The toughest engine....In The World?

What the Inside of a Tortured Ford EcoBoost V-6 Looks Like

A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford's Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead cam powerplant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to -20 degrees F and then heated to 235 degrees. The engine was then shipped to the Ford Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Oregon, and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

....They did more to it than this. Including running the engine in the Baja 1000.

I bet they used the extreme conditions service intervals religously. Maintanance is key to engine longevity.

That said i gotta change the oil in my wifes 4cyl Altima.

Yep. No, not really. Look at the inside of a Mercedes-Benz OM616 or OM617 engine at 500,000 miles. You'll see what "no wear" looks like.

364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque!!!

Wow!! I knew the power levels were up there, but that is outstanding.

Cue Eric....in three two one.....

Ford has been doing a lot of things right.

Very nice, but not cheap. The EcoBoost option is $4500, Vs. $1k for the 5.0L.

But the power is much more usable and better mileage.

Um, maybe I'm missing something but how does 300 hours on a dyno replicate 150,000 miles unless you're travelling at 500mph. I'd guess they're torturing the engine on the dyno so that each hour equates to 10 hours of regular wear and tear.

In reply to Wayslow

FTFA: A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

neon4891 wrote: Very nice, but not cheap. The EcoBoost option is $4500, Vs. $1k for the 5.0L. But the power is much more usable and better mileage.

I thought I read the Ecoboost was ~$1700 more than the NA V6 and $750 more than the 5.0.

Wait... they said "...Ford Motor Co. made some history over the weekend when it did a complete engine tear-down and inspection of a "torture tested" 3.5-liter EcoBoost twin-turbo V-6..."

Huh?! Man, I've been asleep... when did they start putting twin-turbo V6s in pick up trucks? Guess I better read the whole thing...

The EcoBoost option is $4350 on the base model with an 8 foot bed.

Okay, read it. So the big deal (besides the engine lasting) seems to be that Ford isn't saying what mileage it gets. As someone pointed out, if it's no better than a V8, costs more to buy, and to maintain, yea, not much of an advantage to it.

Now put that in a <2500 lb sports car...

They didn't say, but the guy that baja-raced that motor said he was able to skip two fuel stops compared to the engines he usually races with. I'm assuming, since he was running in a stock-engine class, that's compared to a stock V8 of some variety, but I could be wrong.

impressive, but it is no 22r.

I know a 22r that lived for days without oil in rochester ny.. The kid hated his truck and literally was trying to kill it so his dad would buy him another. After 3 days of trying to kill it... No coolant, no oil, no diff lube, no trans lube... He gave up and put it all back in and drove the truck for another year.

Wayslow wrote: Um, maybe I'm missing something but how does 300 hours on a dyno replicate 150,000 miles unless you're travelling at 500mph. I'd guess they're torturing the engine on the dyno so that each hour equates to 10 hours of regular wear and tear.

It's a test to replicate the wear of 150k miles. There's a lot to it, including the heat cycles that were pointed out before.

this was a suprise to me- I kind of heard about this project, but didn't know that it would go to so many extremes. What's even more stunning is that someone had the guts to take apart the engine in front of a live audience.

And, yes, this is a new option to the F150.

(note- I'm a day late- had yesterday off due to the holiday)

While I think the R22 Toyota and OM6XX Mercedes diesels are good engines, I think if you raise their performance levels to be comparable to the Ford, they would be far less impressive on all scales.

carzan wrote: While I think the R22 Toyota and OM6XX Mercedes diesels are good engines, I think if you raise their performance levels to be comparable to the Ford, they would be far less impressive on all scales.

you have a point the reason the 22r is so long lived is the fact that it is tremendously understressed/overbuilt. But it is 1970's technology, keep it in the context of the day and the feat is even more amazing. With the advances in design and materials technology since the 70's, the feat is less impressive.

To be fair, I don't think this engine is a ton more overbuilt than any new engine out there today running a turbo. This "overbuilt" thing is a distinct marketing ploy to get people to realize the engine is just as good as a regular v8. Pickup truck buyers are very traditional and "scared" of newfangled electramatronics technology. If Ford is going to gain some market share with this motor they are going to have to continue to do stunts such as this to prove its worth. Remeber all the wacky stunts that toyota pulled with its Tundra to prove its worth.

That all said, Kudos to ford, but I wish they would have put in a diesel like they promised many years ago..

Sorry Chrysler slant six \6 just wave some oil over it one or two times a year and drive for 400K miles

But this did take some guts to do at a live event and I am impressed with how well the inside looked and if the specs are correct then this could be a great engine, but I would like to know how the turbos looked?

Paul B

m4ff3w wrote:

neon4891 wrote: Very nice, but not cheap. The EcoBoost option is $4500, Vs. $1k for the 5.0L. But the power is much more usable and better mileage.

I thought I read the Ecoboost was ~$1700 more than the NA V6 and $750 more than the 5.0.

It is if you start off with a supercab XLT or higher. For some reason it's way more money if you are buying a regular cab XL (the base model). Since the XL is probably less than 5% of sales for the F-150, and because hardly anyone gets the base V6 either, for most folks it'll be a $750 premium to get the Ecoboost.

I sure hope they didn't do that to the engine in a new truck I'd buy.

Ok, I am not a math whiz... But if you traveled 300 hours at say, 60mph that would be 18,000 miles.

(Hence the post by Wayslow...)

So that engine is not even broken in yet...

Ok, I went and read the story and I see that the engine was totally flogged after the 300 hour dyno run... That is impressive...

When I was driving an Ecoboost truck on back roads in Aberdeen, MD like a normal person I got about 23 mpg.

noddaz wrote: Ok, I am not a math whiz... But if you traveled 300 hours at say, 60mph that would be 18,000 miles. (Hence the post by Wayslow...) So that engine is not even broken in yet...

IF would be the important word in your post.

But 300hrs on that cycle is the same 150k miles in engine wear for a tough customer. So IF is not true.

noddaz wrote: Ok, I am not a math whiz... But if you traveled 300 hours at say, 60mph that would be 18,000 miles.

Yeah, but its at 15% throttle and 1800 rpm. The dyno flog uses throttle position and load values along with RPM to calculate the amount of wear that would theoretically happen in hundreds of thousands of miles.

But of course as we all know, 300k under my foot is a lot different than 300k under my wife's foot.... or my mom's foot, or my neighbor's foot.

Okay, I understand the marketing thing of proving how tough it is. But, high mileage... in a truck, seems like the worst possible shape to render any sort of impressive numbers. If they want a marketing success that gets noticed, now put that same exact engine into something that's 2500 lbs, with a 0.20 Cd, get 40+ mpg, and kicks butt at the track. Now THAT's far more impressive to anyone looking for good mileage and good power.