Now this is a real 2017 SD, with the real body, unlike the mules with the old parts we saw before. Very, very interesting.

I predict, at least for the next year or two, people that haven't owned a ford or probably never will making up bogus tails of how aluminum isn't the right choice while ford continues its class leading capabilities in every segment. The real comical act by the haters is going to be when an ecoboost appears in the HD segment and becomes the class leading gas motors for the HD segment. Just like how the ecoboost are the class leading motors in the gas 1/2 ton segment currently.

I really don't think a 5 litre Coyote will be in the truck. It would be a detuned 3.5 EcoBoost.

It the design is very slab sided so this one would be an aluminium vehicle. Straighter pieces of aluminium will make for easier fabrication of the aluminium, ie, bonding.

I wouldn't think it would have a 10 speed either, not for a while. A 10 speed behind the PowerStroke would be one massive transmission.

Ecoboost is just another scam from ford, yes you can achieve stated hwy mpg if your doing 55 mpg slightly downhill, otherwise everyone I've taked to get worse city mpg then a v8, and if you tow a trailer, don't expect it anywhere near v8 mpg.

Posted by: Fred | Mar 12, 2015 12:16:26 AM

The people that get bad mpg's with a ecoboost typically don't have an ecoboost. Also the ecoboost typically get some of the best mpg's out there for there capability. Many test out there prove it. Since they typically perform better then most other halftons tester typically flog them harder cause there more fun to drive.

http://www.tfltruck.com/tfltruck-hall-ike-gauntlet/
http://www.tfltruck.com/2015/03/2015-ford-f-150-2-7l-ecoboost-highway-mpg-test-video/

These two links you have to cross compare since they didn't test them that the same time. But the ecoboost mpg is very comparable to the v8's while mostly offering better performance.
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-fuel-economy.html
http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-light-duty-v-8-challenge-fuel-economy.html

Fred

Very Good ! The words you used to describe the poor mileage of the eco-boost was perfect.
Everybody that owns the eco-boost shares the same lie, if everybody repeats the same lie over and over again then they tend to believe their own lies.

It really looks bad to the eco-boost owners that the Chevy and Ram V8's gets better gas mileage.

Now there's talk Ford is going to the eco-boost for their super duty trucks.
I guess Ford has everybody fooled and everybody is playing along. Ford never had any luck in the past with a turbo even on their former diesel engines, look at how many major diesel engine changes they had the last 10 years where the Cummins in the Ram has proven reliable with no major changes.
Now Nissan is going with a Cummins in their new truck, IF Ford was smart they would use the Cummins too.

So there you have it! Everybody trusts Ford, Ford is the best no matter what engine they use, Ford is the #1 best selling truck so I guess everybody is right.
Lets play it safe , lets buy a Ford Super Duty just because its the best seller the same way the Toyota Camry was the best selling car and everybody had the same problem with the gas pedal sticking.

Ford isn't changing and redesigning the Super Duty to please the consumer, they change it to please Ford cause at Ford they are sitting in the corporate board rooms laughing how stupid the consumer is saying if we would put out a truck with a lawnmower engine and a body made of cardboard Ford would still be the best seller cause of the Ford name.
Someday the chickens are going to come home to roost and Ford will go down and they will go down hard!

Tom#3 the seminar caller is astroturfing again.

It looks like Ford has finally achieved the perfect rolling brick.

From what I can gather the 3.5 EcoBoost is a relatively reliable engine. If they use one in a F-250/350 it will be detuned and more reliable.

They can also play around with it's torque band a little more.

The problem still remains for the 3.5 EcoBoost, it will be a fuel pig.

I really don't think a 5 litre V8 will suffice as a larger portion of the F Series HDs will actually be a working vehicle. A 5 litre is too small to use as a work engine.

Or if it is used its FE will be on par with the 3.5 EcoBoost. The same theory is applied to the 2.7 EcoBoost, I do think it's a little to small to benefit completely from the turbo engine. It is best suited for a mid sizer. The EcoBoost is very powerful. But this power comes at a price at the bowser.

I actually foresee the day when the Coyote is dropped by Ford and the 2.7 EcoBoost replaces it. It is early days yet for the 2.7 EcoBoost. We will have to wait to see how reliable it is.

Remember it is constructed quite differently than other EcoBoosts. Bearing have been replaced with microns thick low friction coatings. It has been lightend and hot well does the cooling system work? You have a small engine producing small V8 torque and power.

