Ford F-150 V6s outselling V8 models - TCCoA Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-02-2011, 06:39 PM Thread Starter
Road warrior extrodinaire

Super Moderator
 
Trunk Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Home Sweet Home: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 11,784
Garage
Ford F-150 V6s outselling V8 models

Filed under: Truck, Technology, Ford


Ford F-150 Ecoboost - Click above for high-res image gallery

Ford hit a milestone with its F-150 pickup last month. According to PickupTrucks.com, the Blue Oval sold more trucks with V6 engines than V8 mills. Forty-one percent of F-150 sales left the lot with the company's 3.5-liter Ecoboost six-pot under the hood. That number is up four percentage points compared to last month.

Additionally, the base, naturally-aspirated 3.7-liter V6 engine took home a 14 percent slice of the total mix, bringing the grand V6 total to 55 percent of all F-150 sales. The news comes as little surprise to anyone who's spent time in the full-size truck.

The twin-turbocharged, direct-injected 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 engine provides more power and better fuel economy than the 5.0-liter V8 alternative. While it carries a $750 premium over the larger displacement engine, buyers are keenly aware of just how much a few extra mpgs can save at the pump. As PickupTrucks.com points out, fuel prices are currently a dollar higher right now than they were at the same point last year.Ford F-150 V6s outselling V8 models originally appeared on Autoblog on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.



Permalink | Email this | Comments

More...

Mods? Yea, I got mods ...
Air silencer delete, warp drive, dilithium crystals, flux capacitor, Slingshot Rubber band power adder, Moonshine & Gas, Leaf Blower Supercharger, Hamster Wheel & Hamster, Energizer Bunny generating 1.21 gigawatts, Mr. Fusion® Home Energy Reactor, hover conversion and a sextant celestial navigation system (The original GPS)
Best 1/4: 1,320 nanoseconds @ 670,616,629.2 miles per hour

"There isn't that much difference anymore between spacecraft, aircraft and modern automobiles..." - Keith Henry, NASA's Langley Research Center
See a list of my real mods and pictures of my car HERE. The true performance of my car was made possible by the Carolinas Crew Chief, RobertP at Rob's Tire & Auto
Trunk Monkey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-02-2011, 06:58 PM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
Buckcreekbilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 875
Daughter's boyfriend bought one last month. 365 horse from that little V6. Nice truck, with a 11,300 lb towing capacity. Quick little bugger.

95 Thunderbird LX 4.6
K&N cold air intake. True 2 1/4" duals, Xenon GFX. 3:55 Trac loc. Beefier trans, 2800 stall convertor, MkV111 aluminum driveshaft.
Buckcreekbilly is offline  
post #3 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-02-2011, 07:01 PM Thread Starter
Road warrior extrodinaire

Super Moderator
 
Trunk Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Home Sweet Home: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 11,784
Garage
Ford needs to put 5.0 V8 Coyote engines in them.

That'll put a stop to that V6 crap. LOL

Mods? Yea, I got mods ...
Air silencer delete, warp drive, dilithium crystals, flux capacitor, Slingshot Rubber band power adder, Moonshine & Gas, Leaf Blower Supercharger, Hamster Wheel & Hamster, Energizer Bunny generating 1.21 gigawatts, Mr. Fusion® Home Energy Reactor, hover conversion and a sextant celestial navigation system (The original GPS)
Best 1/4: 1,320 nanoseconds @ 670,616,629.2 miles per hour

"There isn't that much difference anymore between spacecraft, aircraft and modern automobiles..." - Keith Henry, NASA's Langley Research Center
See a list of my real mods and pictures of my car HERE. The true performance of my car was made possible by the Carolinas Crew Chief, RobertP at Rob's Tire & Auto
Trunk Monkey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 06:36 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cullman, AL
Age: 56
Posts: 7,758
Send a message via AIM to 94 Daily Driven 4.6L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunk Monkey View Post
Ford needs to put 5.0 V8 Coyote engines in them.

That'll put a stop to that V6 crap. LOL
Nah, they need to drop this into it....

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/02/f...peed-transmis/

I wonder if I could swap that into my Aspire.

