Hypothetical Build - F150 hybrid or Diesel?

[fordmantpw]

 

In the name of diminishing returns, I sincerely hope not.

 

What was the last fullsize pickup to have a 4-cyl option anyway? Was there one? I ask because trucks have had 6-cyl engines forever, so turbocharging 6 cylinders never seemed too farfetched. But 4 is another matter.

 

Why not? If they can eek out another 2-3 MPG, it would be perfect for light-duty and fleet work. The 2.3L EB is pushing out more HP and torque then big V8s from 20 years ago!

 

And until the EB came out, V6's were really only available in stripper models. Heck, the F150 didn't even have a V6 available in '04 (excluding the Heritage) IIRC. Wasn't the V6 gone in '09 and '10 as well?

[papilgee4evaeva]

Why not? If they can eek out another 2-3 MPG, it would be perfect for light-duty and fleet work. The 2.3L EB is pushing out more HP and torque then big V8s from 20 years ago!

I've always maintained that a 2.xEB would be running in boost the vast majority of the time if it ended up in an F150. That's a lot of poundage between it and an MKC, even with the new alloy bodies.

 

And if people are already complaining about the MPGs with the 3.5EB yet unable to abstain from using the extra power, what's gonna stop them from trying to use all 275+ horses in a smaller-displacement engine that, quite frankly, probably needs to use it?

 

Let's not talk about towing.

 

And until the EB came out, V6's were really only available in stripper models. Heck, the F150 didn't even have a V6 available in '04 (excluding the Heritage) IIRC. Wasn't the V6 gone in '09 and '10 as well?

Yeah, the V6 took a break during those years. The base engine was the Modular 2V.

[jpvbs]

I think perceptions would be the biggest problem for a 4 cylinder full size.

 

I wonder if a 4 cylinder F150 would be marketable somewhere other than North America?

[fordmantpw]

I've always maintained that a 2.xEB would be running in boost the vast majority of the time if it ended up in an F150. That's a lot of poundage between it and an MKC, even with the new alloy bodies.

 

And if people are already complaining about the MPGs with the 3.5EB yet unable to abstain from using the extra power, what's gonna stop them from trying to use all 275+ horses in a smaller-displacement engine that, quite frankly, probably needs to use it?

 

Let's not talk about towing.

 

I would expect the towing to be limited. And if you have it loaded heavy, it's definitely going to drag the MPG down. But if you have a truck that spends a lot of time empty, or a lot of time running around a job site without heavy loads, it's going to do very well. Heck, the Canyonado has an I4 (naturally aspirated, mind you) and it isn't much lighter than an F150.

 

Don't forget, there is going to be another 4 gears in the tranny too. That will allow the little engine to be in the meat of it's power band all the time.

[fordmantpw]

I think perceptions would be the biggest problem for a 4 cylinder full size.

 

I wonder if a 4 cylinder F150 would be marketable somewhere other than North America?

 

Isn't it physically too big for most of the rest of the world?

[jpvbs]

Isn't it physically too big for most of the rest of the world?

For Europe probably, but there is lots of open space in the rest of the world that size wouldn't be a limitation - Russia, Argentina, Australia. Not everywhere expects trucks to be hot rods. A 4 cylinder would be acceptable. I don't know that the price would be acceptable though.

[jpd80]

I've always maintained that a 2.xEB would be running in boost the vast majority of the time if it ended up in an F150. That's a lot of poundage between it and an MKC, even with the new alloy bodies.

2016 Explorer with 2.3 EB and AWD option is smiling at you...

Edited April 14, 2015 by jpd80

[chucky2]

But if all you're doing is adding the diesel for fuel economy over any real towing ability,

the 2.3 Ecoboost is probably a more economical solution, it still has 320 lb ft and that's

still way more than the base 3.5 TiVCT V6.

 

But getting F150 buyers to accept an I-4 turbo engine?

Good luck with that..

 

But the diesel will actually get good mileage whereas the 2.3EB might get it on paper. Soon as eB is used, it goes to TwinForce, which isn't Eco at all. The point of the 4cyl diesel would be actual economy, not fake economy. That the 4cyl could be used potentially in other vehicles would just further spread out its costs. Corp really has hitched themselves to EB though, I don't know if Corp Leadership could ego-wise stomach a smaller diesel for NA...

