Any updates?

 

"Discuss anything that pertains to the EcoBoost".

OK, for conversational purposes, let's discuss why the EcoBoost engine exists, specifically as it relates to the F-150. This isn't meant to be a flame war. Let's just have honest discussion.

To do this, we have to rewind to 2009. Ford took billions of dollars worth of "incentives" from the federal government, and not long afterward GM and Chrysler both took tax dollars to survive. The domestic automotive industry was in serious trouble. As a resolution was coming to fruition (as the expense of the tax payer) it is my belief that the "Big 3" automakers were sternly warned that they needed to find paths to profitability. After all, they now had huge loans to pay back.

So, each automaker set out to find their place in the market and excel at it. Chrysler was sold and the new FCA found great success in America by focusing on the Dodge performance brand. They've broken records with their cars and performance vehicles. GM tried to get into the electric vehicle market with the Volt EV. And Ford... well they decided to take a path toward forced induction/small displacement engines as the future.

What was Ford's goal for the F-150 EcoBoost? Fuel economy, longevity/dependability, and towing power. Right? Those are the things a full size truck must do well in today's economy.

Problem is, nobody had mass produced a small displacement twin turbo engine for a full size truck before. So, teething pains were inevitable. It could be argued (with LOTS of factual data to back it up) that Ford was only able to meet 1 out of those 3 criteria with the EcoBoost engine, that 1 thing being towing power.

Pricing on EcoBoost was higher, so there was no savings there.

Fuel economy proved to be equal to or less than V8 engines from all three automakers while working with the truck. In fact, early media reports were showing single-digit MPG numbers while towing heavy loads with an EcoBoost engine.

Problems being reported were common, some which hindered the very ability to drive the truck. The problems got so rampant that when it was time to refresh the F-150 again, they scrapped the entire design and developed a new 3.5L EcoBoost engine with "no shared parts from the original".

They found that the towing power was there, but the added cost, more frequent break downs, and miserable fuel economy was causing fleets and businesses to choose the V8 anyway. In fact, even as of 2017 the V8 continues to sell as well as any of the EcoBoost engine options individually, despite Ford pushing the technology as hard as they can upon the consumer.

So I think at the end of the day, one has to ask a simple question: What was the point of the EcoBoost? Was it a good business decision? Did it work? And here is where opinion comes into play. I think EcoBoost was a bad decision. And here's why:

Do you want fuel economy? ALL 3 domestic full size trucks are available with the same or higher highway MPGs if you choose a traditional V8, according to EPA data. But the real world data shows an even bigger advantage for the larger N/A engines.

Do you want to save money at purchase time? Businesses spend less when they buy the V8. EcoBoost costs thousands more.

Do you need to keep your fleet on the road? The original EcoBoost option statistically had more downtime than the V8 trucks.

What about towing power? Well, while it's true that the EcoBoost made higher torque output than the Coyote, it's also true that Ford did that by design. They could have easily gotten more torque from the V8, with better results, but they wanted to purposefully push this new technology. GM stuck with a 6.2L V8 engine (40 lbs./ft. more than the EcoBoost, with none of the drawbacks). Imagine if Ford had just focused on their 5.0/6.2 program instead of neutering those options.

So my opinion is that the very existence of the EcoBoost is solely because of the automotive crisis, and if you could ever get a Ford powertrain engineer to be honest, he/she would admit that they could have done everything the EcoBoost does better with V8 engines, at lower cost. They simply needed a way to set themselves apart from the crowd, and they gambled on the little V6 forced induction engines.

I know that guys think every time somebody says something negative about the EcoBoost that they're trying to pick a fight. But that isn't true. It's not. Facts are facts, and there isn't one single thing...not one...that Ford couldn't have done better if they had focused on their V8 program instead. Again, GM is getting 20 highway MPGs out of their 4x4 with a 6.2L V8 making 460 lbs/ft of torque. Can you imagine what Ford could have done with their 6.2L if they'd tweaked it some more? And warranty claims on the 6.2L F-150s were almost non-existant.

It baffles me... it really does.

 

Ford was very smart to have already increased their cash reserves before before the poop hit the fan. It was also very good business sense to make sure they had access to additional cash incase it was needed . All car manufacturers received some sort of money from the government during the bailout period.
If the suppliers went under it would have had negative impact on the entire industry not just the big 3.
Our government offers low cost loans to all car manufacturers to meet certain goals like producing higher mileage vehicles. It makes good sense to use that cheaper money. None of this has to do with the ecoboost.
I personaly own 3 vehicles with an ecoboost engine.

My old 5.4L F150s were lucky to get 17 on my daily commute. My 2.7L F150 ecoBoost gets close to 20 and it's a nicer truck.

Its too too soon to tell is our new ecoBoost Explorer will get better mileage than the smaller NA vehicle it replaced but so far it looks like it will be better.

