57% of F150s have V6 engines

My father had an early nineties Chevy with the 4.3 in it. Truck got horrible mileage and it really sank when towing anything including a small utility trailer or carrying any cargo weighing more that 5 or 600Lbs. MY 89 Chevy with the universally maligned 305 in it did better in every aspect.

it can also go the other way.

my buddy had the base 1500 gmc. with the smallest v6, the v16 got 15mpg combined, the v8, which had 100 horse more got 18mpg.

i can see why, the truck need 50% throttle most of the time driving around

Campfire Time wrote:

Mvander wrote:
My parents just picked up a new f150 with the base 3.7 v6 and it should work well towing their 14rb starcraft. Some people dont need the extra power and there is a savings at the pumps even if its only a few mpg. Plus the cost of the upgrade in the first place. You can save thousands over the ownership period buying only what you need.

But that's the point. The MPG savings are insignificant. And the cost of the V8 isn't all that much more. There won't be any difference in insurance costs or maintenance. I'm not convinced that you'll save thousands over the ownership period.

Uh, except that isn't true.

In some cases, insurance can be cheaper, especially for young drivers.
Maintaince will be less expensive when it's time to replace spark plugs, and it's not unusual for V6's to require less oil and use smaller/less expensive oil filters.

Initial buy-in for a V6 is less than the V8, and gaining 1-2MPG over the ownership of the vehicle can be significant, depending on how much one drives.

the V8 engine is one of the most expensive single options on a truck, behind only 4x4 or cab options, etc. If you never tow, and don't drive like I do, then a V6 is at least worth considering.

Now for me, I always check the box for the biggest and/or most powerful engine on the option sheet, but not everyone is like me.

Base V6 engines have had 10% of the half ton market for about 20 years since the demise of Ford's 300 inline 6. In the 15 years I owned and followed the half ton market, there was an immeasurable difference in fuel consumption for the same driver for the same conditions between the base engine and the mainstream V8 (or the 3.5L Ecoboost lately). Same goes for axle ratio, tallest to shortest. People that leased trucks or otherwise bought 2-3 of the same generation truck used within 10% of the same amount of fuel. Do you know what they all comment on? Driveability/power when they want it. They don't want to wait 2 seconds for the trans to shift to a lower gear. They don't want to wait another 1-2 seconds to actually shift 1-3 gears. That's a primary reason why the Ecoboost and the Ecodiesel are desirable. You want to go? You are already in the sweet spot for engine torque. Half a second for turbo to spool.

Ford expected the EB to have a bout 30% take rate prior to launch for 2011 model year. Actual take rate was closer to 40% immediately and now even higher. The 70% expectation may come from the 2015 2.7L EB introduction. Has anyone followed other vehicle types? Mid sized sedans 1980's 85% V6. Today, 98% 4-cyl. Ford doesn't even offer a V6 in the Fusion. Same with Escape. Maybe the half ton truck market will be next?

Keep in mind, RV'ers are just a small subset of folks who buy an F150. The vast majority of F150's never haul more than a small utility trailer. My old S10 with a 4cyc could do that just fine.

I'm still not sold on the turboV6 for heavy hauling but for 99% of the people out there, they aren't hauling 10,000lb trailers on a regular basis and it should hold up fine. When it's empty, all that HP and torque makes for a fun ride but you can back off and get good fuel economy.

We'll have to see how they hold up for heavy hauling but that will have to be 5-8yrs in after they have seen some real abuse (not carefully planned manufacturers testing) and is such a small percentage of owners that if an issue does arise, its likely to be passed off as people abusing the truck. I do believe these engines are here to stay.

When they make it the standard engine for the F250/350, I will know Ford is ready to consider it an engine for heavy duty use.

Who needs eco-boost? The base V-6 has more hp than my 5.4L V-8.
OK not quite the torque so it would need to rev up a bit.... but still a very solid engine.

With the premium that Ford gets for the EB they will continue to push these for fleet MPG's and for the profit margin.

I love it, if we were in the market for a new half ton the 3.7 F150 or the Pentastar Ram would be at the top of the list for us.

Fast Mopar wrote:
The 47% rate on the Ecoboost is impressive. It was around 42% in 2012. When I first heard about this engine several years ago, I was not expecting it to be so popular.

I know I thought it had the makings of a disaster. I didn't think the idea would take off; much less did I think I would be excited about owning one! But one test drive was honestly all it took ...

ib516 wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:

What really bugs me is the small percentage who get the entry level 3.7. The base Ford 3.7, Ram 3.6, and the new GM 4.3 V6's are far superior and much more powerful than base V6's from 5 years ago. For most people in my neighborhood and workplace who use half ton pickups for hauling kids around, these 300 horsepower base V6 engines would be great (except they sound terrible compared to the V8's).

I think one of the major barriers to many people opting for the base V6 engines is that they were only offered in base model trucks, and the vast majority of people want the higher trim levels.

Ram has changed that though as you can now get the base V6 in an otherwise fully loaded 1500 series truck.

RAM WILL OFFER PENTASTAR V6 IN TOP TRIM LEVELS

Yep, I think this is part of it. If you walk around a truck lot, you might see a couple base trucks w/ the "stock" V6 in it, but they will almost certainly be the work truck, single or extended cab, and not the volume packages. Most people buy what is available on the lot, and without even being able to test drive the truck they want, they aren't going to order one.