That is the assumption that no one knows for this engine/vehicle combo. Ford is betting most people won't see the boost in unloaded and daily driving. You suggest otherwise. Until you drive one, I'm not sure how you can judge how Ford tuned this engine, not how you tuned it.

While this is true, Ford thinks boost is not necessary in normal daily unloaded acceleration. Under load, towing, stop light drag races? Sure. I think there will be an even wider variance between users/owners with the EB than NA engines.

You have the right to a skeptical opinion. Just don't pass it along as fact.

 

Do you really think Ford would put out an engine that would only last 5 years? Go read up on the testing that they have done on the engine and what they are doing now. No way would Ford take the chance of driving away their F-150 customers from a catastrophic engine failure rate- they are Ford's bread and butter.

As far as the diesel goes, fuel is 30 cents higher, higher maintenance and higher cost for the engine and now with the added EPA standards you have to buy DPF. I am not willing to pay $5-7k for a diesel for a 1/2 ton pickup unless it got 35 mpg on the highway and we all know that's not going to happen

 

All my comments were Just My Humble Opinion.......I am a proud 2010 F-150 owner, dissappointed with the choices Ford has given us. In all my years building and studying engines there is no "magic formula" out there. Most North American cars need to go on a diet...........they're just too heavy. Physics is master............torque moves vehicles...........more torque moves larger vehicles. Torque is the fundamental element in the horsepower equasion...........and like I said torque is not free, it requires fuel. Ford is offering two ways to produce torque in their 2011 line-up.....a small displacement option that imitates a larger displacement engine with turbocharging and a larger displacement engine. One has to work harder than the other to acheve it. Can the Eco-Boost get better milage than the 5.0? Sure it can, -----if you stay out of boost.----- It will be very difficult to stay out of boost given the weight of the F-150. The tune and set-up are minor points..........you can only make so much torque down low with a 3.5 liter engine. The 3.7 looks like a good naturally aspirated engine.....if your looking for better milage go this route.

 

Might as well get my .02 in. If you have engines of identical displacement, one being a V8 and the other a V6, the V8 will out work the V6, do it better and faster, and live a longer life and probably do it on less fuel. It's hard to put the same amount of actual, usable HP/torque out of fewer power impulses. Anybody with stock diesels will tell you that a 6.7 Scorpion will run away from a Dodge Cummins-more power impulses is why. As I have stated here before, I don't think the EB is going to make it in the F150 as it is now configured. They've already dropped the axle ratio on the EB so it can live but I don't see it being near enough. If you want the EB, make sure it has at least a 4.10 axle or even better, a 4.56 or expect life issues. Yes, I'm aware of the testing that Ford has done. But do you really think that they are going to live with yer truck 24/7 like they have the test mules? All of the above arguments about these engines (EB) running in expanded form are correct. You can't run these engines at boost all the time and expect them to live. There are no free rides and getting major HP out of a small engine and expecting it to live a long life is an Alice in Wonderland fable. Then again, I don't think the 3.7 standard engine is smart move on Fords part either. Any time you have to use oil quenching on the piston bottoms to make the engine live is asking for problems. As I see it, there are only two viable engine options- the 5.0 and the 6.2. If you NEED the power, get the 6.2.

 

I'm actually debating the EB or a 5.0 but have similar concerns to most of the points made. Maybe later next year when there are thousands of them on the road racking up miles we'll have some better data to make decisions on. Even though there have been many prototype "torture tests", early EB buyers are going to be guinea pigs for real world everyday driving styles. It would be nice if Ford corporate would offer some extended warranty for these early buyers in exchange for monitoring the engines. My gut still says 5.0 for my situation, and if you can afford the fuel 6.2 for yours...

 

My big issue is that Ford is promoting this engine as "the answer" to mileage and horsepower needs......it cannot be. There are no magic 4-cycle gasoline engines out there. 2-Stroke and diesel are a different matter. A certian amount of fuel (at 12.5 to 1 AFR) must be burned to move 5500Lbs a certian way. Variable valve timing has certianly added to the capability of engines to some degree, however........my advise to those seriously considering the Eco-Boost............change the oil frequently, tiny turbos are very sensitive to oil contamination.......and enjoy the boost it's adictive. This engine could turn out to prove me wrong in the dependability department.........it just isn't likely. If Ford is so confident..........it would be nice if they would extend the warranty on the engine.

 

Ford's testing includes running one ecoboost engine at full throttle and full boost for 362 continuous hours. Sounds like Ford has done their homework to me.

