Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > General > Ford vs The Competition
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

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 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:14 AM
Red Star Red Star is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,832
Red Star has a good reputation on FTE.Red Star has a good reputation on FTE.
Ford considering four-cylinder EcoBoost for F150

According to sources speaking with Pickuptrucks.com, Ford is considering offering an EcoBoost four-cylinder engine on its F-150 pickup in 2013. The boosted mill is expected to displace around 2.5-liters, produce 260 hp and 300 lb.-ft. of torque, and would only be available on the two-door Regular Cab F-150 4x2 and 4x4.

Ford considering four-cylinder EcoBoost for F150 - Autoblog
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:24 AM
LxMan1's Avatar
LxMan1 LxMan1 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Louisville,Ky.
Posts: 22,219
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
Pretty good numbers from a small engine.
__________________
Jimmy- FTE Moderator

88 5.0 LX Mustang
63 F100 351W/C6

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:22 PM
V8EXPLR V8EXPLR is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denver USA
Posts: 819
V8EXPLR is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Oops, posted this same thread in another forum here a little while ago.

Now this is interesting, but a little dissappointed with the mpgs. Only 16/22. I thought the EB motors were supposed to provide the power of a larger displacement motor with the mpgs of a smaller displacement motor? Now the power is right where we like it, just need to know where that power comes to play in the rpms.
__________________
Justin
2006 Ford F-150 SuperCrew XLT Chrome Edition
5.4L Flex-Fuel, 3.73LS, 18" Stock Rims, 18" BFG Rugged Trail T/A's, Trailer Tow Pkg
Sun/Moonroof, Fog Lamps, Ford Bedliner
Lund Headlight & Taillight Covers, Lund VentVisors
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:07 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8EXPLR View Post
Oops, posted this same thread in another forum here a little while ago.

Now this is interesting, but a little dissappointed with the mpgs. Only 16/22. I thought the EB motors were supposed to provide the power of a larger displacement motor with the mpgs of a smaller displacement motor? Now the power is right where we like it, just need to know where that power comes to play in the rpms.


I agree. I want to know when this power is supposed to hit. At 9 million RPM, or a decent range? More like 1,600 / 4,200?
I say get rid of these pathetic motors. Bring in some heavy hitters and make them sip gasoline. I want big power with awesome gas mileage. Too much to ask for? I somehow doubt this.
We can send a man to the moon but can't design a motor to hit 350 HP / 450 Ft lbs and still get 26 MPG? Bull. I'm over exaggerating, but not by much. The point I'm trying to make is this; There is no excuse to give the public underpowered motors that still drink gasoline like it's free. I'm tired of hearing about Ford Rangers only getting 21 MPG highway - if babied. A 4.0L V6 should be getting much better mileage than that.

Oh, and one more thing. Make them affordable.
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:45 PM
dkf's Avatar
dkf dkf is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pa
Posts: 9,083
dkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to beholddkf is a splendid one to behold
Sounds like a flop mpg wise. I also highly doubt the little 4 turboed or not will put out any torque below 5000rpm. Just because you stick a small engine in a truck doesn't mean it will get good mpgs.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:23 PM
SUPERDUTY_untouchabl's Avatar
SUPERDUTY_untouchabl SUPERDUTY_untouchabl is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,442
SUPERDUTY_untouchabl is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
As much as these trucks weigh I wouldnt figure it would even get that mpg. I bet that truck will be slow as hell...
__________________
-Josh
04 F150 4.6l Gryphon Powered 2wd reg cab XL 3:55 LS SISO Flowmaster S40 NCD Customs 2.5" Leveling Kit Burner High Power Fog Lights 285/70/17 BFG A/T KO's
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:33 PM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUPERDUTY_untouchabl View Post
As much as these trucks weigh I wouldnt figure it would even get that mpg. I bet that truck will be slow as hell...
Sounds like another 300 I-6 (all due respect, and I love mine).

