Ford 3.5 EcoBoost vs. Toyota 3.5 V6: How Do the Twin Turbo Engines Compare? – Jalopnik

Due to the increased emphasis on fuel efficiency and changing emissions regulations, downsizing and turbocharging became particular areas of focus for automakers seeking to improve both power and economy. Ford jumped on this bandwagon in 2009 with the introduction of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, which was foreshadowed by the TwinForce engine with 415 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque in the 2007 Lincoln MKR concept vehicle. The production version that debuted in the Ford Taurus SHO had a slightly lower output of 365 horsepower and 350 pound-feet of torque, but was good enough to get a lot of attention. The engine would be seen on many Ford and Lincoln models, but in 2010 it was placed in the F-150 ahead of the 2011 model year. The truck variant made the same power, but had about 70 pound-feet of torque.

Meanwhile, the Toyota Tundra was fully naturally aspirated at the time, with 4.0-liter V6, 4.6-liter V8 and 5.7-liter V8 options for 2011. It took almost a decade for Toyota to move deeper into the fast-growing, efficiency-oriented market. The answer came in the form of the 3.5-liter V35A-FTS V6, which was used in the Lexus LS 500 in 2017. The V6 later found its way into many Toyota body-on-frame vehicles, including the third-generation Toyota Tundra introduced in 2021. The Toyota engine works on much the same principle as the EcoBoost 3.5 V6, using turbocharging, direct injection and variable valve timing to improve both fuel economy and output.

Ford’s 3.5 EcoBoost V6 has evolved over several generations. The base variant of the third-generation engine introduced in 2021 produces up to 400 horsepower and 500 pound-feet of torque, as seen in the F-150 light-duty pickup. That model also has a hefty towing capacity of 13,500 pounds and a maximum payload of 2,440 pounds. But beyond all that power and capability, the 3.5 EcoBoost is easy to like for its smooth power delivery and decent fuel economy. It can travel an estimated 20 miles per gallon, which is impressive for a truck engine with that much power.

There is also a powerful version of this engine. Found in the dune-bashing Ford F-150 Raptor, for example, it delivers a whopping 450 horses (or 440 horsepower in the Lincoln Navigator) and 510 pound-feet of torque. Then there is the ultra-high-performance version, which increases the power of the 3.5 EcoBoost in the Ford GT even further to 660 hp.

The Toyota 3.5 V6, meanwhile, makes 358 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque in its base ‘i-Force’ form – as found in the Tundra SR. The Tundra Limited, Platinum and 1794 Edition models offer their own high-performance variant, with 389 horsepower and 479 pound-feet of torque. This engine has a towing capacity of 12,000 pounds, which is the largest towing capacity for the current generation Tundra. It’s also exceptionally efficient, delivering up to 22 mpg combined. A more powerful derivative of the Toyota 3.5 engine in the Lexus LS produces 416 horsepower, but torque is slightly lower at 442 pound-feet.

Ford and Toyota both offer hybrid powertrains, centered around the 3.5 EcoBoost and 3.5 i-Force engines. Called PowerBoost, Ford’s offering generates 430 hp and 570 Nm of torque in the F-150 Hybrid, making it the most torquey version of the 3.5 EcoBoost V6. This engine can tow up to 11,200 pounds and the maximum payload is 1,815 pounds.

Toyota’s hybrid alternative is called the i-Force Max. It makes more power than the Ford unit with 437 horsepower and 583 pound-feet of torque. That also translates to slightly more towing capacity, up to 11,450 pounds for the Tundra Hybrid. However, the Ford engine is more efficient, averaging up to 25 mpg according to EPA estimates.

In terms of their capabilities, the Ford 3.5 EcoBoost is larger than the i-Force 3.5 liter V6. Although Toyota markets its engine as a 3.5 liter, it is technically a 3.4 liter as it has a displacement of 3,445 cc, which rounds down to 3.4 liters. By comparison, the 3.5-liter Ford engine has a larger displacement of 3,496 cc, which comes in at 3.5 liters instead.