Under load will be the telltale of how well the 2.7 EcoBoost really is. It might take a couple of years or longer for Ford to nut this one out, like the 3.5 EcoBoost.

With the F-150 an EcoBoost sort of works in delivering FE the consumer will live with. They can only achieve this because most are just a car or SUV alternative.

If they were working vehicles I'd buy a V8 or better still the best working 1/2 ton pickup in the US is currently the Ram Tradesman EcoDiesel.

You will have to wait until the diesel Colorado is released for a decent and cheap to operate pickup comes on line.

Switching from the 6.2L would be a mistake. A buddy of mine builds houses and he already has 175K on his 2011, no engine issues at all. These are work trucks that see lots of miles and usually abuse. The 5.0L is a decent half ton engine, but I don't think it's the right choice here.

An even better alternative would be a smaller diesel like the 4.4L Ford sells to Land Rover.

@A L,
The 4.4 Lion diesel design was used as the basis for the PowerStroke. So why not just keep the current PowerStroke.

So, in effect the PowerStroke is base on a Euro diesel, a bit of a shock. Just like the first vehicle to use the core engine the 3.5 EcoBoost uses was a Japanese engine, a Mazda FWD.

The best engine for a 250/350 is the 3 litre Lion V6 diesel. This engine has 450ftlb of torque and 260hp.

This is more than enough to move a F-250/350 and it is also a far better engine for work than the 6.2 and 3.5 EcoBoost.

The 3 litre Lion diesel can use current 6.2 V8 running gear to manage the torque.

It would not cost an additional $8 000, it would be similar (or less) to the difference in the Ram 1500 in cost between the Hemi and VM EcoDiesel.

Looks like Ford has gone a little over board hiding the new Super Duty grill.

Well at least it has Michelin tires on it.

I am very entertained by the ecoboost haters in here. I own one and I wouldn't call it an eco motor Ford messed up on the naming. Should have been called "torqueboost". One argument I don't see and shouldn't is the performance argument. Not one N/A v8 in a stock truck is making as much torque as the ecoboost for that much of the powerband. My ecoboost gives me so much torque right off idle something you would dream for in a v8. I also do quite well on fuel in my 2015 f150 supercrew 3.5l ecoboost 4x4. I average 18-19Mpg and I don't baby it in my mixed commute. Some of the MPG runs I see from places like motortrend are ridiculous. I would like to know how they are driving because I have yet to get less that 17 MPG avg on a tank even including about 80 miles or more of light towing (2500Lbs). Hell I got 13.5 doing 75-80MPH with that same 2500Lbs for 320 Miles. That is 1.5 off of the average Motortrend go on an empty truck. Yea right! The way I look at it power comes at a cost. You sacrifice power for fuel economy. It's easy to drive the ecoboost like a sports car and hurt the fuel economy. Bottom line an ecoboost is a better choice for a gas engine in a heavy duty than an N/A V8. More torque available through whole power band. Highly doubt that the new superduty will come with 10 speed at all let alone the diesel. The 10 speed is for light duty applications I.E F150/1500's. Guess we will see.

The ecoboost will get good mileage if u drive it right. But not all the time. It is a good trade off considering the power it makes. I pull trailers in the mountains and I will take a little less mileage over a wheezing hemi any day. U simply cannot beat a poweradder motor in hi altitude.

I am very excited to see this truck unveiled. Looks very stout. Love the wheels as well. This is a much needed update.

Small diesels: Does anyone actually believe that for will allow anyone to contol any part of the truck segment for very long without competition? No, thats why theyre the industry leader. Think of it this way, the 3.5 ecoboost is a relatively robust engine, it has been tested ad abused and to this point remains a dependable engine, all while being tuned out to outrageous power and torque outputs. Heck the new 2017 raptor will have a highly tuned verient of it putting out ridiculous numbers for 3.5 liter engine. So why switch to a CGI block for the 2.7 ecoboost, when they new they were cabable of delivering the same amount of durability out of an aluminum block? Could it be that ford wanted an engine platform that could be shared across multiple engine lineups? Why would they design a block with cylinders capable of having compression ratios as high as 22.5:1 for an engine that produces a 10.0:1 compression ratio? Is it that far off to speculate that this new, extremely modular, overly designed engine could not be a perfect shared purpose platform for both future diesel and gas linups? Just some food for thought...

"Ecoboost is just another scam from ford, yes you can achieve stated hwy mpg if your doing 55 mpg slightly downhill, otherwise everyone I've taked to get worse city mpg then a v8, and if you tow a trailer, don't expect it anywhere near v8 mpg."