[jpd80]

 

But the diesel will actually get good mileage whereas the 2.3EB might get it on paper. Soon as eB is used, it goes to TwinForce, which isn't Eco at all. The point of the 4cyl diesel would be actual economy, not fake economy. That the 4cyl could be used potentially in other vehicles would just further spread out its costs. Corp really has hitched themselves to EB though, I don't know if Corp Leadership could ego-wise stomach a smaller diesel for NA...

2016 Explorer has pretty much the same set up I suggested for F150,

Ford has said that it won't have any fuel penalty over the superseded 2.0 EB

and will in fact be getting an AWD option....

 

So in fact we need look no further than a review of the 2016 Explorer with 2.3 Ecoboost..

Ford claims there will be no fuel economy penalty in comparison to the out going 2.0 EB

so 20mpg/28mpg seems to be the call of order..

 

Most American drivers used to gas engines would not tolerate a 4 cylinder diesel,

there's a lot of vertical shake in them and NVH most wouldn't be used to in a modern F150.

Edited April 14, 2015 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

I wonder how many diesels Volkswagen sells. They've been pushing their so called "clean" diesels for a while

Edited April 14, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo

[jpd80]

I wonder how many diesels Volkswagen sells. They've been pushing their so called "clean" diesels for a while

6,029 in March

[chucky2]

2016 Explorer has pretty much the same set up I suggested for F150,

Ford has said that it won't have any fuel penalty over the superseded 2.0 EB

and will in fact be getting an AWD option....

 

So in fact we need look no further than a review of the 2016 Explorer with 2.3 Ecoboost..

Ford claims there will be no fuel economy penalty in comparison to the out going 2.0 EB

so 20mpg/28mpg seems to be the call of order..

 

Most American drivers used to gas engines would not tolerate a 4 cylinder diesel,

there's a lot of vertical shake in them and NVH most wouldn't be used to in a modern F150.

That's not saying much really, the 2.0EB isn't very Eco.

 

I don't think VW or BMW is having problems with their modern 4cyl diesels with shake or NVH. Louder than gas counterpart? Yes. Sound deadening fixes that for interior occupants? Yes. Problems solved...

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I have to wonder what the numbers on a 2016 reg cab, short bed XL (in other words, a fleet special) F-150 would look like with the 2.3L EB I4 and the 10 speed tranny. I'd imagine that they'd be pretty good, just don't know if they'd be able to sell enough of them to make it worth it to develop that power package for that truck.

[papilgee4evaeva]

2016 Explorer with 2.3 EB and AWD option is smiling at you...

 

We'll see about it. I know -- and Dean corroborates through his customer anecdata -- that the 2.0EB was rather disappointing in the Explorer, and other customers/reviews said the same about the Taurus.

[chucky2]

I wonder how many diesels Volkswagen sells. They've been pushing their so called "clean" diesels for a while

Their % of CD to gas is quite high. People like getting real actual 50mpg on the highway, with power. Not to get too far OT but I'm watching some VW diesel swap threads for Rangers. My '03 SOHC is getting long in the tooth at 209xxx miles, I'm hoping one guy is going to make his swap with with the existing auto in there and get it working relatively easy. Low to mid 30's (4x4, 31's, 4.10) on the highway will be great after 18mpg...

[Pioneer]

I have to wonder what the numbers on a 2016 reg cab, short bed XL (in other words, a fleet special) F-150 would look like with the 2.3L EB I4 and the 10 speed tranny. I'd imagine that they'd be pretty good, just don't know if they'd be able to sell enough of them to make it worth it to develop that power package for that truck.

That'd be a cheap and easy way to make a Ranger replacement. Reg cab 5.5ft. bed, 2.3 EB. Autozone and parts runners would rejoice.

[Mad Hatter]

 

In the name of diminishing returns, I sincerely hope not.

 

What was the last fullsize pickup to have a 4-cyl option anyway? Was there one? I ask because trucks have had 6-cyl engines forever, so turbocharging 6 cylinders never seemed too farfetched. But 4 is another matter.

International Harvester had some 4-cylinder pickups in the '60s..maybe into the '70s. Basically half of the respective V-8 they offered.

[bzcat]

 

In the name of diminishing returns, I sincerely hope not.

 

What was the last fullsize pickup to have a 4-cyl option anyway? Was there one? I ask because trucks have had 6-cyl engines forever, so turbocharging 6 cylinders never seemed too farfetched. But 4 is another matter.

 

The last time for Ford was the 1930s... and it was standard engine

 

 

Edited April 14, 2015 by bzcat

[Biker16]

 

We'll see about it. I know -- and Dean corroborates through his customer anecdata -- that the 2.0EB was rather disappointing in the Explorer, and other customers/reviews said the same about the Taurus.