97 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC (Chip'd, 3.73 T/L... so far... )
97 Ford Aspire (Slow, but getting 36 mpg (f'n Ethenol!! )
84 F250 Dually w/6.9L Diesel (7.3L IDI pending)
73 Mercury Cougar Convertible w/351C 4V (Partially Restored)
69 F100 LWB w/460 Engine
76 Glastron Carlson 23' Jet Boat w/460 CJ Engine
94 Daily Driven 4.6L is offline  
post #5 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 09:00 AM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
Buckcreekbilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 875
Never been a real fan of V6 but the jury is still out on this one. Gonna see how they hold up, after a year or so, of the kid 4 wheelin and pullin the daughter's 27 ft travel trailer. Time will be the test of this setup.


95 Thunderbird LX 4.6
K&N cold air intake. True 2 1/4" duals, Xenon GFX. 3:55 Trac loc. Beefier trans, 2800 stall convertor, MkV111 aluminum driveshaft.

Last edited by Buckcreekbilly; 06-03-2011 at 09:10 AM.
Buckcreekbilly is offline  
post #6 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 09:44 AM
PostWhore
 
96PRLBRD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,088
I bough an EcoBoost F150 back at the end of April. The power if the twin turbo V6 is unbelievable. Who needs a Mustang LOL, I don't.

1996 Ford Thunderbird LX - 80K miles, 4.6L Auto, 2nd owner
Mostly stock except for tint, stereo, SC ground effects, and wheels/tires
--> My most recent pics <--
I'm documenting some of my MN12 stuff @ MN12Tech
- Door Hinge/Bushing Replacement
- Ford 4.6L Vacuum Hose Replacement How-To
- T-Bird DIY Cheap Headlight Restoration
- Multifunction Switch Replacement
- How To Bleed Teves ABS Brakes
- How To Remove Front Plate Bracket
96PRLBRD is offline  
post #7 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
machausta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kingsport, TN
Age: 41
Posts: 975
My wife keeps nagging me to get one...I want something slightly more practical because I don't do enough hauling to warrant that much truck.

2011 Dodge Durango Crew 5.7L HEMI

2001 Volkswagen Beetle GLX 1.8T
machausta is offline  
post #8 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 11:53 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
bowez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NEAR
Posts: 2,472
IMHO the there are only 2 engine choices for the F150 ECO boost 3.5 or the 6.2 the rest are pointless. Just like in the 90s it was 300 and 351w.

If all else fails get a bigger hammer!

93 SC Tbird
MPII w/ Plenum,90mm MAF, 85mm TB, 40# Injectors, 255 lph FP, Double IC w/fan, SCT Chip (Tuned by Jerry),3/4" Raised Top, F52-TT TC, SilverFox AOD 550, SPT-R VB
96 1/2 XR7 Sold and Salvaged
93 5.0 Tbird
bowez is offline  
post #9 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 02:07 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tucson AZ
Age: 49
Posts: 3,726
My dad is looking into them, if he ends up with the 5.0 that means he checked some option that requires it (like extended cab with long bed, for some reason).

The 5.0 seems laggy, the EcoBoost is strong from down low to redline.

I obviously am trying to get him into a Raptor for 15% more than what he is looking at will cost him. I think he would do fine with the 3.7 as long as he got an XLT or higher.

--
97 Mark VIII LSC/Silver/Gray leather
97 Cougar 4.6 Sport/White Opalescent Tricoat Metallic /Gray leather down but not out?
89 Cougar LS 3.8/Oxford White/Gray velour/HG need replaced AGAIN
00 Grand Marquis LS/Vibrant White/Gray velour
63 Falcon 302/black and rust/shed isn't moving
82 F-150/Oxford White/dumb VV carb doesn't pass emissions
Bangster is offline  
post #10 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-03-2011, 06:28 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3
I can believe it. Once the aftermarket starts supporting the Ecoboost (maybe it does now, i haven't looked) and if it proves itself reliable it will probably get even more sales. Forced induction = all i wanna drive.

89 Thunderbird SC 5spd (project car)
03 VW GTI 1.8T (former toy, current DD)
Helltime is offline  
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-08-2011, 08:23 PM
PostWhore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, Delaware
Age: 58
Posts: 1,362
Cool

I ordered my Lariat Crew Cab 4x4 in late Oct., 2010 with the 6.2, Max tow, and all. Got it on Jan. 19. This truck is Unreal!! I had the hard shell cover put on it, and the skid plates, and a few other goodies. On the freeway doing 70 mph, I get 19-20 mpg. At 60 I get 20-21 mpg. and at 55 I've gotten as much as 23.5 mpg. My "over - all" average mpg is 18.5. And I can prove it
Uncaged 94 is offline  
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-08-2011, 08:45 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Raptor22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chico, California
Age: 26
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowez View Post
IMHO the there are only 2 engine choices for the F150 ECO boost 3.5 or the 6.2 the rest are pointless. Just like in the 90s it was 300 and 351w.
I completely agree. As the owner of a 1989 Ford F-150 Lariat 4x4 with the good old 300 (and M5R2) I'm glad Ford finally has a decent 6cyl again.

[-----[ Conner ]-----] ASE P2 Automobile Parts Specialist - P4 General Motors Parts Consultant
The Blunderbird - 1989 Ford Thunderbird
3.8L V6 / M5R2 / 145,005 miles
Thunderbird SC Suspension Swap - Eibach Pro-Kit
JBL Premium Audio Swap - JL CP108 Subwoofer
Resonator Delete - Magnaflow DI/SO Muffler - Custom 2.5in Exhaust
Raptor22 is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-08-2011, 10:29 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: carthage
Age: 38
Posts: 2,435
Send a message via AIM to RobertP
Trunk monkey the do have the coyote engine in the them 360 hp and 380 torque at 4200 rpm while ecoboost makes 420 ft lbs at 2500 sorry but u can see the clear winner ecoboost owns the 5.0

www.robstireandauto.com for all your car needs and parts
95 bird corn powered 735rwhp and 580 tq
86 bird vortech s trim
10.75 @128.38
95 bird - Vortech t trim
9.98 worlds fastest IRS 4.6 thunderbird
1/8 [email protected]
10.11 @ 139.19 best mph
1.47 best 60ft if I can get a full pass with this 60ftt
All made possible with Braincoating'™s ported manifolds
RobertP is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-09-2011, 12:25 AM Thread Starter
Road warrior extrodinaire

Super Moderator
 
Trunk Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Home Sweet Home: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 11,784
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertP View Post
Trunk monkey the do have the coyote engine in the them 360 hp and 380 torque at 4,200 rpm while ecoboost makes 420 ft lbs at 2,500 sorry but u can see the clear winner ecoboost owns the 5.0
Bummer. I guess the Coyote is detuned in the F-150 from the Mustang configuration at 412 hp at 6,500 rpm and 390 lb-ft of torque at 4,250 rpm. But I bet a lot of that has to do with size and configuration of the two vehicles ... Truck vs. Car.

Mods? Yea, I got mods ...
Air silencer delete, warp drive, dilithium crystals, flux capacitor, Slingshot Rubber band power adder, Moonshine & Gas, Leaf Blower Supercharger, Hamster Wheel & Hamster, Energizer Bunny generating 1.21 gigawatts, Mr. Fusion® Home Energy Reactor, hover conversion and a sextant celestial navigation system (The original GPS)
Best 1/4: 1,320 nanoseconds @ 670,616,629.2 miles per hour

"There isn't that much difference anymore between spacecraft, aircraft and modern automobiles..." - Keith Henry, NASA's Langley Research Center
See a list of my real mods and pictures of my car HERE. The true performance of my car was made possible by the Carolinas Crew Chief, RobertP at Rob's Tire & Auto
Trunk Monkey is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-09-2011, 07:11 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: carthage
Age: 38
Posts: 2,435
Send a message via AIM to RobertP
Yes the 5.0 is 360 hp 380 tq

www.robstireandauto.com for all your car needs and parts
95 bird corn powered 735rwhp and 580 tq
86 bird vortech s trim
10.75 @128.38
95 bird - Vortech t trim
9.98 worlds fastest IRS 4.6 thunderbird
1/8 [email protected]
10.11 @ 139.19 best mph
1.47 best 60ft if I can get a full pass with this 60ftt
All made possible with Braincoating'™s ported manifolds
RobertP is offline  
post #16 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Like Titles Matter
Moderator
 
kdanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX Ya'll
Age: 51
Posts: 2,129
only difference is a half point of compression and the intake cams.

1996 Thunderbird LX- [email protected] NA
1998 GT - [email protected]
2001 Lightning - [email protected]
1996 GT 248A - [email protected]?
2011 GT - [email protected] 180 MPH at the Texas Mile


generated by sloganizer.net
kdanner is offline  
post #17 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-10-2011, 12:25 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
coggonobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coggon, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 2,008
Send a message via AIM to coggonobrien Send a message via MSN to coggonobrien Send a message via Yahoo to coggonobrien
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunk Monkey View Post
Ford needs to put 5.0 V8 Coyote engines in them.

That'll put a stop to that V6 crap. LOL
they already are
coggonobrien is offline  
post #18 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-15-2011, 01:04 PM
PostWhore
 
David Neibert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. Charles MO
Posts: 1,324
One of the sales guys at my company just replaced his 2006 5.4 3 valve 2wd supercab F-150 with the 3.5 ecoboost 4wd crew cab F-150 last week. I took it for a test drive and was very impressed with the power. I expected to hear the little engine screaming for mercy, but that was not the case. Very quiet and quick.

David

1991 SC AOD 4.2..2.3 Whipple..........10.910 @ 125.61
2016 SRT Challenger Hellcat..................707HP/650TQ
David Neibert is offline  
post #19 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 08:30 PM
On Probation
 
blown96bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: banned
Age: 59
Posts: 2,019
I hate v6 engines and they should have never been put into a truck. if they want to eco boost a 5.0 or a 6.2.

Last edited by blown96bird; 06-20-2011 at 09:17 PM.
blown96bird is offline  
post #20 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 09:02 PM
PostWhore
 
96PRLBRD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by blown96bird View Post
I hate v6 engines I hope that every ecoboost engine blows up and ford goes out of business paying warranty claims. a v6 is just 3/4 of a real engine. maybe the people buying the f150 with v6 should grow a set of nad's.
You're an idiot. Get with the times, dude. More efficient engines are cool . 420 lb-ft of torque out of a 3.5L V6? That's sweet, and I'm reminded of it every time I stomp on the go pedal.

1996 Ford Thunderbird LX - 80K miles, 4.6L Auto, 2nd owner
Mostly stock except for tint, stereo, SC ground effects, and wheels/tires
--> My most recent pics <--
I'm documenting some of my MN12 stuff @ MN12Tech
- Door Hinge/Bushing Replacement
- Ford 4.6L Vacuum Hose Replacement How-To
- T-Bird DIY Cheap Headlight Restoration
- Multifunction Switch Replacement
- How To Bleed Teves ABS Brakes
- How To Remove Front Plate Bracket
96PRLBRD is offline  
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-20-2011, 01:14 PM
On Probation
 
blown96bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: banned
Age: 59
Posts: 2,019
I just don't like v6 engines. I had a 81 cutlass with the 3.8 v6 it was a gutless turd. I always had problems with the engine or the electronic carburetor. It has been my experience that v6 engines won't last as long as a v8 engine.
blown96bird is offline  
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-20-2011, 01:35 PM
Humble MN12 Genius
Super Moderator
 
XR7-4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roselle IL
Posts: 16,654
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to XR7-4.6
Yes because the 1981 GM 3.8 is the epitome of the V6 engine design.

-Matt
XR7-4.6 is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 08:48 AM
TGJ
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
 
TGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 2,116
I am going to question the long term reliability of the Eco-Boost. Ford is trying the FI V6 to replace the V8 again. I am going to tick off the Supercoupe owners a bit with my next comment, but take a look at these cars. The SuperCoupe with a SC'd V6 VS the V8s. Performance wise, an early SC auto VS a 96 - 97 4.6L were about the same. The V8 got better mileage. The biggest thing, the V8 cars have been far more reliable than the SC and yes I am a former SC owner. Generally speaking, this is true with most manufactures, very rarely does the smaller FI engine turn out to be more reliable than the extra cylinder N/A equalivant. I would be willing to bet that will be the case with the Eco-Boost.

