Ford's New EcoBoost 3.5-Liter V-6 Offers Monster Torque

IMG_5023 II

Ford has released official horsepower and torque ratings for the standard 2017 EcoBoost 3.5-liter V-6 engine that we'll see first on the upper-trim levels of model-year 2017 F-150s and will then rollout to the entire lineup. The new EcoBoost will be paired with the new 10-speed transmission as well.

This new upgraded EcoBoost engine will produce 375 horsepower and a whopping 470 pounds-feet of torque, more torque than any other half-ton — including GM's 6.2-liter V-8 — in the segment. The new engine uses a more sophisticated twin-turbo system, a new direct-injection system and includes many other efficiency-centered technologies to increase the power and cooling capabilities. Additionally, the new engine is four pounds lighter. 

As if that wasn't enough, the first-ever EcoBoost-equipped Raptor (due out later this fall) will get an even more powerful 3.5-liter EcoBoost (specific ratings not officially announced yet), and be partnered with one of the most sophisticated four-wheel-drive systems available to provide a huge boost in dirt, street, and rock performance and capability.

The new six-mode multi-terrain system offers Normal, Sport, Weather, Mud/Sand, Baja and Rock Crawl settings, where each mode offers unique traction and driveline parameters, so steering response, throttle tip-in, traction control, transmission shifting and much more change from mode to mode.

Ford also released another video (see below) to highlight some of the Raptor's new-found capability but if the traction system works half as well in the field as it looks like on paper, we're guessing there’s plenty more performance inside this new Raptor just waiting to be released.

Cars.com photos by Mark Williams; manufacturer images

 

 

 

IMG_5043 II

IMG_5024 II

IMG_5025A II

IMG_5028 II

IMG_5039 II

IMG_5030 II

IMG_5031 II

IMG_5035 II

IMG_5045 II


Comments

Small engines have to work harder that is just a fact of life. Give me a nice size V-8 that lower revving any day over the small displacement V-6 twin turbo crap Ford is pushing out.

I will enjoy my rock solid reliable Ram 2500 4x4 with its 6.4 liter V-8.

Small engines have to work harder that is just a fact of life. Give me a nice size V-8 that lower revving any day over the small displacement V-6 twin turbo crap Ford is pushing out.

I will enjoy my rock solid reliable Ram 2500 4x4 with its 6.4 liter V-8.


Posted by: Ram Tough | Jul 12, 2016 5:57:47 AM

I see you do not understand forced induction engines very well. The 3.5L GTDI does not need to review very high at all. In fact it's power band is lower than most V8. The 3.5L is making peaking torque when most V8 are barely making any power at all. This is why they can haul large trailers cruising in 6th or 5th gear under 2000 rpm when v8s have to be in the mid to high 2k range or higher. So since you want a lower raving engine, the 3.5L is a much better choice based on your comment than current small block V8s.

wow Ford continues to put chevy/gmc to shame, well done!

@LMAO, thanks for the understanding on that, some of those V8 only guys will never get it. I remeber when I had my 1500 roam(2009) with the hemi, that thing was bad towing my camper in mountains, so bad it would rev in the 4500 range and then shift and loose all the power(as you said low end power not good) then take off again, I got tired of doing that, so I would manually hold it in 3rd gear in those situations......of course I have a diesel now, so its a lot different, but would love to test this new engine out

wow Ford continues to put chevy/gmc to shame, well done!

Posted by: Nitro | Jul 12, 2016 6:43:30 AM

Huh? GM smoked em every where but above 12,000 foot above sea level. Like 20% of people live there. Ford aint putting nothing to shame with their gas chugging v6.

The next gen EB is impressive - anyone who appreciates motors reguard less of mfg would agree. Can't wait to see the dyno charts on this - just how low in the RPM range do we get that beautiful torque? Torque is the ability to do work, this thing appears very capable. Wonder what the towing specs will be?
Wonder who will be the next truck MFG with a blown six?? Toyota??

Hmmmmm last I seen the 3.5L is far from gas chugging. It has beat out most of the trucks here in direct comparison for fuel economy both towing and unloaded.

Posted by: LMAO | Jul 12, 2016 6:59:24 AM

What your saying is that it couldn't beat the v8 powered chevys.

What your saying is that it couldn't beat the v8 powered chevys.


Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jul 12, 2016 8:26:16 AM

It held its own for being the 2nd oldest powertrain on the market and the least gears in the transmission.. GM and Fiat have the newest by several years. It easily beat out the fiat.

@gms and johnny pro gm guys...what say you about the new tranny's that jointly are developed by ford and gm going in the mustang and camaro, no more who is better since they are both the same.....what say you, who you gonna blame when your camaro blows up?

what say you, who you gonna blame when your camaro blows up?

Posted by: Nitro | Jul 12, 2016 9:36:25 AM

Don't you have a Camaro? If it is the LS3 engine, you know you can't blow that thing up.

It held its own for being the 2nd oldest powertrain on the market and the least gears in the transmission.. GM and Fiat have the newest by several years.

Posted by: LMAO | Jul 12, 2016 8:37:00 AM

Finally! Progress! So you're admitting that Ford is playing catch up. Not only that, FORD needed to align with GM to obtain the goal of a 10 speed transmission.

@gmsrgreat, yes the 45th anniv addition, and I love it......but I guess when I get the new ecoboost with the 10speed that gm and ford jointly developed I can blame the poor design on the GM side right?

I thought that every test I have read on here the 6.2L has trumped the 3.5L in about every category? Am I reading the most recent 2016 test wrong? The 6.2L is probably like the diesel test. May be rated lower but always out performs the others as the 6.6L has for past several years.

Back on topic:

This is truck is pure sexy, I can't say that for other Trucks on the MKT.

Good Job Ford, I'd still shoot for the 5.4L Raptor.

I thought that every test I have read on here the 6.2L has trumped the 3.5L in about every category? Am I reading the most recent 2016 test wrong? The 6.2L is probably like the diesel test. May be rated lower but always out performs the others as the 6.6L has for past several years.


Posted by: Ramman | Jul 12, 2016 9:59:06 AM

Rated lower than what. The 6.2L has more HP and torque than any 1/2 ton currently.

Great work Ford...

I'll take mine with a 300K warrantee...

GMC 6.2 isn't available in anything less than $50,000 models, requires premium fuel, and has a 99 mph speed governor, which actually comes on, and restricts top speed in the quarter mile.

I recall a past post where someone commented that while the 10sp is the same design, they could change various material specs and that GM was going a lower cost route - someone may confirm or deny this that knows for sure.

The 6.2 does have a modest advantage over the current gen EB in torque and HP. However the torque curves are very different - 6.2 max torque at 4000ish RPM and the EB at 2900 RPM. Not a huge difference albeit but your in the power sooner than a 6.2. Both good motors, just a little different way to the twist. Real interested to see the Dyno on gen 2 EB

Brandon, Truck specs matter... :) a truck that makes peak torque and a lower RPM is a better pulling truck than a truck that makes peak torque at a higher RPM. The new ecoboost should best the GM 6.2L V8 in all facets of towing and performance now, especially in the mountains.

The 2.7L ecoboost should actually best the Ford 5.0L as well, even though the 2.7L is only 315 HP vs the 5.0L at 385 HP. The 2.7L has less that 10 lb ft of torque less, but it is at 850 RPM less as well. The 2.7L bested the 355 HP GM 5.3L towing up hill because of the torque curve and the twin turbo.

As far as your motorcross, rider ability has more to do with performance than the size of the bike they are on.

Yeah but they had the guts and got the glory for being first with the 2015/2016 trucks.

Like when Hemi V8 bought his Prospector, he could have waited a couple more years for the HD major update but decided to buy now.

You'll never be able to buy any truck if keep looking for the next update.


@gms and johnny pro gm guys...what say you about the new tranny's that jointly are developed by ford and gm going in the mustang and camaro, no more who is better since they are both the same.....what say you, who you gonna blame when your camaro blows up?
Posted by: Nitro | Jul 12, 2016 9:36:25 AM

"But that's not to say customers would ever notice any similarities between the Camaro and Mustang or the F-150 and Chevy Silverado. Even though some internal components are identical, the two companies will build, integrate, program and tune their transmissions independently.

"We will each use our own control software to ensure that each transmission is carefully matched to the individual, brand-specific vehicle DNA for each company," Craig Renneker, Ford's chief engineer of transmission and driveline components and pre-program engineering, said when the automakers announced their 2013 deal."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160627/OEM/306279963/what-do-mustang-and-camaro-have-in-common

"The new engine uses a more sophisticated twin-turbo system, a new direct-injection system and includes many other efficiency-centered technologies to increase the power and cooling capabilities. Additionally, the new engine is four pounds lighter."

