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

2016 ECOBOOST V-6 COVER

IMG_5177 II

2017 ECOBOOST V-6 COVER

IMG_5178 II

 

Comments

All you Ford lovers, why do chev and gm always beat the ford's in the pickup truck pulls.

I have driven 5.3 and 5.0 back to back and the 5.3 is the the more impressive engine still. The 5.3's larger displacement naturally makes it better for pick truck use. It has more torque low in the torque curve. The 5.0 is an impressive engine but better suited for lighter vehicles like the mustang where the house power can be better taken advantage of. Why do you think Ford never puts it's 5.0 up against the current GM 5.3 in a head to head truck comparison advertisement?

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!
Posted by: Chris | Sep 3, 2016 11:37:19 AM

They're waiting to see what problems crop up in the F150 10-speed/Camaro 10-speed. That will let them make any design refinements before they release it in their trucks. It's a strategy that makes the GM half-tons so reliable. They don't stick new, untested parts in them. That's why they are widely known as the longest lasting, most dependable, and toughest half-tons out there.

Ford recalls over 88K vehicles due to stalling problem!!!

Love those eco busts. lol

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2016/08/24/ford-recalls-over-88k-vehicles-due-stalling-problem/89256860/

@ POS hemi

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/three-ram-recalls-million-pickups-us/

Fiat Chrysler accused by Germany of using emissions cheat

The German government has accused Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of using a "cheat" device to switch off exhaust treatment systems.

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160901/ANE/160909998/fiat-chrysler-accused-by-germany-of-using-emissions-cheat

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
Posted by: Lionel | Sep 4, 2016 4:36:39 PM

If you start pushing a 5.0 Coyote up over 500 HP without upgrading the oil pump to a billet unit, you'll end up rebuilding that engine. Those oil pumps are ticking time bombs. And the 5.2 is completely gutless until you hit high revs. By that time the 'ol 16-valve V8 is putting cars lengths on you. Notice how the basic SS Camaro is skipping the 5.0 GT and competing against the GT350 in many comparisons.

@Frank Senior
I don't think GM would put the 10 speed in the Camaro if they didn't feel confident in the reliability. The delay in getting it into trucks probably has more to do with factory cut in date issues related to tooling and supply chain concerns. Ford was probably planning earlier to use the tranny with EB 2.0 and revised SD. Just made sense for Ford to group changes sooner. I actually don't think it's marketing or reliability at all.

@Frank Senior
I don't think GM would put the 10 speed in the Camaro if they didn't feel confident in the reliability. The delay in getting it into trucks probably has more to do with factory cut in date issues related to tooling and supply chain concerns. Ford was probably planning earlier to use the tranny with EB 2.0 and revised SD. Just made sense for Ford to group changes sooner. I actually don't think it's marketing or reliability at all.


Posted by: Grnzel1 | Sep 6, 2016 8:52:19 AM
He is just tro!!ing. But I suspect it was an agreement between GM and Ford. Ford will put the 10 speed in the truck first and GM in the slowmarow. Since this was a joint venture, I'm sure the agreement was made quite a while ago. Since GM currently has the 8 speed they are not in a serious need as Ford is with a higher gear count transmission.

FORD has had no choice but to update their half ton drivetrain offerings as they have been outclassed buy the current GM full size twins with the awesome 6.2 and now 5.3 with 8 speed combos. Comparisons here on PUTC have proven the GM V8 superior still in power and economy to that of the little ecobust engines. Plus here is a opportunity for FORD to correct all that was wrong in the first gen ecobust. I suspect however, that the new Ford engines will just be nicknamed "bust" as there was never any eco to the first gen design.

@GM is Great
I don't think any of the automakers have short sighted product plans as to change on a whim as to what other manufactures do. The product cycles are just too long from idea to production. Yes there are contingencies but that's not the real world when these products cost millions and there is an expected ROI.
That said the GM powertrains and Fords are essentially the same performance wise. People argue all day about who's better but fact is they are both pretty good and do what they are designed to do. Competition is good, choice is better. GM stayed old school pushrod V8 and I respect that tried and true design. Ford took another road thats cool too. I agree they have never really been too Eco, but the power and torque (esp so low in the RPM range) makes a compelling conversation. I have an NA V8, but it's days are numbered - just like points, drum brakes, carbs, etc (in mainstream automotive engineering) oh and live axles in mustangs ;)

The ONLY thing the 6.2V8 is good for is pushing the 3.5 to produce more horsepower than it. No one buys the 6.2. Its a marketing gimmick whos days are numbered by CAFE. Its no different than claiming top towing figures in models without bumpers, center consoles and spare tires. No one does it, no one buys it, its silly. When 40% of the 1/2 ton Silverados/Sierras sell with the 6.2 it will be relevant... or even 20%.

