Impressive Ford HP/TQ numbers

[dshelley]

A quote from Car and Driver.

It turns out that Ford was a bit conservative when it announced numbers for its new 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 that will be offered in the 2017 F-150 pickup. The previously announced numbers, 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, already represented a 30 lb-ft advantage over the outgoing 3.5-liter EcoBoost, but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

We have to wonder if Ford was just being a bit coy with those preliminary numbers, as the new torque number from the 3.5-liter V-6 now conveniently beats the 460 lb-ft of torque offered by the 6.2-liter V-8 that's optional in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks. That allows the Blue Oval to claim best-in-class torque numbers, silencing turbo doubters who think that there's still no replacement for V-8 displacement.

[tragusa3]

We have 40k on ours, 14k of which have been towing. The engine has never skipped a beat and I haven't found a grade yet that I didn't hold the speed limit with little effort. I would most certainly buy another, and the 2017 is tempting.

[Tachdriver]

Sport45 wrote:

TexasChaps wrote:
I will admit though, the turbo ford is quite impressive, but what's the lifespan of such a "small" engine ? that would be my concern..

They've been on the road a few years now and seem to be holding up well. At least the forums aren't littered with talk of ecoboost failures. The most talk I see of engine troubles these days are related to diesel emission controls or tunes to remove said controls or hop up power. By comparison it's really pretty quiet on the gas engine forums.

i just purchased a 2011 with 100,000 miles. Truck was clean and just got back from a 2,000 mile round trip from KY to FL. Truck did it flawlessly.

Looking at the engine it was obvious that this engine was built to be turbo. I am still in amazement of the power going up hill when towing.

[Sport45]

TexasChaps wrote:
I will admit though, the turbo ford is quite impressive, but what's the lifespan of such a "small" engine ? that would be my concern..

They've been on the road a few years now and seem to be holding up well. At least the forums aren't littered with talk of ecoboost failures. The most talk I see of engine troubles these days are related to diesel emission controls or tunes to remove said controls or hop up power. By comparison it's really pretty quiet on the gas engine forums.

[Tachdriver]

SoCalDesertRider wrote:
I would like to see them put turbo and direct injection on the 6.2 V8. That would be nice, for those who want an F250/350 but don't want the diesel with it's emissions and repairs issues.

The EB engines were designed for turbochargers and direct injection. The 6.2 is not and designed to be naturally aspirated. To do this the whole engine would need to be redesigned from the crank, pistons on outward. You won't have the same engine.

[TexasChaps]

rhagfo wrote:

dshelley wrote:
A quote from Car and Driver.

It turns out that Ford was a bit conservative when it announced numbers for its new 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 that will be offered in the 2017 F-150 pickup. The previously announced numbers, 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, already represented a 30 lb-ft advantage over the outgoing 3.5-liter EcoBoost, but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

We have to wonder if Ford was just being a bit coy with those preliminary numbers, as the new torque number from the 3.5-liter V-6 now conveniently beats the 460 lb-ft of torque offered by the 6.2-liter V-8 that's optional in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks. That allows the Blue Oval to claim best-in-class torque numbers, silencing turbo doubters who think that there's still no replacement for V-8 displacement.

Interesting;

dshelley wrote:
but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

Those are really scary numbers for 1/2 ton TV!In addition the torque number seems low for the HP. Diesels tend to put out about 2# of torque per HP.
We will be seeing people bagging these TV and trying to pull mid size 5ers, in the 12,000# to 13,000# GVWR with them. :S

Scary ! huh... try a drive in a supercharged Tundra 5.7L .. 500hp/500ftlbs that's a beast. !

I will admit though, the turbo ford is quite impressive, but what's the lifespan of such a "small" engine ? that would be my concern..

[SoCalDesertRid1]

I would like to see them put turbo and direct injection on the 6.2 V8. That would be nice, for those who want an F250/350 but don't want the diesel with it's emissions and repairs issues.

[NWnative]

Happy with my 3.5 and it tows well for my needs. A little bump in HP / TQ is a good thing. The EcoBoost engines seem to have proven themselves well. I was also a naysayer until I bought one. Couldn't be happier with the power, low cost of maintenance, and all around fuel economy towing and not towing. For those that don't need a diesel, this is a very capable engine with lots of low end torque for a gas engine.

[FishOnOne]

goducks10 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

dshelley wrote:
A quote from Car and Driver.