Yet no fix for the very common timing chain/cam phaser wear issue? Ford should be focusing on reliability/durability, not power output.

Yet no fix for the very common timing chain/cam phaser wear issue? Ford should be focusing on reliability/durability, not power output.


Posted by: Dirk | Jul 12, 2016 4:12:22 PM

How do you know? The updated chains have been out for several years with the release of the TSB. Part coverage for the chains were increased to 8 years in the TSB.

They like to remove my posts because they are true. I just try to help people who don't live in thE REAL WORLD where people just get stuff done.

Specs don't matter!

They are all good trucks. put 10k behind any halfton and it will tow it. You want the best pick whats the best to you. these tests do not offer any information on what is best for you. only experience can tell you that.

@ yamahatim

I love your name! my father is tim and loves old Yamaha 2 strokes like me. yes rider ability is the reason why I win. my confidence is high on what I trust to get the job done with. if you trust your truck and love it. you will be happy no matter how fast it goes to 60.

8-10 speed tranny eliminatethe need for high output engines IMHO. small throttle inputs make enough power to move loads forward with all the gearing options. I'm a fan of these new tranny's. I say v8 baby! because that's what trucks need. 8 pistons 8 speeds and 8 ways to get er done!

"Just so you know, the Corvette Lemans engine is a 5.5 liter small block engine. Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jul 11, 2016 7:47:07 PM"

Um, Chevy no longer makes a big block.

5.3, 5.5, 6.2 ..... they are all small block engines.

nearly matches the for lightning in horsepower and torque. would be a great engine for a next generation lightning

I didn't think anyone was asking for more Hp or Tq from the Ford kitchen applicance. They were however asking for better fuel economy. I guess Ford can't deliver better fuel economy so they cranked up Hp and Tq. Brilliant!

GM 6.2 8SPEED 4x2 and 4x4 = 21 mpg

EB 3.5 6SPEED 4x2 = 24 mpg

EB 3.5 6SPEED 4x4 = 22 mpg


They were however asking for better fuel economy. I guess Ford can't deliver better fuel economy so they cranked up Hp and Tq. Brilliant!

Posted by: Ken | Jul 12, 2016 6:02:56 PM

Pull up pictures of the 2nd gen 3.5L GTDI. Look what is attached to the turbos. If it is what I hope it will be programed to do, that concern should be addressed.

@LMAO, you are right. The EcoBoost has BETTER low end torque than a GM 6.2 and Ram 6.4 Hemi. Also, the specs on paper don't indicate that the big V8s have a faster piston speed at 2,000 rpm than Ford's 3.5 EcoBoost, and the crank still has to turn twice as fast to develop peak torque. No idea where people are coming up with their "low rpm torque" argument.

Just so you know, the Corvette Lemans engine is a 5.5 liter small block engine. Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jul 11, 2016 7:47:07 PM"

Um, Chevy no longer makes a big block.

5.3, 5.5, 6.2 ..... they are all small block engines.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Jul 12, 2016 5:57:46 PM

I made that comment in response to someone who said the Lemans racing Corvettes had big blocks. Ignorance abounds within that Ford guy.

GM 6.2 8SPEED 4x2 and 4x4 = 21 mpg

EB 3.5 6SPEED 4x2 = 24 mpg

EB 3.5 6SPEED 4x4 = 22 mpg


Where did you pull those numbers from? EPA rating? For ecoboost has never put up real numbers that high in test. Heck my buddy has never gotten over 20 with his trying to baby it.

Let's be honest, the 3.5 isn't really about "Eco". I'm old school 5.0 but I'll give Gen 2 EB a test drive. The only negative is no sweet V8 sound. Fake sound is lame. The 470 ft lbs of torque can make up for the lack of sound - at least a little.

Just pointing out that the power figures mentioned are not the Raptors HO engine. I know the article already mentioned this but people commenting don't seem to realize this. 375/470 is 3.5L found in 2017 non raptor pickups. The HO version in the Raptor will be beyond this power figure. The Raptor is speculated at around 440-450 HP and who knows how much torque probably over 500.

Ford is creating a lot of jobs with this engine! They are going to need a lot of technicians to work on them!

