Advertisement

One-Third Of 2011 Ford F-150 Pickups Sold With V-6

Follow John

2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost burnout

2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost burnout

Enlarge Photo

MPGs matter, it turns out, even to pickup buyers. Or, perhaps especially to pickup truck buyers.

Just four months after Ford added an EcoBoost engine option to its top-selling F-150 pickup truck, the company reports that fully 35 percent of the 2011 model's sales are fitted with either that fuel-efficient 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine or the even-more-efficient 3.7-liter base V-6.

"The No. 1 unmet need for full-size pickup truck owners has been fuel economy,” said Doug Scott, marketing manager for the Ford Truck Group. He said the 2011 Ford F-150 now has "best-in-class fuel economy, best-in-class capability and power, and more powertrain choices."

Ford has vowed that it will deliver best-in-class fuel economy in all of its new products.

The version of the EcoBoost engine used in the Ford F-150 pickup raises the truck's fuel efficiency to 16 mpg city, 22 mpg  highway, for a combined 18-mpg rating, while the less powerful but even higher-mileage 3.7-liter base V-6 is rated at 17 mpg city, 23 mpg highway, for a combined rating of 19 mpg. All figures are for two-wheel-drive models.

The mileage of the base 3.7-liter V-6 is 12 percent better than the most economical V-8 offering, the 5.0-liter engine, which the EPA rates at 15 mpg city and 21 mpg highway, and 17 mpg combined.

2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost

2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost

Enlarge Photo

A rise from 17 to 19 mpg may not sound very impressive. But in fact, it saves almost two-thirds of a gallon of gasoline every 100 miles, the same amount as raising the gas mileage of a smaller car all the way from 38 to 50 mpg.

That's because miles-per-gallon isn't a linear scale, and actually confuses a majority of car buyers. But we'll leave that discussion for another time.

Many pickup trucks get driven more miles each year than passenger cars, and for those trucks, the fuel savings and reduction in tailpipe emissions are even higher.

Ford's line of EcoBoost engines uses gasoline direct injection and turbocharging to extract more power from a smaller displacement. The company says its 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 (fitted to the Ford Taurus SHO and Flex models, and the Lincoln MKS and MKZ) offers the performance of a V-8 with fuel efficiency up to 20 percent better.

The company's EcoBoost lineup will expand over the next few years. It will launch a 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine in its Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX models, though release dates have not yet been set. And there are even smaller EcoBoost fours to come, though they will be used first for models sold in Europe.

[Ford]

+++++++++++

Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.

Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (16)
  1. Some people thought adding the EcoBoost would be a bad idea, guess they were wrong, good for Ford. Now how about a diesel option for the F-150, say a V6 turbo diesel.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. Once again, the bias in the reporting is in evidence. Improving MPG is a truck is good, improving it in a compact car, well no big deal.
    First where is the criticisim that Ecoboost costs $1,750 more than 3.7-liter V-6? You know that would have been mentioned if this has a hybrid. Also, why are we discussion the 5.0 L engine when Ford still offers the 6.2L V-8 with an lousy 13/18 MPG. Surely Ford could remove this option from their line-up and do more for fuel economy than offering the eco-boost.
    It is great that Ford has more fuel efficient offerings, it would be even better if the deprecated their gas guzzlers.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. As for the 17/19MPG versus 38/50mpg, all I can say is great job being accurate and misleading at the same time. Sure the changes save the same amount of fuel. However, the 50 MPG vehicle uses 2.00 gallons/100 miles while the 19 MPG vehicle uses 5.26 gallons or 2.63 TIMES MORE GASOLINE, which you fail to mention.
    You also fail to mention that some percentage of the people with pickup trucks could easily commute in a compact car.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. The bias is very clear from this comparison. In this article he is talking-up the value of increasing fuel economy from 17-19 MPG by saying "is saves almost two-thirds of a gallon of gasoline". This is a positive statement.
    In an article about the Chevy Cruze he is talking-down the significance of a change from 33 to 40 MPG as "only saves you half a gallon every 100 miles" which is a negative statement.
    So saving 0.63 gallons in a truck is a positive thing but saving 0.53 gallons in the Chevy Cruze is a negative thing. Obvious bias. All the while he is hiding behind the dubious MPG delusional argument.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. @John: We've had this discussion before, so I won't recapitulate my views here. Note, however, that while these trucks DO in fact use 2.6 times as much gasoline per mile, there are few substitutes for pickup trucks for those buyers who use them for jobs or commercially. The segment is not going to go away, no matter how many misguided green-minded advocates would like it to.
    Note also that MANY pickup truck buyers simply won't consider anything other than a V-8 engine, whether logical or not, whether fuel savings are greater or not. So I surmise Ford must keep a "base V-8" in their pickup-truck lineup for quite a while yet, unlike passenger cars in which V-8s are rapidly becoming exotic high-end options.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. The problem of offering a very fuel effecient, high powered engine always existed in the form of turbo diesels. And with the advances from Europe in clean diesel technology, diesel has almost every advantage over gasoline. So the whole eco-boost craze is a little overdone. Just as the Author commented above, many truck buyers just hold on to old biases, such as against V6s and smaller diesels.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. John Briggs, you totally missed the point. Trucks are required by many people, you can't haul fifteen hundred pounds of equipment in a Chevy Volt or Cruze. You can't pull a loaded trailer weighing 11,300 pounds with anything wimpy. What a nimrod, the biased one is you buddy.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. @John Voelcker and Mark Godwin,
    These arguments of many people "needing" large trucks and "preferring" V-8 really run into conflict with themselves and reality.
    The reality is that many people (dare I say most people) don't "need" the F-150's that they purchased. I personally know people that use them for their daily commute in and out of Boston carrying zero cargo. I am sure you know these people too and you should be honest enough to admit it. Many (perhaps most) of these people don't need such a vehicle. No doubt it is the best choice for some people. But, are you seriously going to argue that some significant percentage of F-150 drivers haul 11,300 loads. It is laughable. It is probably the same as the percentage for 4x4 drivers that actually go off-road, i.e. a very small percentage.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. As for the V8 preference, it is just that. If the V6 has just as much performance, then just kill the V8 and save the gas and reduce the pollution. This gets to my main point. For all the people that "prefer" driving an F150 and "prefer" driving a V8 F150, let me just say that I prefer to breathe clean air. And the day that John Voelcker confesses that the right of people to breathe clean air is on par (or better) then people preferring to drive gas guzzlers is that day these posts will have made some progress. Voelcker spends ample time defending the "preferences" of people regarding vehicles and zero time defending the "right" to clean air. If your vehicles don't dirty my air, I will hold my tongue. But as long as that is not the case, I maintain that I have a say in the matter and fortunately the government agrees with me. Later John C. Briggs'
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. I think we all agree that not every one that have a big truck actually needs all the cargo/ towing capacity. Has anyone seen any numbers ob how people use the trucks? Considering how there seems to be studies or surveys on just about everything, I'm guessing there is one somewhere.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. The bottome line, Ford did the cash flow investment, which shows a positive cash flow to keep the V8 option. The V8 option is used by commercial/fleet vehicles, which is critical for the segment. If I may add, Ford has done a great job making its higher displacement engines more powerful, and fuel efficient. The bottom line, I am glad we have options, and if my needs are for a V8, and I can afford it, I will buy it. If my needs are for a fuel efficient V6 3.5L GTDI, well I have that option too. And to your point (John), Ford has done a great job in removing high displacement engines for more fuel efficient lower displacement GTDI replacement. Take for example the new Explorer, which does not have a V8 option (only I4 and V6).
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. Back to the main point. Why is saving 0.63 gallons in a truck hailed as a something impressive and saving 0.53 gallons in a Chevy Cruze as being irrelevant? Bias, pure and simple.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. Briggs, you ever thought about not trolling on this site, maybe find something better to do?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. @NoNameDenton,
    I am not trolling. I am posting responses directly related to the articles and the biases of the author. Also, it is not my intent to inflame anyone but correct obviously wrong or biased content.
    If anyone is trolling, it is John Voelcker. He is deliberately writing inflammatory content on a supposedly green car website.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. Briggs, stating your opinion does not count as correcting false information, it is an opinion, not fact.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  16. @NoNameDenton
    The difference between fact and opinion is exactly what I was commenting on but you have missed that fact. Voelcker presents that fact that the F150 Eco-boost saves 0.63 gallons/100 miles. But then what is his opinion? This is a significant improvement. Early, he wrote an article about the Chevy Cruze stating the fact that it used 0.53 gallons/100 miles. But now what is his opinion? In this case his opinion is that there is no significant difference.
    So the FACT is that Voelcker is inconsistently treating fuel savings.
    Oh and one more thing. The few and far between obvious factual errors in a story, I send corrections directly to John Voelcker and he graciously fixes them without cluttering up the comment sections.
    Thanks
    John C. Briggs
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!
Advertisement

Advertisement

 
© 2014 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.