Fred- You have not talked with me. I have seen up to 26mpg on the interstate at 70mph. Towing a 3 horse trailer I get 20% better mileage than my old truck or van gave while running faster. I am very happy with the engine.

@ Fred.... maybe most like round fender openings to go with the round tires. Heck, don't have to ride the Ford Fan thing as it does sell best in it's class soooo who's the one being left out? It's designed to please the masses, if that's not you, so be it.
As far as the possible grill, can't be as bad as the new looking RAM grill that now has been put on the "worst grill list".
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/03/10/ram-pickup-ugly/24688053/

The need to Lowe the body, the doors must be 3 feet off the ground and the tailgate 4 feet, I always hate loading HD 4x4 trucks. You put ramps on the back to load an arv or tractor and it's a rediculous slope

Major cab lines and profile looks pretty nice, also looks a little different than the current version for the first time in a decade or two.

The Eco Boost is powerful and a decent motor. However, the GM 5.3 is the power plant of choice in the 1/2 ton market by a wide margin.

I have 50,000 miles on my 3.5 EB in a F150 Supercrew 4X4. The truck spends a lot of its time running around the job site (off road). I have never reset the MPG average readout. I have averaged 16.2 MPG overall.

I am absolutely impressed with it. To call it out is absolute BS.
Stop being a rookie and accept the ecoboost for what it is.

Typical highway run the truck returns 18-19 MPG and I have averaged over 20 on several 300 mile plus trips.

"The Cyclone engine is Ford Motor Company's latest DOHC V6 family of gasoline engines introduced in 2006,[1] and Ford's only V6 engine currently in production.

The Cyclone engine succeeds Ford's previous V6 engine families, the Ford Essex engine introduced in 1981, the Ford Vulcan engine introduced in 1985, the Duratec V6 introduced in 1993, and the Ford Cologne V6 engine, whose original design dates back to 1962. The first version of the Cyclone engine, a 3.5 L V6, appeared in the 2007 Lincoln MKZ. Mazda badges its versions of the Cyclone MZI as it did with its versions of the Duratec V6."

First seen in a Mazda eh Al? Looks more like Mazda is badging a Ford engine. FWIW the 3.5L non Eco engine only appears in the 2007 Mazda CX-9. A 3.7L variant appears in the 2008 to present CX-9 and the 2009-2013 Mazda 6. ALL other applications are in Ford products. The only turbocharged versions are in Fords as well.

The Powerstroke was designed and built in house by Ford. So not sure where you get it is based off the 4.4L Lion. Ford's 3.2L Powerstroke is based off the 3.2L Duratorq.

The only mention of Ford doing anything with the 4.4L Lion was a rumor they were going to put it in the F150 and Expedition. They do share the same manufacturing plant though. However they do not share design.

The Ecoboost 3.5 going into the next Raptor is a different engine than the current EB3.5. It is similar to their Endurance racing motor and the motor going into the GT supercar.

I've talked to a lot of guys with the EB3.5. Only one guy mentioned problems and it was an early model and had the intercooler replaced.He is a manager of a Forest resource company. It has been fine ever since and it is a work truck used by a Forest Resource company. They have purchased several others and to date have not had problems. My brother works for the biggest Forest Company in Canada. They changed over ALL of their 1/2 ton trucks from GMT900's to F150's with a mix of 5.0 and EB3.5's. No reports of issues. All of their HD's are still GM.
I've looked at stats that show the 5.0 to be more reliable and depending on year of EB3.5 it is as reliable as a 5.7 Hemi (maybe I shouldn't say that since Ram rarely ever rates well on any durability stats).

Jalopnik has a pic of the SuperDuty without the camo.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2017-ford-f-250-super-duty-heres-the-first-real-pictur-1691057669/+travis

@KeithCT

You may be thinking of the 2.3 turbo that Mazda had in the CX7 about 10 years ago.

The first eco boost, but they had the good sense not to call it that.

The normally aspirated 2.3's were co developed by Ford and Ford subsidiaries in the late 1990s if I remember correctly. The turbo? Don't know.

@BigAl - "If they were working vehicles I'd buy a V8 or better still the best working 1/2 ton pickup in the US is currently the Ram Tradesman EcoDiesel."