 

Hmmm, good point. I'm thinking it may be a decent little engine though. They ususally use the expys and stuff to test out new concepts. That way if there is a recall they have a significantly smaller number of repairs and replacements. I never heard of this engine until they were saying it is going into the F150. I was very suprised. They must have a ton of faith in the engine. Now if that faith is well placed I can't say. But reliability in turbos in gas vehicles isn't anything new, the euro and jap cars have been using them with good results. I can easily find inline 5 turbo'd volvos with over 100K on the engine and it still runs like new. But that is also a very different engine in a car that is about 3,000 pounds and is not expected to handle heavy loads for extended amounts of time.

I say give it a chance and see how it pans out. OP, I'd test drive them both and make your decision based on your gut instict afterwards...then make sure you let us know about BOTH.

 

NP buddy! I'm in IT - and I had to Google it!

Any Idea just how many hits you get by entering 'c' or 'h' into the search criteria????

GEEKS RULE !!!

Cheers

MGD

 

Ford's torture testing is one thing, but it seems to lack one major factor in the true reliability equation: time.

The dyno stress test, timber hauling test, and 24 hours of NASCAR may demonstrate the strength of the engine, but it does not factor in how age and time will affect this engine. Engine seals deteriorate over time. When you start and stop and engine multiple time daily, you subject the engine to brief no oil pressure situations. Running an engine at constant WOT doesn't subject the engine's components to the shock and stress of increasing/decreasing speed that you get over and over and over on a daily basis for year and years. I am sure there are other things I am not thinking of.

What bothers me most is why Ford has not subjected the three other new engines to the same type of testing. They are probably just doing this with the EB engine because they know they have the prove it to those who are V8 devotees, but it makes me wonder if there is some sort of smoke and mirrors with the testing they are doing. I am not saying they aren't doing what they say they are, but I question whether this testing is truly that demanding or any more demanding than the testing done on the other engines. Sorry, just the cynic in me. I hope to be proven wrong, I really do because the EB engine sounds really cool.

 

Ford has been testing this engine for several years. Here is a link to their tests that were done before the web documentary tests were probably even thought of.

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=29657

Here is another. http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=29944

They have also had F-150 ecoboost test mules running around for two years. They have enough test data to set oil change intervals at 7500 miles, where the average Joe would think that it would be less for this engine.

I am sure that the other engines were thoroughly tested as well, but you are right. Ford knows that selling the ecoboost to truck owners would be tough, thus the additional highly publicized tests.

I am waiting on fuel economy data on the engine and fuel economy figures while towing (as compared to the 5.0) then I will more than likely be ordering one before Christmas.

 

I figured that Ford would have been testing any of their new motors for probably 2-3 years as you had cited. I was thinking more of the 5-10 year time frame at minimum. Granted, most people (myself included) don't keep a vehicle that long, but time takes its toll on a vehicle.

I also have to figure that Ford is able to stay on top of maintenance and repairs like no others can, especially John Q. Public. I believe the EB will be an engine you must stay current on maintenance. I wouldn't have any problem with that, but we all know there are tons of people who aren't so diligent.

Every automaker that introduces a new product allegedly does thorough testing, but that does not guarantee that it will be durable. I like to think that this one will be a home run, and it has the potential to be, but there is still that tinge of doubt. It promises an awful lot, so there is naturally some skepticism. Let's just say I am standing by with bated breath.

 

If the Ecoboost were available in the Raptor, I think would've spec'ed it. Even though I only drive 8-10k/yr, I like the idea of getting better mileage, especially when it comes without a penalty.

An AWD Ford Flex weighs 4643lb. Yes, the trucks are going to weigh 1000-1500lb more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the EB has a pretty decent track record in the SHO and Flex so far, right?

I'm certainly not upset at the idea of getting the 6.2 though, quite the opposite.

 

Steady state testing does nothing but prove the engine can operate under consistant conditions for an extended period under laboratory perfect conditions. I assure you the cooling system was hooked up to a 100 gallon freon cooled tank, the oil was synthetic and brand new, and the engine was hand built by the engineers who designed it. Try cycling a regular production engine through what it would see under normal use for a year, dirty oil, hot days, cold nights, starting, stopping, etc.............. then get back to me. Call me a skeptic............but 3.5 liter twin-turbo gasoline engines do not belong in a 5500# truck. Once again IMHO. Cheers.

 

I would wait for the Ecoboost to come out to be the judge. I am excited to see what it can do. The Ecoboost MKS and SHO are quick but I just can't see it working for a full size truck.

and the 6.2....in the Raptor it is just straight up bada$$