 

The Gen 1 GTDI engines are very sensitive to load both Drag and weight. the 2.3 will do very well in the explorer.

[RichardJensen]

Their % of CD to gas is quite high.

 

Good for them. Because their gas engines are terrible.

[chucky2]

 

Good for them. Because their gas engines are terrible.

No argument there at all...

[jpd80]

Another piece to the puzzle;

T6 Ranger Crew Cab 4x2 w/ 3.2 I-5 Diesel Auto = 2052Kg which is approx. 4500 lbs

and almost the same as F150 4x2 Crew cab in various configurations

 

 

 

 

 

We'll see about it. I know -- and Dean corroborates through his customer anecdata -- that the 2.0EB was rather disappointing in the Explorer, and other customers/reviews said the same about the Taurus.

You're right to be skeptical as many others will be, this newer 2.3 Ecoboost has much more power and torque

it should go a long way towards removing the disappointment experienced with the too small 2.0 Ecoboost.

 

Who would think that 0.3 liters would make such a huge difference but it could be just the spark Ford needs

to convince people that even smaller Ecoboost engines can work in larger vehicles..

 

The subject is pertinant here in that adding a 2.3 Ecoboost could work in F150 but is it really wahat those buyers want?

Would the money be better spent on something else that those buyers would consider more acceptable?

 

As I mentioned above the weight of a 4x2 Crew cab Ranger 3.2 diesel is close to a 4x2 crew cab F150

so maybe that diesel opton is not as far fetched as some imagine..

Edited April 14, 2015 by jpd80

[rmc523]

Another piece to the puzzle;

T6 Ranger Crew Cab 4x2 w/ 3.2 I-5 Diesel Auto = 2052Kg which is approx. 4500 lbs

and almost the same as F150 4x2 Crew cab in various configurations

 

 

 

 

You're right to be skeptical as many others will be, this newer 2.3 Ecoboost has much more power and torque

it should go a long way towards removing the disappointment experienced with the too small 2.0 Ecoboost.

 

Who would think that 0.3 liters would make such a huge difference but it could be just the spark Ford needs

to convince people that even smaller Ecoboost engines can work in larger vehicles..

 

The subject is pertinant here in that adding a 2.3 Ecoboost could work in F150 but is it really wahat those buyers want?

Would the money be better spent on something else that those buyers would consider more acceptable?

 

As I mentioned above the weight of a 4x2 Crew cab Ranger 3.2 diesel is close to a 4x2 crew cab F150

so maybe that diesel opton is not as far fetched as some imagine..

 

It was - the 2.7EB V6.

[Donaldo]

That's not saying much really, the 2.0EB isn't very Eco.

 

I don't think VW or BMW is having problems with their modern 4cyl diesels with shake or NVH. Louder than gas counterpart? Yes. Sound deadening fixes that for interior occupants? Yes. Problems solved...

 

MBZ has also gone for a wide application with their twin scroll 4 cylinder/2.0L diesel (Bluetec) available in the USA, it's in the ML250 (soon to be GLE300d) SUV , GLK250 (soon to be GLC250d) SUV, E250 sedan, and Sprinter commercial van.

369 ft-lbs of torque seems to address most drivers' performance concerns for a 4 banger and high 20s-30s MPG even for 2 ton+ vehicles with AWD is decent..

[Mad Hatter]

 

The last time for Ford was the 1930s... and it was standard engine

 

 

No, Ford made pickups with four-cylinder engines in the '40s.

 

 

1941 Ford Trucks

 

The big news for Ford trucks in 1941 was the availability of a new six-cylinder engine option to augment Ford's flathead V-8. The six had more torque than the V-8 and provided somewhat better fuel economy. And for those really interested in economy, also offered on some light- and medium-duty trucks during this period was a four-cylinder engine based on that of the company's farm tractor.

 

http://fordofwestmemphis.blogspot.com/2009/01/1940-1949-ford-trucks.html

 

It specifically calls out 1941 and notes civilian production stopped for WW II. Although that was long before my time, I'm aware there still was civilian sales, but they were severely curtailed on a need basis determined by the government. I seem to recall reading that the 9N engine was available throught the war period.

 

I also found a link to an IH pickup (not Scout) with a four-cylinder engine from 1964. I'm not too familiar with their vehicles and nomenclature, so I can't say when it stopped.

 

http://www.hemmings.com/hmn/stories/2011/04/01/hmn_feature9.html