FE department.

Like DiM has stated in the past pickups are SUVs with a balcony. Because of this CAFE will be applied to them and not the Class 3 and above trucks.

In the end pickup truck design is being primarily driven by regulation and the consumer. But this is how they are marketed as well.

As I've been stating for a while to change the direction the US pickup is heading in changes must be made at the protectionist and regulatory level. This will enable better competition, capacity to design better trucks and provide the best possible choice for the consumer.

You guys will be paying a bit more for these trucks, but it's your deep pockets the money is coming from (apparently deep).

Hey, Hemi guy, from a fellow former hemi owner (truck), and a soon to be new hemi owner (Charger), GIVE IT A REST, or the forums risk being closed for all of us.

I'm no fan of the Egobust, but admittedly when they work right they work really good. I just read about too many problems with all the Ford eco engines.

Wait till the biggest engine you can get is the 1.3L 3 cylinder compound supercharge/turbo that gets 40mpg, and has 9k tow rating...

Great, but not it's V8s or nothing, for me.

It didn't make sense to me at the time, but Ford put itself in an advantageous position, and left the others scrambling to catch up.

Once they offer an Eco Boost V8 on the aluminum F-150, the other pickup OEMs will be left in the dust (and rust).

EcoBoost V8??

Supertramp wrote a song about you, 'Dreamer'.

The world has changed and will change a lot more.

V8 pickups are nice trucks, but they are going to go the way of the dodo. V8s are going the way of the dodo. V8s will be relegated for the 'rich'. Like Europe and the way we will eventually head in in Australia.

The 6.2 has been dropped and I bet the only reason for the Coyote to remain is for the crusty old farts like yourself.

I bet the 2.7 EcoBoost will be a far better proposition than a 5 litre Coyote.

The 2.7 EcoBoost was designed as an EcoBoost from the onset, not like the current 3.5 Cyclone EcoBoost adaptation.

Even Fiat with the Pentastar had to make extensive modifications to the engine for it to run it's MultiAir technology.

Ford's EcoBoost is no different.

Its funny how many sore losers are on here to just whine about the Eco-boost. Your all a bunch of jealous idiots that can't afford one or just to knee deep in your own brand. I've towed with both, the EB3.5 and I have a 5.4 V8. The EB3.5 walks away anywhere without even trying while the 5.4 is always to the rug just to keep up. That's the difference, you don't need to push the Eco Boost to tow. Now as for a Chevy towing anything good luck, its the Biggest POS to tow with there is, followed by Toyota and Nissan. The only other good truck is a RAM. This Improved 2015 EB3.5 should always be measured against big V8, the new EB2.7 for 2015 will be measured against the small V8's...then what huh..Fkn Losers ahahahahahahaha Line em up!!!

@Big Al from Oz- Al is right if anyone knows about trucks it’s Roger Hodgson. In fact, Supertramp wrote a song about Big Al called, Fool's Overture.

@DiM - Al is poor can’t afford gas….he would buy a Ford pickup with the 1.6L that they put in the Fiesta if it would save him a buck….lol.

"Too late," the prophets cry The island's sinking, let's take to the sky”

@ Tom#3 - You are by far the biggest un educated person on here so far. Yes the Turbo,s are around the $800.00 mark in Canada, I priced them out. And your Hemi is a Pig on Gas and that's what anyone here with a 5.7 even with the Deact. admits. Whats wrong with you, to much Inbreeding in your family. Ram can't even tow a real load and be stable. By the way, trade in value is a crash dive also...FYI.

WOW!!!! 500,000 units and they STILL cant make it work right! LOL LOL oh the list of fools buying this garbage gets even longer......... its not fuel efficient people it gets no better than a tundra with a 5.7 in it AND thats only with the 3.55 gears that wont tow as much as the tundra. get 3.73s and its WORSE, dont take my word for it Consumer Reports PROVED it.

I once had a Dodge Hemi truck.
It cost me 45 thousand buck.
But I was a sad buyer
When my Ram truck caught fire,
And now the hind tit I must suck.

With news like this, I begin to have hope that the People are proving that Bigger is not always Better. It makes me think the Colorado/Canyon will do better than anyone here expects.

If the Ecoboost was as bad as all the detractors state, Ford would be standing before congress instead of GM.

I think for gasoline engines, Ford is probably got it pretty much sown up.

For the diesel engines Fiat, and the German's have this sown up. But I would like to see Cummins make some inroads.

I originally wanted to see the 5 litre Coyote Ranger as a replacement for the V8 Falcon ute, but I would rather see a 2.7 EcoBoost.

Once the engine is 'sorted' out it will become the small V8 replacement for Ford.

All Ford needs now is to find a suitable diesel to replace the 6.2 in the HDs. I bet there is something on the drawing boards for that already.

2014 Ford F-150 Demand Remains Strong, Even With Big Improvements Coming

With a potentially revolutionary product coming to market later this year, it would not be all that surprising if demand for the 2014 Ford F-150 were slowing down. That's especially true because most of Ford's competitors -- including top rival General Motors (NYSE: GM ) -- have launched new pickup designs in the last year or two.

However, no demand slowdown has materialized. In fact, Ford has been able to maintain its market share and grow sales while limiting incentives and boosting average transaction prices. Demand is so strong that the company is looking for ways to build more 2014 Ford F-150s -- something that would definitely help the company's earnings this year...

@Big Al from Oz - if the Tundra gets the Cummins 5.0 V8 and if it gets similar mpg to my current F150 18/25 Imperial MPG, I'd seriously consider it as my next truck.

