2017 Ford F-150 Receives Upgraded 3.5-Liter EcoBoost Engine

IMG_5181 II

As reported earlier, for the 2017 model year, Ford is upgrading its premium EcoBoost V-6 engine and offering 10 more horsepower and 50 pounds-feet more torque than the outgoing engine. It’s even more than we originally thought, delivering more torque than any other half-ton (including all V-8s) in the segment.  

Currently, 10 percent of Ford F-150s are equipped with the naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V-6, 33 percent with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, 32 percent with the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 and about 25 percent with the 5.0-liter V-8. In fact, in the last two years, Ford has sold well more than 1 million EcoBoost engines in its half-ton pickup truck. 

The new 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 offers several new technologies and features to achieve its 375 hp and class-leading 470 pounds-feet of torque. The engine has:

  • Both direct and dual-port injection with two separate injectors per cylinder
  • Two new turbos with lighter turbine wheels for faster response (less lag)
  • Standard stop-start engine controls
  • A valve train that now uses roller rockers for reduced parasitic loss in power
  • Four hollowed-out camshaft cores to save more than 4 pounds of weight

The new engine will be paired with an all-new Ford 10-speed transmission that was initially developed with General Motors. The all-new EcoBoost engines and 10-speed transmissions will be available on all trim levels and standard on Limited models. The engines will weigh the same and look very similar, yet will have a unique plastic, sound-deadening cover.  

Cars.com photos by Mark Williams


IMG_5174 II

IMG_5175 II


IMG_5177 II


IMG_5178 II



Roller rockers good, hollowed out camshafts to save 4 pounds??
10 Speed with GM Good
Should get better FE but still no match for the 6.2, there is a reason its in the Vette and Camaro SS as well, its that good.

Yawn. From the TFL video it might be even with the GM 6.2L, but I doubt it. Enjoy more broken timing chains.

They should still offer the 6.2!

I love GM but for the life of me can't understand why they're content with always being #2 with everything they do. They're always late to the game and this transmission situation is a prime example! If GM was a partner, why aren't they offering the 10 speed in their trucks??!!! Instead, we're stuck with 6 and 8 speeds for another year. What a joke! GM needs to be the leader with innovations, not a follower!

More power just means the Eco Doom will go BOOM Quicker after warranty is over!

Hear that, GM? Offered across the board....MEANING ALL TRIM LEVELS. People would love to have the 6.2 but not everyone wants a drug store cowboy truck. Have fun in second place while the leader leads!

GM_man the gen 2 ecoboost is shared in raptor and the 2017 Ford GT it's that good. The 6.2L with 8 speed is great but it's a unicorn like others have stated. You won't see it in many trucks It's GMs show pony. They don't even put 6 speed 5.3l out there to do testing its all LTZ or higher with 8 speed. The 8 speed alone in the GM truck market is a unicorn. GM is bread and butter is the 5.3l 6 speed and it doesn't even compare to Fords hit engines. Ford on the other hand will be offering the gen 2 ecoboost in all trims as usual. There will be a lot more of these on the road that any 6.2l GM truck.

One of the power train engineers very subtly and unofficially hinted to Kent Sundling (Mr. Truck), that the Super Duty will also get a 10 speed. So no doubt, the Duramax will also.

The GM 6.2 got its butt kicked by the baby 2.7L EcoBoost in TFL testing. Scott or LMAO can elaborate on this.

Blame it on the CAFE.lol Fact is they still didn't offer the 6.2 in all trim levels in 2011 and you still couldn't find one on a lot anywhere. But yeah let's blame it on CAFE because GM cars are crap and can't pick up the slack so their trucks can offer better engines across all trim levels. Cry me a river.

If GM was only for V8s they wouldn't have their V8 switch into a 4 cylinder. They are V8 in name only. AFM also causes oil consumption. Buyer beware.

Gotta admit Offering the Gen 2 10 speed in every trim level is the smart move. Though I'm sure many of the first trucks off the line will be Lariots or higher. That's the trim I'd get, sunroof too.

Not only does AFM cause oil consumption but it also gives you the winning prize of putting in new lifters around 80,000-100,000 miles. It's the truck that keeps on giving....and shaking.lol

It's good to see the power and torque increase in these new EcoWhatever engines.

I wonder with the different engine tune the *new* EcoBoost's FE will drop even further under normal driving situations.

I wonder when GM will come up with some ideas to modernize their engine lineup for the S twins.

