PickupTrucks.com reports that Ford's veep for product development, Derrick Kuzak is considering (what's the hurry?) "right-sizing" the F-150's power plant. Ford may stick an EcoBoost four-banger into the base the F-150 pickup truck. And why not? The current V6 F-150 is dead for 2009; the base V8 offers better performance and fuel economy. So FoMoCo needs something smaller and more fuel-efficient underhood to elevate sales from apocalyptic to merely catastrophic. At the same time, FoMoCo needs to satisfy upcoming CAFE regs: 28.6 for light trucks by 2015. Headline: a V6 with the performance of a V8 and the fuel economy of a V6! In the F-150, the 2.5-liter turbocharged direct injection straight four would be good for 260 horses, 300 lb ft of torque and around 28 highway mpgs. This is all just potential product planning (for 2013, no less). With the smaller F100 being planned (and not ten years too soon), the four-banger F-150 would have a kid brother to share engines. Upon hearing this news am I the only person thinking "260 hp EcoBoost Mustang, please" or at least "Mmmm, Compact pickup."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So how is killing off long-standing name recognition with the Ranger and replacing it with the F100 going to be better? Or is the Ranger already dead? If it’s dead, just bring back the name; at least it would actually work this time (unlike the return of the Thunderbird.)
My Father-in-law still owns a 1991 Ford F-150 with the 4.9L Straight 6. A 4.9L 6 should be more than big enough for anything anyone wants to pull in an F-150 considering that is more displacement than some V8s anyway. Granted it was only rated at 150hp but it gets respectable gas mileage and they could surely get more power out of something comparable today since that engine was originally designed in the ’50’s. Put the bigger engines in the 250 and 350s and make the 150 the common work truck.
Yes, but would the torque be USABLE in the low end (1,000-2,000 RPM range) for when you need to get that mass moving?
That’s my only issue with turbo fours. I just don’t see that working out very well, but a turbo six might do the job well. Not sure about 28.6mpg, though…wind resistance will be a big factor there, especially on the highway where the big gains can be made. I don’t think there’s any engine you can put into something like the F-150 that will approach 30mpg on the highway–just so much flat frontal area, plus the low-pressure area in the bed.
DrBiggly took the words right off my keyboard. Why kill the Ranger? It’s exactly the right size, the only reason it doesn’t sell well is that it hasn’t been updated since Sitting Bull drove his off the lot. With an FX4 package.
Ford doesn’t get it. Yes, a 4-cylinder F100 would be closer than the F150, but it’s still not quite there.
Why not put a 4 cyl turbo diesel engine as used in brazilian F-250?
Tons of torque, and about 150-170HP…
As a working truck, I think it’s ok.
Good point about wind resistance ash78.
I would suppose that aerodynamic pickup trucks are on the way. Pretty much have to be. The current trend towards ever more billboard ginormous vertical real estate on truck’s front ends (I guess to look tough and intimidationg) has probably hit a wall . . . . of air.
I hope real men can get used to flowing and rounded lines. Yes I know, sharp angles and boxiness equates to macho manliness, but why can’t a truck be phallicly rounded and sleek, to help penetrate that wind resistance?
Ash nailed it. The blown 4 banger’s power curves are all wrong for a real truck. The current F 150s have the aerodynamics of a barn on stilts. That 4 is gonna be working way too hard to see decent MPG
As to the torque question of a turbo 4. . . . Transmissions have ever more speeds these days, and low gears exist to multiply torque.
I don’t see the reasoning about killing the Ranger. It’s a perfectly sized vehicle for the market and, if Ford had stuck some money up its tailpipe, would’ve been a credible competitor. Why build a new F-100 when the Ranger, with a new redesign, would suffice?
And besides, shouldn’t there be a way to make sure the turbo 4 has enough down-low torque to get the truck moving? Even if it means short-shifting the manual tranny (provided such tranny is fun to do so with).
Ford tried the aerodynamic truck style before and it seemed to hurt sales. But maybe in this era of high gas prices it may have a chance. In addition to all the other research, maybe the car companies should be looking at how to get a four cylinder to perform like a V8 and still cost as much as they do now.
I think the part we’re missing here is that the engine would likely be tuned to better suit a larger vehicle.
