F150 with a 4-Banger?
#31
07-29-2008, 03:50 PM
Fleet Mechanic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a turbo diesel 4 banger would be interesting in both the F150 and the ranger...
#32
08-02-2008, 03:55 AM
I had an 05 Colorado with the 3.5 I5 it was a crew cab 4x4. I traded it pretty much straight up for my F-150. I can't complain about the 220 HP and 225 TQ, like the 5.4 in my F-150 it made like 90% of it's torque from 1500 RPM on up(which still isn't a lot of torque).
It was a quick fun little truck, and the motor was my favorite part(other than the looks). The gas mileage was not what I expected though I got 22 one time and it was a freak accident, it only got 16.5 in the winter time, and 18 in the summer and I drive like a grandpa. All the guys with the bigger 3.7 I5 seem to get better mileage and have more power. It had a little bed, and no tow package, and the mileage wasn't there for a small truck so I traded it for a full size.
The Hummer 3 is on a bigger platform than the Colorado I think it's on the same platform as the Trailblazer, but 6 cylinder is to big to fit in the snub nosed H3. The Atlas motors are impressive the 4 cylinder makes more power than the Ford Ranger 3.0 and makes more torque on the lower end, and the 6 cylinder makes V8 power. I wish Ford would put VVT in the mod motors really made a difference in my Colorado. After praising the Colorado and GM for their Atlas motor which is probably going to get killed off because of sales and expense to make. I still like my Ford way way way way better, just wish it had positrack and VVT like the Colorado.
It was a quick fun little truck, and the motor was my favorite part(other than the looks). The gas mileage was not what I expected though I got 22 one time and it was a freak accident, it only got 16.5 in the winter time, and 18 in the summer and I drive like a grandpa. All the guys with the bigger 3.7 I5 seem to get better mileage and have more power. It had a little bed, and no tow package, and the mileage wasn't there for a small truck so I traded it for a full size.
The Hummer 3 is on a bigger platform than the Colorado I think it's on the same platform as the Trailblazer, but 6 cylinder is to big to fit in the snub nosed H3. The Atlas motors are impressive the 4 cylinder makes more power than the Ford Ranger 3.0 and makes more torque on the lower end, and the 6 cylinder makes V8 power. I wish Ford would put VVT in the mod motors really made a difference in my Colorado. After praising the Colorado and GM for their Atlas motor which is probably going to get killed off because of sales and expense to make. I still like my Ford way way way way better, just wish it had positrack and VVT like the Colorado.
Turbo's are much more efficient than superchargers. They make alot more power per pound of boost. A properly sized turbocharger will outpower a supercharger anyday. The newer versions have variable vane technology to spool up fast, then continue to make big power as the rpm's rise.
#33
08-02-2008, 03:33 PM
The problem is turbos take time to spool up. A roots style SC puts out power off idle through the rpm range.
I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway.
After seeing all the TC problems with the 6.0l diesels, it makes me wonder if Ford can make a turbo actually last anymore.
I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway.
After seeing all the TC problems with the 6.0l diesels, it makes me wonder if Ford can make a turbo actually last anymore.
#34
08-02-2008, 04:04 PM
The problem is turbos take time to spool up. A roots style SC puts out power off idle through the rpm range.
I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway.
After seeing all the TC problems with the 6.0l diesels, it makes me wonder if Ford can make a turbo actually last anymore.
I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway.
After seeing all the TC problems with the 6.0l diesels, it makes me wonder if Ford can make a turbo actually last anymore.
#35
08-02-2008, 07:56 PM
The F150 5.4L has had VCT (Variable Cam Timing) since 2004 when they went 3V (same thing as VVT Variable Valve Timing).
Turbo's are much more efficient than superchargers. They make alot more power per pound of boost. A properly sized turbocharger will outpower a supercharger anyday. The newer versions have variable vane technology to spool up fast, then continue to make big power as the rpm's rise.
Turbo's are much more efficient than superchargers. They make alot more power per pound of boost. A properly sized turbocharger will outpower a supercharger anyday. The newer versions have variable vane technology to spool up fast, then continue to make big power as the rpm's rise.
TC's are not that much farther ahead of SC's, than You may think.
New SC technology have brought them right in line with the new gen of variable vain turbo's
Motor Authority Eaton working on new supercharger tech as demand grows
Roush uses this technology on it's 700 HP Mustang setup. Available for $5K at any Roush dealer
"The TVS2300 ROUSHcharger utilizes Eaton's new Twin Vortices Series
technology. The patented design on this supercharger system features a
four-lobe rotor and high-flow inlet which greatly enhances thermal
efficiency, higher volume capacity, and higher operational speeds."
#36
08-02-2008, 08:33 PM
#37
08-03-2008, 12:30 AM
Elder User
Also if you didnt know old school diesels had a supercharger and a turbo on it. I just remember this from Trucks!
#38
08-03-2008, 01:28 PM
Those were old Detroit Diesel Two-Strokes. The way they were designed, the blower was necessary for them to run. The exhaust valves and the intake ports were open at the same time, and it was the blowers job to force the exhaust out, and bring in a new air charge. It didn't really build any boost.
#39
08-03-2008, 02:17 PM
Yeah. But what makes you think the turbos they get made for them are going to last? I just don't like Fords track record with turbos, granted the 6.4l turbos seem to be lasting, but then again they havn't been out that long.
#40
08-03-2008, 04:57 PM
#41
08-05-2008, 07:36 PM
Wow...I love it how people like to compare a potential pickup truck motor to a sports car motor...
"I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway."
FWIW....the truck I'm driving right now is a turbocharged 6 cylinder....and it makes peak torque at 1200 rpms...all 1650 lb-ft of it! And even though it only has 450 HP, it moves it's current 77,460 lbs around at highway speeds pretty well....
It ALL depends on the application, people! A turbo TRUCK motor is NOT going to need to rev that high to make power...unless it's a GM product, but that's another story...
Why don't you wait and see, rather than form completely baseless opinions based on nothing but guesses? A turbo V6, if done right, could probably blow the trusty ol' 5.4 out of the water....
"I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway."
FWIW....the truck I'm driving right now is a turbocharged 6 cylinder....and it makes peak torque at 1200 rpms...all 1650 lb-ft of it! And even though it only has 450 HP, it moves it's current 77,460 lbs around at highway speeds pretty well....
It ALL depends on the application, people! A turbo TRUCK motor is NOT going to need to rev that high to make power...unless it's a GM product, but that's another story...
Why don't you wait and see, rather than form completely baseless opinions based on nothing but guesses? A turbo V6, if done right, could probably blow the trusty ol' 5.4 out of the water....
#42
08-05-2008, 09:03 PM
I don't think Ford will be making TRUCK motors....
Wow...I love it how people like to compare a potential pickup truck motor to a sports car motor...
"I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway."
FWIW....the truck I'm driving right now is a turbocharged 6 cylinder....and it makes peak torque at 1200 rpms...all 1650 lb-ft of it! And even though it only has 450 HP, it moves it's current 77,460 lbs around at highway speeds pretty well....
It ALL depends on the application, people! A turbo TRUCK motor is NOT going to need to rev that high to make power...unless it's a GM product, but that's another story...
Why don't you wait and see, rather than form completely baseless opinions based on nothing but guesses? A turbo V6, if done right, could probably blow the trusty ol' 5.4 out of the water....
"I think it would suck to have to rev a truck engine to 5k rpm all the time just to get moving. A 4cyl or 6cyl F-150 wouldn't occupy my driveway."
FWIW....the truck I'm driving right now is a turbocharged 6 cylinder....and it makes peak torque at 1200 rpms...all 1650 lb-ft of it! And even though it only has 450 HP, it moves it's current 77,460 lbs around at highway speeds pretty well....
It ALL depends on the application, people! A turbo TRUCK motor is NOT going to need to rev that high to make power...unless it's a GM product, but that's another story...
Why don't you wait and see, rather than form completely baseless opinions based on nothing but guesses? A turbo V6, if done right, could probably blow the trusty ol' 5.4 out of the water....
Diesel Engine Specs
By the time an engine has 450 horsepower, it weighs OVER 3000 POUNDS. Somehow I don't think that an Ecotec engine is going to be in that kind of class.... Yes, a turbo V6 with about 400 cubic inches, weighing 2000 lbs, would probably blow a 5.4 out of the water, and only weigh about 4 times as much....
I don't think Ford has large displacement or industrial-strength construction in mind here.
#43
08-05-2008, 10:09 PM
Your comparing a low revving 852 cubic inch V12, mechanical injection two stroke diesel, that has had the same basic design since the 1930s to modern high speed, high pressure common rail piezo injected diesels?
Those old detroits, as well as other engines listed on that page are heavy duty engines (pickups are defined as light duty, even an F-350 Dually) built for maximum torque, at as low of an RPM as possible. Current pickup diesel engines are making 350-360HP at less then half the weight of those engines listed there.
The point he was trying to make is that many smaller motors need to wind way up to breath, because of their low displacement. With a properly setup turbo system, they don't need to wind up as high to get the same amount of air flowing through the engine, so you get more power at a lower RPM.
Those old detroits, as well as other engines listed on that page are heavy duty engines (pickups are defined as light duty, even an F-350 Dually) built for maximum torque, at as low of an RPM as possible. Current pickup diesel engines are making 350-360HP at less then half the weight of those engines listed there.
The point he was trying to make is that many smaller motors need to wind way up to breath, because of their low displacement. With a properly setup turbo system, they don't need to wind up as high to get the same amount of air flowing through the engine, so you get more power at a lower RPM.
#44
08-05-2008, 11:23 PM
The point he was trying to make is that many smaller motors need to wind way up to breath, because of their low displacement. With a properly setup turbo system, they don't need to wind up as high to get the same amount of air flowing through the engine, so you get more power at a lower RPM.
I can just imagine what will happen if they put a little turbo motor that needs premium gas in a pickup....it will have to survive being overloaded about double its payload, driving up a mountain pass in 100 degree temps, on 87 octane fuel. I just don't see that working out very well.
A turbo on the 3.5/3.7 V6 would certainly work better, but again, in real life, when stressed like it might be in a truck, I just don't see it holding up under abusive fleet-driver types....
George
#45
08-05-2008, 11:59 PM
Fleet Mechanic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine will likely replace the outgoing V6, like it was mentioned before, in the reg cab, 2wd versions of the truck... 202hp and 260tq at a not so low end 3750rpm won't be hard to achieve with a turbo 4 popper. And with the new truck being lighter than the current one, it'll probably do better than the n/a 6. It's not meant to be their 11500lb towing engine; that's certain... it's meant for MPG - which it'll probably be doing a bit better than the aging sixxer it replaces.