i think a v6 would be a pretty good idea.my brother has a box truck,and it has a 4cyl diesel,i belive it put outs 350 ibls of torque not sure on the hp,its perfect if u wanted to haul around town,but it has a hard time going past 70 going on the interstate,but it also weighs more than the f150,so im guesssing a 6cyl diesel would be more than enough power for a f150

 

The Ecoboost engines we're talking about here are the "new gen" Ford gasoline engines, which are supposed to use turbos (twin turbos in many applications) to make power. And a four will be able to replace a six, a six replace a V8, etc...

One thought that crossed my mind is whether there is any possibility that Ford will be able to make a regular gas burning Ecoboost. I can't imagine fleet drivers paying for premium gas if they have a choice, so at minimum, the Ecoboosts will have to accomodate regular (but major retarded timing on a boosted engine can cause problems). I just wonder if any of them will be designed to actually burn regular. (My guess is no...)

A 6 cyl diesel would not only be enough for an F150, but if big enough, it would be fine for a school bus...

George

 

Thats a very good point. Most turbo or SC engines require 91 octane. The current 5.4l 3V just barely runs on 87 octane due to its 9.8:1 CR.

 

these engines will be direct injection into the cylinder so they may be able to get away with regular fuel

 

Now wait a minute! You can't base an argument on whether something will work or not based on your own, slightly biased, opinion. Back then, the Mustang GT with the 5.0 only had 175 HP, courtesy of tree-hugging emissions legislation. The SVO ALSO had 175 HP, and was rated at 2 MPG better, both city and highway. The SVO died without the benefit of $4.00 gas prices we see today.

Was reading the most current Motor trend last night, and found an interesting bit in an article comparing small crossovers. The new Volkswagen Tiguan has a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder engine, that produces 207 lb-ft of torque at 1700 RPM Take this kind of setup, give it a little more displacement, say...oh...3L, and that number could be as high as 300 lb-ft...which is MORE THAN THE CURRENT 4.6L puts out!!! Sure, there would have to be lots of emphasis on making the setup last under the abuse a truck recieves, but it CAN BE DONE. Hell, the turbochargers on modern heavy duty diesels can last over a million miles if properly maintained, and that's pushing nearly 30 lbs of boost!

All I'm saying here is wait and see....If ford produces a turd, nobody will buy it, and we'll be left with our good ol', thirsty V8s. That is IF the tree huggers don't get their way....

 

Of course I'm biased, but based on my experiences owning turbo cars as well as having friends and family own various turbos, turbo engines simply will not last as long as NA. There is additional underhood heat, parts are stressed more, oil is subjected to more load via the turbo bearings, oil is cooked when an engine is shut off with the turbo hot. Modern synthetic oils make things better from the lubrication standpoint, but there is still the stress and heat--although in a big truck engine compartment, heat issues may end up fairly minimal as well.

A mod motor can go a million miles:

MillionMileVan

A turbo engine could never live that long without major service. Know of any SVO Mustangs or Merkur XR4TI's with a million miles on the engines, or even a couple hundred thousand? Certainly big turbo diesel engines in trucks can last that long, but I doubt that gas motors based on current automotive engines could do that--especially with fleet-style maintenance and driver attention.

Agreed that a smaller turbo motor can be tuned to provide some decent low end torque. Like the VW engine, the Mini Cooper turbo engine gets 172 lb ft of torque at 1600 RPM's out of 1.6 liters.

George

 

it's all in how much you're trying to get from the turboed motor and how it was built... if you're gonna try and get 200hp/250tq out of a 1 liter turbo, ain't gonna last long, indeed. But if you wanna get 200hp/250tq out of a 2.5 liter turbo, it could last a long time without issues.

outside of big turbodiesel engined trucks, how many turbo'd car have you known that aren't beat on and modified and boosted higher than they came from the factory? If you think of the most unreliable ones, you can even be a prejudistic person and assign age demographics to the specific turbo cars... let's see... DSM's = crap for reliability. RX7s = crap for reliability. Grand Nationals = hrm... . 3000gt/stealth = crap for reliability. chrysler K cars = not bad at all... See where I'm going?

Yes, a turbo adds some stress to the engine components by running it at a power level higher than what it could do w/o the turbo, but how much stress is basically what's gonna determine the ability of the engine to survive a long time, not the fact it has a turbo on it.

You can probably put a tiny turbo on that million mile van, run 3psi worth of boost all its life, and not see any kind of extra wear and tear...

and speaking of that van, we all love mod motors, but lets be real, a single vehicle hitting that benchmark doesn't mean every single motor/tranny out there will last that long... From seeing the cabbie crown vics, it seems more like 300-400k is closer to the norm... Not to say that's not great for a gas motor, just that 1 mil isn't the norm .

For the useable life of a typical gasoline pickup, I don't see a problem with them pulling it off... Basically, even if you poll this forum, even though these trucks will run dang near forever, not a whole lot of people keep them for longer than 200-300k miles. If not abused like an eagle talon passed through 18 generations of ricers; maintenance is kept up and all; it should be ok to run for 200k

 

I had an '87 Dodge Lancer with a basic 2.2 non-intercooled turbo and it popped a head gasket at 69k (thank you Chrysler for 7/70 warranties). Ended up needing a new turbo, pistons, etc. And a trans rebuild as well. I think Chrysler killed the 7/70 warranty specifically because of my old Lancer--and it was an auto trans car that was basically a commuter--never really raced or pushed that hard although I did regularly enjoy freeway merges and stuff. That was not a highly stressed engine.

I've got Subaru buds, and they routinely see 200-300k out of NA engines, but the turbo motors seem to check out before 200k--still a decent lifespan, but the power in a WRX is overkill, whereas the power of a turbo engine in a big pickup is not gonna be such overkill. A 2.5 Subaru WRX (not STi) motor has about 225 hp and it's in a 3000-3200 lb Impreza or Forester that runs at maybe 3600 lbs loaded. A 2.5 Ecoboost will end up with maybe 250 horsepower and will end up in a 4500 lb truck that will end up at 6000 lbs+ loaded--more stress just to move it around.

Of course a million miles ain't the norm with a mod motor. The way to get to a million is to drive 100k per year on the freeway like the expediter guy did, and which taxis, limos, and cop cars don't do. Mod motors hitting 300-400k in taxi, police, or limo duty are awful impressive as it is.

A turbo 4 or 6 in a working pickup *may* end up having a tough life, IMO. In addition to the heavier load compared to the Subaru (as an example), it might get very little maintenance, oil may not be changed or checked often enough. If the truck is overloaded, the motor will end up working pretty darn hard. I'm guessing Ecoboost motors will require at least 89 octane mid grade gas, and probably 91 octane premium....but they will get regular as a steady diet, etc.

I still think the 300 inch six is the best truck motor for economy A low revving, torquey, and simple motor that's not much more complex than the Briggs and Stratton on my lawnmower.

George

 

You just can't get over the 300 can you....?

Let it go it is DEAD!!!

 

do you see the irony? me arguing for how a small displacement motor would work well, and him arguing for more cubes?

 

It's pretty clear that Ford ain't gonna be bringing back that old non-crossflow beast, but if they could do a more modern version of a simple motor with less camshafts, no turbos, and a lot of low end torque, I'm guessing they would end up with a lot less warranty claims than a 2.5 liter turbo four will generate...

I will remind you that the 300 inch six, in a 1978 F100, with 4 speed O/D trans, had actual EPA ratings of 19 city, 28 highway. Of course these are overblown, but it was still an awfully good MPG combination.

What was your solution again?

 

So ya got the joke, huh? I'm sure the compromise is somewhere in between the small DOHC turbo and the cast iron beast 300. The Vulcan 3.0 wasn't really that bad of a motor, either....

There is just something in my gut that says an all-alloy 2.5 liter four with turbos just ain't gonna work in a full size (or even a downsized 7/8 size like the F100 is supposed to gonna be) truck. I just have visions of the toothless guys who pull giant trailers full of lawn mowing equipment burning down these motors... And I do have a relative by marriage who was involved in developing the Ford/Mazda 2.3 base motor.

 

The only domestic straight 6 actually being made is the Vortec 4200 if I'm not mistaken. Its not particularly powerful for 4.2 Liters (291HP @ 6000 RPM), and its got around 277 ft-lbs @ 4800 RPM. It supposedly still has over 250 ft-lbs available @ 1400 RPM, and they wind out quite nicely when you need to get going. (My dad has a 275HP @6000/275 ft-lbs @3600 RPM version in his Envoy) It is a DOHC 24v engine, with variable valve timing on the exhaust side. Quite a good engine.

Now if ford made something like that (maybe an iconic 300 cubic inches?), except put that modern technology on it, and build it just as tough, then I bet tons of people would be buying them

 

I don't think Ford is going to invest money into any small/medium sized engine that can't be used in a transverse FWD application. The only I6 that I can think of in a FWD transverse app is the Suzuki Forenza which isn't really popular.

I like the GM 4.2 six just because I like straight sixes, and the only other one I can think of is the Jeep 4.0 which is gone as of 2008, formerly only in the Wrangler for the last few years with most of its apps replaced by the 3.7 V6.

I do believe straight 6's are great for truck and car apps as well--BMW has done some really nice straight sixes (up to the last gen M3). They run smooth and hold up really well. But Ford has the 3.5/3.7 liter Duratec which is a really nice base motor (if a bit high revving). Hell, the 3.7 would probably eat the 4.2 (and the Explorer 4.0) alive except maybe for low RPM grunt.

My wife had a '98 Duratec Sable for about 90k miles, and I really did like that motor...but it's not a truck engine.

George

 

my sis has a 4.2 I6 in her 04 envoy..and thats a hell of a motor,but in fords case you probably wont see the I6 return....instead of working on improving on a proven engine they would rather experiment.But i like I6s 2 and would love 2 see one again someday...im sure all the brainwashed v8 zombies at ford headquarters wont bring it back because they wouldnt produce 400 hp.... give me a 200 hp cummins or a 300+hp 5.4 or a 5.7 tundra,which do u think is a better truck motor???