battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I guess that's why the F100 rumors won't go away. OEs are really looking at how people actually use vehicles over what they just say they want, which is always tricky. Dealerships, Home Depot, etc. know exactly what they need so there's definitely a market for a decent sized 4cyl. truck. Plus CAFE rules or $3.50+/gallon gas will may create a market. IMHO the F100 is dead. But it's technogy can go into a new F-150 and next international Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes. When comparing a 4.0L runing at 1500 rpm or a 2.0L running at 2000 rpm, I don't think you would see much difference in fuel consumption. Mean while a turbo 2.0L can kick out the same power at 3000 rpm as a 4.0L non-turbo. That gives you fuel savings. If you don't need power both engines will run at 1000 rpm. The days of 6000 rpm turbo 4's are over. curious...now load both up with say 5000lb curbweights and 3000lb trailers.....would be interesting to say the least...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCobra Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What a great motor this could turn out to be. Nice to see that it will be in many of the mainstream vehicles. I think a 2.0 I4 should work just fine in base model F-150's. But it will depend on the following: 1. The 2.0 I4 has anywhere from 215-240 lb ft. of torque. 2. A torque curve similar to the one on the 3.5 EB 3. Ford includes the F-series in its plan to reduce weight (-400 lbs in chassis at a minimum) Either way, the trucks fuel consumption must be improved drastically to meet CAFE rules as others have mentioned. I do recall hearing that by 2011(ish) 90% of Fords cars will be powered by an EcoBoost motor. Maybe the remaining 10% would include non base model F-series trucks, full size SUVs and the Mustang GT/GT500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 curious...now load both up with say 5000lb curbweights and 3000lb trailers.....would be interesting to say the least...... Both the 4.0L and 2.0L turbo will equally be running over 3500 rpms up to 5500 rpms. At these high rpm, the smaller 4 cylinder would be much more fuel efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoMoCobra Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) What a great motor this could turn out to be. Nice to see that it will be in many of the mainstream vehicles. I think a 2.0 I4 should work just fine in base model F-150's. But it will depend on the following: 1. The 2.0 I4 has anywhere from 215-240 lb ft. of torque. 2. A torque curve similar to the one on the 3.5 EB 3. Ford includes the F-series in its plan to reduce weight (-400 lbs in chassis at a minimum) Either way, the trucks fuel consumption must be improved drastically to meet CAFE rules as others have mentioned. I do recall hearing that by 2011(ish) 90% of Fords cars will be powered by an EcoBoost motor. Maybe the remaining 10% would include non base model F-series trucks, full size SUVs and the Mustang GT/GT500 Sorry... 2013 WSJ Article Edited July 22, 2009 by FoMoCobra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Both the 4.0L and 2.0L turbo will equally be running over 3500 rpms up to 5500 rpms. At these high rpm, the smaller 4 cylinder would be much more fuel efficient. maybe...I just feel weight has a HUGE impact....of course i'm open to suggestion but I swear, I don't think I will be the only one with a 4 cylinder in a big truck "mental" hurdle....can't make it jive ANYWAY I look at it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Just keep the rpm up. Two problems with that: if you keep the compression the same, you are adding 25% to the load on the crankshaft & bearings simply due to the displacement increase. Secondly, torque production places stress on the bottom end of an engine regardless of the RPM. A block that can handle NA displacement up to 2.5L may not be able to handle forced induction at that displacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Two problems with that: if you keep the compression the same, you are adding 25% to the load on the crankshaft & bearings simply due to the displacement increase. Secondly, torque production places stress on the bottom end of an engine regardless of the RPM. A block that can handle NA displacement up to 2.5L may not be able to handle forced induction at that displacement. All true. I think the 2.5L EB is an urban legend. A 2.0L EB would be a good replacement for a 3.0L n.a. not a 5.4L n.a. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Depends on what needs to be done to the 2.0L block in order to make it durable for a 2.5L forced induction engine. There are applications for such a beast. --- Another problem with a 2.5L 4 cylinder forced induction engine: NVH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Depends on what needs to be done to the 2.0L block in order to make it durable for a 2.5L forced induction engine. There are applications for such a beast. --- Another problem with a 2.5L 4 cylinder forced induction engine: NVH. so forced induction causes potentially more NVH?......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) so forced induction causes potentially more NVH?......... Yes. Specifically, more vibration--especially given that a 2.5L 4 is about as big a four cylinder motor as you'll ever see. BTW: Can an engine geek explain this one for me: Why don't you need counterweights on an I-6 crankshaft? Edited July 22, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes. Specifically, more vibration. bore / stroke issues or just plain pressure? Probably means a balance shaft AGAIN.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 bore / stroke issues or just plain pressure? Probably means a balance shaft AGAIN.... Pressure: More downward force on the piston that has to be smoothed out by the flywheel and absorbed by the engine mounts--and (per my edit) a 2.5L 4 is about as big a 4 as you'll see--because those widely spaced cylinder firings have to be smoothed out into a semblance of smooth power delivery.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Pressure: More downward force on the piston that has to be smoothed out by the flywheel and absorbed by the engine mounts--and (per my edit) a 2.5L 4 is about as big a 4 as you'll see--because those widely spaced cylinder firings have to be smoothed out into a semblance of smooth power delivery.. not to mention the other bugbear...HEAT generated by the turbos..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenp77 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Deanh, have u heard even a whisper about the 5.0L coyote yet????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Deanh, have u heard even a whisper about the 5.0L coyote yet????? just rumours and tidbits, there are guys here closer to that heartbeat....we know its mustang bound and probably the F-150 as the 4.6/ 5.4 replacement.....( which I will shed a tear for, but progress is progress ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The last guy to quote the Bible here? Pioneer. Yep. Don't think he knew he was doing it when he did, though. I didn't think anyone would notice it, since a) it's a pretty obscure verse, B) "expectation" only occurs in one translation, as far as I can tell (everything on the Blue Letter Bible says "Hope"), and c) it was pretty darn mangled even as far as that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Depends on what needs to be done to the 2.0L block in order to make it durable for a 2.5L forced induction engine. There are applications for such a beast. --- Another problem with a 2.5L 4 cylinder forced induction engine: NVH. If the market place proves that all engines must be EcoBoost. Ford could design a new EcoBoost engine at 2.5L. They will wait to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 so forced induction causes potentially more NVH?......... I would argue that NVH is a concern with all 4 cylinders that are larger than 2.0L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I would argue that NVH is a concern with all 4 cylinders that are larger than 2.0L. those are some pretty big pots on a naturally unbalanced configuration.....hey, just tell the passenger its a diesel..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Tom Cruises beliefs are based on theory (Not Science) and not history. So it does not apply to the bible. ..at least not his Bible anyways.... You are more polite than what I was going to say. What?!?!...politeness on a web blog?? Say it isn't so.... 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.