I will like to see the FE from the F-150 when the small V6 diesel comes out. That will be the F-150 to have. It will surpass any of the gas engine offerings Ford currently has.

I wish gm would offer something like this in there halftons instead of the peaky power of their v8's. In my silverado 6.2 it kind of sucks waiting till 4000+ rpm for any power to come on and it finally starts putting you back in the seat. Its fun once you get past all the small block v8 lag and get into the higher rpms where the power is.

Gm are you friggen listening???? Give us a motor withpower down low withboost!

@Big Al

the take-rate on half ton diesels is lousy. Don't expect to see Ford go that route. They have a very big investment in turbo V6 gassers. Diesel is going to be a small part of their half ton catalog, if at all.

The better approach is simplicity (non turbo) and a multi-gear engine, which offers both durability, driveability and performance.

Remember those Gm engines called V8-6-4? My boss had one in his new Cadillac. Complete disaster.


Remember those Ford engines called Essex?

The 3.8 and the 4.2 Total crap. The only engine in any car or truck I ever owned that did not last 100k miles.

EGR valves and head gaskets. Cracked block. Warped heads.

My boss didn't get 100 miles on his car and GM bought it back. I had two 3.8 Ford motors. Don't know if they were this Essex you speak of but 200,00+ miles on them with normal maint. Still got my T-Bird.

Yawn. From the TFL video it might be even with the GM 6.2L, but I doubt it. Enjoy more broken timing chains.

Posted by: johnny doe | Sep 3, 2016 10:31:32 AM

@ johnny doeby; re: your anti-FORD jealousy rants - I don't need to counter; even the shaky GOVT motor supporter's are posting "I wish GM would do this, or that, etc, etc" HA HA HA....it says it all - just get use to being No.2 & follow the leader...GO FORD!!!..HEH HEH HEH


the essex was a disaster. you can look it up. they replaced it with the Vulcan V6 as soon as they could.

the Vulcans were good engines but only made about 150 hp.

they replaced the Vulcan with the old dura-tec that was originally a Porsche design. But the essex was a dog.

Not only does AFM cause oil consumption but it also gives you the winning prize of putting in new lifters around 80,000-100,000 miles. It's the truck that keeps on giving....and shaking.lol

Posted by: Robert | Sep 3, 2016 1:52:22 PM

I personally haven't heard about the lifters requiring replacement but that sounds like it would have been covered under GM'S standard 5 year 100,000 mile warrenty that was in place until this year.

Ford's brochure power numbers have never seemed to have much basis in reality so I'll take this with a large grain of salt until we have some real world dyno and acceleration tests. But if they actually deliver what they're promising here then I may have to trade up for one.

Another 100 lb-ft on the 2.7 that I own now would really be something.

GM's approach to avoiding turbo's and other technology "seems" smart until you read all the issues they have with the trucks. You don't sell 1 million ecoboost's by building junk that's for sure. Everyone knows to stay away from GM's AFM engines, that's been the rule since the lousy things came out.

The fellow a purchased a kayak from has the original AFM setup. 109k, says it consumes a quarter ever 4000 miles, he let me know what the fix and the issue is on the earlier afm engines. Care to guess Robert?

Another take on the same story;


Ok pappajim. I've got the Vulcan.

One quart seems fine in 4k. Town and Country with the 3.8 I had did a quart every two tanks of gas. Couldn't say ford is embarrassingly better, have had my fair share of issues with them.

On article: performance is there, engine longevity should be good, but still don't think the eco will hit epa numbers. If I needed to tow large masses with a halfton this would be the truck.

Hey canoepaddler. You think one quart every 4K miles is good? So my last truck with almost 70K miles wouldn't burn enough oil in 7k to even warrant a second glance. What would you consider that?

I for one am amazed that GM can sell so many pickups with that mediocre 5.3 liter engine. Especially when ford has 2 if not 3 available engines that are superior. I for one would take either ecoboost engine or the 5.0 over the 5.3. No doubt the 6.2 is amazing but I agree with everyone else it's a unicorn.

Does anybody know if the 10 speed will only be paired to the new ecoboost? Can you get a 2.7 ecoboost with the 10 speed? How about a 5.0? I really think the 10 speed will be most beneficial with the smaller ecoboost.

Isn't the small diesel in the f150 all but confirmed? They sure have been caught testing them a lot. I know all the major automotive news sources seem to think it's a sure thing.

Beebe Ive got a 5.0 in my 2013 F150 FTX CO. truck. ..it is a dog compared to GMs 5.3... it just is...the 5.3 is an impressive engine, and a reliable one at that...