The ONLY thing the 6.2V8 is good for is pushing the 3.5 .....

Posted by: Clint | Sep 6, 2016 1:33:13 PM

That's right, you remember that.

The ONLY thing the 6.2V8 is good for is pushing the 3.5 to produce more horsepower than it. No one buys the 6.2. Its a marketing gimmick whos days are numbered by CAFE. Its no different than claiming top towing figures in models without bumpers, center consoles and spare tires. No one does it, no one buys it, its silly. When 40% of the 1/2 ton Silverados/Sierras sell with the 6.2 it will be relevant... or even 20%.
Posted by: Clint | Sep 6, 2016 1:33:13 PM

The fact that there's a steady waiting list to get a 6.2 GM pickup shows it's a more than just a marketing gimmick. Looking online, there are entire discussion threads tracking engine constrainments for guys that want the 6.2 LT1. Plenty of them out there. Just not piled up on dealer lots like you expect.

It doesn't make any sense business-wise to flood the market with GM half-tons equipped with the 6.2 and drive prices down. It's the same reason GM isn't flooding the market with Colorados/Canyons. It's Supply & Demand 101: Restrict the supply, demand more money.

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.
Posted by: CT | Sep 3, 2016 1:45:12 PM


AFM is easily disabled by driving in manual mode or by buying a Range OBDII device. Plenty of guys disabled it in their trucks and don't have oil consumption or lifter issues.

Not to mention the oil consumption issues that the older LS 5.3's had is a thing of the past. The 2014+ LT 5.3's don't seem to have oil consumption issues. Searching google brings up one or two discussion threads but a lot of them are turning out to be guys that can't even check their oil right. (Yes, it needs to be level ground to get an accurate/reliable reading lol)

Oil consumption standards among all manufacturers has changed a lot as 0W20 and 0W30 are becoming more common. Honda and Subaru have had huge oil consumption problems the last few years.

If I were a GM shareholder I'd want them to sell all the mid sized and 6.2s they could. Cash is king and GM should be maximizing shareholder value while the economy good. Just like Ford and Fiat needs to do. Ford just spent lots and lots of development dollars - shareholders now expect a return

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.

You mean as good as the 3.5 is in the Explorer, Taurus, Expedition, and oh yeah the 24 hours of LeMans winning GT??

If I were a GM shareholder I'd want them to sell all the mid sized and 6.2s they could. Cash is king and GM should be maximizing shareholder value while the economy good. Just like Ford and Fiat needs to do. Ford just spent lots and lots of development dollars - shareholders now expect a return
Posted by: Grnzel1 | Sep 6, 2016 7:40:14 PM


And that's why you aren't the CEO of an automaker. You have zero business sense. The idea is to make more profit per vehicle, not diluting profit per vehicle and being forced to make it up by selling in big volumes. It's not sustainable business.

And neither are you. No the idea is to cover your fixed costs so your incremental profit increases with every unit sold. Two business concepts at play here operational leverage and CVP. By the way, what's the primary purpose of any corporation? GM invested millions in capacity to build the midsize twins, they need to recover that cost, you run the factories at full capacity and sell every unit you can. With every unit GM pays a bit more of the fixed costs and gets a higher return. The idea of manufacturing is to make stuff. This isn't a commodity market where GM can influence market price. There are too many other factors at play. Things aren't as simple as you think.

Gm seems to be asleep at the wheel as usual, again nice job ford, joint venture with GM, and then go out and actually do it, GM has to catch up on something they helped develope, thats so sad.

Gm seems to be asleep at the wheel as usual, again nice job ford, joint venture with GM, and then go out and actually do it, GM has to catch up on something they helped develope, thats so sad.

Posted by: Nitro | Sep 7, 2016 8:46:28 AM

Trade in your 45 anniversary edition Camaro for the new zl1 with the 10 speed tranny . There you go, your comment is no longer relevant.

GM invested millions in capacity to build the midsize twins, they need to recover that cost, you run the factories at full capacity and sell every unit you can.

Posted by: Grnzel1 | Sep 7, 2016 6:33:24 AM
--------
Yep. And that's what they've been doing.

The Wentzville plant has been running at full capacity for quite some time now.

"The St. Louis-area plant, which has about 3,700 workers, has been running three shifts a day plus weekend overtime to squeeze out more pickups and commercial vans (the factory also produces the Chevy Express and GMC Savana full-size cargo vans)."

"In November, a GM memo circulated to plant workers said that GM is considering a partnership with Indiana-based contract manufacturer AM General to take on some van production, which would create capacity for more Colorados and Canyons."

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160209/OEM01/160209816/gm-mobilizes-to-build-more-small-pickups

It's a similar situation with the 6.2 LT1. Tonawanda is running 3 shifts plus overtime on the weekends to keep up with demand. Back in February GM announced that the Spring Hill plant was going to re-tool in order to start producing the 6.2 by 4Q16.

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/feb/0218-springhill-investment.html

GM is doing exactly what they need to do to: increase profit margin per vehicle, keep plants at full utilization, and keep inventory levels in control.


Would you say that Ford is making a poor business decision because they're limiting the number of Ford GT's being produced to just 250 annually? They're turning away hundreds of customers that would be happy to pay the $400k asking price. And what about the Ford Raptor? Shouldn't Ford pack each dealer lots with dozens of the new Raptor? Most dealers are lucky to have more than one Raptor sitting on the lot. Think there might be a reason Ford doesn't pack dealer lots with dozens of Raptors? They obviously don't have a hard time selling them.

Gm seems to be asleep at the wheel as usual, again nice job ford, joint venture with GM, and then go out and actually do it, GM has to catch up on something they helped develope, thats so sad.
Posted by: Nitro | Sep 7, 2016 8:46:28 AM

Ford is just finally replacing the 6R80 while the other two trucks have had 8-speeds for years. Keep trying.

Gm seems to be asleep at the wheel as usual, again nice job ford, joint venture with GM, and then go out and actually do it, GM has to catch up on something they helped develope, thats so sad.
Posted by: Nitro | Sep 7, 2016 8:46:28 AM

Ford is just finally replacing the 6R80 while the other two trucks have had 8-speeds for years. Keep trying.

"470 pounds-feet of torque" on regular gas?

Gregory,
The GT and Raptor are meant for exclusivity. They are halo vehicles who's purpose is to generate interest in the brand. I. The case of these products, it's a different business goal. In fact Ford looses money on the GT. The Raptor is not generally affordable to the average person - nor practical really. Ford had issues with them even fitting down their production lines. The point I'm making is the the GT and Raptors primary purpose in life is to generate brand identity, not profits. Ford was not expecting the Raptor to ever do as well as it does in the marketplace.

It's not really news that GM is preparing a Turbo V-6 to replace the 5.3 and 6.2 in their half-ton trucks. The real question is, are they going to use the 3.6 liter or a new version of the 4.3?

Turbo gas motors just do not achieve good fuel economy when towing.

Ford EB gets 10 MPG while towing an 8k trailer. A chevy with a 6.2 gets 13 MPG in the test.

One thing everyone said was the EB motor had plenty of power...

@mackintire

I think there's a bit of confusion among the comments on this story. A turbo offers the opportunity for the engine-trans package to be more versatile and flexible.

People who think it's about FE are mistaken. The turbo just gives a six cylinder the ability to act like a V8, which includes making more power, and using more gas. All in all for a truck owner, the added flexibility is a virtue but the added complexity can be a problem.

For me personally the V8 is the answer.

The GT and Raptor are meant for exclusivity. They are halo vehicles who's purpose is to generate interest in the brand. I. The case of these products, it's a different business goal. In fact Ford looses money on the GT. The Raptor is not generally affordable to the average person - nor practical really. Ford had issues with them even fitting down their production lines. The point I'm making is the the GT and Raptors primary purpose in life is to generate brand identity, not profits. Ford was not expecting the Raptor to ever do as well as it does in the marketplace.
Posted by: Grnzel1 | Sep 8, 2016 7:03:45 AM

Isn't that the situation with the limited supply of 6.2? Exclusivity is what I've been getting at this entire time. It's an engine option that everyone wants, often requires ordering a truck in order to get, and commands a premium price. Just to get a 6.2 requires paying an extra $2300 vs the 5.3, plus you have to select the higher end LTZ trim that costs at least $3300 more than a more common LT trim. So an engine that costs roughly the same amount of money to produce as the smaller 5.3, can increase the transaction price a minimum of $5000. There's a lot of profit to be made by restricting how many 6.2's are on the dealer lot. It makes sense why GM is running the Tonawanda plant at max capacity and re-tooling the Spring Hill plant to begin making 6.2's.

"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..." I find this comment dubious at best...



The comments to this entry are closed.