Ford considering four-cylinder EcoBoost for F150
by Damon Lavrinc on Jul 14th 2008 at 1:20AM 
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's rationale for equipping its workaday pickup with a turbo'd four is partially due to the rising cost of gasoline, but is primarily fueled by new CAFE regulations that will require light trucks to average 28.6 mpg by 2015. Ford has already decided to drop its 4.2-liter V6 for the 2009 model year, only offering the 4.6-liter V8, which produces more power and more torque, while still offering similar fuel economy.
The EcoBoost range of engines are likely to find their way into several different models across Ford's line up, and according to Ford's director of powertrain research, Dan Kapp, EcoBoost engines could allow the automaker to reduce engine sizes by between 40- and 50-percent, so 3.0-liter V6s could be replaced by two-liter fours and a 2.5-liter four cylinder could be reduced to 1.5-liters.
Before the EcoBoost four-pot debuts on the 2013 F-150, Ford will launch a turbocharged V6 in the pickup in 2010. Displacement is expected to be around 3.5-liters, with output estimated at around 350 hp and 390 lb.-ft. of torque. Partnered with a new six-speed transmission, fuel economy should be around 16 mpg city and 22 mpg highway.
And what of the rumored F-100 pick-up? It's conceivable that the range-topping version of the compact truck could be packing the same turbo'd four as its big brother, while a naturally aspirated version would power the entry level model.
[Source: Pickuptrucks.com]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
eric 1:31AM (7/14/2008)
interesting, if ford can pull it off, that would be good for them.
Reply
Dr. Nick 1:38AM (7/14/2008)
Good fuel economy in a truck? Lots of torque from a relatively small displacement. Whatever could they use?
Hmmm, what a conundrum!
I think I know someone who could help:
Paging Dr. Diesel, Dr. Rudolf Diesel, please report to Detroit post haste...
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 1:56AM (7/14/2008)
diesels don't make sense in my neck of the woods with diesel fetching a $0.50 premium over premium and up to $0.90 over regular
but a turbo motor that gets a bit better mileage while using premium doesn't make much sense either
Dan 2:25AM (7/14/2008)
The point is to meet CAFE. CAFE only cares about miles per gallon, what that's a gallon of and what it costs is your problem.
Mobius_1 3:04AM (7/14/2008)
What about DiesOtto? Surely MB wouldn't mind licensing it to Ford since MB makes more upmarket cars and no trucks anyway, especially if Ford pay some money (which, I just remembered, they don't have)
why not the LS2LS7? 4:04AM (7/14/2008)
Dan, CAFE is equalized for fuel energy content. The Ethanol folks made sure of that.
Val 4:20PM (7/14/2008)
Are you sure mercedes-benz doesn't make any trucks? Because they actually do, and are one of the biggest manufacturers of trucks and buses in germany (and the world actually). It's just that they make "real" work trucks, not 0-60, 1/4 mile monsters burning ruber. As for DiesOtto or whatever it is called, there was a video here about GM's development of the idea, and the guy said there are many difficulties to overcome, and the thing is very far away from now. Even if it becomes a reality, nothing beats a good old diesel in a heavy truck. Except maybe a hybrid diesel rtuck, judging by some hybrid buses.
Matt 5:16PM (7/14/2008)
"Good fuel economy in a truck? Lots of torque from a relatively small displacement. Whatever could they use?
Hmmm, what a conundrum! "
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*breathe*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Johnny 1:44AM (7/14/2008)
I will be the first to applaud Ford on this. This is great news and long over due.
Heck if you want a 5.4 tire smoker go buy one. No problem, you have the right and pay the gas for it. There are lots of other people that dont drag race or tow a 10,000 lb generator. I happen to be one of them and I would gladly take a 300 ft/lb torque with 6 automatic and a COMBINED fuel economy of low 20's. Maybe 19/24 and avg 22 consistently? And tow 5,000 lbs or so? cool.
But I also dont want this to be a carrot in my face and all talk and no walk. Why the 5 years wait??? the 2.5 is out right now in the Escape. Add the turbo and drop it in for next year. Is Ford talking about this so they get the PR that they are doing something? Or are they giving it a 5 year window to see if gas prices fall so they abandon this?
I dont want to have good fuel economy because I am poor. I like good fuel economy because I dont want to waste regardless of the cost.
Please drop this engine in 2 years at the most.
Reply
Dan 3:01AM (7/14/2008)
The idea that 30% better mileage is as easy as a slightly weaker engine just never goes away.
These trucks don't get bad mileage because they have thunderous tire smoking engines. They get bad mileage because they weigh over 5000 pounds, with 11" rubbers on the road and the aerodynamics of a garden shed. You can't fix that on the engine side. You can't even make much of a dent in it, unless the baseline you're improving on is a bad 15 year old engine coupled with a 25 year old transmission.. of which Ford has both.
