Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

4 cylinder F150?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 11:17 AM
  #1  
yellow_99_gt's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
4 cylinder F150?

According to sources speaking with Pickuptrucks.com, Ford is considering offering an EcoBoost four-cylinder engine on its F-150 pickup in 2013. The boosted mill is expected to displace around 2.5-liters, produce 260 hp and 300 lb.-ft. of torque, and would only be available on the two-door Regular Cab F-150 4x2 and 4x4.

Ford's rationale for equipping its workaday pickup with a turbo'd four is partially due to the rising cost of gasoline, but is primarily fueled by new CAFE regulations that will require light trucks to average 28.6 mpg by 2015. Ford has already decided to drop its 4.2-liter V6 for the 2009 model year, only offering the 4.6-liter V8, which produces more power and more torque, while still offering similar fuel economy.

The EcoBoost range of engines are likely to find their way into several different models across Ford's line up, and according to Ford's director of powertrain research, Dan Kapp, EcoBoost engines could allow the automaker to reduce engine sizes by between 40- and 50-percent, so 3.0-liter V6s could be replaced by two-liter fours and a 2.5-liter four cylinder could be reduced to 1.5-liters.

Before the EcoBoost four-pot debuts on the 2013 F-150, Ford will launch a turbocharged V6 in the pickup in 2010. Displacement is expected to be around 3.5-liters, with output estimated at around 350 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque. Partnered with a new six-speed transmission, fuel economy should be around 16 mpg city and 22 mpg highway.

And what of the rumored F-100 pick-up? It's conceivable that the range-topping version of the compact truck could be packing the same turbo'd four as its big brother, while a naturally aspirated version would power the entry level model.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/14/f...boost-for-f150
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 11:26 AM
  #2  
uluz28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 917
From: Lexington, KY
Cool idea given gas prices....but 2013???
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 11:30 AM
  #3  
Eric Bryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Sounds like a strong move.

Something that should be interesting, however, are the measures required to get a high-strung turbo I4 to survive the typical (and atypical) usage profiles of a pickup truck. It'll at least mean some job security for the cooling system and calibration guys
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 11:32 AM
  #4  
z28 justin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
From: Perrysburg, OH
I agree, if it puts out the same torque with a fairly flat curve, why not? 2013 is still very far away though
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 11:37 AM
  #5  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
2013?

By 2013, the truck market could be non-existent - can anyone foretell what the price of gas will be next year? How much less so in 5 years...
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 12:18 PM
  #6  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
2013 is the next redesign. They is probably when they plan to drop some sreious weight off the F-150.

I'd like to see someone build a diesel 4cyl. pickup. GMs turbo 1.9L diesel puts out about the same torque as the gasoline 4.8L V8.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 12:41 PM
  #7  
ProudPony's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
I don't think F-150 is a good fit for the T-I4.
It will be a big mistake. IMO. Diesel -yes, gas - no.

ANY truck needs raw torque, most of it available just above idle.
This is to pull loads, move loads, etc. HP is almost (keyword = almost) negligible in most pickup truck applications (save for the Lightning and SRT type trucks which are arguably not "true pickups" but hot-rods instead). It's not that you need to run 80mph up a hill with 10,000 lbs behind you (which is HP) every minute you are in the truck. You DO need to get a load moving from a stop light or be able to merge into traffic at speed (which is the Torque).

Toyota introduced a turbo-4 in their 4x4 SR5 pickups back in 1986/1987.
It lasted 2 years. Anyone know why a turbo-4 gas engine was NOT a wise move for a truck, much less a 4x4?
1) In snow and ice, you REALLY want a turbo to kick-in while you are struggling at the edge of traction...
2) While off-roading, crawling, etc, you really hit the high RPMs frequently, making god use of the extra power...
3) They were great for moving loads and pulling heavy trailers...
4) Never had a problem with the cooling systems...
5) Fresh air intake through a turbo impeller was never an issue while off-road in dusty/dirty conditions...
AGAIN - it lasted 2 years. .. duh.