 

WxBoy,
I could care less which engine is under my vehicle as long as it is reliable and works. I bought a 3.5l because the 5.0l was in worse condition. I drove both, liked both, but in the end the 3.5l being in better condition and better price meant it was the one I went home with.

I agree with the points of why the engine came about and most of the fuel mileage points.

Every car company is under the knife with the CAFE standards. To say a v8 can have the potential to meet those would be a lie. I know v8's CAN average in the mid 20's (my mom had a 94 buick roadmaster with a v8 that would get 28mpg routinely), but this hasn't happened with a truck. A turbo small displacement engine at least offers an option to get way better fuel economy in the future but right now they are still working with the potentials of it. My 5.3l chevy 1500 4wd averaged 15.4mpg throughout the 28,000 miles I owned it. Fuelly shows the Chevy 6.2l getting around 15-18mpg with hardly any above the 18 mark. Similar results with Dodge. There isn't a v8 out there getting over 20 in a truck.

The longevity/reliability argument is invalid as well. both the 5.0, 3.5, and 6.2 have around a 98% success rate currently. There isn't great data on this but if you look at how many of each engine is sold and then see how many forum posts are actually stating that they have a problem with the engine (not repeat posts or just others complaining) then all have about the same issues vs. success rates. This is about the best data you can find online. If you have other factual data please share the links. In reality the coyote might have a 98% success, eco 97% and 6.2l 98.5%. But I would take all of those successes any day of the week. To say 1% difference is drastic isn't true (that is only around 10,000 more vehicles for the eco. Yes more but both engines have 1,000,000+ on the road and 10,000 isn't a lot when we are talking million+). Could you imagine if you only bought something that had a 97% success rate to last you the average 15 years and 200,000 miles, you would own almost nothing.

We also haven't really been able to gauge mileage longevity as there isn't enough people with high mileage vehicles on either engine to get any good statistics. We have only a limited number of confirmations of 200,000+ mile trucks and it is about the same for the eco and coyote. Most of the trucks right now have around 75,000 miles or less on them (average of 15,000 miles/yr)

The "problems being reported being rampant" statement is definitely forum biased. If that is the case than we can say the 5.0 engine knock/cylinder warp is a rampant report too. That thread is filing up on forums quite quickly. I wouldn't consider it to be rampant and a limited number of vehicles will ever experience it. Much like the eco issues, very limited number of vehicles (about 2%)

Finally, Ford being able to get more power out of the v8 is true, but that is also the case for all of the Ford engines and pretty much the case across the board for every engine in any vehicle for any manufacturer. The eco actually offers better power gains compared to the 5.0 just off of a tune, hence why tuners can get more hp/tq for the eco on their tunes and still be just as reliable. This was found using MPT and 5 Star data. Their claims may or may not be accurate but comparing the 5.0 to 3.5 side by side on their respective websites should yield similar biases and therefore offset.

 

I came out of a 1988 F-150 wit the 5.8L. The engine failed at 101K miles. How often do you hear of that happening? The 5.8L was Ford's crown jewel and mine failed. I'm not mad, things happen.

I bought my 2011 truck in 2011. As compared to my 1988 truck and my neighbor's 2009 5.4L truck, with 3.31 axles, mine will out tow and get better MPG's empty and towing than those other two trucks.

My contention with Ford with regards to the ecoboost engines is their marketing and maintenance recommendations.

The ecoboost trucks are extremely comfortable and capable with 3.31 gears. But face it, how many guys really settle for a wimpy 3.31 geared truck? You don't hear me biching about MPG's or towing ability. When I bought my truck, I left my testosterone at home and I bought what I needed, NOT what every other know it all had.

As for maintenance; From jump Ford should have known that by it's design of the intercooler that some misfiring events would occur. It doesn't happen to the diesel trucks so why on the gas turbo?

All they needed was some simple way to evacuate the intercooler. I drilled the 1/16th hole as a measure of prevention and I've never had any issue what so ever. It took me 30 seconds to drill the hole and it cost me nothing. If I were concerned about a gaping 1/16th hole in my intercooler, I could simply thread a screw in the hole and take it out periodically so the intercooler could weep. But, everything has to be over engineered nowadays.

Ford recommends a plug change at 100K miles. That's not realistic for an ecoboost engine.

As for plugs; my plugs needed to be replaced at 62K miles and that's the only misfiring event that I've ever experienced. My #2 coil broke down at 67K miles. That's not an ecoboost exclusive folks, coils will fail. I'm now at 78K miles and she's running strong as ever before.

As for oil changes; It's no secret that cam phasers and timing sets like fresh oil. Ford says you can run your oil for 10K miles or when the OLM alerts you, which ever occurs first. Since I bought my truck, I've settled into a 5-6K mile dump cycle. I got flamed for this in the beginning, I was told by many on here that I'm wasting too much good oil by shortening the dump cycle. Well, no one has heard me bich about a noisy engine on cold start or any other foreign noises throughout the day.

