The only thing I'm skeptical about with the ecoboost is whether or not it will actually get better gas mileage than the 6.2l. It's only getting 24 or 25 in the taurus sho. I can't see it getting "20% better than last year's 5.4l" (which would be 24-25 mpg) if it can barely get that in a much more aerodynamic, albeit heavier, car.

 

Yes and the engine wasn't putting out anywhere near 400hp. Probably closer to 200.

We shall see, I may be pleasantly surprised, but I certainly will not get one the first couple years. Something I would do with the 6.2.

 

According to the EPA stickers on a 2010 F150 SCrew FX4 I looked at yesterday, the 5.4L is rated for 14/18mpg. I'm assuming this is what Ford would be basing their fuel mileage numbers off of for the EB in the F150. So I'm assuming that realistically we're probably looking at 16-17/21-22mpg for the EB in the same SCrew FX4. Maybe higher in a 2wd screw or scab.

 

Yeah, that should be right for 4wd. But a 2wd 5.4l with the 3.31 gears is rated at 21 mpg hwy...which would put EB mpg at 24-25 hwy...just don't see it happening. It'd be nice, but doesn't seem like it could happen to me. But who knows, maybe the Ford engineers have something up their sleeves. I have no doubts about its capabilities though. It will be just as capable of a motor as the 6.2l.

 

My biggest concern with the 3.5 eco-boost is going to be durability. Yes it is putting out a lot of HP for a small engine, meaning it is working at much closer to it's limits than a naturally aspirated v8. On top of that is moving around 2 times the weight of the Flex or Taurus on a daily basis, and with max towing, probably 4-5 times the weight. That will put a lot of strain on that engine.
The 4.6 and 5.4 have shown they will stand up to that abuse, will the 3.5? Just like anything else. the closer you are to the limits of something, the quicker and easier it will break.

I agree. I think that engine will be strained for towing on a regular basis. I think the 5.0 will be a great addition, as will the 6.2.

 

I just think ford should offer the 6.2 in the lower trims because with the max tow it is a very good cheaper alternative to a super duty. I also think it is wrong to say the 5.4 did not do a good job. It does do a very good job in my opinion. No its not fast and yes it has to strain but it gets the job done well.

 

200!?! Form a 300 inline 6. My bro has one in a 1980 F150 and I'd say closer to 100 hp. That thing was "torquey for a 300 but zip for HP.

 

My concern about the EB has also been MPG. Unfortunately I don't think you'll see any more than 17MPG city. At this point I think that's all you can expect from the current platform that was being designed back before the industry took the major swing to small & efficient.

But keep in mind the next F150 will be on an all-new platform, and I'm sure the entire truck from the frame up will be designed with weight-savings and MPG at the very forefront of their thoughts. So I'm sure the EB combined with the all-new platform will result in much better MPG numbers.

 

In the 2011 Flex according to the My Ford magazine, the 3.5 Ecoboost V-6 will produce 17 city/24 hwy. That vehicle weighs at least 500 lbs less than an F150 depending on how you configure the F150 so maybe in the F150 it'll be 16/22 (just a guess). It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. But like CometFlash said, I think the biggest MPG difference we'll probably see in the all-new F150 around 2014. It's all kind of exciting, but I love my 2010 and it isn't going anywhere for a long, long time

 

What transmissions are in the Taurus and Flex? I'm sure those would effect the mpg ratings of the EB.

 

They all have 6 speed autos.

 

Let's keep in mind that the 3.5L EB is only available in an AWD platform for those cars. Looking at the Taurus and the fuel economy difference between the EB and the NA 3.5L, fuel mileage is the exact same (in AWD platform, 17 city/25 highway) even though the EB is sporting about 100HP and 100lb/ft TQ more than the NA 3.5L. However, the NA 3.5L gets 18 city/28 highway when in a FWD platform, would it be the same for the EB if it were available in a FWD platform?

The Flex is the almost the same way. In the AWD platform, the EB and the NA 3.5L share almost the same fuel mileage (16/22 vs. 16/21) even with the EB's major power advantage. And in FWD platform, the NA 3.5L gets 17/24. Would the 3.5L EB be close if it were available in FWD?

I understand why the EB is only available in an AWD platform on these cars, but on paper I wonder if fuel consumption would be the same in FWD as it is in AWD, between the two powerplants. Considering this, I still think the EB would get 16-17/21-22 in SCrew 4x4 despite the weight difference.

 

anyone know when the order sheets are out? wanting to fill one out

 

Are you hot?

 

Eve if she is.. I think shes too smart for you!