Ford F-150 EcoBoost EPA-rated at 16 mpg city, 22 mpg highway
08 January 2011
The 2011 Ford F-150 equipped with all-new 3.5-liter EcoBoost truck engine (earlier post) is EPA-certified at 16 mpg city and 22 mpg highway (14.7 and 10.7 L/100km, respectively).
Coupled with a six-speed automatic anismission, the 365hp twin-turbo produces best-in-class 420 lb-ft (569 N·m) of torque, enabling best-in-class maximum towing of 11,300 pounds (5,126 kg) and maximum payload of 3,060 pounds (1,388 kg).
|
|
| Click to enlarge. |
The 3.5-liter EcoBoost is the final piece of the most extensive powertrain makeover in the 63-year history of Ford F-Series. Introduced earlier and now available are a new 3.7-liter V6, a 5.0-liter V8 and a 6.2-liter V8. Each of these engines also offers a combination of good fuel economy, power and capability.
Each engine is mated to a fuel-saving six-speed automatic transmission—making Ford the only manufacturer to equip its entire full-size pickup lineup with standard six-speed automatic gearboxes. All 2011 F-150s, except those equipped with the optional 6.2-liter V8, feature EPAS (electric power-assisted steering), a segment first. EPAS contributes about a 4% fuel-economy benefit compared with conventional hydraulic systems.
By 2013, Ford plans to offer an EcoBoost engine in up to 90% of its North American nameplates, supporting global sales of 1.5 million EcoBoost-powered vehicles per year.
As with diesels, today’s EcoBoost engines feature:
- Turbocharging to create a more dense mix of air and fuel in each cylinder;
- Special pistons with optimized bowls in the center to improve combustion efficiency. These pistons are also oil-cooled, which reduces in-cylinder temperatures; and
- Reduced CO2 emissions and higher fuel economy.
Like diesels, Ford’s EcoBoost engines deliver solid performance and driving enjoyment at all speeds. EcoBoost accomplishes this at less cost than a similar-displacement diesel engine.
The torque@rpm figure is key. Producing peak torque at 2500 RPM means the engine can provide towing power at a much lower speed, with less friction and other losses.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 08 January 2011 at 07:02 AM
Shows that downsized turbo charged engine are the way to go
Posted by: Treehugger | 08 January 2011 at 09:07 AM
Shameful over sized gas guzzlers. Only our very low gas price promotes the use of so many unwarranted vehicles in USA and Western Canada. Would $7/gal gas convince many of them to by smaller hybrids, PHEVs or BEVs?
Posted by: HarveyD | 08 January 2011 at 09:24 AM
It seems a win as its more torque, lower rpm, lower capacity with better towing capacity and fuel economy.
Probably also wouldn't need that much tweaking that it could eventually run as a 3 cylinder turbo under low loads
Posted by: 3PeaceSweet | 08 January 2011 at 10:49 AM
@HarveyD
"Shameful over sized gas guzzlers."
Maybe, but there are a lot of people that make a living with these trucks and others that have them for recreational purposes. I have a 3/4 ton long bed 4X4 Silverado that I use as a truck and, yes, I live in the west and I drive off-road and regularly use the 4X4 capabilities. I also have vehicle that gets over 50 mpg that I use for commuting when I can.
However, the real reason for my note is to point out the last place vehicles in mpg -- Toyota and Nissan. I had thought that Nissan had quit making the large pickups but apparently not. They certainly are not selling many as I rarely see them.
Posted by: sd | 08 January 2011 at 11:57 AM
@ HarveyD
"Would $7/gal gas convince many of them to by smaller hybrids, PHEVs or BEVs?"
$7/gal gas would certainly put many small business owners into bankruptcy along with job losses which we can ill afford at this time.
Posted by: Mannstein | 08 January 2011 at 04:35 PM
$7/gal gas should certainly reduce the sales of these Shameful over sized gas guzzlers from Toyota and Nissan.
When will we break free of thei brainwashing?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 08 January 2011 at 04:49 PM
$7/gallon gas would put an end to most "4x4 as a fashion statement" buyers. What it would do to business (small or otherwise) depends how we got there.
Business can cope with any price of inputs as long as it can pass the cost along to buyers. If we got to $7/gallon gas through another $4/gallon in Federal taxes, that money could come right back to us through tax deductibles or a citizen's dividend. Business would have a powerful incentive to cut back or go petroleum-free (Smith Electric Vehicles would be a great stock to buy), but everything would keep running.
If we get to $7/gallon gas through $200/bbl oil, we're done for. Once the money goes to OPEC we've had it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 08 January 2011 at 05:22 PM
I would like to see peak oil happen through peak demand. High taxes are regressive and hurt the poor the most. Then you have to have rebates through the tax system which creates more paper work and delays in getting their money back.
With OFS and alternative fuels, there is reduced demand for gasoline and hence oil. Make those true FFVs HEV/PHEV or EREV and you reduce fuel consumption even more. It does not take much to convert existing late model cars to run on E20+. With blend pumps you can select the blend percentage depending on what car you drive.
Posted by: SJC | 09 January 2011 at 12:25 PM
Good points E-P. Not too many businesses complained when corn/sugar ethanol pushed the price of sugar and animal feed related food by 100+% in a few months. As more and more food stock is used to produce ethanol, we can expect another 100+% rise is food price in the next few months.
What is the best for us? A 200+% rise in food price or a 100% rise in liquid fuel price?
The rise in food price will snow ball and many will go hungry or be forced to eat low quality junk food.
The rise in liquid fuel price with added taxes would have many positive sides to it.
- more needed revenues to reduce current Fed, States, Cities deficits.
- reduction in liquid fuel consumption and ethanol from food stocks.
- reduction in imported crude oil.
- reduction in GHG
- reduction in health care cost.
- reduction in food prices spiral curve.
- reduction in absenteeism
- increased productivity and competitiveness.
- less jobs exported.
- less goods imported.
Of course the $3+/gal rise in fuel taxes should not be done overnight. A $0.05/month per gallon for the next 60 months or so would be easier to digest and give time to manufacturers and buyers to produce and use lower fuel consumption vehicles.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 January 2011 at 02:29 PM
Harvey.. corn ethanol had very little to do with the cost increases of food or animal feed, its a miniscule market.. it was the cost of oil that did it.
Regarding the truck.. since the aerodynamics of PUs are really bad, this would really benefit from a hypermiler driving it at 45mph.. perhaps get MPGs into the 40s.
The turbo should also lower the mpg penalty of E85.. perhaps down into 0%-5% penalty..
Posted by: Herm | 09 January 2011 at 11:14 PM
Much of the rise in commodity prices had to do with hedge fund speculation. They don't develop nor use the resource but they are there bidding up the price to make money for nothing.
There is a place for futures markets, but when they manipulate the market they are placing more than just a bet. This is why ethanol producers need to get to cellulose, the corn futures markets will continue to be manipulated as long as a gambling profit can be made.
Posted by: SJC | 10 January 2011 at 11:33 AM
Cellulose markets will be manipulated also..of course, its really bulky woody trash so who knows, it may cost more to collect it that the fuel you get out of it.
Posted by: Herm | 10 January 2011 at 02:45 PM
SJC if the production of corn/sugar cane ethanol was stopped tomorrow, the price of sugar + sugar related food + meat + many other food items would drop by up to 50% within 4 to 6 months according to the local commerce board. Imported crude would increase by a mere 5% to 6% for USA and zero to 0.5% for Canada. Planned increased in Alberta tar sands oil production could supply USA with the missing 5%.
Of course, speculators and manipulators would play with crude price as they already do or more. They could even create an oil bubble instead of the coming food bubble. Anyway, we are used to one new bubble every 5 to 10 years.
Posted by: HarveyD | 10 January 2011 at 05:03 PM
would drop by up to 50% within 4 to 6 months
I doubt that.
Posted by: SJC | 11 January 2011 at 04:29 PM