The more complicated the engine is the more problems it will have

Parts Manager at NAPA told me he sells 10 GM starters to every 1 Ford starter and that he makes great money selling GM parts. Rock On GM. I had one GM product, a Safari Van. Two thick folders worth of repairs later, I finally gave up never to return and that was 20 years ago!

Vehicle traffic is up in the greater San Francisco metropolitan area, and a more parkable full size is going to become more essential. I've updated the list of dimensions for midsize and full size crew cab 6 foot bed trucks because I forgot to add Tundra, Titan, F150 Quad, and Frontier Crew cabs. Traditionalists that do a fair amount of work with trucks shy away from one's with 5 foot beds. Remember 235" is the magic number for length of normal garage. (235" measured from sheetrock at front of garage all the way to the galvanized U-shape horizontal metal support of rollup garage door, at rear). For many, not having to go with smaller beds, smaller crew cabs, and still be parkable would be a new threshold of achievement in full size trucks. Maybe Ford's V6 strategy, driving 75% of sales, ends up driving design of their front ends to become shorter because a one truck strategy, with a shorter front end and more cab forward design, may become the most strategic and wisest choice yet. And with a 43.7” crew area leg room, parkability must become a real pain at some point.

Dimensions below are organized accordingly: Rear Legroom, Bed length, Overall length:

Ram Quad__34.7"__6'4"__229.0"
Ram Crew__40.3"__6'4"__237.9" Only crew cab with 6’ box that is very close to being garageable.
Colorado___35.8"__6'0"__224.6". Bed is 6'2" at top only!
Tacoma____32.6"__6'1"__221.3". Bed actually 6'1.5".
F150 Crew__43.7"__6'6"__243.7"
F150 Quad__33.5”__6’6”__231.9” (250.5”, 8’ bed)
Titan_Crew _38.5”__6’6”__242.8” (38.5” small for 242.8”?)
Titan Quad__38.5”__5’6”__228.7”
TundraQuad_34.7”__6’6”__228.9” (247.8”, 8’ bed)
Tundra Crew_42.5”__5’6”__228.9” (crew cab with 6’6” not avail?)

Parts Manager at NAPA told me he sells 10 GM starters to every 1 Ford starter and that he makes great money selling GM parts.

Posted by: Camper | Sep 4, 2016 6:10:49 AM

You do realize what this means, right? Competing vehicles (FORDS) of the same vintage has long been crushed and sold as scrap metal. The GM's are still worth the investment of a replacement starter.


re: Diesel Half Ton

It doesn't matter what Ford plans to do, what matters is will the public accept it. If things get any worse in the US economy diesel will be the first thing on Fords scratch list.

So far you have to look far & wide to see a RAM 1500 diesel around my town, which is interesting because you see plenty of HD diesels from the big 3.

From the fleet service side of things, we don't see issues with Ecoboost engines as long as: oil is changed frequently if using conventional oil, synthetic, longer but NOT the 10,000 miles Ford says. We have several in our fleets with 150k to 200k on them already.
VCM or AFM engines from all manufacturers all seem to have issues with rings. High oil consumption is an eventuality.
The GM LS engines, in general are fairly reliable, but when used in fleets, constant exhaust manifold bolt breakage, cracked cylinder heads at around 150k causing coolant consumption, the "castech" head issue is bogus, it's all of them. And always seems to be the left side.


It's curious, your remark about LS head bolts. I Googled it and came up zero.

There is a very good article from June 2016 where Hot Rod Magazine rebuilt a 4.8 LS truck motor and got almost 400 hp from their project motor, and they included upgraded head bolts on the parts list.

My 2009 Silverado is closing in on 100k miles and the little 4.8 has been a total champ. Maybe it's because they did NOT have variable displacement features or variable valve timing.

Basic is best!

He said manifold bolts and head gasket issues. My google came up with plenty.

@ Tom re: LS truck motor

Considering how many Silverados, Suburbans and other GM branded V8s are on the street today (longest lasting brand based on vehicle registrations) it would not be surprising that your web search turned up issues with a very common component failing, such as a gasket or a bolt.

The bigger question in these comments relates to whether a highly complex powerplant designed for FE makes sense in a truck, which requires durability and long engine life to break-even on the higher costs of vehicle ownership that truck fleets and other owners experience.

Somehow it broke down into the usual PUTC food fight over brand loyalty.

Nobody is saying simple isn't better but AFM engine are not simple and have been proven to be unreliable. Ecoboost isn't simple either but the take rate on them speaks volumes.


