blksn8k2 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 What a concept. Small dispacement, boosted engine that gets better fuel mileage than a larger, naturally aspirated engine. Oh wait, my 89 T-bird SC came from the factory with a 3.8L V6 with an Eaton supercharger and it easily gets 26-28 mpg highway in a nearly 4000 lb chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donzuchowski Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 f-100 is dead, it wont happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 turbo 4 in an F150? won't happen anytime soon. why? turbo engines by design have a shorter life expectancy than NA engines do. a turbo 4 would be required to have the turboes going on too often and the engine to rev too high too often. No fuel savings and an engine that will die after 100k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) turbo 4 in an F150? won't happen anytime soon. why? turbo engines by design have a shorter life expectancy than NA engines do. a turbo 4 would be required to have the turboes going on too often and the engine to rev too high too often. No fuel savings and an engine that will die after 100k Diesel turbos are reliable. But diesels do not rev as high and I think their turbos run cooler. Edited October 20, 2008 by battyr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Diesel turbos are reliable. But diesels do rev as high and I think the turbos run cooler. a 4 cyl turbo will have a short life expectancy in an F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I see a 6-cylinder EcoBoost as a better choice. I am sticking to my belief that with the cost and weight a diesel, a small turbo gas engine could be designed to last as long as a large V-8 or a Diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 If you look at the 2009 F150 engine line up, all three engines get about 18/20 mpg city/highway. In heavier vehicles, weight controls fuel economy more than engine size - EB V6 is a must. Ecoboost I-4 is more likely to turn up in something smaller like Ranger or its replacement. I would expect a 2.3 litre with about 230 hp and 230 torque, forget 280 hp 2.0 - that's market spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meyeste Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I haven't heard of a V-8 Eco-Boost any reason why not? The 6.2L does in just the F-250 and bigger trucks why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterstern Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 My initial thoughts are that even the regular non-turbo 2.5L would work as a base engine with the right gearing... after all, it makes way more power than the base 300 CID I6 that was used in the 1980s. But then again, that engine made almost 100lb-ft more torque. Also the new F150 weighs about an extra 1100 pounds more than the F150 of the 1980s. Factoring the extra weight and the added popularity of 4wd, realistically, you need a base engine that has HP/torque ratings of at least 240/260. As long as an EB 2.5L meets or exceeds that spec, it's probably doable. The Duratec 37 is probably doable as well. Not sure if an EB 2.5L makes more sense than a Duratec 37 in terms of fuel economy or cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 The EB will be in the Flex, Edge, future Explorer and of course the Taurus. We already know it's coming in the MKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donzuchowski Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 i say how about a 2 cyl echoboost engine with 50hp. remember most personal use f-150s are used to tow only groceries from super walmart or sams club. Their really is not much of a true need unless you need to tow a 50 pound bag of dog food. Lets face it people need to reconsider their car choice. MPG figures are the new sexy in thing, not the size of your engine or your 0-60 times. Unless you brag about how long it take to get to 60. that is well yours does it in 10 seconds but mine does it in 13 seconds, so mine is better because it take 13 seconds and uses less polution then yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 MPG figures are the new sexy in thing, not the size of your engine or your 0-60 times. Unless you brag about how long it take to get to 60. that is well yours does it in 10 seconds but mine does it in 13 seconds, so mine is better because it take 13 seconds and uses less polution then yours. It's 10:00PM on a Friday night. An Insight glides up to a stop light next to a Fusion Hybrid. The Insight owner glances at the guy in the Ford. The Fusion owner nods. The light goes green. Both cars inch forward... < "38 MPG!" > "40!" < "41!!" All of a sudden, a horn lets out a large "WHOOOP!", as the cop sitting behind the Honda gets tired of waiting. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The EB will be in the Flex, Edge, future Explorer and of course the Taurus. We already know it's coming in the MKS. And the MKT. An EB MKZ would please lots of people as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I haven't heard of a V-8 Eco-Boost any reason why not? The 6.2L does in just the F-250 and bigger trucks why is that? A v-8 has the extra cost of 2 extra injectors. I would think it would be a limited market. In a 6.2L you might be talking about 700 hp. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 And the MKT. An EB MKZ would please lots of people as well. there will be but I'm thinking the 4 cyl ecoboost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 The 6.2L does in just the F-250 and bigger trucks why is that? It will go in some limited production F150s, like Raptor. The reason it will not be widely available in the F150 is CAFE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It will go in some limited production F150s, like Raptor. The reason it will not be widely available in the F150 is CAFE. Twin I Beam :hysterical: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Lots and Lots of pretty pictures, but I don't understand it. http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 The reason it will not be widely available in the F150 is CAFE. So the MPG is so bad on it that it can't even compete with the other trucks on the market that have a larger engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 So the MPG is so bad on it that it can't even compete with the other trucks on the market that have a larger engine? Ford obviously does not think the 6.2L is "required" to be competitive in the F150. They have never offer the V10 in the F150. And yes, the fuel economy on the 6.2L in NOT spectacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 And the Raptor comes standard with a 4.10:1 axle ratio. I seriously doubt that was done to improve fuel mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I have no problem with a 280 hp 2.0 or 2.5 EB in the F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reigner92 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I think it would get ridiculed... Even if it could do the work, and do it well... I think it would be shunned by truckers because it has a very small engine. I think Ford should make this engine and stick it in the new ranger(if we ever get it/get one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) 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 Why not instead the coming Ford Territory 3 litre diesel V6 with 35 mpg and 442 lb/ft and 275 hp? It´s already in production. It seems like a good mileage ? California emission standards? Edited May 25, 2009 by StevenCaylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Just so you know where ford intends to go.... the 2.5 liter Eco-boost engine makes an estimated 280HP and equal amount of torque, but the Ethenol injected EB 2.5 makes closer to 320HP and again with a mountain of torque. So I can fully believe Ford would place a 300+HP 4 cylinder in the F150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.