Just went to order 2011 / F150 EcoBoost / King Ranch. The 36 gallon fuel tank is not available with ANY Ecoboost, regardless of trim. This baffles my mind. 36 Gallon is available with all other powertrains. Can someone please explain this flawed logic to me?

 

Without knowing any better, I'm guessing they did this due to the EB's higher economy ratings. Plus it'll save a touch of weight, but that's likely not the reason. The effective range of the smaller tank with the EB is probably equal to the range of the V8s with the larger tank.

 

The effective range to equal the V8 is as good of guess as any. Or maybe its a space issue with exhaust ? How awesome would it be to have the range of an ecoboost w/ 36 gallons? At least have it as an option? I wonder if you could put a 36 gallon aftermarket?

 

Lets say you'll get 22mpg on the hwy in the EB. @ 36 gallons that's just shy of 800 miles to the tank. I'd take that.

I'm sure it's a marketing ploy of some sort though. Saying to everyone else that they can still manage nearly 600 mile range with less than 30 gallons.

 

You might get one anyways, my 2010 was supposed to have the 25 gallon tank but it has the 36 gallon tank.

 

What did the dealer have to say about it? I think it's stupid myself. If you tow you need the larger tank

 

Dealer just said , well the computer says "not available" so I guess it's not available. Going to do more homework before ordering

 

Thats as stupid as not allowing TT mirrors on a max tow FX4 with the lux pkg.

Very frustrating!

Still easier to add mirrors than a larger tank, but still a PITA.

 

Anyone who tows with EB will need the 36 gallon tank because the EB won't get the mileage towing that a 6.2 will. Ford is doing their best to drive loyal customers to the competition. It's just little things like that that p&#* me off.

 

The Ecoboost is designed to operate much like a diesel but on gasoline. (high compression, direct injection, etc) I think your styatement about the EB not getting the mileage of the 6.2 towing is probably way off the mark. From what I understand the EB is designed for economical operation throughout the range.

 

That is pretty much the exact opposite of all the reviews I've read. Also drive the loyal customers to the competition? Here is just an example of the reviews of the Ecoboost since we are talking about it -

"While its 365 horsepower and 420 pound-feet of torque may look a bit down on paper when compared to the 6.2-liter V8, real-life scenarios prove that the EcoBoost has got the brawn where it counts most: right in the meat of the power band. Ninety percent of the boosted mill's torque is available from 1,700 rpm through 5,000 rpm, allowing it to match the bigger engine's 11,300-pound tow and 3,060-pound payload ratings."

If that isn't a postive enough and you still feel that going to the competition would be the better route here is a little bit of it compared to the competition-

"We took the opportunity to compare a 2011 EcoBoost-powered F-150 back-to-back-to-back with competitors from GM and Dodge. We'll be blunt: Chevy's 5.3-liter is completely outclassed in this company. Dodge's Hemi engine, however, felt as if it had plenty of guts to get the job done (390 hp, 407 lb-ft), but part-throttle conditions, such as when maintaining a steady speed up a slight grade or changing lanes to pass slower traffic, caused the Ram's five-speed automatic to drop down a gear (and sometimes even two) when the EcoBoost and its six-speed would resolutely remain in its current ratio and pick up the called-upon speed. That's the result of abundant torque. When we pressed further (not that it was necessarily needed), Ford's tranny would indeed downshift and summon plenty of reserve turbo-fed horses. Impressive power, and also a boon for fuel mileage. Toyota's 5.7-liter V8 (381 hp, 401 lb-ft) also fails to match the barrel-chested feeling of steady-stream torque experienced with the EcoBoost when towing."

 

Matthew I'm with you on your comments. Nice post!!

I think that the EB is going to turn out to be a powerhouse of an engine, but time will tell about it's reliability. I still think you're talking about a 200K+ mile engine here, but like many others have said, it does have a lot of moving parts and that makes me hesitant, but extremely excited at the same time.

But back to the OP's question about the tank size. I'm confident it's directly related to the economy ratings of the EB being higher than the mighty 6.2

 

As I posted earlier, I'm not against technology and new stuff, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Ford's "latest and greatest 6.0L diesel" as it was proclaimed back in 03. That engine was touted to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and everyone knows how that turned out. While it would run circles around the 7.3, too many of them had reliability issues too numerous to mention individually. I certainly hope that's not the case with the EB engines. But until they are on the road for 3 or 4 years with a sufficient track record, I'll stay with the tried and true NA engines. And for that there's no replacement for displacement.

 

The Ecoboost has been on the market for the almost 2 years now. Although there is slight difference between the EB in the SHO and the EB that's going in the F150, the basic design has proved to be solid in the Taurus, which is a heavy car itself. Regarding your "no replacement for displacement" idea, the current 5.0L now makes 360hp/380tq compared to the 351W in its final year of production making 210hp/310tq. One thing can be attributed to this increase in power, torque, and efficiency; technology. So perhaps you should wait and see how the EB does once it hits the streets rather than downright rejecting it before it is even released in truck form. Who knows, maybe this will be the best thing to ever happen to Ford trucks.

 

They don't know as much about it as they like to think. Also it is amazing how many of those reliability issues I could pinpoint to owner not knowing what was going on with these newer diesels.

I can go on and on about it. Knowledge(or the lack thereof actually) was the killer of the 6.0, not the engine in of itself.