Thanks for making my day................ that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

I checked both Ram Canada and Ram USA web sites and oddly enough NEITHER list a Tradesmen with the Ecodiesel in a regular cab.
Both sites list and Ecodiesel Tradesmen in doublecab.
USA 4x2 ecodiesel:
$34,195 (4,500 more than 5.7) cargo 1501lb , tow 9,050)
4x4
37,540 cargo 1260lb tow 8850lb

Those specs are hardly work grade.

@Jack - what is the breakdown of engine sales in GM trucks? We know what % of F150's are sold with each engine.

Your comment "However, the GM 5.3 is the power plant of choice in the 1/2 ton market by a wide margin." is as misleading as saying, " The 3.5 EB is the turbo power plant of choice in the 1/2 ton market by a wide margin".

@Dave D., Wow! Great find.

PapaJim - There was no Ecoboost 10 years ago. Ford did have turbocharged 2.3L 4 cylinders but that was in the 80's to early 90's and in no way related. If Mazda bolted a turbo to a 2.3L who knows, but it wouldn't be related to the Ecoboost line. The 2007 CX9 offered the 3.5L V6 in NA form, then went to an NA 3.7L. That is the only mention of Mazda using the "Cyclone" series of V6's in their line up.

My reply was in response to Al saying Mazda used the core engine for the Ecoboost was first in a FWD Mazda. Mazda offered an NA 3.5L then an NA 3.7L on a total of two of their models. At the same time Ford offered them pretty much throughout their mid size line up, the Flex, Fusion, Taurus, Explorer.........

Those of you wanting to see the thing already...

Jalopnik has it:

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2017-ford-f-250-super-duty-heres-the-first-real-pictur-1691057669/+travis

I know the 3.5L EB makes good powerand will probably be reliable as Ford has had enough time with it in truck use to make it reliable. All engines go through that. The problem is I don't see why they would use it in the Super Duty line. The 6.2L V8 is made to be put to work reliably every time you start it up which is probably the reason they came up with a SOHC engine at the same time they came up with the Coyote. Also it will probably get better FE than a smaller engine that is under boost all the time when working. I would think that it is also cheaper than the EB as well since it has a simpler construction. That would seem to explain the simple construction of the 6.2L and why I couldn't see Ford changing from that.

The F-150 4x4 crew with the 5.0 V8 gets 15 MPG

The F-150 4x4 crew with the 3.5 EB gets 16 MPG

The 09-10 F-150 crew with the 5.4 V8 gets 16 MPG

The Ram 4x4 crew with 5.7 V8 gets 19 MPG

The Silverado 4x4 crew with 5.3 V8 gets 19 MPG

www.fuelly.com

Jalopnik already has a photo with out camo. Check the link

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2017-ford-f-250-super-duty-heres-the-first-real-pictur-1691057669

@KeithCT,
Who stated the Cyclone had to have a turbo?

@PapaJim,
It was an actual car that received the Mazda version of the Cyclone.

@A L,
No, the Lion diesel was used as the basis for the design of the current PowerStroke. The PowerStroke is more or less an "expanded" Lion engine.

The current PowerStroke was actually designed in Austria. You can't more more "Continental Euro" than that.

To all concerned, I have posted many links over the past several years on PUTC. Go back and find my links.

@Lou_BC,
You are again using the "bigger is better" argument. In some instances I do believe a Transit cab chassis with a the 3.2 Duratorq would be the best option as a work vehicle.

As for the cost, how much is Ford losing on the pricing of it's F-150s? Or, if it makes a profit they would be more expensive than a diesel Ram.

I also submitted a link on PUTC on an analysis of the cost benefits of the use of aluminium vs diesel. Diesel was the better option.

@Big Al - "Bigger is better".......... Wwwwwhhhaaaattt???

I keep saying " Buy what you want as long as it has the capabilities to do what you want"

Companies buy 1/2 ton trucks over 3/4 ton to save money. They want capacity to be able to do similar jobs. I keep sayin' over and over "buy what you want be make sure it has the capacity to do what you want it to do".

In business they look at cost and capacity right from the onset.

The company my brother works for looks at mpg and durability but they look mostly at return on investment.

They buy 200 pickups at a time and not one single diesel powered pickup in the fleet.

I have only EVER seen one count em' one Ram 1500 as a company truck and it was a plain reg cab short box base spec truck.

Yes the ecodiesel gets good mpg but how long would that truck have to last to hit ROI?
Remember the ecodiesel costs $4,500 dollars more.

When i see every logger, miner, rancher etc in an Ecodiesel then I'll buy what you are selling.

