Why no Ecoboost in the F250?

[deerefan]

With power these engines make being comparable to the two gas offerings, why are they not used in the 250/350 lineup? Anyone know/thoughts?

 

[duffer]

I suspect that it would be too much stress, much too often for the engine. Most guys with F250's really work them. Towing trailers, cattle, horses, construction equipment, etc.

I've got an Ecoboost in my F150 and it's fine for just driving around, but I wouldn't want to be towing much of anything with it on a regular basis.

 

[Doughknob]

I've got an Ecoboost in my F150 and it's fine for just driving around, but I wouldn't want to be towing much of anything with it on a regular basis.

Y?

 

[4570Man]

Because there’s no replacement for displacement. Sure little engines can make a lot of power but not for long term.

 

[JimRB]

I saw some hot shot was using an F150 with Ecoboost. I thought I saw pictures of him hauling equipment. After that engine died at well over 200,000 miles of hauling use he put in another one. Maybe that guys was a used tools and equipment dealer, or maybe he was a welding and fabrication guy. I cannot remember who it was.

There is a lot to be said for a larger engine with lots of easily available torque.

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

With power these engines make being comparable to the two gas offerings, why are they not used in the 250/350 lineup? Anyone know/thoughts?

Why aren't they in school buses, dump trucks, and 18 wheelers?

 

[rangerfredbob]

small displacement turbo gas engines are rough, lots of cylinder pressure on a light duty engine is asking for cylinder wall or piston ring wear before mandated warranty period... same reason the Chevy and GMC 1500 got the 400hp 6.2L engine starting in 2014 but in a 2500 or 3500 you could only get a 6.0L until they offered their 6.6L iron block direct injected engine a couple years ago and discontinued the LS based engine line all together...

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

From what I recall, they ran one for testing purposes only, and while it could make "enough" power for a basic truck, the mpg economy was actually worse. If you run a turbo ecoboost engine in full boost, or near full boost mode most of the time (to drive around the larger, heavier truck chassis), the mpg will actually work out to be less than the "traditional" V8 (6.2 or 7.3 gas).

And for the guys that do work their 250/350 trucks hard, the poor little "hair dried" ecoboost suffered premature failures, complaints of poor power, and for a truck engine, where you typically want your power band on the low side of the rpm range, you had to "scream" the little ecoboost (rev it at high rpm) for it to make the power to get work done.

Overall, not a harmonious engine package for a truck that was designed to work for a living.

 

[dieselcrawler]

Even the factory 6.2L gas motor has to scream to get the job done. I have a 2016 F250 (6.2L gas, auto crewcab shortbed), and 2006 F350 (6.0 diesel, 6spd manual, crewcab short bed) and have run both trucks HARD in the past 6-9 months as we relocated to a new farm 3 hours away from the old place.

Loaded GN trailers behind both trucks, running in tandem, my wife driving the gas motor truck. It will keep up and haul any load but the tachometer is bouncing off the red line often, while the diesel is chugging along at 1500-2000 rpm most of the time. Both trucks often grossed 18k-20k+. The 6.2L has been known to want to down shift as far as 2and gear trying to maintain 60-ish mph when cruise control is set pulling an empty aluminum horse trailer (4800#). That experience alone prompted my purchase of the '06 diesel with manual transmission.

I'd hate to see an EcoBoost motor in an F250 superduty truck.

 

[KennyG]

From what I recall, they ran one for testing purposes only, and while it could make "enough" power for a basic truck, the mpg economy was actually worse. If you run a turbo ecoboost engine in full boost, or near full boost mode most of the time (to drive around the larger, heavier truck chassis), the mpg will actually work out to be less than the "traditional" V8 (6.2 or 7.3 gas).

And for the guys that do work their 250/350 trucks hard, the poor little "hair dried" ecoboost suffered premature failures, complaints of poor power, and for a truck engine, where you typically want your power band on the low side of the rpm range, you had to "scream" the little ecoboost (rev it at high rpm) for it to make the power to get work done.

Overall, not a harmonious engine package for a truck that was designed to work for a living.

In general I think you are right, but you should check out the Ecoboost torque curve - it's tuned for low and mid range torque and high revs aren't required any more than non-boosted engines.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

I always wonder why big trucks and equipment use inline 6 turbo diesel... and what trucks are available with similar architecture. There is a reason

Tractors 2. Does a big articulated machine come with a small displacement gas turbo motor

Or a big straight 6 with a turbo

 

[Farmer495]

From what I recall, they ran one for testing purposes only, and while it could make "enough" power for a basic truck, the mpg economy was actually worse. If you run a turbo ecoboost engine in full boost, or near full boost mode most of the time (to drive around the larger, heavier truck chassis), the mpg will actually work out to be less than the "traditional" V8 (6.2 or 7.3 gas).

And for the guys that do work their 250/350 trucks hard, the poor little "hair dried" ecoboost suffered premature failures, complaints of poor power, and for a truck engine, where you typically want your power band on the low side of the rpm range, you had to "scream" the little ecoboost (rev it at high rpm) for it to make the power to get work done.

Overall, not a harmonious engine package for a truck that was designed to work for a living.

I have one of the first F150 ecoboosts, peak torque is 2500 RPM, I've never had it turning more than 3000 RPM pulling the same loads (much faster) than my diesel F250 did.

Not sure what this screaming you refer to is.

 

[crashz]

I think it come down to corporate fuel economy standards more than anything. An Ecoboost type engine is complicated and expensive to produce. A big old pushrod V8 is not. Why make an expense engine when a simple one will do. and since the CAFE standards apply only up to 8600 gvwr vehicles (I think??), then it doesn't hurt the corporate average. Not only that, but your buying audience is more likely to appreciate that simple workhorse engine that they feel like they can "work on".

 

[ruffdog]

Yes, a turbo has a bunch of low rpm grunt and would seem a sure fit to have in a heavier tow vehicle. But, maybe they are not as durable for the long haul when they are running high boost pressures mile after mile towing up grades. I would assume they would need a thicker block, head, and head studs to handle the pressures. Also, a cooling system to handle the heat. If the design needs to be almost diesel like, why not just go with the diesel?

 

[jaydee325]

Marketing and profit margins only Ford knows and keeps close to the vest.

Is anybody surprised?

 

[4570Man]

I always wonder why big trucks and equipment use inline 6 turbo diesel... and what trucks are available with similar architecture. There is a reason

Tractors 2. Does a big articulated machine come with a small displacement gas turbo motor

Or a big straight 6 with a turbo

An I6 motor is stronger than a V8 motor for the main reason every piston rod is supported with bearing on both sides. An I6 motor will produce better torque than a V8 and the I6 is self balancing. It’s not by accident that virtually every industrial motor is inline.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

An I6 motor is stronger than a V8 motor for the main reason every piston rod is supported with bearing on both sides. An I6 motor will produce better torque than a V8 and the I6 is self balancing. It’s not by accident that virtually every industrial motor is inline.

Exactly, Which is why i dont understand companies building trucks for towing and not using the industry "standard" architecture.

There is a long list of reasons to go i6 vs V shape. You can almost rebuild an i6 in a truck vs modern V8 diesels require the cabs lifted to do the most mundane of tasks.

 

[ruffdog]

Inline 6 vs V-8 Diesels

 

[Hay Dude]

Yes, a turbo has a bunch of low rpm grunt and would seem a sure fit to have in a heavier tow vehicle. But, maybe they are not as durable for the long haul when they are running high boost pressures mile after mile towing up grades. I would assume they would need a thicker block, head, and head studs to handle the pressures. Also, a cooling system to handle the heat. If the design needs to be almost diesel like, why not just go with the diesel?

Because diesel engines require an after treatment system for the exhaust that is very expensive and adds complexity and unreliability.

 

[Hay Dude]

An I6 motor is stronger than a V8 motor for the main reason every piston rod is supported with bearing on both sides. An I6 motor will produce better torque than a V8 and the I6 is self balancing. It’s not by accident that virtually every industrial motor is inline.

They also have less moving parts, are cheaper to build, cheaper to rebuild and cheaper to maintain.