12pointer Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 why don't ford get their #$&* together and be the first with a F150 getting 30+mpg. Yeah the 3.5 ecoboost is great but in all reality how many people really need a truck with 365 horse power! They need to make and offer a smaller V6 ecoboost that gets like 300 HP and gets 30+mpg. That is still more horse power than what the old 5.4 V8 had . My 2001 5.4 is like 270 HP . To me they are not getting what the real public needs. So come on Ford get your head out of the arab's sand and get it done!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 why don't ford get their #$&* together and be the first with a F150 getting 30+mpg. Yeah the 3.5 ecoboost is great but in all reality how many people really need a truck with 365 horse power! They need to make and offer a smaller V6 ecoboost that gets like 300 HP and gets 30+mpg. That is still more horse power than what the old 5.4 V8 had . My 2001 5.4 is like 270 HP . To me they are not getting what the real public needs. So come on Ford get your head out of the arab's sand and get it done!!!!!!! Ford IS working on that for the F150 right now. Details have obviously not been released yet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'd be happy with 200hp.... but 250hp would probably be the sweet spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'd like to see a 3.5L diesel of some sort with something like 275hp and 425 lb-ft. That would be enough power for a half ton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'd like to see a 3.5L diesel of some sort with something like 275hp and 425 lb-ft. That would be enough power for a half ton. I'd like to see a gas version with similar torque...surely with todays improvements a low rpm torque monster could be done...99% of the time, hp means nothing on the street...get us anything over 300 ft/lb off idle and even a 4k redline, it will suffice...400~450 ft/lb and we'll all be grinning about the power- even if it runs out of breath at 4k. one thing thats always bugged me...my grandpa had a 87 f150 300i-6 auto that got 27mpg, he had a semi trucking business and his old pickup was used for errands and such, had 1 ton rear springs under it, had almost 300k on it when he retired it...in '93 I went and bought a new f150, 300 i-6, but stickshift...looked a lot like my grandpas, but his was getting pretty sad looking... he sold the old beater truck, bought another identical to mine a week later, but auto...we both got 18mpg wether putting/flooring/hauling...18mpg like a clock- he was pretty upset, and showed me fuel records he had for the old truck, 24-27 mpg depending on the trips were average. the 300-6 was possibly one of the best truck engines of all time, aside from a mile long, they were great, would run forever with just oil changes- but what the heck happened to the mpg? I cannot help but think maybe ford is a bit too conservative in their efi tunes...my brother in law had a 06 f250 5.4 that got 14-16 mpg, my wifes 07 5.3 avalanche got 24 average on a 5000 mile trip in hot weather, typically 22 mpg is the norm highway...why the heck did the f250 get such poor mpg? I bet with harder tires and a tune her truck would do 26 mpg, bet with gear change 30 would not be out of the question...heard of many crown vics getting 30 highway too (ours unly gets 22 though- but the HPP has steeper rear gearing). with todays 6 speeds it seems to me the engines need more torque down low- lower rpm=less frictional losses/heat for sure, but lower rpm has to reduce fuel use too- long as part throttle torque is there. think about this: what would take more horsepower- pushing a truck thru the air at 60 mph, or spooling a 5.4 litre V8 vacuum pump at 2200 rpm? we only NEED 5-10 hp to roll on level highway, but just from friction probably burn 10-20 hp just to spin all those parts at high speed...at light throttle the engine is operating near a full vacuum, so there is not much at all for 'compression', most of what little power produced is sent out the radiator as heat and used to overcome the friction of spinning a motor that fast...put a wrench on your crankshaft and try turning it- highway rpm sucks major hp just spinning all that metal... we need a gas powered torque monster. with DI, a high compression undersquare/low rpm diesel-like gas engine should be achievable...build one that takes as long to warm up as a diesel in the winter, you'd be on the right track- more torque/less friction/less heat loss... IMO anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 one thing thats always bugged me...my grandpa had a 87 f150 300i-6 auto that got 27mpg, he had a semi trucking business and his old pickup was used for errands and such, had 1 ton rear springs under it, had almost 300k on it when he retired it...in '93 I went and bought a new f150, 300 i-6, but stickshift...looked a lot like my grandpas, but his was getting pretty sad looking... he sold the old beater truck, bought another identical to mine a week later, but auto...we both got 18mpg wether putting/flooring/hauling...18mpg like a clock- he was pretty upset, and showed me fuel records he had for the old truck, 24-27 mpg depending on the trips were average. the 300-6 was possibly one of the best truck engines of all time, aside from a mile long, they were great, would run forever with just oil changes- but what the heck happened to the mpg? Same reason small cars used to get 50+ mpg - emissions and crash standards adding weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 A smaller engine will have to work harder and burn more gas to get that 5500lb pig up to speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 A smaller engine will have to work harder and burn more gas to get that 5500lb pig up to speed. This... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) This... They tried to put the 2.0 liter Eco-boost motor in the F150, they even configured a development mule that way. What they learned was that the motor did not have enough torque. The 2.7 liter Eco-boost V6 is in development now with a mid 2014- early 2016 release. This new engine should have 285+ HP and 300lbs of torque and replace the current 3.7 liter with improved fuel economy. Think another 1.5-3 mpg over the 3.7 liter. Personally I'd rather have a more nimble 30mpg T6 Ranger with that 3000lb bed load capacity, rather than a F150 carrying an extra 1000lbs of chassis weight around and less bed load capability. Edited November 28, 2011 by Mackintire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 All of this is good and fine but the F series has to lose weight and I mean a bunch of it. Or better yet how about a F100? That would tickle me to death but I bet it wont happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 All of this is good and fine but the F series has to lose weight and I mean a bunch of it. Or better yet how about a F100? That would tickle me to death but I bet it wont happen. It's going to be hard to drop significant weight from the F-150 without either: 1. Extensive use of lightweight "exotic" materials (aluminum, magnesium, carbon fiber, etc) 2. Downsizing the F-150 at the expense of payload/tow rating New materials will increase cost. Downsizing will cause Ford to lose the 1/2 ton spec war, even though most buyers will never push the truck to its limits. Personally, I'd like to see the obsolete Super Duty line retired and the 150/250/350 share the next-gen 150 chassis. Then design an F-100 no bigger than it needs to be so it can use the 2.0 EB and boost CAFE numbers. It's hard to figure out Ford "logic" though... they claim "F-series" as the best selling truck in NA, but they cheat by lumping Super Duty with F-150 sales. Yet they weren't bright enough to slap F-100 badge on the Ranger and boost their "F-series" numbers even higher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 It's hard to figure out Ford "logic" though... they claim "F-series" as the best selling truck in NA, but they cheat by lumping Super Duty with F-150 sales. Why is that cheating? Chevy/GMC/RAM do it with their 1500/2500/3500 models. Same thing. Yet they weren't bright enough to slap F-100 badge on the Ranger and boost their "F-series" numbers even higher They haven't needed to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 anyone else ever wonder about a highway only tiny engine- something that would let the v8 basically idle in alternate v4 mode till pedal is stepped on, a single or twin cyl 10 hp 2500 rpm 'pony motor' just for highway cruise...seems doable dont it? theres a 6hp/600 rpm diesel that burns less than a quart per hour, I read the 84 camaro only needed 5 hp to go 60 on level ground... put the 2 togeter, wouldnt that be easily over 200 mpg(once you got it up to speed)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 To original poster's statement "Ford needs a 30 mpg pickup", my answer is they already have one: the Ranger. In fact they've had it for years. My 2011 supercab 2.3L manual routinely hits 30 mpg. I'd like to see a gas version with similar torque...surely with todays improvements a low rpm torque monster could be done...99% of the time, hp means nothing on the street...get us anything over 300 ft/lb off idle and even a 4k redline, it will suffice...400~450 ft/lb and we'll all be grinning about the power- even if it runs out of breath at 4k. As you go on to describe, the old 300/4.9 was just that: 300 ft-lbs off-idle but ran out of breath at 3500. I've had several and they're the best motor I've ever had in a general-purpose 1/2 or 3/4 ton truck. For long-distance interstate hauling, you need more HP, but for general truck duties, they were perfect. It's a crying shame they ever got rid of that motor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) anyone else ever wonder about a highway only tiny engine- something that would let the v8 basically idle in alternate v4 mode till pedal is stepped on, a single or twin cyl 10 hp 2500 rpm 'pony motor' just for highway cruise...seems doable dont it? theres a 6hp/600 rpm diesel that burns less than a quart per hour, I read the 84 camaro only needed 5 hp to go 60 on level ground... put the 2 togeter, wouldnt that be easily over 200 mpg(once you got it up to speed)? The pumping losses would be too great. This would be why displacement on demand doesn't pay back huge gains. I don't buy the concept that you can push a camaro at 60mph using 5hp. 50hp yes, but 5hp no. Ecoboost, add stratified charge capabilities, add an integrated starter generator for start/stop scenarios and you will see some impressive fuel economy numbers. Edited November 29, 2011 by Mackintire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Don't forget the 'hybrid' application that Ford is developing with Toyota. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be something similar to GM's 2 mode tranny, except I could envision Ford building it in quantity, and making it standard across the line (over time). If the F150 had this tranny for acceleration, then it could be built with a smaller engine for non-acceleration duty, and the 30 mpg number becomes more and more likely. Factor in Ford's intent to reduce the weight of the truck significantly, and they might even be able to get well into the 30's, especially if they add more gears to the transmission; look at what Chrysler has done with the 300 and its 8 speed. Edited November 29, 2011 by Harley Lover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 To original poster's statement "Ford needs a 30 mpg pickup", my answer is they already have one: the Ranger. In fact they've had it for years. My 2011 supercab 2.3L manual routinely hits 30 mpg. As you go on to describe, the old 300/4.9 was just that: 300 ft-lbs off-idle but ran out of breath at 3500. I've had several and they're the best motor I've ever had in a general-purpose 1/2 or 3/4 ton truck. For long-distance interstate hauling, you need more HP, but for general truck duties, they were perfect. It's a crying shame they ever got rid of that motor. We modified my fathers ol 76 E150 300 inline 6. Added a header, a turbo muffler, significant head rework, a 110 centerline cam with .550 lift, and a high performance 2 barrel, MSD ignition and various other parts. The engine went from 130hp, 240lb torque with a 3800rpm redline to 210HP, 318lb torque with a 5000 rpm redline. It sounded like a cross between a diesel and a V10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 A smaller engine will have to work harder and burn more gas to get that 5500lb pig up to speed. Yep, I will have to lose about 1000lb to make that possible.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 They'll be very close to 30 mpg on the 2015 F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 They'll be very close to 30 mpg on the 2015 F-150. Pardon me, but unless the F150 loses 1000lbs and adds some sort of diesel (more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter I-5)... I really doubt it. Case in point, the 4400lb 2 wheel drive T6 Ranger gets approx 28 US MPG with the I-5 diesel and no urea injection. So a 1000lb heavier F150, with a larger frontal area achieving 30 MPG would be some impressive trick. More likely, a 2015 F150 with an 8 speed transmission, weighing 400-600lbs less with a Eco-boost 2.7 should make 26 MPG. The I-5 diesel with urea injection would probably have the same fuel economy but with a higher towing capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 What if a V8 was comprised of 4 serial V2 segments ( or a v6 with three, or a V4 with two, it would also work in inline or flat configurations). Each segment would have its own short crankshaft, and be independently internally balanced. The crankshafts would be connected via over running sprag type clutches (only the rear most V2 would run all the time, the next segment would not engage until its speed matched up with the preceding segment). Since the forward V2 segments would not be turning except when running, there would be no pumping losses. For the purpose of balancing power impulses the sprag clutches could be indexed to only lock in specific locations. Each engine segment would have its own coil on plug ignition and direct fuel injection, all manged by a common ECM. Ideally valve actuation would be fully electronic, but in any case would eliminate the need for individual throttle butterflys, (BMW Valvetronic does this now). This would allow for a common intake and exhaust system. It would also provide infinitely variable valve timing to further optimize performance, emissions, and economy. The hard part is starting the individual segments as needed. If each passive segment had an independent oil pump, the pump could be used as an hydraulic motor to spin up each segment for starting. The hydraulic pressure required for starting could be supplied by the pump located in the always running segment (pressurizing a reserve tank). Again, the ECM would provide control of the hydraulic starting system. Alternatively the exhaust from active cylinders could be used to power the rotation of an adjacent cylinder bank. The upside is that this would eliminate all of the fuel energy spent spinning a bunch of pistons pushing air in and out of cylinders as in conventional "mufti-displacement" designs, but you would still be dragging around the weight of the unused cylinders. I supose this might be comparable to a hybrid that has to drag around a load of batteries and two complete drive trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 The idea of a pony motor to run the vehicle at low loads also intrigues me. I can in-vision a small diesel optimized for low rpm torque, that runs all the time, sitting next to a gasoline engine that provides throttle response and high rpm operation. The two would be tied together with another over running clutch, this time to keep the diesel from being forced to run high rpms. I don't know if people would like buying two types of fuel though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 2011 F-150 is rated at 23 mpg. Add 20% improvement for the 2015 and that is 28 mpg and very close to 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) 2011 F-150 is rated at 23 mpg. Add 20% improvement for the 2015 and that is 28 mpg and very close to 30. Only for the smallest/lightest variant (2WD standard cab)... and even then, only downhill with a tailwind. Ecoboost F-150's are averaging 18mgp in the real world. 20% improvement results in an underwhelming 22mpg. Edited December 31, 2011 by GTwannabe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Only for the smallest/lightest variant (2WD standard cab)... and even then, only downhill with a tailwind. Ecoboost F-150's are averaging 18mgp in the real world. 20% improvement is results in an underwhelming 22mpg. So why does this loaded SuperCrew show 17/23? http://www.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FTEW1CMXCFA17589&refid=FV 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.