You put 2 fat unionized workers in the cab of the ecodiesel and you've lost 1/2 your payload. The shovels and signs they lean on would suck up the other 1/2.

I can't see Ford putting the 3.5 EB in a HD. They could have it as an option and see who buys it...........

Looks like confusion all round
"As of 2010, Ford is introducing a GDI turbo variant of the Mazda LF engine design as the EcoBoost 2.0L, using Ford's own manifold and engine control systems. Ford plans to use the L-engine well into the future for their EcoBoost and Duratec 4-cylinder generation"

Not Peugot or Ford Europe. A Comment elsewhere said it looked like German companies marine engines, could be something to that,
"The 6.7 L is the first medium duty diesel designed and built by Ford. It was designed in conjunction with AVL of Austria.[4]"

@ Lou BC

My comments are not misleading at all. GM sold about 100,000 more 1/2 tons than Ford did in 2014. Of the 460,000 F150 it appears that around 40% were Eco Boost. Of the 560,000 1/2 tons GM sold from what I found the 4.3 V6 was around 20% of GM sales. That means that the 5.3 outsold the Eco boost by at least 2:1.

Looks like a Chevy with round wheel wells.

Jack - your statement then should of read " the 5.3 V8 is the preferred engine in the Chevy".

Guys don't buy Ram 5.7's because they prefer the 5.3 just like I don't hear guys saying they would prefer a 5.3 in their EB powered F150.

I have a neighbour who has a GMT900 Sierra with 5.3. He says he likes Ford's 5.4 better for towing.

Ford used to put the 5.4 in HD's and 1/2 tons of which both easily outsold GM...................

Does that mean the 5.4 was the preferred engine of truck buyers?

GM is the mother corporation of GM read Sierra and Chevrolet read Silverado.

Care to explain why GM (The mother Corporation) does not list combined sales to claim superiority over Ford?

The new Ram Limited doesn't seem near as ugly after seeing the first new Super Duty picture. Wow, I expected a lot better and I have nothing against Ford.

The ecobooze doesn't have more power, its all about the gearing in the transmission, it only feels that way cause its geared lower.
You have to FLOOR it just to keep up to the speed limit.
In 2012 they undersized the inner cooler so ONLY the 2011 has the rated HP and Torque.
The 2009 and 2010 F-150 with the 5.4 V8 matched with the same 6 speed transmission gets BETTER MPG's than the ecobooze.

Yea I too can trick my MPG Dash Display on my F-150 to make it read 60 or 80 MPG's too! Just shift it into neutral and float it down a long mountain road!

Your ecobooze is a POS !

Really very interesting. I've owned all three major brands. Like to think I'm not biased but probably am and don't know it. Regardless, I believe the f-250 will see an eco boost. It makes sense in that Ford is all cards down on the platform. All in all, the eco boost has shown tremendous potential in towing. That being said . . . . I don't see the majority of buyers considering anything but the diesel, unless they can make an eco boost deliver something that a V-8 can't. I believe that Ford has ignored the potential of improving non turbo V-8 performance, which is a shame. I don't believe a 2.7 or 3.5 petrol turbo will last 300,000 miles like I've seen the V-8's do regularly. I sure would like to hear from someone with more knowledge about engine longevity. My fear of turbo's longevity has kept me from buying an eco boost and Ford is quickly making it impossible for me to buy a great V-8.

@Robert Ryan,
Mazda were first to produce the V6 Cyclone in fit it to a vehicle. Not Ford.

I'm not 4 cylinders or anything else.

Mazda built Ford designed Cyclones.

@Chase
"This is also false. The 6.7L Powerstroke was designed by Ford along with AVL of Austria."
The Austrian design group did the engine design , Ford of England debugged it and made it suitable for production. One of their strengths is working with the debugging of many diesels

@Big Al From Oz
Correct
"
A Hiroshima, Japan assembled Mazda MZI 3.7 was installed in the 2008 Mazda CX-9 and was the first 3.7 L Cyclone V6 to see production. The first Ford application of the 3.7 L was the 2009 Lincoln MKS."
Seems like a cooperative design

@Robert Ryan,
When the engine was ready for manufacture. The Austrian AVL and the UK Lion design/development team went to Detroit to assist in the engineering/trouble shooting aspects of it's production.

I've been saying for the past two years that the Superduty is going to get a 5.0 ecoboost pushing 500 hp and 700 lb/ft of torque. And looks, here it is. It will be thousands of dollars cheaper to own and operate and will be a perfect fit for those who only tow occasionally.