I say screw the small engines. I find it very hand to believe Ford can't make a good solid baseline motor that gets 28MPG+ with good HP and torque numbers in the lower RPM range.
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-14-2008, 11:09 PM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 4,776
Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6CylBill View Post
I agree. I want to know when this power is supposed to hit. At 9 million RPM, or a decent range? More like 1,600 / 4,200?
I say get rid of these pathetic motors. Bring in some heavy hitters and make them sip gasoline. I want big power with awesome gas mileage. Too much to ask for? I somehow doubt this.
We can send a man to the moon but can't design a motor to hit 350 HP / 450 Ft lbs and still get 26 MPG? Bull. I'm over exaggerating, but not by much. The point I'm trying to make is this; There is no excuse to give the public underpowered motors that still drink gasoline like it's free. I'm tired of hearing about Ford Rangers only getting 21 MPG highway - if babied. A 4.0L V6 should be getting much better mileage than that.

Oh, and one more thing. Make them affordable.
Sure, you can get 26 MPG out of a truck , just cut the size hugely, make the frame out of plastic, and then it will be light enough to get that kind of mileage.

Just the whole design of a truck goes against economy. Very long, wide and tall, and weighs 5000+ lbs to support the loads people will be using them. Its like pushing a wall made of lead down the highway. You could put the smallest engine you can find, and it would still get terrible mileage
__________________
- Ian

1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9

Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2008, 08:54 AM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Head View Post
Sure, you can get 26 MPG out of a truck , just cut the size hugely, make the frame out of plastic, and then it will be light enough to get that kind of mileage.

Just the whole design of a truck goes against economy. Very long, wide and tall, and weighs 5000+ lbs to support the loads people will be using them. Its like pushing a wall made of lead down the highway. You could put the smallest engine you can find, and it would still get terrible mileage
What I'm saying is this; Make it happen. I understand what you're saying and I agree with the last part about small engines. I just find it hard to believe Ford cannot do any better than they have since the early 90's late 80's. I just really believe Ford can make much more fuel efficient trucks without sacrificing power. There is no need to sell the public underpowered bricks. And don't make them so expensive Joe Blow with a decent job can't afford one.

I guess I'm just frustrated. All these automotive companies are just ripping everybody off in a hundred different ways. New body styles doesn't mean better internals; what really matters. I've been wanting to buy a Ford Ranger for quite a while, but what stops me (besides the down payment at the moment, heh) is the mileage they get. My truck can hall and tow as much as a Ranger and I have plenty of room in the cab for the same gas mileage as I hear many of you get with the 4.0's and even the 3.0's. Now something there just isn't right.

Okay, rant over.

Edit:

What is with Cummins owners claiming 21 MPG highway? Is this true? Why does a Cummins get 21 hwy with a 8,000 lb truck and my 300 only gets about 16.5 hwy moving a 4,000 lb truck? This is what I'm saying. "Make it happen"!
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2008, 10:08 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
The first Powerstrokes delivered 23mpg hwy (not towing) in an early '90's F-250 extended cab 4x2 with an E4OD transmission. So, its not too much to ask, with over a decade of technology development, that they should not only equal that, but do better.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2008, 10:15 AM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 4,776
Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.Lead Head has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6CylBill View Post
I guess I'm just frustrated. All these automotive companies are just ripping everybody off in a hundred different ways. New body styles doesn't mean better internals; what really matters. I've been wanting to buy a Ford Ranger for quite a while, but what stops me (besides the down payment at the moment, heh) is the mileage they get. My truck can hall and tow as much as a Ranger and I have plenty of room in the cab for the same gas mileage as I hear many of you get with the 4.0's and even the 3.0's. Now something there just isn't right.

Okay, rant over.

Edit:

What is with Cummins owners claiming 21 MPG highway? Is this true? Why does a Cummins get 21 hwy with a 8,000 lb truck and my 300 only gets about 16.5 hwy moving a 4,000 lb truck? This is what I'm saying. "Make it happen"!
Why can the older cummins get up to 21 mpg? because its a diesel. Diesel fuel has more energy per a given amount of fuel, and diesel engines are much more efficient then gasoline engines, its also not 8000 lbs, try more like 6200 lbs. 21 Highway is also very rare, you could expect 18-19 most of the time, and the new cummins are lucky to break 15 highway.

