Keep in mind that the variable-vane geometry of a modern turbo greatly reduces this effect, though. A modern highly-turbocharged engine like the LNF or Porsche's 3.6L TT feels remarkably like a big NA engine, even when tipping into the throttle at low revs.

Also realize that most pickup trucks use automatics, and the converter makes up for a lot of powerband sins! Let the TC flash to 2000 RPM, knock down a gear or two, and there's no way that lag will be perceived.

 

This engine is going into a reg cab truck. It's a glorified car with a bed that can do occasional duty. I'm sure it'll be geared well enough not to be a complete dog from a stop.

This will be interesting to keep an eye on, but I'd have preferred an I4 diesel myself. But, I think v8 diesels in 1/2-tons is overkill, anyway.

Oh, the Ranger would have made a killing with a 4x4 4 cylinder option since they killed the last offering in 1997.

 

How's the longevity of these turbo 4's? Trucks are supposed to last so it's got me wondering.

 

Actually, it's still the torque that helps you pull a load. Everything is torque. HP just indicates how much work is done by torque at certain RPM.

Trailer tractors have about 400 HP for the loads that they pull (and that's 75,000 - 100,000 lbs). They have about 1000 lbs/ft of torque. I guarantee that a 550 HP CTSv engine will never pull the same load, despite being able to produce more HP.

When tractors are chipped to about 650 HP, they manage to run uphill at 70 mph with the load behind them (crossing into mountainous California). Their torque nearly doubles though, going to 1800 lbs/ft, which is what allows them to pull with such ease.

 

Take Audi A3 or VW Jetta/GTI with 2.0L turbo engine... You will change your perception right away. I assume the LNF in Cobalt SS/Kappa cars behaves the same, as do all modern turbo engines.

A good example for truck applications is the turbo diesel. Granted, they have significantly larger amounts of torque, however... Some trucks have relatively small displacement turbo diesels, yet the timing between pressing the throttle and putting that torque to the wheels is not a deterrent.

edit: i still maintain my position that putting a turbo 4-cylinder gasoline engine into F150 is not a good idea.

 

I personally don't believe we'll see a turbo 4 in an F150. While it's possible someone at Ford asked the question, and maybe someone was assigned to look into it, but I think if that happened, it was more of a presentation to an executive as to why it's not feasible.

The very nature of a truck engine is to produce plenty of low end torque. Trucks also generally have higher axle ratios than cars to multiply that low end torque. All in the name of effectively hauling and towing.

Turbos, although light years better than they were in the 80s or even early to mid 90s, is still an engine that produce immediate power off the line. Also, every blown engine application I've ever seen came with a warning not to create conditions (ie: towing) in which that turbocharger or supercharger would be in constant operation over long periods under threat of serious engine damage.

The Lightning could haul & tow what a regular pickup truck could, but even without the supercharger, the engine was capable. Put in an engine that would be struggling hard to do the job without a turbo or supercharger, then pump it full of high pressure/high heat turbocharging, then add a load weight that a current F150 is expected to carry, and to me that doesn't exactly seem to be a smart combination.

 

I know in the LNF in my Sky I cruise anywhere down to 35mph in 5th gear and it has plenty of torque at part throttle to accelerate from there. As soon as you apply any pressure to the gas pedal the small turbo starts to spool. Currently the ECM is limiting the low end torque as it is. It starts closing the throttle blade as the torque comes on and then activates the waste gate and reopens the blade in increments. This is why the torque is so flat on the stock engine, it is choked off at a specific level by the ECM and then maintains that level. The GMPP performance ECM is supposed to program this out and allow much greater boost/torque.

 

OK - first I will say that I agree that turbo-gassers have come a long way since the 80's. LET'S HOPE SO. 25-30 years better have something to show?!?!

I never disputed the power capabilities of a turbo. Don't need to defend them. I have one on my diesel and love it.
I will challenge you to defend why a "flatter" curve is better than one with some actual curvature though. If an engine makes 100lb-ft at 1000rpm and still makes 100lb-ft at 10,000rpm, it does me no good at all if I need 150lb-ft to move my load, regardless of top-end or bottom-end.

What I want in a truck is MAXIMUM torque as early as possible in the RPM range to get my load going. It doesn't matter if my torque curve falls off a bit in higher RPMs since I will already have my load moving. We both know it takes less force to maintain a load at a fixed velocity than it does to accelerate the same load, right? So theoretically, having gobs of TQ at higher RPMs is actually a waste of the energy (which will be dissipated as heat through the cooling system and exhaust).

