An engineer for Ford, a good friend of mine, told me to hold off till 2011 to get a new F150. During the late 90's he was in Japan working with Mazda on prototype engines. The "ecoboost" that they are coming out with this year in the SHO (365 hp and 385 f/p) is going to be spun a bit higher and dropped in the 2011 F150 as a fuel savings option. I love the idea of having a twin turbo gas truck pushing 400/400 while getting 28 mpg on the highway!

 

If they put it in a truck it won't get 28 mpg but it still might be a good option.

 

during his audit of the SHO they ended up pulling 29 in the city and 35 highway. With the amount of torque and right overdrive gearing they could do it in the truck

 

Trucks have very poor aerodynamics, LOTS of extra weight, and extra rolling resistance. Why does my 09 Escape get 25 on the highway while the Fusion with a similar engine gets 28? They weigh the same.

 

Who wouldn't love that? I just don't see it happening any time soon.



The 3.5 EcoBoost MKS is only supposed to get 24mpg highway. Your friend must have been driving a prototype with no emissions controls, a vastly different tune, or something wildly different in the drivetrain to get results like that.

There's a pretty good little column in the latest Car and Driver that talks about the forced induction, smaller displacement engines. They basically call BS on the idea that you get "V6 fuel mileage with V8 power", judging from other vehicles on the road that make a similar claim. They had comparisons of naturally aspirtated cars vs cars with smaller displacement, forced induction, direct injection engines, both making similar power. In pretty much every example the bigger N/A engine got the same or better fuel mileage.

They can toy around with this as much as they like, and may get some marginal gains in economy. However, I think to make any real gains like the government is calling for, they are going to have to cut weight and power, improve aerodynamics, and make wider use of hybrid powertrains.

 

Ford's track record with twin turbos is not very stellar so I will wait for the 4V 5.0 for my next f-150 not sure I will live long enough to see one though?????

 

I got a good laugh from that...thank you


The 4.6 3v has 300 HP...and yet, it can barely get 21-22 MPG highway with a 6 speed tranny

 

This may be different...


Ford Tests New Ecoboost Engine at the Drag Strip : Auto News

 

do some research on the Ford GTDI engine. Anyways I need the new 6.0 comming soon!!

 

Not sure how a 3.5L V6 with two turbos the size of an orange will weigh the same or more than a 4.6L 3V V8?

Pls explain for me.

 

The New VW TDI is advertising 50 some MPG. Why can't the tree huggers embrace diesel engines. Less CO2 emissions, and much better fuel milage.

 

This engine doesn't inspire me to wait till 2011 to get a truck. The 6.4L WOW'd everyone when they took a 50 state 100K mile trip pulling a trailer with an F-450. The twin turbo's on 6.4L didn't necessarily make inroads in power or MPG's.

Tim

 

It's not so much the tree huggers that haven't embraced diesel, the American public has stayed away from diesels in the past in droves.

 

Modern diesels suffer from tree-huggers...that's the biggest problem with them.

My new '08 PSD is without a doubt the most complex vehicle I've ever driven, let alone owned. It's much more complex than my work truck, which uses a twin-turbo 15-liter caterpillar diesel. Much of that is due to the EPA emissions restrictions, and MPG is terrible compared to what the older, non-EPA engines can get.

I'd LOVE to see pre-EPA diesels take over the light duty market...but I don't think I'd care to own an EPA 2010 engine in ANYTHING that didn't need it...

 

motor to motor...not quite. the 4.6 will be slightly heavier


but then lets explore what the 3.5 ecoboost will be.


1. most likely forged (since it will see boost...picture L motor)
2. 2 turbos (ain't light)
3. all the associated exhaust piping made from pig iron (very heavy)
4. the intercooler & all associated plumbing


there may or may not be an auxiliary oil cooler as well for the turbo's, plus the entire cooling setup for the intercooler itself



just at face value, you are 100% right...but once you delve into the stuff I've mentioned above, they are gonna be damn near equal in weight...and the 3.5 may even be heavier