That's all good and well, but let's see it do that for a few days in a row and not have some major $$$ component die. At the end of the day, it's a v6 which will turn 25% more rpm's over the same miles as a v8 engine and with all the added complexity (and heat) of the supercharger.

I predict these things will not hold up well in truck service and will be absolute zero resale value because of these expenses.

Someone else mentioned 150,000 mile lifespan? Seriously? I had 7.3 and 6.9 diesels with over 400,000 miles, even 300's and 351's with over 300,000 without major issues.

Granted a lot of you on this forum are pansies who dont do real work with your truck and trade them in every couple years for new 500 HP FX4's when your idea of an off-road adventure is having to park on the grass at the pumpkin patch at your church, so I can see how you may have a different perspective on the topic.

 

What?????? That makes no sense. I don't care HOW many cylinders it has, with the same transmission and axle ratio, the RPM's will be IDENTICAL at the same speed.

Are you also saying that none of your diesels were turbocharged?

 

Take your immature banter elsewhere. The 150,000 mile life-span was beat to death in another thread so I'm not bothering to reply.

I predict you'll be eating crow when the EB outshines the old-school V8, but who cares what I think. You're one of the archaic thinkers that can't fathom a newer technology doing better than what you're comfortable with, so you'll bash the new stuff just to get your jollies.

As far as turning higher rpm's, sure it is. So are the tiny little 4 cylinder engines that reliably see hundreds of thousands of miles without a rebuild. Less rotating mass makes a big difference in the ability to handle higher rpm's for extended periods. But how dare I actually speak logically about a topic. I should stop all that and make childish accusations as it's much more fun...

 

The last three posts made me stop and think....glc said that with the same tranny, they RPMs would be the same as a V-8.....that makes sense to me. Am I thinking correctly here?

crazynip seems to be raving about the F150 EB not being a real truck....it's certainly not an F250 or F350, and I would think that it's not designed to be. However, for someone like me, who will use it as a daily driver, with routine hauling missions, and hunting season in the mountains of Montana, as long as the durability is proven to be good, it will be ideal. I think that Ford realized a long time ago that if this type of engine in a truck was to ever be accepted, there would be a lot of doubters and much proof of reliability would be need to "sell" it.
If there were no warranty on new trucks, I would not even think about touching the EB......but even if there are some issues, I have the warranty to fall back on.

For the last 10 years I have been driving a 1987 Toyota extra cab 4x4, and in that time frame, I have TOTALLY rebuilt it from the ground up (by choice..it started a little smoking at 190,000 miles, I had the money, so I just overhauled the whole truck). Prior to the "Toy" I was a die hard V-8 guy, but this little 22R in the Toy has been about as bullet-proof as any engine I have ever owned. It has proven itself as a reliable truck, that will go a lot of places that my larger 1977 Ford F150 will not. The point being that if I need to haul huge loads, then I go to the 77 F150, but when I want to crawl up a mountain trail to chase some high country elk, the Toyota will get me there more reliably, on less fuel, than the bigger Ford. IF a 2011 F150 with the EB comes my way, the Toyota will go up for sale, and the 77 F150 will stay right were it is..parked behind the Blacksmith shop, waiting for heavy duty use. The EB offers too much in the way of power and fuel economy to ignore. I'm sure there will be lots of folks bashing on the EB, without ever even looking into it......just human nature to not like what you don't know or understand.

 

In some cases the ecoboost will be running LESS rpms than the bigger engines. Since the ecoboost makes so much torque down low you will see it running at 2000 rpm while the V8 will be running much higher.

Take a look at the torque curves of the engines..


The ecoboost is not some whimpy little engine that you have to wind up to get any power out of it. With direct injection and turbocharging it produces power down low.

Before any of you guys bad mouth it, study up on it.

 

+1. In one of those videos it showed the EB running at about 2100 @ 75 mpg. The larger V8 engines are going to turn more rpms when you really have to get after them. Their torque curves are too high not to. The new replacement for displacement is mulit valves and or forced induction.

The 03/04 supercharged cobras had the same stigma attached. They would not last because of the blower sitting on top. The haters and skeptics were WRONG. Those cars make ridiculous power with little money or effort. Sure its not in a truck application but ya think Ford might know that.

I dont know what the fuss is about rpms anyway. I too had a 22r yota engine back in the eightys that went well north of 200K and I used and sometimes abused this little truck. After I hit the third deer with it the truck was trashed but the engine still ran good. I had to junk it out. These little ranger 4 bangers seem to last great too. I see them all the time with all kinds of miles on them.

This aint 1965 anymore.

 

Thanks. It's nice to have somebody besides Ford and me understand the technology.

 

I wonder if they put in the recommended 89 fuel into the Ram.

 

Here's my dilema 6.2 Harley or a EB? I'm confused.

 

pmason: With those two engines it seems to me that it boils down to bragging rights more than anything. Both are making nearly the same power (relatively), but the EB is going to be a fuel sipper compared to the 6.2. For some folks it would be more impressive to say "I got the 6.2L in my truck!"........to be honest, the main reason I'm looking at the EB is the MPGs...the power/torque is just icing on the cake.
After driving a yota for all these years, an EB is going seem like a rocket engine to me. I'm going to have to get used to a vehicle that DOESN'T turn 3200+rpm at 70 mph!
If the 3.7 got the best fuel economy of the available engines, then that is the one I would be leaning towards.
In the end it's going to be all about individual choices and uses....if everything we're hearing about the EB holds true, then it's by far the best choice I could make for my needs.

 

6.2

 

The Ford Ecoboost Technology is real & quite impressive! It is a wonderful combination of power & fuel economy! If it proves reliable, Ford has hit a grand slam!!!

 

I wish I had yer dilemma, buddy!

GLC nailed it. There are no 25% rpm differences here . There is only less swept volume, and higher thermal efficiency.

Crazynip - you want real complexity? Try 140 million silicon junctions on a wafer smaller than that wart on the end of yer crooked tally-whacker, sweltering in it's own self-generated heat, with MTBF's measured in years.

Yep - a plain-Jane consumer CPU....

MGD

 

I don't have a pumpkin patch at my church but, the grass does get pretty darn slippery!

 

Actually, the early documentation says the EB 6th gear will be taller than the otherwise same transmission with the other 3 engine, 0.61:1 vs. 0.69:1. So the EB will be spinning slower in top gear at any given speed.