Who decided that AFM engines are (your words here) unreliable?

Oil consumption of a quart between oil changes does not equal unreliable.


So adding oil to a new engine doesn't bother you? It would bother me and I wouldn't stand for it which is why my last GM truck was a 2006 with the ultra reliable Vortec! They ruined it in the NBS 07-13 and you can't give me an eco tech whatever it's called. AFM is a known long time issue and GM refuses to address it.

I'd rather have a gm sierra denali with the 6.2L and there better on fuel then the ecobust

I wish Ford had a high tech, high horsepower, high torque, fuel efficient, soul stirring sounding V8 like GM's 6.2 monster engine. Damn you GM for forcing Ford to turn to V6 turbos to try and keep pace with GMs legendary V8,

Posted by: Fords#1Fan | Sep 3, 2016 11:37:35 PM

Shaky GM's V8...legendary? I don't know after reading all the posts here of prevailing problems.
But why should Ford get into the V8 wars? Their flat plane 5.2 in Mustang is available & even the 5 liter can easily reach 500-700+ hp with super charge.
Anyway this new Ecoboost has RAM recall & shaky GOVT motors scrambling back to the drawing board as they know it still has plenty of room to increase capability if needed to the levels of upcoming '17 Raptor power plant or GT...yep, it will leave everything else in the dust...heh heh heh

With the 10 speed automatic Reverse gear ratio being so much shorter than the 6 speed auto's Reverse, Ford should make the 10 speed auto standard with all 4x4 for the 2017 model year.

Hey lray801 may want to check for oil dilution, my 07 ford with the 4.6 would have its oil level go up a quart at 5k change time. 130000 miles on it but was always the case since 50000.
What really blew my mind was Chrysler telling me a quart every 500 miles is normal.

Bring back the Iron Duke 2.5 powered by Pontiac!


Adding engine oil once every three or four months is not a big hassle. Nor is it exceptional.

There's no doubt that modern gas engines perform better in this regard than the ones we had forty years ago. Back then adding a quart every 2000 miles was pretty normal for engines with less than 100k miles on the clock.

lots of misinformation in these posts.

I do understand that the 5.3 after 05' was hit and miss with issues. some get 300k some replace after 150k. I noticed that all the gmc trucks that came through my shop did not have less than 200k on the clock. The chevy since they sell a ton were problematic more often. The 2014 and up is a better 5.3. the AFM is very good and the fuel economy is much better than other brands. Paired with an 8 speed from my personal experience its great! They don't have any available though.. Look all you want and 5.3 is 6 speed in 90% of the ltz1 and 2's on the lots. Its a combo that they really don't have available unless you want to order or pay big. As of a month ago my personal vehicle isn't available for order at all! someone tried to order the same truck as mine and asked me about my options. they went to order and were turned down. they bought a ltz 71 which really looks amazing but has no max tow package with the 5.3 and comes with a 6 speed. I drove it and wasn't impressed! Drove a ford 5.0 lariat with 3.73 and was blown away with it. very good! NOT AS GOOD AS A 5.3 WITH 8 SPEED!!!!!! got that? its just the way it is. the transmission is the reason. Fords 6 speed is only really a 4 speed when your loaded. with 2 over drives that the 5.0 cant use like and ecoboost can while loaded. The 10 speed will fix this for the 5.0. It will be an amazing combo and IMHO a much better truck than a turbo version. If you don't use your truck for work constantly go get a turbo they are fun and I'm sure you will flip it for another soon there after. Its not a real truck though. It is more of a car with truck capabilities. It will eat fuel like a v10 when used to work. Not something you will like with that 37 gallon tank. You can watch the needle move in short order. not fun to a guy like me. I prefer exceptional fuel economy and great power gained by gear ratio. A turbo doesn't do that. it works off of load. the eco likes tall gears. it will pull like a freight train with 3.55's put lower gears in it and you need taller tires to get the turbos to boost as hard. If I were to own a eco I would need to tune it. they feel lethargic at best stock compared to a naturally aspirated v8 with low gearing and more gear spread. The point I'm making is they are built for different people and different things. If you want a real truck that works like a truck and does you good. Get a v8 NA. You want to hear turbos whistle and feel like your the man go get a eco. your balls will swell up every time your windows are down. Not everyone is the same or has the same ideas on what they need. They do build a truck for you. its just that you need to find it for yourself. The winner of a shootout isn't the right truck for everyone!

The comments to this entry are closed.