In the early 80's, the 300 I6 was better than the 302 V8, but in the late 80's, early 90's, the 302 V8 was better than the 300 I6. When Ford Fuel Injected the 5.0L, it made more power and torque than the I6 and was more fuel efficient. That remained true until both engines were no longer produced. In my own personal experience, the 87 - 96 302 was far more reliable than the 87 - 96 300 I6.

R.I.P. Johnny Langton (1975 - 2011)

1996 Thunderbird 5.0L 2V-4R70W
12.64 @ 107 MPH -> DA 3315 Ft above Sea level
12.49 @ 109 -> DA 2967 Ft above Sea level
2005 Mustang GT 4.6L 3V-TR3650 - SOLD
13.39 @ 102 MPH -> DA 3617 Ft above Sea level
2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V-6R80 - Bolt-ons
12.32 @ 115 MPH -> DA 2980 Ft above Sea level
TGJ is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 01:02 PM
5th Gear Poster
 
winkysrides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Waynesville ohio
Posts: 384
Send a message via AIM to winkysrides
I want to see a eco boost t-bird I wonder if they will or do offer a eco boost engine kit like they do for the 5.O

Quote:
  • "Chuck Norris built my shortblock. It runs on the tears of small children and makes 10,000 hp. He said it's his 'street version' "
wheel hoppin and poppin!
91 Thunderbird sport 357W 5speed
88 stripped out 5.0 C4 and 4:56 gears in a 9in Ford


winkysrides is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 01:09 PM
PostWhore
 
1996Project-bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny View Post
You're an idiot. Get with the times, dude. More efficient engines are cool . 420 lb-ft of torque out of a 3.5L V6? That's sweet, and I'm reminded of it every time I stomp on the go pedal.
Agreed. I could care less how many cylinders it has. Don't go taking away from that V6, it'll whoop most cars on this site.

I love my V8, but I'd love it more if all 8 cylinders worked. (they do now)

My T-bird is like George Jetson's wife, you try to give her a little money, she takes the whole wallet.
1996Project-bird is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 01:57 PM
Humble MN12 Genius
Super Moderator
 
XR7-4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roselle IL
Posts: 16,654
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to XR7-4.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGJ View Post
I am going to question the long term reliability of the Eco-Boost. Ford is trying the FI V6 to replace the V8 again. I am going to tick off the Supercoupe owners a bit with my next comment, but take a look at these cars. The SuperCoupe with a SC'd V6 VS the V8s. Performance wise, an early SC auto VS a 96 - 97 4.6L were about the same. The V8 got better mileage. The biggest thing, the V8 cars have been far more reliable than the SC and yes I am a former SC owner. Generally speaking, this is true with most manufactures, very rarely does the smaller FI engine turn out to be more reliable than the extra cylinder N/A equalivant. I would be willing to bet that will be the case with the Eco-Boost.

In the early 80's, the 300 I6 was better than the 302 V8, but in the late 80's, early 90's, the 302 V8 was better than the 300 I6. When Ford Fuel Injected the 5.0L, it made more power and torque than the I6 and was more fuel efficient. That remained true until both engines were no longer produced. In my own personal experience, the 87 - 96 302 was far more reliable than the 87 - 96 300 I6.
History might just repeat itself once Ford decides to go direct injection with the Coyote.

Honestly I wonder the same thing about long term reliability too, like 10 years down the road is it still running without issues? If not how much is it going to cost to resolve them? That's the biggest flaw with mass production FI engines, they become complete money pits in the long term for the most part. A few short term stress tests don't prove much more than it not being brittle.

A lot of it's existence frankly, since Ford first began making blown cars, is public perception. Draw in the customers with these High tech SC/turbo engines that get good mileage and outperform the base V8s, then improve the V8 and subsequently phase out the blown six. Hell if I venture into the realm of conspiracy it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that the only the only reason the Coyote isn't DI yet is so the ecoboost outperforms it in trucks. Ford has stated afterall that the heads are set up for the injectors.

-Matt

Last edited by XR7-4.6; 06-21-2011 at 02:02 PM.
XR7-4.6 is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 04:12 PM
Seasoned Veteran Poster
 
machausta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kingsport, TN
Age: 41
Posts: 975
Did you guys look at what they did to one of these engines?

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01...ooks-like.html

"A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.
From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.
McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.

A leakdown test was performed to measure how well the engine’s 24 intake and exhaust valves and piston rings were still able to seal the cylinders. One cylinder was found to have a cautionary 13 percent air loss past the combustion chamber’s seals, while all other cylinders were acceptable with single digits of air leakage.
Oil pressure at idle on the dyno was normal, in the mid-40 psi range.

After the dyno, engine 448AA, which had never been opened or inspected, was shipped to the Detroit auto show where, on Saturday, it was torn down for inspection in front of a live audience of more than a thousand Ford engine enthusiasts and their families.

The teardown was narrated for the audience by Jim Mazuchowski, Ford’s chief engineer for V-6 engines. Powertrain engineer Phil Fabien explained the advantages of things like turbocharging, direct fuel injection and twin independent variable cam timing while engine technicians Chris Brown on the right bank and Chris Rahill on the left bank took the engine apart using a pair of air wrenches and hand tools.
As they went, the engine parts were laid out on three huge tables so that when the tear-down was complete, the engineers and the audience could take a closer look. During the tear-down, engineers Steve Matera, Kirk Sheffer and Jeanne Wei organized the parts and made some key measurements.

Valve lash, which measures valvetrain clearance between the camshafts and valves, was checked at 0.17 mm on the intakes and 0.38 mm on the exhausts. That’s well within normal range for both, according to Ford. Crankshaft end play was measured at 0.12 mm, also acceptable.

The timing chain, which controls valve timing and synchronizes engine operation, was still within normal tolerances. With age, a timing belt loses tension, and a hydraulically operated timing chain tensioner is used to compensate for slack. The tensioner has 10 teeth that work like a ratchet to maintain tension. The EcoBoost V-6 used three teeth, well within the timing chain’s operating specs.
We didn’t get a photo of the valves, but they had carbon deposits similar to that found (and seen in pictures) on piston combustion surfaces.

Visual inspection of the cylinder heads, twin turbos, piston crowns, ring lands, rod bearings and cylinder bores by the engineers and your correspondent showed no major signs of anomalous wear after 163,000 miles of endurance testing. The main bearings showed cosmetic grooves but not excessive wear through the metal.

Engineer Wei said each and every part would be taken back to Ford’s labs to be checked with scales, cameras, lasers, micrometers and other measuring tools to get the final details on the rich, full life of EcoBoost V-6 engine 448AA."

2011 Dodge Durango Crew 5.7L HEMI

2001 Volkswagen Beetle GLX 1.8T
machausta is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 04:34 PM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
I'm not surprised of the V-6's success. MPG and performance: what more do you want? Besides, even the "weak" base model V-6 in these trucks accelerates faster, tows more, and gets better economy than even the biggest 1500 series trucks from 10 years ago and rivals even the 8 cylinder engines that this new powertrain lineup in the F-150 replaced. Think about it...

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-21-2011, 05:31 PM
Humble MN12 Genius
Super Moderator
 
XR7-4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roselle IL
Posts: 16,654
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to XR7-4.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by machausta View Post
I'd be much more interested in those tests if there was a control to compare it to rather than it being a "look what I can do" test. I just don't think it truly represents 5-10 years worth of ownership the typical owner will actually put it through. I'd trust the highly flogged but presumably well maintained 162k test motor over a gingerly driven 162k motor with laxed maintenence and lots of accumulated hours idling in traffic.

-Matt
XR7-4.6 is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 06-22-2011, 09:10 AM
Moderator &amp;amp; Teksid Whore
Super Moderator
 
guitar maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Laredo, Texas
Age: 40
Posts: 11,961
Send a message via MSN to guitar maestro Send a message via Yahoo to guitar maestro
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdanner View Post
only difference is a half point of compression and the intake cams.
I think the "headers" are different too. Almost positive the truck has standard log manifolds.
guitar maestro is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome