2011 F150 Engine Lineup!
#31
08-11-2010, 07:26 PM
Join Date: May 2006
Location: High Plains of West Texas
Posts: 4,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#32
08-11-2010, 07:49 PM
Senior Member
But what exactly is reason why people have this mentality? We've had four diesels in the past 10 years and I've been around plenty of gas powered turbos to know what they're capable of. You're not going to haul the kind of loads that a diesel will with a half-ton truck. Period. So if it's a question of a diesel engine being built stouter than a gas, that is a moot point. Diesels don't get the mpg's they once did, so they can't trump a gas engine in that realm anymore. And if it was a diesel engine, it would be subject to the same EPA rules as the rest of them. I seriously doubt anyone is going to want to deal with DPF regenarations and UREA in their half-ton truck. Because of all that, maintenance is much higher than a gas engine and longevity and the breaking even point on the price difference over gas is not what it once was.
We have a 6.4 now, and I can honestly say I would not want a diesel in an F150. The maintenance on a diesel will not be worth it to anyone, nor the premium price. You might as well get into a Super Duty once you're done.
We have a 6.4 now, and I can honestly say I would not want a diesel in an F150. The maintenance on a diesel will not be worth it to anyone, nor the premium price. You might as well get into a Super Duty once you're done.
My opinion, the only reason the 6.2 is going to be that limited is the new gas mileage regs. No other reason.
Unfortunately, with what the options are, I have no use for a superduty, don't like some of the standard features of the Lariat/Platinum, like leather seats, and don't want to pay 4k more for the equivalent of the FX4. Depending on how things go, my next option might not be an F150. Something I have been driving since 1978.
Last edited by kingfish51; 08-11-2010 at 07:53 PM.
#33
08-11-2010, 07:50 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd seriously reconsider that unless you absolutely need the diesel or you haul a ton.
#34
08-11-2010, 08:00 PM
#35
08-11-2010, 08:02 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because a diesel will last a lot longer than any gas engine when used in a towing environment. A turbo diesel in that size would probably be putting a lot more torque than the 3.5 will. Making it far better for towing.
My opinion, the only reason the 6.2 is going to be that limited is the new gas mileage regs. No other reason.
My opinion, the only reason the 6.2 is going to be that limited is the new gas mileage regs. No other reason.
For size comparison, the 3.0L CRD diesel that was offered in the Jeep Cherokee put out 218 hp @ 3800 rpm and 376 lb-ft of torque @ 2000 rpm.
In all honesty though, I love me a big V8 and would love to have a 6.2 Boss in a truck. But I'm thinking this Ecoboost engine will be the real deal. Who know, with GM reconsidering the 4.5L Duramax, Ford might look into getting a smaller Powerstroke in the works.
#36
08-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Roanoke, Texas
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 5.0 will be a perfect engine for the F-150. The 6.2 sounds nice, but at that point, I would think a Superduty may be in order. 360 hp with the 5.0 is nothing to sneeze at and should pull what a F-150 should be pulling. Not to mention the mileage is very good on them. My Mustang isn't even broken in yet and it is as good or better than my 4.6 was from a mileage perspective.
#37
08-11-2010, 08:26 PM
Senior Member
They have had no problem making 5.4s for the superduty and F150. I doubt they would have any problem making enough 6.2s. For many, mileage is a concern, so they would take the 5.0 rather than paying extra for the 3.5 or 6.2.
#38
08-11-2010, 08:28 PM
Senior Member
I have to disagree about it being the top engine for towing. So far all have said ab out 400hp and 400ftlbs of torque for the eco-boost. That is 10% below the 6.2s torque. Personally I would much rather have the V8 as it will not be working as hard as that 6 cylinder to do the same thing. The main reason for Ford to have it is mileage. They need to get so many in there so the meet federal mileage requirements.
yeah a 3.0L producing 376ft-lbs is pretty good on its own but then being at 2000rpms is even more amazing.
#39
08-11-2010, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah but 400ftlbs thru the WHOLE rpm range will be better than a 440 peak where it might only have 250ftlbs off the line whereas the EB could be 350 until the turbos kick in and give it 400. just because the peak is higher means very little when the competition's peak is ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ALL DAY, EVERYDAY.
yeah a 3.0L producing 376ft-lbs is pretty good on its own but then being at 2000rpms is even more amazing.
yeah a 3.0L producing 376ft-lbs is pretty good on its own but then being at 2000rpms is even more amazing.
* 365 hp (272 kW) @5500 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @1500-5250 rpm
o 2010- Ford Taurus SHO
* 355 hp (265 kW) @5700 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @1500-5250 rpm
o 2010- Ford Flex
o 2010- Lincoln MKS
o 2010- Lincoln MKT
o 2011- Ford F-150[13] [14]
Coming from wikipedia, I'm sure that 2011 F150 output is not accurate. But as you can see, you have all 350 lb-ft available from 1500 RPM-5250 RPM.
#40
08-11-2010, 10:01 PM
The EB3.5L is better than a diesel. Modern diesels get peak torque from about 1500rpm to about 3000rpm at peak hp and redline under 3500rpm. The EB gets peak torque from 1500rpm to 5200rpm, peak hp at 5500rpm and redline near 6000rpm. You get twice the area under the curve for peak torque, a 3700rpm spread vs. 1500. So with direct injection turbo charged gasoline engines you get the benefits of direct injection turbocharged diesel engines (and more) without the emissions costs.
#41
08-11-2010, 10:17 PM
I have to laugh at all you clowns that are turning up your noses at the 5.0 and EB before there are even any published tests of the things.
Funny thing, but the 3.7 NA V-6 has more HP than the 4.6 3v............it's just lower on torque. I betcha the torque curve is a lot flatter though. I for one am glad to see a V-6 return to the F-150, now all I need is a manual tranny option.
Funny thing, but the 3.7 NA V-6 has more HP than the 4.6 3v............it's just lower on torque. I betcha the torque curve is a lot flatter though. I for one am glad to see a V-6 return to the F-150, now all I need is a manual tranny option.
#42
08-11-2010, 10:21 PM
Senior Member
#44
08-11-2010, 10:53 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still can't believe Ford got 360/380 out of the 5.0 engine. That is FAR more efficient than any of their V8 gas truck engines have been by a very large margin. And the good fuel economy on top of that, wow. Good job Ford, perfect for the F150.
If the EB is going to give 400 ft lbs right from 1500 RPM, it is going to be a towing monster. Just wait until Troyer and PHP get their hands on these engines. The 6.2 will be a very nice engine too, and I much prefer the sound of a V8. And just imagine the possibilities with boost.
Say, my current truck is getting kinda old i guess....
If the EB is going to give 400 ft lbs right from 1500 RPM, it is going to be a towing monster. Just wait until Troyer and PHP get their hands on these engines. The 6.2 will be a very nice engine too, and I much prefer the sound of a V8. And just imagine the possibilities with boost.
Say, my current truck is getting kinda old i guess....
#45
08-12-2010, 01:48 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how the 5.0 will compare to the 5.4 as far as towing goes. It has more hp, but a little less torque, and if I remember correctly and it's the same as the Mustang, it makes those numbers at a higher RPM. Not the greatest for towing. It'll be interesting to see how people like it as I don't see a large number of buyers putting down the extra coin for the untested EB.