The reason the ranger gets terrible mileage is because its a truck, by nature they are not aerodynamic, and the 4.0 isn't exactly a very efficient engine either, with its design tracing back to a 60s V4 engine. If you want to get better mileage, get the 4 cylinder.

Gasoline engine technology has pretty much hit its peak in terms of efficiency,
__________________
- Ian

1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9

Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2008, 10:21 AM
6CylBill's Avatar
6CylBill 6CylBill is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Almost Heaven
Posts: 7,021
6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.6CylBill has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimandmandy View Post
The first Powerstrokes delivered 23mpg hwy (not towing) in an early '90's F-250 extended cab 4x2 with an E4OD transmission. So, its not too much to ask, with over a decade of technology development, that they should not only equal that, but do better.

Jim
Exactly! This is what I'm saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Head View Post
Because its a diesel? Diesel fuel has more energy per a given amount of fuel, and diesel engines are much more efficient then gasoline engines, its also not 8000 lbs, try more like 6200 lbs. 21 Highway is also very rare, you could expect 18-19 most of the time, and the new cummins are lucky to break 15 highway.

The reason the ranger gets terrible mileage is because its a truck, by nature they are not aerodynamic, and the 4.0 isn't exactly a very efficient engine either, with its design tracing back to a 60s V4 engine. If you want to get better mileage, get the 4 cylinder.

Gasoline engine technology has pretty much hit its peak in terms of efficiency,
Yes the Ranger is a truck, but aren't they much more aerodynamic now? They are supposed to be light, also.How much does an ex-cab 2wd Ranger weigh, I wonder?
That explains a lot. I forgot about the diesel aspect. What you said about getting the 4 cylinder is just my point; I shouldn't have to. When I said 8,000 Lbs, I was referring to the quad cab Rams. I was told they weighed 8,000lbs. I thought that sounded a bit much, heh.
__________________
Rise and rise again..

until Lambs become Lions
Add me on FaceBook! https://www.facebook.com/bill.holsinger.5?ref=tn_tnmn
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2008, 07:39 PM
92f150I6's Avatar
92f150I6 92f150I6 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,577
92f150I6 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Head View Post
s. 21 Highway is also very rare, you could expect 18-19 most of the time, and the new cummins are lucky to break 15 highway.

Not really rare. May bee its rare for a powerstroke to see 21 mpg. My uncles Cummins regularly sees north of 23 MPG highway hand calculated numerous times. I heare lots of peopl getting good milage out of their Cummins.
__________________
2003 F250 SD 4X4 5.4L 4:10 Arizona Beige
1987 Mustang GT
09 Challenger RT
A bunch of motorcycles, other cars, and a Quad.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2008, 11:02 AM
Frankenbiker's Avatar
Frankenbiker Frankenbiker is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,673
Frankenbiker is a name known to allFrankenbiker is a name known to allFrankenbiker is a name known to allFrankenbiker is a name known to allFrankenbiker is a name known to allFrankenbiker is a name known to all
frankenbiker
What ya'll are forgetting is the emissions controls.

Ever-tightening emissions regulations are forcing some rather bizarre compromises in terms of fuel efficiency and engine design. Keep in mind that the EPA's design requirements are such that a vehicle MUST still meet emissions requirements after 100K miles with NO maintenance whatsoever. Between the use of a fuel-hungry NOx catalyst, and idiotic design requirements, it's a wonder we still see double-digit fuel economy numbers at all.

When I was an active contributor on FullSizeChevy.com, there were frequent reports of 50% mileage increases on the 6.0 gas motor when an aftermarket custom tune was utilized that made better compromises in the Power/Economy/Emissions triangle.

The Feds mandate that Emissions be the primary design constraint. Coming in a distant tie for second and third is power, by market HP wars, and economy, by weak and flexible mandate. Juggle those design constraints around a little, (and still pass emissions, but not by quite so large a margin), and you can generate some better numbers.

Another factor is the rather idiotic fuel blend requirements; you have some 100 or so individual blends used in various parts of the country, all of which contribute to worse fuel economy in the pursuit of questionable emissions goals. We're starting to see this in diesel as well.

All thanks to the EPA.

-blaine
Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2008, 11:02 AM
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > General > Ford vs The Competition

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.
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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup