Check out today's homepage article speculating about future engines in the F-150. Can a 4-Cylinder Ecoboost really be enough power for the F-150?

 

You say the 2.0 4cly. would not be enough power for a f150....why??? 240 hp and 270 trq. my old 89 302 only has 185hp and about 270 to 280 torque... why does every one want so much power???

 

Why? Because. Seriously...how many guys are going to line up to purchase a four banger half-ton truck? If you can't afford the gas to operate a six, eight, or ten cylinder truck, go buy a Ranger or beater car to commute with. Just my $.02.

 

I see you dont own/operate a fleet of vehicles for any quantity of workers.. they would love something like this.

 

True. That's something I didn't consider.

 

If the choice is the 4-cylinder EcoBoost, or bring back the 4.2L Essex V6?

Gimme the four...

 

Your 89 is also rolling around with about 1500 lbs less mass. Was the 302 adequate? Yep, it was for that truck, but not the current eff one fiddy.

I think that 2.0 ecoboost would put down plenty of power for a base model truck. That output is similar to the old 2 valve 4.6 and would likely be paired with a 6 speed transmission. My guess is that it could muster 27 mpg highway in a regular cab, short bed, 2wd truck. If Ford would resurrect the F-100 concept or decide to sell the World Ranger here, that engine would be closer to 30 mpg. I'd be one of the first in line to get one.

 

The last I heard was Ford was going to try and stuff a 4-banger in base model trucks only I.E regular cab 2WD shortbed models. It'll probably mostly be sold only to fleet users...And maybe a select few personal buyers.

I still don't understand Fords logic here...I know alot of people who would kill for a midsize/compact Ford truck Ranger/F-100 sized that could achive mid 20's to early 30's in the mpg department and only put down modest power compared to the F-150. Don't get me wrong, I've got a 2011 F-150 FX4 with the 5.0L and gas price's be damned its the truck I would have bought and I couldn't be happier with it. But its just odd that Ford is axing its small truck in time where gas price's are so unstable. Instead of trying to make a 4-banger work in the F-150...Why not design a midsize F-100 for the market? That way Ford could include it their F-Series annual sales ''thus they don't have to worry about it stealing sales from the larger trucks''.

 

What I can't see is why not just force this 4 banger Eco boost in the current Ranger? It has to be cheaper than getting it in the F150 and it would give the Ranger an "Update" which would silence (Initially) a lot of critics like those on Edmunds.com who complain that the Ranger hasn't hardly changed in decades.

Personally while I can afford to run my 99 with the 5.4L if Ford were to come out with a 4 banging Ranger with a six speed auto that I can get for $250 a month I would be willing to take the plunge for that.

On the other hand if they want a 4 banger engine in a F150 make it a diesel and call it the Eco-stroke.

 

Pulling a 6K lb truck around, it will be loaded hard and always under boost. Wouldn't be as efficient as one would think.

 

This wouldn't be the engine you'd buy for towing. I think it would be great for the fleet buyer and most personal truck users who commute back and forth to work and at most haul a jet ski or utility trailer for their motorcycle/atv. 2000-3000 lbs of trailer wouldn't phase this engine. I towed a 12 foot flatbed loaded with a Polaris Ranger with my 2006 Toyota Tacoma which had the 2.7 4 banger and it surprised me how well it moved that load given how gutless the truck was empty. Granted the F150 is carrying a ton of weight compared to the Taco, the Ecoboost has 90 lb ft of torque and 80 hp and 2 more cogs in the slush box.

 

Another thing worth mentioning given that the Ranger's demise and the F-100 have been brought up is how easy it would be for Ford to market a modified F-150 that would appeal to buyers not wanting a typical F-150.

Picture a lowed F-150 (2-3 inches) with the bed sides cut down 2-3 inches. That would make this easier to climb inside the cab as well as loading/unloading over the side of the bed. That takes care of the accessibility issues with such a large truck.

This truck should only be sold in reg cab/6.5 foot bed and super cab/5.5 foot bed configurations. These are the easiest to park and fit in a garage sizes. They are also the lightest and would be lighter with the trimmed down bed plus use of additional light-weight materials. They'd still be large, heavy vehicles, but not as much as the current F-150. I'd buy one.

 

That's pretty much how I would envision an F-100 ''midsize'' truck in the market.

But I also totally agree with Hybris. The current Rangers are cheaply sold solid simple reliable light weight compact workhorses. Yes the current gen F-150's are capable of equal or better gas mileage, but that's mostly attributed to the fact that the Rangers powertrain/drivetrains are so outdated. Like Hybris said, take a current 2011 model Ranger and stick modern engines in it say the 2.0L Ecoboost and the 3.7L Mustang V6 both of which will provide more than enough power for the Ranger and I see no reason a 2.0L equipped Ranger couldn't achieve 30 or 35mpg. I've seen 4banger Rangers today get almost 30mpg with the old tech 2.3L 140hp I4. A 2.0L Ecoboost with 280 or so hp would make the little Ranger feel like a total hotrod and still warrant it good gas mileage.

I doubt a 2.0L powered F-150 will see much if any different MPG's than a 3.7L F-150 ''which is currently the F-150's most efficient engine'' rated at 17/23 city/highway. I remember when Ford first announced that they were going to put the Ecoboost 3.5L in the F-150...Everyone was guessing it would be capable of mid/to high 20's MPG's. Then when it got here, it only got 16/22 in a 2WD F-150...Respectable for the amount of power it produces. But not vastly different from any V8 engine used currently.
I think it'll be the same story with the 2.0L. Everyone will speculate that it'll get awesome fuel economy...Then when it actually gets here it'll disappoint.

From my understanding most of the independent testers have already complained that the 2.0L Ecoboost feels inadequate pushing the Lighter Explorer around. Even if the F-150 shrunk a little in size, chances are it'll still be heavier than any Explorer out there.

So in short...I think a 2.0L F-150 is a total waste of time/money and assets...Ford should be giving us an updated Ranger or at the very least keep the old one around longer and replace the old 2.3L and 4.0L with the 2.0L and 3.7L.

I'm not hating on Ford...I've always owned Fords and I always will. And in the past 6 or 7 years Fords really been making the right choice's in the automotive world and I do personally feel that they are the best trucks ''and cars too now'' on the road. But to me I feel like their missing something rather obvious here which is this...There will always be buyers for F-150's F-250's and F-350's. The Ranger still outsales quite a few cars in the United States despite the fact that its technology is mostly dinosaur era. If Ford would give us a small truck ''say heaviest model no heavier than 3500lbs'' with updated engines and transmissions and make it availble to the public...I bet they would sell like hotcakes...And I know Ford worrys about the F-Series trucks being de-throned as the king of trucks and don't want to lose sales to a smaller truck like the Ranger...But if the named it the F-100 they could include it in the F-Series sales figures...Seems like a win/win.

 

But apparently the 2.0L isn't producing the mpg's in the Explorer that Ford thought it would. How would anyone get 30 out of an F150?

A 4 cylinder Taco with an M 5speed is only getting about 27.

A 4x2 Rcab F150 with a 6.5' bed would weigh about 4800 lbs. I think the 2.0L would do fine so long as people don't expect it to climb mountains, pull 10K or achieve 30 mpg's and cost $15K.

 

How about a 5.0 eco with deact clyinders????