Sunday, June 26, 2011

2011 Ford F-150 FX4 SuperCrew 4x4 EcoBoost V6 - CARS REVIEWS

Is this the best application of Ford’s blown V-6 yet?

2011 Ford F-150 FX4 SuperCrew 4x4 EcoBoost V6
A twin-turbo pickup truck? Well, that just seems silly.
Sure, plenty of pickups have received forced induction - most of them with superchargers, many of them Fords—but the EcoBoost F-150 is a first among production trucks in that it uses a pair of turbos. (GMC’s Syclone, which had a larger V-6, was fed by only one turbocharger. It remains bad-ass.) This also marks the first time Ford’s 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine has appeared in a rear-wheel-drive product, and it’s perhaps the vehicle in which this engine feels most at home.

Putting EcoBoost in Its Place
Tuned to produce 365 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque in the F-150, this iteration of the turbo 3.5-liter V-6 trumps those installed in the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT and MKS. In this truck, however, it feels much more drivable; trucks aren’t the most responsive vehicles in the first place, mitigating what minimal turbo lag exists. The EcoBoost’s plentiful torque is most useful when doing manly pickup-type tasks, like hauling or towing.
Ford has always touted the EcoBoost V-6 as a downsizing measure, claiming V-8 power with V-6 fuel economy. The power is definitely eight-pot comparable—it makes five more hp more than the F-150’s available 5.0-liter and bests that mill by 40 lb-ft of torque with a much lower torque peak—but so, too, is the fuel consumption, especially if you’re in the boost. For example, a 5.0-liter-equipped F-150 got 14 mpg in our hands, the same as this EcoBoost truck. An F-150 with the naturally aspirated 3.7-liter V-6 did only 1 mpg better.
The EcoBoost engine’s primary advantage over the 5.0—and even the Ford 6.2-liter V-8—is fleetness; of course, that requires a heavy foot. This 4x4 SuperCrew completed the 0-to-60-mph sprint in 6.1 seconds, the 5.0 we tested took 6.7, and a 411-hp 6.2-liter needed 6.3. None of those times is slow, and it should be noted that you can’t really go wrong with the 3.7-liter six, which hits 60 in 7.6 seconds. The V-8s, however, sounded best while turning in their times.
Downsizing the Volume
Our one real complaint, then: A truck this quick should make noises. You should hear it coming and going. The only sounds emanating from the EcoBoost F-150 are a faint turbo whistle and the occasional light sneeze on overrun. It’s quiet—too quiet.
As to the rest of the experience, the truck is as good as any other F-150. The smooth six-speed automatic transmission is the same as in trucks with the V-8s or naturally aspirated V-6, providing downshifts in adequate time when your right foot requests them, and manual control is available via a rocker switch on the shifter if desired. The steering offers acceptable feedback, showing none of the problems we experienced with the setup in a rear-wheel-drive 3.7-liter example. In short, the EcoBoost option requires no compromises—well, beyond the extra cost of the engine.
The cheapest EcoBoost model is a two-wheel-drive F-150 XL with a heavy-duty package and eight-foot bed ($28,185), but our test vehicle was not cheap. The FX4 SuperCrew starts at $40,365 and comes standard with four-wheel drive and the 5.0-liter V-8. Adding the EcoBoost V-6 is $750. This truck also had the FX Luxury package ($1950) with power adjustable pedals, a power sliding rear window, automatic climate control, a sound-system upgrade, backup sensors, a rearview camera, remote start, and heated power front leather buckets. When the grand total crosses the $40,000 barrier, an additional $750 is negligible. It’s a reasonable price to pay for 40 lb-ft of torque alone.
So a capable powerplant has found its best fit, giving the F-150 one more in a lineup of solid engine choices, but the EcoBoost once again fails to live up to the efficiency hype of its name. Aside from its fleetness, it doesn’t make a strong case for upgrading from the 5.0. Luckily, though, there’s no wrong decision.
Source : Caranddriver.com

No comments:

Post a Comment