It turns out that Ford was a bit conservative when it announced numbers for its new 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 that will be offered in the 2017 F-150 pickup. The previously announced numbers, 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, already represented a 30 lb-ft advantage over the outgoing 3.5-liter EcoBoost, but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

We have to wonder if Ford was just being a bit coy with those preliminary numbers, as the new torque number from the 3.5-liter V-6 now conveniently beats the 460 lb-ft of torque offered by the 6.2-liter V-8 that's optional in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks. That allows the Blue Oval to claim best-in-class torque numbers, silencing turbo doubters who think that there's still no replacement for V-8 displacement.

Very impressive... If I was in the .5 ton truck market I would put the F150 with this engine on the short list.

I think you have way too many insecurities to drive or be seen in a 1/2 ton.:D

I owned a '92 Chevy .5 ton and a '98 Ford .5 ton. As I stated above if I were in the market for a .5 ton truck the new F150 with the 3.5EB and 10 speed auto would be on the very short list.

[Groover]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Tachdriver wrote:

IdaD wrote:
That's a silly amount of power to make out of a 3.5L motor. It's almost surely what I'd buy if I were in the market for a half ton.

i was a nay-sayer until I drove one. I believe Ford intended not to pull super heavy loads (although the towing weights are high) but to have the power to climb hills without losing power and speed. I can pull anywhere from 9,000 to 11,000 pounds but my payload is what would limit the weight.

What is sad is MOST people look at towing numbers and never consider what the weight will be sitting on the rear axle!

I already am pulling 11,000+ lbs for my business but it is just me with a very modest amount in the back plus I use a load distributing hitch. The rear end doesn't go down much more than an inch. I try to just get the overload spring engaged for the extra torque control. It pulls very well. I did special order this one with the LT tires which I think helps quite a bit. I just wish that I could have had the max payload package with the other options I wanted. The biggest problem is that I am traction challenged. Fortunately, I have a Lariet with auto 4wd. If I even suspect that traction will be an issue it switch to 4A and let the computer take care of it. I rarely leave my home county or hit the interstate with the trailer. I am much more likely to be on narrow gravel roads, some rather steep. I use 4wd quite a bit. We will see how it holds up but so far so good.

It is strange to me that my half-ton PU has more horsepower and more rated tow capacity than my 12 ton class A on a Freightliner chassis. At least the class A doesn't get pushed around very much by a trailer.

[SoCalDesertRid1]

I'm all for completely eliminating the whole 150/1500, 250/2500, 350/3500, etc, etc naming scheme and just call them by whatever their GVWR's are.

[time2roll]

Time to start calling the 150 a one ton, 250 a two ton, 350 a three ton.
Go back a few decades and if these trucks were presented then... that is certainly what they would be called.
The ratings creep has really distorted the capability vs the nomenclature.

[goducks10]

FishOnOne wrote:

dshelley wrote:
A quote from Car and Driver.

It turns out that Ford was a bit conservative when it announced numbers for its new 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 that will be offered in the 2017 F-150 pickup. The previously announced numbers, 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, already represented a 30 lb-ft advantage over the outgoing 3.5-liter EcoBoost, but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

We have to wonder if Ford was just being a bit coy with those preliminary numbers, as the new torque number from the 3.5-liter V-6 now conveniently beats the 460 lb-ft of torque offered by the 6.2-liter V-8 that's optional in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks. That allows the Blue Oval to claim best-in-class torque numbers, silencing turbo doubters who think that there's still no replacement for V-8 displacement.

Very impressive... If I was in the .5 ton truck market I would put the F150 with this engine on the short list.

I think you have way too many insecurities to drive or be seen in a 1/2 ton.:D

[mooky_stinks]

Meh.....I'll hang on to my 420/460 8 speed;)

[FishOnOne]

dshelley wrote:
A quote from Car and Driver.

It turns out that Ford was a bit conservative when it announced numbers for its new 3.5-liter twin-turbo V-6 that will be offered in the 2017 F-150 pickup. The previously announced numbers, 365 horsepower and 450 lb-ft of torque, already represented a 30 lb-ft advantage over the outgoing 3.5-liter EcoBoost, but the new, final numbers of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft are even more of a bump.

We have to wonder if Ford was just being a bit coy with those preliminary numbers, as the new torque number from the 3.5-liter V-6 now conveniently beats the 460 lb-ft of torque offered by the 6.2-liter V-8 that's optional in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks. That allows the Blue Oval to claim best-in-class torque numbers, silencing turbo doubters who think that there's still no replacement for V-8 displacement.

Very impressive... If I was in the .5 ton truck market I would put the F150 with this engine on the short list.