I would have hoped Ford had enough sense to find a better fit for a full-sized truck than a T-I4 gas burner.
This is a BAD call.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 12:49 PM
  #8  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally Posted by ProudPony
Toyota introduced a turbo-4 in their 4x4 SR5 pickups back in 1986/1987.
It lasted 2 years. Anyone know why a turbo-4 gas engine was NOT a wise move for a truck, much less a 4x4?
1) In snow and ice, you REALLY want a turbo to kick-in while you are struggling at the edge of traction...
2) While off-roading, crawling, etc, you really hit the high RPMs frequently, making god use of the extra power...
3) They were great for moving loads and pulling heavy trailers...
4) Never had a problem with the cooling systems...
5) Fresh air intake through a turbo impeller was never an issue while off-road in dusty/dirty conditions...
AGAIN - it lasted 2 years. .. duh.
It's hard to compare what happened in the mid-80's to today's market. It is possible that those who need a truck are willing to overlook some potential problems in an era of $6, $7, $8/gallon(?) gas as opposed to a buck back then? You'd have to think that technology has improved since then as well.

I do admit I kind of roll my eyes at what seems like kneejerk "put 4 cylinders in everything" reactions, but I suppose that's the way of the world now....
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 01:49 PM
  #9  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Originally Posted by Z28x
I'd like to see someone build a diesel 4cyl. pickup. GMs turbo 1.9L diesel puts out about the same torque as the gasoline 4.8L V8.
You and I both. Heck I'd like to see the 1.9L turbo diesel Ecotec in a small/midsize car.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 02:02 PM
  #10  
Geoff Chadwick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
Originally Posted by jg95z28
You and I both. Heck I'd like to see the 1.9L turbo diesel Ecotec in a small/midsize car.
HHR, HHR pickup or G8, G8ST or G8 Wagon perhaps?
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 02:13 PM
  #11  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Originally Posted by Geoff Chadwick
HHR, HHR pickup or G8, G8ST or G8 Wagon perhaps?
Actually my first choice would be the Malibu.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 05:34 PM
  #12  
Eric Bryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Modern turbo 4s - like the LNF in the Kappa and Cobalt SS - are a far cry from the laggy, cranky, peaky monsters from the 80s. In fact, they feel like little V8s. The LNF, in fact, has a flatter torque curve than virtually any NA engine:

Name:  LNFDyno.jpg
Views: 24
Size:  39.4 KB

Combine that with a 6-speed auto and properly-designed torque converter, and it'd make a great engine for most any vehicle that currently uses a large V6 or small V8.

Horsepower, BTW, is very important in trucks. It doesn't play much of a role when accelerating through the bottom of 1st, but after that, it's definitely a factor - especially with today's closely-spaced gearboxes.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 06:01 PM
  #13  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
Anyone know if ecoboost requires premium fuel? I mean, 10% cost on gas may not be much better than the cost of the V8 with lesser fuel economy.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 06:17 PM
  #14  
Eric Bryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Originally Posted by Plague
Anyone know if ecoboost requires premium fuel? I mean, 10% cost on gas may not be much better than the cost of the V8 with lesser fuel economy.
I don't think it's clear yet what the fuel requirements will be for the Ecoboost. A bit more displacement and a bit less boost would go a long ways towards reducing the need for premium fuel, but much will also depend on the performance of the cooling system. I imagine that intercooler efficiency will come into play when, say, climbing through the Rockies on a warm day. Fortunately, trucks have plenty of packaging room up front.
Old Jul 14, 2008 | 06:39 PM
  #15  
R377's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Originally Posted by Eric Bryant
Modern turbo 4s - like the LNF in the Kappa and Cobalt SS - are a far cry from the laggy, cranky, peaky monsters from the 80s. In fact, they feel like little V8s. The LNF, in fact, has a flatter torque curve than virtually any NA engine:

One should be careful when relying soley on the dyno graph for determining an engine's characteristics. Remember dynos are taken at full throttle, which plays right into a turbo motor's strengths and shows them in the best possible light. Catch one flat-footed at 1800 rpm however and see how well it compares to a 4.8 V8. Even though engineers have made great progress in the areas of throttle response and turbo lag, an FI engine still can't compete with NA. Heck, most engines period don't compare well to an LSx for part-throttle response.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15 AM.