260 hp, 300 lb ft shows that the emphasis is on torque rather than peak horsepower. We are mostly exposed to small engine turbos through sporty cars, but there is no reason they can’t set it up for a truck application.
Also, I’m not sure where the “no low torque” claim comes from. The puny 2.0 liter I4 in my GTI has most of its torque available from 1800-4000 RPM. And that is set up for a hot hatch, no less.
Justin Berkowitz
I’m a huge fan of the 2.0t engine. It definitely doesn’t suffer from traditional lag. But I still question how an auto tranny driver would get that large vehicle motivated from an 800rpm idle. I suppose the tranny could be controlled to blip the throttle pretty hard up to 2k when starting out, but I’ve never actually seen that done. All my experience in turbo auto trannies has been “slooooooowww NOW FAST!” when starting out.
And I say auto tranny because Ford will never be able to convince people they need to drive manuals in a full-size truck. Ironic with the whole “manliness” thing, but I digress :D
In Other News: Toyota dusts off T1000 Tooling and adds a hybrid model that offers more torque, set to be introduced in 2010
Um, apparently the Ranger is NOT the right-sized vehicle for the market, as nobody is buying them. Granted, fewer and fewer buyers are snapping up new F-150s. But in the end, Americans still want “Bigger and Better” and if Ford can develop a way to sell a full-sized truck with mileage approaching the 28 MPG mark, then they’ll have a certifiable hit on their handds. It makes much more sense than a hybrid Tahoe.
In the F-150, the 2.5-liter turbocharged direct injection straight four would be good for 260 horses, 300 lb ft of torque and around 28 highway mpgs.
Really?
I had a 1993 Nissan regular cab compact truck (4 cyl. 5 speed manual) and I never saw that kind of mileage – even on highway trips.
FOUR CYLINDER, FULLSIZE TRUCK?
This is nonsense is just getting asinine now.
Ford should be designing a new Ranger and not making an F-150 model nobody will buy or coming out with a slightly smaller F-150 called the F-100 that still nobody will buy.
@TexasAg03:
Could say the same for a lot of cars. The modern tech is the difference. The 268 hp V6 Accord on sale now gets about the same mileage as a 1995 V6 Accord with 170 hp.
@Justin
Also, I’m not sure where the “no low torque” claim comes from. The puny 2.0 liter I4 in my GTI has most of its torque available from 1800-4000 RPM. And that is set up for a hot hatch, no less.
Doesn’t the new Tiguan have this engine? I’m not a VW fan but I am impressed at the versatility of this 2.0t. If VW can get it to perform in a +/-4000lb vehicle Ford won’t have any trouble tuning it’s turbo-4 for low down torque. And again I say, I WOULD drive a full sized truck with a manual tranny. I’ll blip the throttle myself thank you.
I hope real men can get used to flowing and rounded lines. Yes I know, sharp angles and boxiness equates to macho manliness, but why can’t a truck be phallicly rounded and sleek, to help penetrate that wind resistance?
Thanks for a good Monday morning laugh!
John
Could say the same for a lot of cars. The modern tech is the difference. The 268 hp V6 Accord on sale now gets about the same mileage as a 1995 V6 Accord with 170 hp.
True, but I still don’t think you’ll see the same kind of change in a truck, especially going from a small, compact truck to a full size.
I hope it does, though. That would be great…
Justin is right. Modern turbo fours are nothing like the buzzy, peaky turbos of yore. A turbo four can have a fantastically flat torque curve, with maximum torque avalaible from 2,000 to 4,500 rpm. It may not have that absolutely instantaneous tip-in surge we’re used to from big V8’s, but European turbo-diesels have that same momentary pause. It’s minor, and folks will get used to it in exchange for the mileage gains. 28mpg? More like 25; the car makers are notorious about inflating mileage expectations.
I guess a 2 l turbo-diesel is out of the question?
FOUR CYLINDER, FULLSIZE TRUCK?
This is nonsense is just getting asinine now.
I don’t know about that. I’m beginning to think that the future F-150 might be about the size of a 1980s F-150–in other words, much smaller than today’s model. With today’s powerful engines, that mightn’t be too bad of a compromise.