Now... you need to understand that I am the one pushing for TDi units like crazy. I am not a turbo-hater. however, NO turbo comes in seamlessly. You and I both know that power goes up as boost pressure goes from 0-whatever. When I am trying to maintain traction on an icy road under modest acceleration, I'd rather NOT have a turbo kick in on me unexpectedly. (But if I have traction control and ABS and stability control all turned on, I guess I could hold the gas to the floor and let them do the thinking for me.)
Likewise, if I am climbing or crawling a steep trail in the woods, do I really want to have a turbo 4, or do I want something with gobs of Tq right at idle? Pulling my big boat out of the water up a wet ramp.... do I go for the turbo-RPMS with a clutch-dump or idle out at 1000rpm?
I think you see my point here.

Turbos are great power-adders, but they take RPMs to become efficient, and in a truck (ESPECIALLY a WORK truck) you often want lots of Tq at very low RPM. The cool thing about a diesel is that they have the Tq with or without the turbo at low RPMs anyway. Not so with a gas engine.
Gimme a gas-turbo-4 in a sports car any day - no problem.
In an F-150 I would use to pull a boat, car, or pull a stump with... ummm, NO.



I KNEW someone would HAVE to come back against my HP comment - just knew it. Surprised it was you though.

Answer me this - How much HORSEPOWER does it take to run an 80,000lb semi-truck down the highway at 70mph?
Pushing air like crazy... rolling 18-22 wheels and bearings with grease... turning huge gearboxes with oil and grease in them... running an air compressor to operate air brakes... running a huge alternator to power lots of lights and electronic equipment... etc. What is your guess?
By the comments and attitudes on this board, it must take about 2000hp because we can hardly live with a 400hp car these days, right?

How about a whopping big............................................... ...... 350hp?
That's right, your LSx engine is making as much HP as a road tractor moving 80,000lbs down the highway.
So what is the big difference between the two engines? Torque.
The CAT C-9 On-Highway Diesel engine boasts a whopping 335-350hp @ 2200rpm, but it also puts out a tiny little 1150-1250 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm. Yes, that's right... MAX TORQUE at 1400rpm - right above idle, and well BELOW the 2000rpm where the Ecotoec graph posted above finally "flattens out" at peak (just for skewed comparison).
Link to CAT C9 On-Highway Diesel Engine Spec Page.

When I put my comment in my original post, I put a disclaimer in there that HP was ALMOST negligible. I am smart enough to know that torque is directly related to power through rotational speed - you can't have one without the other. Hence the "almost". But in the world of trucks - even pickups - the usefullness of them typically requires a unique application of torque that is never required of a passenger car - and even less so from a sports car. This tends to make trucks less needy of big HP at all rpm ranges, but very needy of torque - especially at low rpms.

Now, you wanna argue with me that HP is a major factor in trucks - I'll bite... I got lotsa tricks in my bag to pull from.

 

We're saying the same thing.

 

I thought of that too.

Did you know Ford actually offered the Ranger in a 4x4 diesel back in 1986/1987?
I have a guy that lives about 2 miles from me that still has one.
They were hugely unpopular back then as were most diesels, but I'd LOVE to see a modern version of that today.

 

So your truck has direct-drive with no gear multiplication? Strange.

That theoretical 100 lb-ft at 10,000RPM is wonderful, because through the wonders of gearing, it can be turned into the equivalent of 1000 lb-ft at 1,000 RPM.

Having lots of torque available at high RPMs means that the transmission can drop down a gear or two to increase the mechanical advantage, and then get even more torque to the drive wheels, which increases the thrust, which increases the acceleration...

I can make more torque via gearing. I can't make more HP. When camming my new 383, I made my decision based upon the average HP and torque across the rev range. Sure, I might have lost a tiny bit of torque on the low end, but there's a reason that my truck has a torque converter (and if all else fails, there's the 2.62:1 low range ratio).

If we didn't have low-range transfer cases and everyone still had four-speed manuals with burn-up-if-you-look-at-'em-wrong organic clutches, then I'd see your point. But, um, that's not the case with modern trucks.

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of F-150 owners never pull more than a couple thousand pounds, and that the 11,000 lb tow rating is complete BS for a half-ton pickup.

I'll simply ask this - when trying to accelerate from, say 40 MPH to 60 MPH when climbing a 10% grade, what matters?

And just out of curiousity, how many of your truck-like tasks do you normally perform with a half-ton pickup? I know the answer to this one

BTW, no one is talking about an outright replacement of large-displacement engines in trucks. This would simply be one more option to offer to buyers who frankly don't do much with their pickups - and judging by what I've observed, that's at least 95% of truck buyers. Those of us that drop 4000 lbs of concrete blocks (plus several 80lb bags of mortar) into a truck rated for 3300 lbs will likely make different vehicle and powertrain choices:



EDIT: Uh, that actually may have been closer to 5000 lbs of blocks, based on a weight of 28 lbs each

 

Hmmm.

Here's another factor to consider, who the hell would buy such a truck?

Not me, no way, not ever.

