Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009 - 2014 F150
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


2009 - 2014 F150 Discuss the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ford F150 SPONSORED BY:

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 09-14-2011, 03:22 PM
Ford-Trucks Editors Ford-Trucks Editors is offline
Host
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 169
Ford-Trucks Editors is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Could we see a 4-Cylinder F-150?

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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:36 PM
robtrucker robtrucker is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4
robtrucker is starting off with a positive reputation.
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???
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:39 PM
Sterling Archer's Avatar
Sterling Archer Sterling Archer is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 709
Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robtrucker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:40 PM
WhlM1's Avatar
WhlM1 WhlM1 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 8,395
WhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant futureWhlM1 has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
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 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.
__________________
Rich
FTE Guidelines
Support American Manufacturing!
"The next time some actor or rock star tells you what to think, tell them to **** off." - Dennis DeYoung
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Sterling Archer's Avatar
Sterling Archer Sterling Archer is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 709
Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.Sterling Archer has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhlM1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-14-2011, 06:39 PM
occupant occupant is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 240
occupant is starting off with a positive reputation.
alanmoore78 alanmoore78
If the choice is the 4-cylinder EcoBoost, or bring back the 4.2L Essex V6?

Gimme the four...
__________________
Alan Moore, not that Alan Moore | Columbus, OH
01 Windstar LX | 00 Suburban LS | 02 F450 wrecker
97 IH 4700 rollback |95 F450 wrecker | 92 F450 rollback
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-14-2011, 07:29 PM
Chug Chug is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 48
Chug is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robtrucker View Post
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???
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-14-2011, 08:02 PM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,022
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
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''.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2011, 09:40 PM
Hybris's Avatar
Hybris Hybris is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Olathe
Posts: 2,035
Hybris is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.Hybris is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
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.
__________________
1999 F-150 XL 5.4, Auto, 4x4, 8ft bed, ~171750 miles Mods: K&N high flow filter, 2" suspension lift, and Moog Sway Bar Links and Sway Bar Frame Bushings. Aries Brush Guard
KS Chapter - Jared
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2011, 09:58 PM
LxMan1's Avatar
LxMan1 LxMan1 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Louisville,Ky.
Posts: 22,263
LxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant futureLxMan1 has a brilliant future
Pulling a 6K lb truck around, it will be loaded hard and always under boost. Wouldn't be as efficient as one would think.
__________________
Jimmy- FTE Moderator

88 5.0 LX Mustang
63 F100 351W/C6

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-14-2011, 10:19 PM
Chug Chug is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 48
Chug is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LxMan1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2011, 10:40 PM
Chug Chug is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 48
Chug is starting off with a positive reputation.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-15-2011, 03:32 AM
640 CI Aluminum FORD 640 CI Aluminum FORD is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,022
640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.640 CI Aluminum FORD has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chug View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-15-2011, 06:47 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins tseekins is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampton, Virginia
Posts: 19,775
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
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.
__________________
Tim
SCPO United States Coast Guard Retired
2011 F-150 XLT 4x4 Ecoboost
2010 Ford Focus
2004 Expedition XLT 4x2

FTE Guidelines
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-15-2011, 08:24 AM
robtrucker robtrucker is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4
robtrucker is starting off with a positive reputation.
How about a 5.0 eco with deact clyinders????
Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2011, 08:24 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pretty awesome tuner from Edge Product Ford-Trucks Editors 2009 - 2014 F150 5 04-05-2012 06:34 AM
Raptor in Forza 4 Ford-Trucks Editors 2009 - 2014 F150 0 01-13-2012 05:51 PM
Ford F150 V6 Sales Continue to Rise Thanks to the EcoBoost Ford-Trucks Editors 2009 - 2014 F150 30 08-28-2011 11:18 AM
Next Generation EcoBoost Rumors Ford-Trucks Editors 2009 - 2014 F150 40 08-25-2011 12:06 PM
Good article on Ecoboost in F-150 johndeerefarmer EcoBoost (all engine sizes) 30 02-12-2011 08:00 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2009 - 2014 F150

Tags
150, 30, 4 cylinder, archer, avatars, banger, cyl, cylinder, diesel, ecoboost, f150, ford, mpg, ranger, v6

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup