Trash in my opinion. Especially using the small motor to power their big trucks and SUV's.

But hey, what do I know? I've been taking a beating here everytime I say Ford quality is crap. What do I know? I just build, sell, and repair cars for a living. A lot of times it feels like people come here just to argue and already have their mind made up before they post.

Well the ecoboost engines are OK in my opinion compared to a V8. They are way more fuel efficient and more powerful. The biggest problem with ecoboost engines (or any GDI/turbocharged engine) is the severe carbon build-up. They need to be walnut blasted every 40,000-60,000 miles to ensure the engine is operating as best as it can. And turbocharged engines in general, especially the twin-turbo setups, are just more complicated compared to your average naturally aspirated engine. And remember that turbocharged engines go through extra wear (but usually this is addressed with upgraded internal parts). Really it's a preference...do you want to sacrifice a good amount of mpg for a V8 that's less complicated and requires one less item on the maintenance list (no carbon-cleaning), or do you want better mpg with some extra work to take care of a more complicated turbocharged engine. This basically goes for any turbocharged vs naturally aspirated situation.

I find it a waste of time and money to buy a smaller motor to get better mileage, only to spend more to maintain that motor.  To me the important reason to buy V8/V6 is work done.  How do you use the motor?  Is it kept under load a lot?  Or are you taking advantage of the MPG rating?   The V8, in my opinion, would last gooder than the smaller motor carrying loads and in the long run be cheaper to own.

If you want a powerful, small motor that won't last very long, get a turbo charged motor.  You will go real fast for a real short period of time.  If you want reliability, stick with a naturally aspirated engine that, with proper maintenance, should last for 200K miles, easily.  

A small engine with a turbo hung on it which was not designed in the first place to make 50% or whatever more power is likely to fail a lot sooner.  But an engine designed from scratch to BE turbocharged and make that level of power can be designed to handle it reliably. Large enough bearings, sufficient cooling and lubrication, all those things. Sure that same engine would last longer if you didn't put the turbo on it, and a V8 engine will last longer if you lower the compression to 6:1. The EcoBoost engines Ford puts in their F150's were all designed from the ground up to be turbocharged. The Ford GT version of the 3.5 EcoBoost puts out 647 hp in the Ford GT... if it can handle that level of power, then the 375 hp my F150's engine puts out is not likely to overtax it. Main bearings and rod bearings only know how much force is being put upon them and whether they were designed to handle it, they don't care whether that force comes from cubic inches or a turbo so long as they were designed to handle it.

(I had an old Ford Ranger 2.8 V6... put a turbo on that thing and it would sure have worn out or blown up very quickly... now Ford has a turbo 2.7 EcoBoost engine that leaves the old 2.8 light years behind.)

Do turbocharged diesel engines fail sooner? Most of them ARE turbocharged, I think, but they usually last a very long time. If piston rings can stand up to a turbo charged diesel then certainly piston rings can be made that will stand up to a turbo gas engine. If turbochargers can hold together on semi truck engines than they can hold together on gas engines. I don't know who makes the EcoBoost 3.5 2nd gen engine's turbochargers but the first gen's were made by Borg Warner - I have to assume they're decent. Ford has been selling their EcoBoost 3.5 engine in F150's for over ten years now, and if they were crap Ford would be in 3rd or 4th place in pickup sales.

One more thing, the direct-injected engines getting carbon deposits on the back side of the valves has been resolved by Ford using injection both above the valves and in the combustion chamber.  The biggest problem with these engines is the complexity - there IS more to go wrong, and if it does it's not cheap to fix, but we have learned to iron out the issues with complexity and reliability to get the benefits while minimizing the risks. A year 2010 car is more complex than a 1960, which one would you take on a cross-country trip, the old one with the simple distributor and carburetor, or the newer one with electronic fuel injection and all those complex sensors? I'd take the latter one. I had way more problems on the olden days with points-distributors and carburetors than I have ever had with fuel injection and electronic engine management systems.

One last thing - a truck mechanic online who has worked on a lot of these EcoBoost engines says that the biggest problem people have with them is that they drive them too easily and never get the turbos working... so the waste gates get stuck from dis-use. He says the best thing you can do is make sure you give the engine a workout enough to get the boost up and work the turbos and waste gates etc. to keep them working freely.

Complete junk in my experience, especially in the trucks and SUV's. If you have a small motor moving that kind of weight, you are going to have issues over time.

Of course, Ford's '18+ Coyote V8 engines are HORRIBLE on quality so I avoid Ford all together. But yeah, GDI+Turbo= a lot of strain on that engine. 

More complexity = more repair costs when it breaks. Don't expect it to last 500k miles without issues.

What is ecoboost anyway? Isn’t it just marketing speak for a Turbo Charged GDI engine?

Whatever your opinion is, get used to a lunchbox engine with a turbo slapped on.

Fact of life, they're a lot cheaper to make than any NA V6/V8.

And makers could care less about longevity or reliability, they want money in their pockets and that's all.

Had a Ford Flex, all decked out with leather, etc., and the Ecoboost engine randomly died for no reason.  Had to junk it with 160,000 miles on it.  New engine: 8600.00, which I could not afford, and the car wasn't worth that anyway.  Couldn't replace it with any other engine.  Sad day for me and my wallet.