So in the end, does the ecoboost require more frequent maintenance than the 5.0L? Yes. Does that increase the cost of ownership? Yes. But, if Ford told us or made changes to the maintenance recommendations, it would be less of an issue for those who think a truck should get 50 MPG's while pulling 30K pounds.

Apparently today's truck buyers are unaware or forgot what it was like to own a pre - 1997 F-150. The list of items requiring 30K mile service is far too long but we were OK with it just the same.

 

Part of the farce I see touted too often is comparing the 3.5L ecobooer to the 5.0 v8. That is not a fair comparison. The ecoboost competes with the 6.2, not the 5.0.

In no configuration is the 5.0 rated to pull 10,000 lbs plus. The 6.2 and 3.5 both are. That is the compaison that needs to be made.

The way I look at it, the ecoboost offers 6.2L capabilities for 5.0L economy, and it does that quite handily. Before the ecoboost you had to choose between good economy every day and good towing performance. Now you can have both.

I'm getting 13.5 mpg rolling average with my 5.4 expedition. I bet an ecoboost would do much better and tow better to boot. So, too would the 5.0, but the 3.5 will tow better with out a doubt. I could probably get into a 6.2 truck and get the same mileage and improve towing from where I'm at currently.

As to the timing chain issues. This is the ONLY thing that keeps me from wanting an ecoboost. My coworker just had to have his replaced and claims 5,000 oil changes.... So it is still an unknown to me. But what I do know is that it is a really expensive fix if you don't have a warranty to cover it.

 

I was just talking to a fella this morning on the Navy base in Norfolk, Va who owns a 2011 truck very much like mine. His has 101K miles on it and he stated that his has been experiencing the cold start rattle for a very long time. I told him that it was likely his timing set and he was obviously bummed out. But, he stated that his has been rattling now for over 25K miles and it hasn't gotten worse. He stated that he very easily pulls a large enclosed trailer and flat bed without incident.

 

This is brilliant...I’d never even thought about that. I’d send reps, but I need to share more love before I can give them to you again.

 

You can go a step further: People like to argue which engine replaced which when the 5.4L and the 4.6L were deactivated from F-150 service.

The 6.2L was an addition to the stable and was sparingly employed through the 2014 MY.

3.5L ecoboost replaced the 5.4L V-8
5.0L replaced the 4.6L and 4.6L 3V.
3.7L V-6 was added which gave way to the 3.5L which has given way to the 3.3L.

 

Regarding the Ecoboost coming out of the 2009 financial crisis, I don't think that's the case. They were talking about the 3.5L EB back in 2007 and it first came out on the 2010 Lincoln MKS, Taurus SHO, etc.

Considering it probably takes them years to develop an engine, they probably started designing the ecoboost back in 2005/2006.

 

That's very true...the 3.5L EcoBoost was first publicly unveiled under the "TwinForce" name in the 2007 Lincoln MKR concept.

https://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/20/...-kickassednes/

WXboy doesn't seem to reference anything he posts, and frequently posts his guesswork as fact. Why change now?

 

This right here^^^^^^^^^^^

What saddens me the most is if you're new to the truck world and more precisely the ecoboost truck world and you're in the market for a used truck, based on the rhetoric spewed here on FTE and other sites, you very well might not consider a used ecoboost truck, ever.

We have battled the trolling, baseless statements, posts without references, etc and these are the things that our readers see when making a decision.

There's a fella on my route with a 2011 Lariat Screw ecoboost. The truck is modded to the hilt, lifted and is a beautiful specimen of a highway queen that's never seen a dirt road. However, he does pull a trailer with a big boat.

The truck has 120K on the clock with nary an issue except plugs, boots and two coils. She sounds and runs perfect and I've heard it in the morning on the first cold start, just as quiet as mine.

He's selling the truck and asking $28K, neg. In my opinion, the truck is at midlife now based on the way it's been treated. He's looking to buy a 2018 truck with the 3.5L. I hope he does well with it.

 

Also, a lot of the cash FoMoCo received was spent on hybrid / EV technology, to which we are seeing a lot more of from Ford these days. They had to have the ball rolling on the TT V6 engine pre-'09, no way they were able to plan, engineer, test, put it in production in 2 years or less.....or am I thinking wrong?

As far as forced induction, anyone remember the SVO Mustang, the Turbo TBird? (2.3L I-4)... that was several years ago, they also had the Thunderbird SC later on (3.8L Supercharged V6)... It seems that forced induction, small displacement engines isn't something Ford engineers are scared of.
With upcoming CAFE standards, ALL manufacturers will have to shed weight and reengineer their power plants to keep up.

 

Sadly these cars were severely prone to breakdown and it seems that many haven't forgotten that part of gas turbo history.

 

Yes Sir, I do agree. The point I was trying to make is that the concept of Turbo charging isn’t something Ford Motor Corporation just jumped into in the last 8 or 9 years.