Even if the Turbo-4 is ineffective as a true work truck, it may still be viable in the F-150. Keep in mind that the majority of large pickups on the road have a bed that stays empty and pristine, except on moving day once a year.
I think there are a lot of consumers who would love to be able to continue to show up at the local sportman’s lounge with a pretty little four wheel drive, but be able to get 25+ MPG.
A small naturally aspirated deisel would get even better gas mileage with just as much torque and at a usable rpm. Turbo charging makes no sense for a work truck.
ttacgreg Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
As to the torque question of a turbo 4. . . . Transmissions have ever more speeds these days, and low gears exist to multiply torque.
By the same logic, a naturally aspirated engine producing 150 hp and 200 to 250 ft-lbs of torque would also work and would be even cheaper to buy and maintain. Real work trucks used to get by on those kind of power numbers with three and four speed transmissions 50 years ago. Add a 5th or 6th gear, and you would have the needed power to get the load moving and a final gear ratio for modern freeway speeds.
Please don’t get em wrong, I have no problem with this idea, I just don’t know what the torque curve looks like and if it really makes sense. As stated before, a truck should primarily be a work vehicle and designed as such. That means a relatively low power but fuel efficient version as the base model. Most people who actually make a living with their trucks will recognize the utility of something that can haul 2,500 pound and tow 4,000 pounds from job site to job site while returning real world fuel economy of 20/30 mpg.
I think we’re missing a key component of the 2.5L Ecoboost setup: direct injection. With DI, you can get good off-the-line launch from an engine the size of a 2.5 before the turbo spools up completely around 1,800-2,000 and stays at peak until probably 4,000-4,500 rpm. The new six-speed has some pretty big ratios to help at lower rpms upon launch from a stop, but most importantly, Ford is developing a whole new electroic throttle control system for these engines so that their mileage/power is optimized to the duties required of the engine.
This is what separates this engine from, say, Mazda’s DISI. It’s not just a rev happy lagger, the engine, transmission and load are considered in the engine’s response – the design is being developed with the recognition that the engine must be able to move cars normally too large for an NA version of the engine.
I think this is a great move and would be a stellar replacement for the base engine. I wish they could get it here before 2013.
Simple problem for a small Diesel engine to solve.
–chuck
Once upon a time, the Ranger used to be a trim level of the F100’s. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to bring back the F100.
The 1991 GMC Syclone had a turbocharged 4.3-litre V6 engine. It made 285 horsepower @ 4400 rpm and 350 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm.
And yet, it had a payload rating of only 500 lbs wasn’t rated for towing at all.
Somehow I don’t think the idea of a turbo-four banger (or turbo anything) is going to satisfy the heavy-duty requirements of an F-150.
Turbo 4s get lousy fuel mileage. Look up the EPA numbers for the HHR SS, Sky Redline, EVO. There all teens for city, mid 20s for highway. that’s in cars that weigh under 3500#. What’s going to happen if a turbo 4 is put in a 5000# truck?
Especially with real world mileage.
I agree, a turbo 4 might not do that great for gas mileage in a 2.5 ton truck if it was working hard.
I think a smaller displacement ~ 3.0L V6 — 24v with 220hp would do quite well with a 6-spd auto in an F-150. Wouldn’t have the tow capability of the V8’s, but who uses the full tow capability of their V8 equipped F-150 anyway?
So, as I understand it, Ford will soon have four different pickup trucks. There’s the big Super-Duty F-250, F-350 and F-450.
There’s the soon-to-be-released new full-sized F-150.
There’s the upcoming new mid-sized F-100 which had been planned as a replacement for the current Range, but which will be sold along side it.
And there’s the current Ford Ranger, which had been planned to be discontinued at the end of the year, but which has been given a stay of execution for another couple of years until Ford can get a new Ranger ready. The new Ranger due in 2 or 3 years is supposedly a version of Ford’s world Ranger truck.
Johnster, they also have the F-550-750.
The plans as I understand them are for the Ranger and F-100 to co-exist, the Ranger staying compact and the F-100 being a “mid-size” for lack of a better term.
Dont sit around wating for Ford.. a few folks already dropping in 3 and 4 cylinder diesels right off the shelf and approaching 50mpg. Fun to ride in and a sound that will make you proud .
check out neighbor Gary Brown
http://www.shadetreeconversions.com/