F150 with a 4-Banger?
#16
07-15-2008, 01:16 AM
Fleet Mechanic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you get a "Supercrew" F-150 "Curb Weight" 5400 ? and put a 4 banger in it. I don't think thats going to work even if it has that wuch HP @ Turque.
Knowing ford it would be a "Aluminum Block and Heads"
I just cant see that what about pulling a boat or traller?
If thay do this thay would haft to build the F-150's smaller like the 9th gen's (92-96)
Knowing ford it would be a "Aluminum Block and Heads"
I just cant see that what about pulling a boat or traller?
If thay do this thay would haft to build the F-150's smaller like the 9th gen's (92-96)
I have a feeling that, like the v6, they won't be offered in 4x4s and/or crewcabs (are the 6s in supercabs even? don't think i've seen one, now that I think about it). There are rumors out there of an SVO 4 banger mustang too, making 300hp... that I would actually consider buying esp if they make the thing lighter. I'm guessing since this would be the second rumor of a turbo'd 4 popper, ford prolly has something up their sleeves... if it's as good as it sounds, let's hope we see it in more and more stuff... a 260hp/300tq ranger/explorer/sport track for example anyone?
#17
07-15-2008, 08:59 AM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denver USA
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you get a "Supercrew" F-150 "Curb Weight" 5400 ? and put a 4 banger in it. I don't think thats going to work even if it has that wuch HP @ Turque.
Knowing ford it would be a "Aluminum Block and Heads"
I just cant see that what about pulling a boat or traller?
If thay do this thay would haft to build the F-150's smaller like the 9th gen's (92-96)
Knowing ford it would be a "Aluminum Block and Heads"
I just cant see that what about pulling a boat or traller?
If thay do this thay would haft to build the F-150's smaller like the 9th gen's (92-96)
#18
07-15-2008, 09:03 AM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denver USA
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read somewhere, can't remember the source, but they were comparing an S/C vs Turbo motors. Of course the article stated for bottom end, an S/C worked better, while top end it was the Turbo. They provided all the technical mumbo jumbo that I can't remember all reasons why one won over the other. But they did say to have the best of both worlds, instead of twin turbos, you should install both an S/C & Turbo. Captures both the bottom and top ends. Now I couldn't tell you how much R&D it would take to install both methods and for them to work properly together plus how much this would add in weight, but if it could be done, that'd be one bad ars ride!
#19
07-15-2008, 10:39 AM
Fleet Mechanic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read somewhere, can't remember the source, but they were comparing an S/C vs Turbo motors. Of course the article stated for bottom end, an S/C worked better, while top end it was the Turbo. They provided all the technical mumbo jumbo that I can't remember all reasons why one won over the other. But they did say to have the best of both worlds, instead of twin turbos, you should install both an S/C & Turbo. Captures both the bottom and top ends. Now I couldn't tell you how much R&D it would take to install both methods and for them to work properly together plus how much this would add in weight, but if it could be done, that'd be one bad ars ride!
I don't think one can say there's a real winner over the other. There are so many variables, that it pretty much comes down to what exactly it is you're after.
At the end of the day though, top fuel dragsters are all supercharged
I wish Ford would have put in the regenerative cold air thing they had on the concept lightning... That would have been awesome!
#20
07-15-2008, 12:02 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Denver USA
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember reading about that when the concept came out. Something like an extra 50hp boost for 30 seconds, then would take roughly 45 seconds to a minute to recharge. And if I remember correctly, which rarely happens anymore, the Lightning concept was already rated at roughly 500HP. That would be sweet!
#21
07-15-2008, 12:53 PM
turbos can be very responsive. they do not depend on rpm like a s/c does. i can have full boost at 1500-2000 rpm with my cobra. if you have the right size turbo then it will build boost very fast. if the turbo is too big then it will have bad lag. a turbo will out perform a s/c, they are more effecient, take very little power to run and are not rpm dependant.
#22
07-15-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm all for it, if they can make it work at 1500-2000 rpm for a small turbo.
Problem is, you start adding a second turbo, and that's just more parts to break and the piping starts becoming a nightmare.
Don't forget, cars that have turbos are MUCH more sensitive about regular oil changes as well. Don't change the oil on time, you'll get coked turbo bearings for sure.
Problem is, you start adding a second turbo, and that's just more parts to break and the piping starts becoming a nightmare.
Don't forget, cars that have turbos are MUCH more sensitive about regular oil changes as well. Don't change the oil on time, you'll get coked turbo bearings for sure.
#23
07-15-2008, 03:16 PM
The Ecoboost system has dual turbo chargers and direct fuel injection. I don't know what the Ford numbers are but it is supposed to be a substantial improvement in power output and economy improvement for the engine size. There was a video on YouTube of the Ecoboost and a new Taurus mule with Ecoboost in a race with a Cadillac and a BMW. The Taurus won convincingly.