How do you know? The updated chains have been out for several years with the release of the TSB. Part coverage for the chains were increased to 8 years in the TSB.
Posted by: LMAO | Jul 12, 2016 4:28:32 PM


The updated chains are still cheap, fail prone parts. Same with Ford's cam phaser design. You would have assumed Ford wouldn't make the same mistake twice after all the issues with the timing chain setup on the 5.4 Triton's. Yet after the 5.4 was buried, Ford screwed up again on the 3.5EB. Maybe they ought to have some real engineers help them out with it.

How do I know? I paid $2800 for new timing chains and cam phasers on mine. Started rattling again on cold start 5k miles later and I dumped that junk.

The updated chains are still cheap, fail prone parts. Same with GM's cam phaser design. You would have assumed GM wouldn't make the same mistake twice after all the issues with the timing chain setup on the 5.3. Yet after the 5.3 was brought back in 2014, GM screwed up again on the 5.3 and the Chevy Shake. Maybe they ought to have some real engineers help them out with it.

How do I know? I paid $2800 for new timing chains and cam phasers on mine. Started shaking again on cold start 5k miles later and I dumped that junk.


Funny Ford guys are like V8's suck !

Odd,when I had my Turbo Daytona and spanked 5.0 V8 Mustangs Ford guys laughed at a 4cyl Turbo !!

Now ford guys love small turbo motors,odd...

Posted by: MotorBrainiac | Jul 13, 2016 3:24:37 PM

You must have done some serious work to that thing. Those cars were slow. I mean miserably slow. Even the Shelby version but like watching grass grow slow. The only quick ones were the Omni GLH. They were in the 14 to 13 second range. They were pretty cool because they also had the manual adjustable suspension. While my Turbo Coupe had electrically controlled suspension those Omni's were much lighter and really nimble. Did some SCCOA racing years ago with that car against some Omni's.


The updated chains are still cheap, fail prone parts. Same with Ford's cam phaser design. You would have assumed Ford wouldn't make the same mistake twice after all the issues with the timing chain setup on the 5.4 Triton's. Yet after the 5.4 was buried, Ford screwed up again on the 3.5EB. Maybe they ought to have some real engineers help them out with it.

How do I know? I paid $2800 for new timing chains and cam phasers on mine. Started rattling again on cold start 5k miles later and I dumped that junk.

Posted by: Dirk | Jul 13, 2016 5:00:42 PM
$2800 for chains? What you stated does not prove anything. Even if you had it done like you claimed if the rattle came back it would have been under parts warranty. Sounding pretty made up to me.


Small motors with forced induction does increase wear and it is harder on the engine components ..

V8 has no twin turbo's thus more reliable over all..

Look at Diesel Trucks all have Turbo's and we repair turbo's for those with low miles..Even trucks that never are used for work..plus head gaskets etc...

Posted by: MotorBrainiac | Jul 13, 2016 3:26:34 PM

I think there are good arguments for either side. Engines like this 3.5L GTDI and diesels are similar in construction. Large big ends and small ends. This spreads the load across a much larger oil film area. Slightly thicker oil and better oils provide better protection. Longer skirt design to help with piston rock in the cylinder. Turbos can fail yes but many last a very long time. Engine hours and type of use really makes a difference too. Truck engines like the GM 6.2L are built really light. Lightweight components are great for making great power, NVH, and efficiency. But you also have to rely on a really good oil film with 0-20 oil compared to 5-30 oils. Synthetic oils really do a good job but how does it handle it under heavy loads.

nearly matches the for lightning in horsepower and torque. would be a great engine for a next generation lightning

Posted by: kyjoe9 | Jul 12, 2016 5:58:08 PM

I'm with you, still cherishing my '04 Lightning (81 000 miles now) waiting for next generation. I believe the current F150 platform is too big & we need something slightly smaller/lighter & more nimble like the new Ranger platform & with either a supercharged 5.l V8 or the high output Ecoboost will do it.

I also own a global Ranger & size/dimensions are almost the same as Gen 2 Lightning...wishful thinking :-)

87-90 2.2 VNT Turbo would run 14's when you can manage turbo lag/wheelspin.