Ram has killed their 1500's payload to meet EPA/CAFE rules. They had no choice since they have a poor fleet average. The Ecodiesel has been set up to be an EPA ringer. It cannot tow or haul and that is all to meet CAFE. Even the Grand Cherokee Ecodiesel does not have a hope in hell of meeting any tow ratings set out by FCA. I also suspect that is courtesy of the EPA.

Apologists like DiM and Pch101 are going to have to get used to underperforming engines or wolves in sheep's clothing (Ecoboost) that can give good mpg and performance but not at the same time.

That's awesome news. My next HEMI 6.4 is going to be very affordable for me. Please, all of you buy Ford Ecoboost. Preferably 3 cylinder 1 L , so there is enough gas for me.

Zviera, if the 6.4 Hemi is very affordable to you, I'm sure higher gas prices won't be an issue.

Dealer cost of the turbo is $2700 each.
I don't understand why you guys need the 420 ft lbs of torque when you don't haul or tow anything?
My F-150 always has a load when I drive it.
I feel like its a wasted trip driving my F-150 without hauling or towing.
I see other trucks driving around with empty beds and I wonder why they own one for?
My F-150 hauls more than most super duty trucks, the only limitation is my "C" rated tires, when they wear out I will replace them with "E" rated tires.
While you guys are spending your weekends washing and waxing the chrome on your truck my truck is covered with mud and dirt doing some serious hauling. Pickups are not meant to look pretty, they are meant to work!

I agree with most of what you are saying. I think FCA with the Ram are deliberately having a low payload.

I haven't worked out if that is completely a consumer driven outcome ie, a SUV with a balcony or it will save FCA some money by people not working the trucks as hard, ie, a cheaper vehicle to manufacture.

As for the Grand Cherokee, even in Australia it has a high tow (over)rating. Apparently the diesel tows as well as the V8 here. That's why I question the outcome of that test done by that guy. The Cherokee in this instance, irrespective if the vehicle was overloaded should have performed better than it did, especially at altitude.

The best way to resolve the tow limit issues is for tow weights to be limited against the Class or weight of the tow vehicle.

Then you will have accurate tow tests.

I've read they are expecting the V8 diesel Titan/Tundra to achieve a 21.7mpg combined cycle.

I think it was an 'educated' guess.

@BAF0 - Turbo V6s are getting to be commonplace and in everyday cars. And a 'radical' twin turbo 5.0 V8 would only be a replacement for the 6.2 V8, with better fuel economy. Detuned and kept under 500 HP, of course. 450/450 would be good.

Turbo V6s were considered radical a couple decades back. The Buick GNX was a radical, bold muscle car at the time. Its V6 made less HP than the EB V6.

There's absolutely still the need for a big HP V8 (with not so big displacement) in the Super Duty class and a TT/EB 5.0 could replace the V-10 too. Again, with better FE. And trickle down to selected F-150s, just like the 6.2 did. Yeah, it would be a bold move, but check Ford's recent hits. The current GT500 still has the most powerful factory V8 in the world. What would you call that? And how should Ford follow that up? Should they let it die?

The Raptor is in a class of it's own. The Boss 302 set the standard for pony car handling. and embarrassed the BMW M3. And gave some supercars a run for their money. If they these come back in their new generations, the regular 5.0 V8 just won't cut it...

And this is Ford we're talking about. An EB V8 would round out the EB line-up perfectly. Of course I'd rather have a thumpin' big block V8 any day!

You are absolutely right about that.
Ecoboost doesn't have better mileage than 6.4HEMI with MDS.

True Delta recently sent me stats on 2012 pickups repair frequencies. GMC was tops (i.e. fewest repair visits). Toyota second. Chevy third. (GMC has higher quality interior materials-and "visits" included non-mechanicals such as a seat cushion splitting). Ford was fourth. But if you separate out the eco-boost, ford would have been tied with GMC.

If I do buy a 2015 F150-it will be a base V6 or the 5.0. Some one said the 5.0 is in the line to satisfy old buyers NOT TRUE. Ford wants a factory snow plow ready F150-to do that they needed a non-turbo V8. The ecoboost, with the current intake design, does not get enough air with a plow up front.

In the meantime-I love my Tundra....but it is one thirsty animal.

I'm jealous cause I don't have or can't afford the Eco-Boost? Funny I have a full option 2013 F-150 FX4 with a 5.0 V8, the Eco-Boost option for the FX4 is much less expensive than the XLT model, I think its only $900 extra for the FX4 but its $2000+ for the XLT.
The reason I didn't buy the Eco-Boost is because I didn't trust it, the twin turbos not covered under warranty, and know too many people that have one that are disappointed they are not getting any better gas mileage than the 5.0, I also read the news reports how they suck up water in the rain!
I think I have the ONLY FX4 in the country with a 5.0 V8

Boy, you really are some nimble brained person.

What are the chances of this occurring.

Now I understand how and why you are the way you are.

You can't differentiate between what's real, viable, possible, dream, vision, etc.

DiM, have a look at your comment and see if it fits into Fords plans. If it did do you think they would be making aluminium pickups?

Do you think Ford would state they are removing V8s?

DiM is great to be a dreamer, but don't become confused between dreams and reality.

@BAFO - I wouldn't rule out a TT EB 5.0 V8. Stranger things have happened. An all aluminum pickup, for the routine pickup buyer? For everyone from landscapers to the rich and famous? Whodda thunk?

A factory Mustang with a blown 700 hp V8? WTFs???

No, V8s aren't going away. You're just deluded. And butt sore your trucks aren't getting them. Suckers...

BA not really from Australia. He's from NJ. BAFNJ is mad that since he migrated to Australia as a migrant worker his purchasing choices have been cut drastically. Move back to the US. You won't be so angry all the time and will have more choices.

The comments to this entry are closed.