I saw a brief article on a new VW crossover model, the Tiguan, that is using the same direct injection/turbo technology in a 2.0L gas engine.
I saw a brief article on a new VW crossover model, the Tiguan, that is using the same direct injection/turbo technology in a 2.0L gas engine.
#24
07-15-2008, 03:41 PM
you think this just might be some mis-information? The engine would probably be more at home, I think, in the new F-100.
Personally I am keeping my fingers crossed for that truck (F-100). Hopefully they make it.
As for a 4 cylinder in these trucks...ugh...you ever drive a 55 beetle with 4 people in it? don't get on the freeway....
D
Personally I am keeping my fingers crossed for that truck (F-100). Hopefully they make it.
As for a 4 cylinder in these trucks...ugh...you ever drive a 55 beetle with 4 people in it? don't get on the freeway....
D
#26
07-15-2008, 07:25 PM
Postmaster
the earlier mini cooper S's have S/C'd 4 bangers, before they went to a turbo. there's a jackson racing s/c out for SVT foci. And there are prolly a handfull more I'm missing...
the reasons they're not all that popular w/ 4 bangers are compounded... for once they rob some power (takes a decent chunk of power to turn the s/c) thus, more parasitic loss, more strain on the motor components than a turbo or nitrous app to make the same power. You can only make a 4 banger so tough before you run into reliability problems... The other thing is, small displacement means you can only move so much air at a time. you cant really make the thing idle at 2000 rpm so that it has enough power to spin a supercharger that'll give it a ton of air per minute... you gotta go with a smaller s/c. that, you will not be able to spin to the moon, they tend to lose efficiency after a certain point (differs from unit to unit). While turbos do the same thing too, they seem to be much more top end oriented, and much more high rpm - move a lot of air type deal... all in all, parasitic loss goes: supercharger < turbo < nitrous. to give you a rough idea; a s/c might take 50hp to turn, while a turbo would prolly take 5 hp worth of exhaust restriction to turn, while a nitrous wouldn't actually take any power from the engine to be injected.
While a turbo 4 could have HP and torque out the wazoo, they can make it at 4000+ rpm easily and that would be basically worthless in a truck. At the same time, they can put a small turbo on it, that spools up fast, and make relatively little power to the previous 4000+ rpm example, but be great in a truck. In the end, it'll come down to how well the engine breathes before the turbo basically. the more it can breathe in and out, the faster it'll spool up the turbo, the faster it'll build boost and make power. one trick they seem to do to nowadays to get the turbo to spool faster, is make the motor with a higher compression ratio than what one would be used to from a forced induction motor... If I'm not mistaking off the top of my head, the SRT4 neon had higher C/R than an n/a mustang gt...
the reasons they're not all that popular w/ 4 bangers are compounded... for once they rob some power (takes a decent chunk of power to turn the s/c) thus, more parasitic loss, more strain on the motor components than a turbo or nitrous app to make the same power. You can only make a 4 banger so tough before you run into reliability problems... The other thing is, small displacement means you can only move so much air at a time. you cant really make the thing idle at 2000 rpm so that it has enough power to spin a supercharger that'll give it a ton of air per minute... you gotta go with a smaller s/c. that, you will not be able to spin to the moon, they tend to lose efficiency after a certain point (differs from unit to unit). While turbos do the same thing too, they seem to be much more top end oriented, and much more high rpm - move a lot of air type deal... all in all, parasitic loss goes: supercharger < turbo < nitrous. to give you a rough idea; a s/c might take 50hp to turn, while a turbo would prolly take 5 hp worth of exhaust restriction to turn, while a nitrous wouldn't actually take any power from the engine to be injected.
While a turbo 4 could have HP and torque out the wazoo, they can make it at 4000+ rpm easily and that would be basically worthless in a truck. At the same time, they can put a small turbo on it, that spools up fast, and make relatively little power to the previous 4000+ rpm example, but be great in a truck. In the end, it'll come down to how well the engine breathes before the turbo basically. the more it can breathe in and out, the faster it'll spool up the turbo, the faster it'll build boost and make power. one trick they seem to do to nowadays to get the turbo to spool faster, is make the motor with a higher compression ratio than what one would be used to from a forced induction motor... If I'm not mistaking off the top of my head, the SRT4 neon had higher C/R than an n/a mustang gt...
#28
07-29-2008, 11:48 AM
#29
07-29-2008, 12:17 PM
you think this just might be some mis-information? The engine would probably be more at home, I think, in the new F-100.
Personally I am keeping my fingers crossed for that truck (F-100). Hopefully they make it.
As for a 4 cylinder in these trucks...ugh...you ever drive a 55 beetle with 4 people in it? don't get on the freeway....
D
Personally I am keeping my fingers crossed for that truck (F-100). Hopefully they make it.
As for a 4 cylinder in these trucks...ugh...you ever drive a 55 beetle with 4 people in it? don't get on the freeway....
D