If they offered you 22mpg combined and 300 ft-lbs you'd buy it. And so would about a million other people a year. Ford and GM would kill for sales like that. If achieving that was easy as giving up tire smoking they'd have done it the first year gas hit $3.
geo.stewart 8:41AM (7/14/2008)
bigger engines DO NOT necessarily mean they are gashogs. Gearing and torque play a huge part. Heck, you can have a 2.5 4 pot stuck with a 4-speed auto in a compact getting worse mileage than a Vette.
And as mentioned, getting that weight down has got to be a manufacturers goal. Ford needs to look to their partner Mazda to give them some ideas on shedding weight.
Rboyett 10:20AM (7/14/2008)
@Dan
You're right about the weight. But I've already read a couple of reports that the ecoboost 4 banger weighs about 500lbs less than the 4.6liter V8. So there is another bonus. If Ford moves forward with the F-100, then you'd think it would weigh considerably less as well..
Then there is the new 6 speed tranny going into the 2009 F150.
What I would like to see is more economical differential gear ratios offered in the F-150. I personally have plenty of uses for a large pickup truck but I pretty much never tow anything. I don't need a rear Diff that is made to tow 5000lbs.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:50AM (7/14/2008)
There's no way the ecoboost 4 weighs 500lbs less than the mod 4.6L. The mod 4.6L isn't exactly light, but it can't be over 700lbs. You really think this engine, with turbos and plumbing is going to be under 200lbs?
Tim UF 7:17PM (7/14/2008)
@Geo, the vette gets better than 26mpg highway (some claim up to 30) due to aerodynamics and engine management (8-6-4 cylinder cut-off).
LOL @ aerodynamics of a garden shed :-D
Steve 1:47AM (7/14/2008)
I'm waiting on that rumored F-100. Sounding like its gonna be a little beast. I have been wanting a light truck that is not too big. only truck thats left in that segment = Ranger... which is a blast from the past
Reply
Torrent 2:51AM (7/14/2008)
Really. An F100 with maybe a 260HP Ecoboost 4 cylinder engine with decent payload, torque and fuel economy? Sign me up. Just don't use the Ranger's Architecture.......or 14 year old looks.
HotRodzNKustoms 1:53AM (7/14/2008)
I got a couple things on my mind about this:
1. Fairly modern trucks, meaning post 1975 or so, used to do fine with less than 200hp. Yeah they were not fast and were not efficient due to the monstrous displacement needed to boost power to those figure with smog equipment but they got down the road and performed their truck like duties as well as you would want. I do not see why a truck's base engine needs 300hp (as long as these higher horsepower engines are optional). Sticking a 180-200hp 1.8-ish liter turbo motor should be adequate for most anybody's truck duty even in a half ton.
2. Which brings me to the F-100. Having a good smaller truck based on the engineering of the larger truck just makes good sense.
3. I like having a plethora of choices so, Ford offer my 180hp turbo 4 that runs off of the smiles of children as they see how green you are being as you drive by saving the world in the same showroom as my 10,000hp SVT Lightning with a switch that uses the shattered hopes and dreams of small children for a extra 3,000hp boost in power. More choices = power to the people= capitalism at work= Mo' Monay Fo' FoMoCo
Reply
Johnny 2:08AM (7/14/2008)
I agree with you. I would not mind the 3.0 240hp Duratec with a 6sp auto. Or even the 263 3.5 Duratec.
But why the hell does Ford think they need to turbo charge the 3.5 to 350hp for? More than the 300hp 5.4?
I know we are talking torque here but I dont need this much torque. I had a 1993 F-150 with the 5.0 engine and it was rated at 175hp @ 4200 and 250 torque at 2800 and it did fine pulling my boat. The Duratec 35 puts out same torque just a 1000rpm higher plus 100 more hp to boot. And 2 more gears in the tranny. Thats enough!
pmiddle5 2:36AM (7/14/2008)
The frickin 90's and early 0's caused a horsepower war in trucks and in most everything. They couldnt figure out how to make their products more appealing so every manufacturer ran with the "we need more of everything so we look more appealing!"
I miss the old Toyota pickup trucks, Nissan hardbodies, s10's, Dakota, and Rangers. How did they turn into complete behemoths? Hell an old F150 or one of the Toyota T100's are now the size of a Tundra.
Give us are small trucks back!!!
With how technology has improoved we should be able to have trucks as fast as they use to be, but with better gas mileage. Quit just adding weight/hp to everything lordz.
pmiddle5 2:36AM (7/14/2008)
The frickin 90's and early 0's caused a horsepower war in trucks and in most everything. They couldnt figure out how to make their products more appealing so every manufacturer ran with the "we need more of everything so we look more appealing!"
I miss the old Toyota pickup trucks, Nissan hardbodies, s10's, Dakota, and Rangers. How did they turn into complete behemoths? Hell an old F150 or one of the Toyota T100's are now the size of a Tundra.
Give us are small trucks back!!!
With how technology has improoved we should be able to have trucks as fast as they use to be, but with better gas mileage. Quit just adding weight/hp to everything lordz.