This engine in a compact truck makes some sense, but not in an F-150.

 

I'm thinking its more of a "something got lost in translation" issue. Recently there has been talk of a smaller "F100" entry level pickup. (Think Ranger replacement.) The discussion turned to considering a torquier (sp?) 4 banger, someone overheard, "entry level Ford truck" and the rumor got transposed to the fullsize F-series. At least that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

For EVERY instance you give above, my diesel with a mountain of torque will get EVERY advantage that your puny-torque gas-4-turbo would get.
You can multiply my 520lb-ft by the same gearing ratios available for the 260lb-ft engine and the variation between simply gets wider as you go.

Tranny gears? My advantage too.
Torque converters? My advantage too.

The tools you are using to "excuse" or "accept" the shortcomings of the gas-I4-turbo are ALL AVAILABLE to the diesel too, so in the end, which is still the lesser-performer?


Agreed 100%. I see people "driving" in F-150s and such every day - commuting, etc. Sure they do. And for them - any engine is suitable for getting from A to B.
Then there are people like me who buy the truck ONLY for work purposes, and every time I fire it up it is pulling something, moving something, towing something, etc. For those like me, who may live on a farm or do agricultural work, etc - there should be a 1/2 ton that is very "capable" of doing such.
There are lots of business owners who are pulling landscaping trailers, construction equipment, tractors, etc with 1/2-ton trucks, and there are lots of residential customers who pull dirt track cars, multiple ATVs, boats, jet skis, etc on weekends that can use the truck for it's intended purposes as well. I'd ask we give equal billings to all.

You KNOW what I am going to say!
F=ma ==> T=mw
w=angular acceleration - as in rotating axles or driveshaft.
If you are wanting to ACCELERATE - you MUST have the torque to do it, otherwise the basic equation shows acceleration becomes 0. END OF STORY.... horsepower be d@mned. Power FOLLOWS torque, not the other way around. You can have torque with no power, but not power with no torque.


If you are trying to MAINTAIN the speed - it is ALL about horsepower.
The more horses you have, the higher the speed you can MAINTAIN up the grade. You are converting the mass you are moving into potential energy as it goes up the hill. That investment in energy is coming from the engine. Integrate the time over which that energy is being produced and you have power (work/time).
The amount of energy to raise 40 tons 100 feet vertically is fixed, regardless of time.
To do it FASTER, takes more POWER, not energy - hence the time element.

From a CarCraft article on powerplants...
"Engines don’t make horsepower; they convert fuel into torque. Torque is the twisting force imparted to the crank flange and then transmitted to the transmission and the rest of the drivetrain. To some degree torque is the grunt that gets things moving, and horsepower is the force that keeps things moving. An engine is most efficient at its torque peak, wherever that happens to occur."

Indeed. I admitted that the TI4-gas option would be OK for those who want to joy-ride in a pickup (for whatever reason). It is another option.
However, given the days and times we are in, with prices like they are, I would HOPE that someone looking to joyride could find something more economical (in many ways) than a full-sized truck. Borrow a buddy's utility trailer to go buy you next refrigerator or lawn mower for Pete's-sake.
I also DON'T think it is wise for Ford to invest in the costs of testing, development, tooling, and everything else involved in putting such an engine in it's flagship truck, only to risk humiliation by some idiot in the public-at-large. Just my .02 .

As for the "using a truck" thing...
200 bales (exactly - that's how I load ) at roughly 60lbs each = 12,000lbs, plus trailer at 2800lbs or so... let's call it 14,500 and call it a day.


2 full scoops of landscaping gravel from a NewHolland skid steer loader... you pay by the pound... 4134lbs on the receipt as I recall. Owner of the pit told me "don't call me if the man stops you on the way home".


I got a folder full of loads I've had on mine. Yes, mine is a SuperDuty 4x4... I've written several times how I was killing my Ranger, and then a 150 by working them to death. I guess a man needs a man's truck to do a man's job.

It's all cool. If you like the 4, go for it.
I think there is a small concensus growing in this thread though that thinks that a gas T-I-4 would be a bad call for a full-sized 1/2-ton truck.
Let's agree to disagree and move on to the next one.

 

turbo 4's get v8 mpg especially in a truck.

Here's a better idea since a turdbo 4 in a fullsize f150 is pretty much useless.
Maybe we could put it in something lighter like a ranger or an S10. Oh wait retarded GM doesn't make a small truck anymore.
Fords ranger already gets 21/26mpg which is about all a turbo 4 in a vehicle that size will get.
So scratch that idea. I don't see any use for a turbo 4.
I could maybe justify it if they made it just to get by with CAFE BS.
But my thought there it isn't what you offer that goes toward your total, it's what you sell and once people caught on it's real life MPG sucked as bad as a v6/v8 I don't know if it would sell in any significant numbers.