With the Eco doing so well and loved by many and bragged about by Ford. Why is it not offered in the F250 ? I love mine but I'm curious.

They can't make em fast enough now.

My guess, and it's only a guess:It's a light duty truck with a light duty engine with a low, light duty cycle. My drag engine can put out a lot of power but it's duty cycle is VERY short and low. There is a reason truck engines with high duty cycles are very heavy.

Turtle n Peeps wrote:My guess, and it's only a guess:It's a light duty truck with a light duty engine with a low, light duty cycle. My drag engine can put out a lot of power but it's duty cycle is VERY short and low. There is a reason truck engines with high duty cycles are very heavy.Your guess sounds pretty reasonable.

That combo is what I'm waiting for. The 3.5 Eco may not be a good fit due to the extra weight of the SuperDuty vs the F150. Like most turbo-charged engines, the 3.5 is weight-sensitive, as far as fuel mileage goes. It responds nicely to any increased need for power, whether its caused by increased weight of whats being moved by the engine or by increased weight on the go-pedal, but at the expense of fuel mileage. I've noticed that if I hook up even a small low-drag trailer, like my open ATV aluminum trailer with 2 ATV's on it, total weight of less than 2000 pounds, fuel mileage suffers. I suspect the same thing would happen in the heavier SuperDuty. As an example of that, look at the little 2.0 Eco 4-banger. In the Focus ST, that engine is very, very, quick for 2 liters. The same engine in the much heavier Explorer is a dog. While there may be a bit of difference in the engine programming in those 2 platforms, it's mainly all about the weight difference. What I'm hoping for is a turbo'ed version of the 5.0. That would have considerably more power than the 6.2, and fuel mileage should be much greater. Ford is introducing 10 new models for 2014, maybe that will be one of them. I'd be in the ordering line if that happened.Hard to believe the 3.5 EcoBoost is almost 5 years old. It was offered in the Flex starting in March, 2009.

OH48Lt wrote:What I'm hoping for is a turbo'ed version of the 5.0. That would have considerably more power than the 6.2, and fuel mileage should be much greater. Ford is introducing 10 new models for 2014, maybe that will be one of them. I'd be in the ordering line if that happened.I have a theory with zero knowledge behind it... Perhaps Ford is working on a larger turbo gas engine to put in its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. I agree that the 3.5 will probably lack fuel efficiency and power in a F250 with a GVWR of 10,000, compared to the F150 with a GVWR of 8,800.I **THINK** the Ecoboost was a new engine from the ground up. If that is the case, I don't think they just slap a couple turbo's on an existing engine... I think they design a whole new engine from the ground up.With all my experience in Ford R&D (none, for those wondering...) I think they probably wanted to see how the truck buying public would respond to the turbo gas engine before they went all in.It seems like Ford is pretty happy with the engine, and from this forum and talking to owners at the campground it sure sounds like the customers are happy with it too. Time will tell, but it seems like a winner for Ford.

Ecoboost engine question | Good Sam Community

Water-Bug
Explorer
Dec 30, 2013
jerem0621 wrote:
Engineer9860 wrote:
Now let me get this right..........

A direct injection turbo Diesel engine is workable in a heavy duty pick-up truck, but a direct injection turbo gas engine is not?

Yes! Everyone knows that 6 cyl can't work in a HD Truck..... Everyone knows that just asking for mains to freeze and cranks to break. :D

Hope that was meant as a joke. RAM Cummins is a 6 cylinder.
otrfun
Explorer II
Dec 30, 2013
CarterKraft wrote:
My opinion... We don't need small displacement turbo gas engines in HD applications we need small displacement turbo diesel engines in HD applications.
Look at Cummins new 5.0 V6. 5.0 Cummins
Makes perfect sense! But . . . human nature being what it is most likely it'll be ruthlessly compared to the 6.7 850 ft. lb. diesels and called wimpy . . .

One of the first complaints about the new Ram 1500 EcoDiesel was that it *only* could tow 9,200 lbs. Doesn't matter it's only a 1/2 ton and gets 25-28 MPG when it's not towing.
CarterKraft
Explorer
Dec 30, 2013
My opinion... We don't need small displacement turbo gas engines in HD applications we need small displacement turbo diesel engines in HD applications.
Look at Cummins new 5.0 V6. 5.0 Cummins

And for clarity I am not a Cummins fan, but they have the right idea.
spoon059
Explorer II
Dec 30, 2013
Engineer9860 wrote:
Now let me get this right..........

A direct injection turbo Diesel engine is workable in a heavy duty pick-up truck, but a direct injection turbo gas engine is not?

Its like deja vu all over again. Remember when the sky was falling because they were putting the 3.5 in the F150? It was such a piece of crap, no way it would last, "turbo's have no place in a tow machine", etc etc?

I don't know if it will work or not, but if Ford is smart they will at least put it through R&D and see if it is feasible.
jerem0621
Explorer II
Dec 30, 2013
Engineer9860 wrote:
Now let me get this right..........

A direct injection turbo Diesel engine is workable in a heavy duty pick-up truck, but a direct injection turbo gas engine is not?

Yes! Everyone knows that 6 cyl can't work in a HD Truck..... Everyone knows that just asking for mains to freeze and cranks to break. :D
Engineer9860
Explorer
Dec 30, 2013
Now let me get this right..........

A direct injection turbo Diesel engine is workable in a heavy duty pick-up truck, but a direct injection turbo gas engine is not?
otrfun
Explorer II
Dec 30, 2013
Oops, double post.
otrfun
Explorer II
Dec 30, 2013
goducks10 wrote:
My guess is that the 3.5 is maxed out with the 11,300lb tow rating in an F150. Add the extra weight of the F250/350 and the 3.5 would have a hard time reaching the 15,000+lb tow rating offered with the 6.2. It works fine in it's own element.
The 3.5 Ecoboost has 15 lbs. more torque than the 6.2, not to mention the 6.2 develops max torque at a relatively high 4500 RPM vs. the 3.5 Ecoboosts's much lower, diesel-like, 2500 rpm. I would think the limiting factor (ref tow capacity) for the 3.5 Ecoboost F150 is the 1/2 ton drivetrain and suspension.

Concerns about the 3.5 Ecoboost duty-cycle and fuel economy aside, I believe the 3.5 Ecoboost's torque characteristics would provide much better realworld performance (to include towing) than a 6.2 in a F250/350 chassis. Torque does all the work. The 3.5 Ecoboost has more and at a much lower RPM than the 6.2.
goducks10
Explorer
Dec 30, 2013
My guess is that the 3.5 is maxed out with the 11,300lb tow rating in an F150. Add the extra weight of the F250/350 and the 3.5 would have a hard time reaching the 15,000+lb tow rating offered with the 6.2. It works fine in it's own element.
pronstar
Explorer
Dec 30, 2013
I can't remember any high-boost (turbo or supercharged) gasoline engines in heavy-duty on-road applications, and for good reason - duty cycle as noted above.

You do see them in boats (a high-boost, high-load application for comparison), but how reliable have they been? I know they're high-performance, but still...
I don't want to rebuild my truck engine every 500, 1000 or even 2000 hours.

As Ecoboost owners who tow heavy will tell you (IMHO the honest ones), you get poor mileage under load - you have to run really rich to prevent detonation and keep EGT's low so you don't melt cats. And by the time you build it strong enough to handle a hard duty cycle, IMHO its a pricey motor.

Plus it's hard to overcome a diesel's inherent efficiency (unthrottled so fewer pumping losses), not to mention higher BTU's compared to gasoline.

But who knows...someone will probably come up with something to prove me completely wrong LOL