Rumor has it that there may be a 6 speed manual option with some kind of V6 in the 2012 F-150.

 

I would hate having a manual tranny in a truck like these. Then again, I'm really only a fan of manual trannies in sports cars, I'll keep the autos in everything else.

 

I would hate having an automatic. That's why I'm keeping my truck.

 

Living in houston with all the stop and go traffic, a manual transmission just wasnt an option. I do prefer them, but it is brutal on the 3 hours to cover 30 miles trips

 

It's probably like the manual in the GMC/Chevy trucks for towing...not like shifter coming out the floor.

 

I love manuals and would def buy one... but last time you had to have a v-6 with no 4x4.

I use my truck like a offroad sports car

 

The current versions of the 3.5 EB are making peak torque by about 1500 rpm. Not sure where you got the idea that it has to be revved to make power. And the turbos aren't an "addition" to this engine. It was built for boost from the ground up.

Only time will tell but it's a safe bet that Ford did their homework.

 

The F-150 EB is not the same as the existing ones .It will be designed for truck use !
BTW the EB engines have 125 patents !!

 

As rumors have it now, the 5.0L will be the standard engine with the EB being a "premium" offering as well as the 6.2L in some models.

The added price of the EB over the 5.0L was rumored to be about $700 or the about the same price as opting for the 5.4L over the 4.6L.

 

whats so bad about having a manual truck, they are just as fun, they just arent as quick.

yup, ONLY reason i got a 6, just HAD to have a stick. getting a V6 was the price i had to pay, but i would not want a 2v 4.6 anyways. if they had a manual on either 3V, then id go for it but it would still have to be 2wd for me.

yup, thats what i was wondering. its a high revving engine, but that doesnt mean that it will be revved high all the time. most 4 cylinders are high revving, which is probably why they last pretty long. 3k rpms in a vehicle that redlines at 8500rpms on the highway is less of a chore than it is for one that redlines at 6k to be going 3k on the highway. yes the wear is probably the same but the V8 is using half of its potential and the 4banger is only using 1/3 of its potential.

 

Anyone know if the EB in the F150 is going to require premium fuel? If so then any fuel $avings will likely be a wash.

As far as reliablity, turbo charged gas engines are just as (or more) durable than N/A gas engines because they are lower compression. My cousin has a twin turbo Audi with over 250K on the engine and turbos.

 

Flashmaster,

I know what you mean. I love my Mutang with the manual, but driving in Dallas traffic sucks.

 

It's not fun for me to have to shift from the dash to the back seat when the shifter throw is so long. I also just don't enjoy shifting for the purpose of shifting. I like to have control over the gear choice when I'm ging through corners or trying to eek out every rpm in a certain gear, I really don't care to shift in any vehicle that I'm just casually driving in. If they want to put in a paddle-shift or similar mechanism I'm fine with it, but I just don't see the advantage over having the 6-spd auto.

 

If the F-150 required premium I don't think they would sell very many.
There's no reason that a turbo has to have premium .I have seen listings of turbos taking regular but I can't remember which ones.

 

Pig9r, I will disagree on both points. First, I will bet that premium fuel is required, not requiring it on a turbo'd engine is just a hole in a piston waiting to happen. So you buy 30 gallons of premium which is normally about $0.20 more expensive than regular unleaded, you just spend 6 bucks more. (basically 2 gallons of gas). If the regular engine gets 20mpg hwy and the EB v6 gets even 22mpg you have more than broken even on the 2 gallons of gas you bought.

Second, the compression ratio has little to do with how long the engine lasts since it's usually not much more than a 1-point difference. Say an NA engine is at 9.5:1, the Turbo isn't likely to be below 8.5:1, not a real difference maker. The thing that KILLS engines is heat, and turbos produce A LOT of it. That combined with much higher compression ratios while under boost, will definitely wear faster on the rotating assemblies than the NA engine will.