Posted by: MotorBrainiac | Jul 13, 2016 10:00:58 PM

A friend of mine bought a new VNT turbo daytona. If I remember correctly, they were rated at 176 hp. ( no I didn't Google that) . They were a blast to drive and acceleration was nearly on par with the tuned port f-bodies of the era. There was way too much torque steer when acclerating from slow speeds. My buddy put more than 120,000 miles on that drivetrain and it was still running well.


They were a blast to drive and acceleration was nearly on par with the tuned port f-bodies of the era. There was way too much torque steer when acclerating from slow speeds. My buddy put more than 120,000 miles on that drivetrain and it was still running well.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jul 14, 2016 5:32:33 PM

Wasn't there two versions of the tuned port? 5.0L and the 5.7L. I driven a friends firebird with the 5.0L TBI and automatic. They handled really nice but power was really lacking. In fact I thought they were rated around 200HP.

I have vivid memories watching a 5.7L tuned port Firebird have written on his back glass "5.0liter eater". He was getting spanked by stock 87 and newer 5.0L Mustangs. It didn't take him to long to erase it at the drag strip. I seem to remember 15 sec pass's.

One of the biggest shames with GM is they got rid of Pontiac. I know that had to because of the bail out (in fact they may be getting into trouble again with the ignition switch) I liked the Firebirds much better than the Camaros. The WS6 ram airs were some of the nicest looking muscle cars and still look great.

http://minimopar.net/enginehistory.html

Actually I never knew the 2.2L Turbo had such a long history. with a very quick over view it looks like the turbo 3 design was the strongest with 224 HP. Not bad for the 80's early 90's.

The eagle Talons were where the speed was though. There was so much you could do to those to make them faster. AWD really helped too.

The eagle Talons were where the speed was though. There was so much you could do to those to make them faster. AWD really helped too.

Posted by: LMAO | Jul 14, 2016 6:35:30 PM

The AWD Talons were fast, I came very close to buying one and then remembered my roots. Lol. Seriously, they were fast cars, handled well. My reason for not buying on was I thought they may be high maintenance. Now you're not gonna believe this, but I was correct in that assumption.


The AWD Talons were fast, I came very close to buying one and then remembered my roots. Lol. Seriously, they were fast cars, handled well. My reason for not buying on was I thought they may be high maintenance. Now you're not gonna believe this, but I was correct in that assumption.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jul 14, 2016 6:51:55 PM


Oh the ones I was familiar with they were high maint. But fun to drive for sure. That is the beginning of an era where more power was able to be made but engine tech was still catching up for reliability. Plus everyone played with them to make them faster.

Wasn't there two versions of the tuned port? 5.0L and the 5.7L. I driven a friends firebird with the 5.0L TBI and automatic. They handled really nice but power was really lacking. In fact I thought they were rated around 200HP.

Posted by: LMAO | Jul 14, 2016 6:26:29 PM

5.0 215 hp
5.7 240 and later 250 HP. Torque was the 5.7 edge. TPI had great top speed (140 plus mph). Those cars were designed to handle well, and they did. The key to beating a (stock) 5.0 was from a stop. Load the torque to about 1500 RPM, roll about a car length and floor it. They were not good with a 20-30 mph rolling start or race. The tall second gear on those 700 R4 transmissions was the issue.

ahmm..to get back on topic about trucks;

More not-so-good news with Nissan's Titan V8 gasser - it's too bad as I believe competition will better products but this one seems to be a complete flop...yikes!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-trucks/2016-nissan-titan-xd-56l-4x4/ar-BBujll1?li=BBisPVf&ocid=spartandhp

ahmm..to get back on topic about trucks;

More not-so-good news with Nissan's Titan V8 gasser - it's too bad as I believe competition will better products but this one seems to be a complete flop...yikes!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-trucks/2016-nissan-titan-xd-56l-4x4/ar-BBujll1?li=BBisPVf&ocid=spartandhp


Posted by: Lionel | Jul 14, 2016 7:55:10 PM

Agreed, while I still like the looks of this truck it performance is pretty much like Fiats trucks. Subpar. The Cummins is a real disappointment. I expected so much more from that engine. The gasser to me is the obvious best choice.

Nice power and torque from the engine, but you gotta get it in the right places. I suppose with an auto this engine will work, but not as well as a V8, especially when the goin get tough.

Better still that Lion V6 diesel will be a better tow engine.

Nice engine for the car type pickup person.

If you want work then a V8 or diesel.



The comments to this entry are closed.