Mackintire Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Can you clarify what you mean with "equal amount of torque" and "mountain of torque." ? Numbers please. Equal meaning equal 1=1 Or 280=280 or 300+ = 300+ Mountain: a large hill I guess It would be more accurate to claim MESA-like torque curve. The EB and EBS series engines output 90% of their torque output from 1600rpm - 5800 RPM so its a very long broad power curve. As for expectations that could be put into descriptive language..... How about this. If longevity is not an issue the EBS 2.5 liter engine could be a direct replacement for a 3 valve 4.6 liter triton engine. With the only noticable difference being the EBS 2.5 having a broader power curve and over 20% better fuel economy. So think F150 with small V8-like power netting 24 MPG. The 4.4 liter diesel was IS the only other engine that could net this type of mileage in an F150. I say IS becuase the 4.4 diesel was documented as netting 24 mpg in a 4x4 F150 unloaded on the highway. I say was because we most likely will not see that engine anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
417strokers Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Little engines with big boost will work in a light car but the F150 is 6000 pounds . Even the 5.4 has trouble lugging the F150 around with a load .That sounds like a winner to me . Do you really think a little 4 will take the place of a big V8 . Bring back the Courier Japanese and gutless . In most cases a small over loaded engine will burn more gas than a larger engine. If you never pack any weight why do you need a full size pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Sorry, there is no way you are going toconvince me that a 280hp turbo 4 will have any degree of longevity in a vocational pickup truck anyone who says otherwise has never used a pickup for work and has no idea why contractors will buy the "anemic" 4.6/5.4 over a faster 5.6./5.7 fromToyota Nissan or Dodge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 ... If you never pack any weight why do you need a full size pickup. Sad to say, the F150 got to be the #1 pickup by lots of people who never put more than a couple of shrubs or an old couch in the bed. Sad, because it is truly a capable truck ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 The I-4 Ecoboost and the former 4.2 V6 Essex engine both have similar torque curves, maybe Ford could be looking at replacing the V6 sales and promoting a greener option? There probably is a market but I think they would want to be certain buyers exist for that vehicle..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 The I-4 Ecoboost and the former 4.2 V6 Essex engine both have similar torque curves,maybe Ford could be looking at replacing the V6 sales and promoting a greener option? There probably is a market but I think they would want to be certain buyers exist for that vehicle..... Hmmm ... "former 4.2L" Yep, it has been discontinued because the 2V 4.6L has similar cost and fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Sad to say, the F150 got to be the #1 pickup by lots of people who never put more than a couple of shrubs or an old couch in the bed. Sad, because it is truly a capable truck ! the official truck of Home Depot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Hmmm ... "former 4.2L" Yep, it has been discontinued because the 2V 4.6L has similar cost and fuel economy. that's what the contractors found. So they started just buying 4.6 V8s for fleet trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 that's what the contractors found. So they started just buying 4.6 V8s for fleet trucks.And my qualifying statement for using a small Ecobboost:There probably is a market but I think they(Ford) would want to be certain buyers exist for that vehicle..... I wonder if this rumored I-4 EB is actually a Bobcat, that would be a far more practical application..... That would give a small engine with V8 like power at its disposal. Apart from that, a normal I-4 EB is not going to be a very inspiring in an F Truck...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterstern Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Little engines with big boost will work in a light car but the F150 is 6000 pounds . Even the 5.4 has trouble lugging the F150 around with a load .That sounds like a winner to me . Do you really think a little 4 will take the place of a big V8 . Bring back the Courier Japanese and gutless . In most cases a small over loaded engine will burn more gas than a larger engine. If you never pack any weight why do you need a full size pickup. 6000 pounds? I don't think so. I checked the curb weight of a 2010 F150 and even the 4X4 Supercrew Lariat model with the 5.4L v8 only comes in at around 5600 pounds. The base 4x2 4.6 V8 regular cab model comes in at around 4700 pounds. Take off a couple of hundred pounds when you swap the V8 for the EB 2.5L 4cyl, and you're probably around 4500 pounds... and that assumes that Ford won't try to save weight in other areas... plus you have more HP and at least as much torque as the current base V8. Nah... I think it'll work just fine if it's hooked up to a 5 or 6 speed auto and the right gearing. Plenty of vehicles have smaller turbo engines for commercial use. The Sprinter is the best/closest example I can think of. And the Ford Transit is all 4cyl engines... and the gasoline engine in that van is the regular 2.3L Duratec I4... basically the same engine that was in the original Ford Fusion. Mind you it is a lighter vehicle with a lower tow rating... but then the regular 2.3 puts out way less power and torque than an EB 2.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 And my qualifying statement for using a small Ecobboost: I wonder if this rumored I-4 EB is actually a Bobcat, that would be a far more practical application..... That would give a small engine with V8 like power at its disposal. Apart from that, a normal I-4 EB is not going to be a very inspiring in an F Truck...... To take advantage of all the torque from a Bob Cat engine, you would likely need to design the entire engine from scratch, since Bob Cat is a gasoline engine with greater than diesel torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Little engines with big boost will work in a light car but the F150 is 6000 pounds . Even the 5.4 has trouble lugging the F150 around with a load . Not quite correct, I don't know what the newer F150s weigh but my 97 F150 4X4 with the 5.4L weighs in at 5100lbs. I know for sure because in order to get it registered in California I had to take it to a certified weigh station, roughly 3/4 of a tank at the time. Now as far as towing / pulling axle ratio has a lot to do with that. My truck has 3.55 gears and I pulled a cargo trailer (enclosed 7'x16" blunt nose) from St Peter Minnesota to Phoenix and then to Stockton Ca. The trailer weighs 2500lbs empty, add all my stuff and you can figure 5 to 6k loaded. On Hwy.40 at the continental divide 7000ft and in Flagstaff (beautiful place by the way) at about 5 or 6000ft it did fine. And no I didn't see the need to weigh the trailer loaded. So knowing that the horsepower and torque rating are better than they are on my truck I have to call B.S. :stats: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Cal Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Whatever happened to the F100? I remember reading that it was supposed to be a Ranger replacement but Ford couldn't get it to tow/haul as much as they had originally planned. I always figured they should make an F100 out of the Escape/Mariner/Tribute platform. It could be a two door standard cab with a mid length bed or a four door crew cab with a short bed, which means it could share much of the body work from the B or C pillars forward not to mention their drive trains (I4, I4 hybrid, V6, FWD, AWD) if not the EcoBoost I4. Edited July 23, 2009 by T'Cal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Mike Levine, from Pickuptrucks.com, posted a little info yesterday about the 4 cyl F150. He seems to usually have a pretty good source for Ford info. He posted this in the comments section for the article about 2010 F150 updates. "- 4-cylinder F-150 is still definitely in development - Engine architecture is not the same as the 4-cylinder EcoBoost Ford introduced earlier this week. It will be engineered to a RWD truck application - Start/stop mode that shuts the engine off automatically when the engine is stopped, like a hybrid. Think super starter. - The displacement is *very* small. Smaller than the 2.5-liter I've said in the past, if you can wrap your head around that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harddrive747 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Mike Levine, from Pickuptrucks.com, posted a little info yesterday about the 4 cyl F150. He seems to usually have a pretty good source for Ford info. He posted this in the comments section for the article about 2010 F150 updates. "- 4-cylinder F-150 is still definitely in development - Engine architecture is not the same as the 4-cylinder EcoBoost Ford introduced earlier this week. It will be engineered to a RWD truck application - Start/stop mode that shuts the engine off automatically when the engine is stopped, like a hybrid. Think super starter. - The displacement is *very* small. Smaller than the 2.5-liter I've said in the past, if you can wrap your head around that." My question on a 4-cylinder F-150 of 2.5-liter or smaller is will it make enough power to move a 2 ton truck, or will Ford put the F-150 on a super size diet to get it down to say 3,000lbs or less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 My question on a 4-cylinder F-150 of 2.5-liter or smaller is will it make enough power to move a 2 ton truck, or will Ford put the F-150 on a super size diet to get it down to say 3,000lbs or less? At a minimum, this engine configuration will be limited to standard cab only. Most sales will even be standard cab, 6.5 foot bed. I'm thinking they are intending it to replace the niche that the Ranger runs as a parts hauler around town. But on the other hand, I had a 1989 F150 standard cab 8ft bed with the 5.0. I'll bet if you look up the power to weight ration, the newer F150 will still be better than my old '89. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 3.5 EcoBoost would work for me if it was in the Edge, Flex or F-150. Had a 2012 Edge at our plant being flow tested. It had a 4 Banger Ecoboost with twinturbos. Driver said it appears to get great mpg with more than enough pop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Had a 2012 Edge at our plant being flow tested. It had a 4 Banger Ecoboost with twinturbos. Driver said it appears to get great mpg with more than enough pop. awesome! 2.0? and probably close to the HP of the std 3.5 V6.... 260ish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Had a 2012 Edge at our plant being flow tested. It had a 4 Banger Ecoboost with twinturbos. Driver said it appears to get great mpg with more than enough pop. Twins? I thought the reports were that the I4's were coming with only one turbo? Interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) awesome! 2.0? and probably close to the HP of the std 3.5 V6.... 260ish? Thats what he told me(4 cyl.). I will see him next week and will try to nail him down on more specifics. He did say that they were having problems calibrating it. Edited July 25, 2009 by whereswaldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Twin (turbos)? I thought the reports were that the I4's were coming with only one turbo? Interesting... I second that statement. Ford's plan for the I4 EcoBoost is to use it as a "base" engine in some vehicles (as opposed to a hot rod Focus). The cost of the second turbo (and the associated plumbing) would be significant and might impact sales, or at least profitability. Additionally, I saw a video where some engineer definitively said there is no need for 2 turbos on any I4 application Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 At a minimum, this engine configuration will be limited to standard cab only. Most sales will even be standard cab, 6.5 foot bed. I'm thinking they are intending it to replace the niche that the Ranger runs as a parts hauler around town. But on the other hand, I had a 1989 F150 standard cab 8ft bed with the 5.0. I'll bet if you look up the power to weight ration, the newer F150 will still be better than my old '89. I used to dismiss the thought of an I4 EcoBoost in an F150, but you have a good case ! It would make a good powertrain for niche application, as you described, if they can find a small enough 6 speed RWD transmission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I used to dismiss the thought of an I4 EcoBoost in an F150, but you have a good case ! It would make a good powertrain for niche application, as you described, if they can find a small enough 6 speed RWD transmission. I cant see this happening. A 4 banger with a turbo is not going to cut it in a 150. Talk about a joke. Its not going to happen. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I cant see this happening. A 4 banger with a turbo is not going to cut it in a 150. Talk about a joke. Its not going to happen. Just my opinion. I had the same opinion for a long time. But as "fuel economy leader", I believe there is niche for it. Maybe only 5-10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I second that statement. Ford's plan for the I4 EcoBoost is to use it as a "base" engine in some vehicles (as opposed to a hot rod Focus). The cost of the second turbo (and the associated plumbing) would be significant and might impact sales, or at least profitability. Additionally, I saw a video where some engineer definitively said there is no need for 2 turbos on any I4 application Maybe they'll use two in heavier applications and keep the single one for smaller cars like the Fusion and Focus? 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.