• 50
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]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 7 Years Ago
      For all of you who keep insisting that a smaller engine won't save gas because it has to work harder based purely on your own anecdotal experience, let me offer two examples of my experience.

      My father and I both have the same late model sedan and similar routes and driving habits. He averages 17mpg with a V8 while I average 20-21mpg with a V6. I previously had a mid-sized SUV with a V8 and averaged 13-14mpg while his badge-engineered version with a V6 is averaging 17mpg.

      Although the EPA ratings don't reflect it, real world mileage is better (sometimes significantly) with the smaller engine. Most of the average driving time is spent feathering the throttle or coasting and that's where the smaller engine pays off.
        • 7 Years Ago

        by paragraph:

        1) We live in the same area and take the same routes. I've ridden with him uncountable times and driving style is very much the same.

        2) I'm not an idiot, so I'm fully aware that a full sized truck is heavier than my sedan.

        3) I would hope a pickup would be used for hauling.

        4) Yes, a gallon of gas only contains so much energy but we're not at the limit yet. The trick is getting the most out of it and that's what these new turbo engines will do. V8's with smallblock displacements are doing the jobs that bigblock gas hogs used to do and now turbo V6's and I4's will be doing the work smallblocks used to.

        5) Peak HP numbers happen at higher revs on any engine. These modern turbo engines have long, flat torque curves (GM's ecotec is an example). Besides, the new six-speeds would make up for any difference in peak power vs. engine speed.

        6) True, but it's still only a fraction of the maximum power the engine is capable of. And at lighter loads a smaller engine will burn less fuel just because of lower friction losses, if for no other reason.

        7,8,9) Pure speculation since you don't know how much boost, if any, would be needed. Cylinder cutoff on a V8 truck works because the truck can cruise on only 4 cylinders and that's without any sort of boost. Problem is, you still have to overcome the friction of all 8 cylinders.

        10) "Some people" is not first-hand experience like what I stated. And the SUV's I mentioned happen to be a V8 Explorer and a V6 Mountaineer.

        11 and on) I've also had V6 4x4 Rangers and agree that the mileage sucks but you're not comparing it to anything. I gave direct comparisons of equally equipped vehicles (except for engine and gearing) and there's a significant difference in mpg between the V6 and V8.

        Of course, turbo-charging an engine will hurt mpg but the power increase let's it do the job of a larger, less efficient engine. Also remember that until recently, most gasoline turbo-charged engines were purely about performance. These new ones will be tuned more for economy. That's likely one of the reasons the 3.5 Ecoboost's projected power is 350hp, way down from the TwinForce concept's 415.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Smaller engine means less rotating mass inside, less mass total and it means the engine runs closer to WOT (wide open throttle) where a gas engine is more efficient. The Prius has a miniscule engine that runs only at WOT. The Volt will likely be the same way.

        Smaller engines really do save gas when the rest of the vehicle is designed properly around it. It's true there are so many other factors that matter perhaps even more than the engine size (gear ratios, sticky tires), but you can't throw away the importance of the engine completely.
        • 7 Years Ago
        You neglect to say how much of that is stop and go semi-urban traffic, and how much of it is slab-cruising.

        You also fail to realize that a full size truck is probably much heavier than your sedan.

        And will periodically be used to haul things.

        There is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel. therefore a limit to how much can be extracted and used to propel a vehicle of a given weight. More weight, more energy is required. Less aerodynamic, more energy. heavier unsprung and rotational weight (giant wheels and brakes, heavy axle shafts....) more energy...

        If a Turbo I4 makes the theorized 280hp, and 300lb-ft of torque, chances are that peak figure is near 5250 RPMs, give or take a thousand RPM. NOT at 1200-2200RPM.

        It certainly takes FAR less horsepower at speed to maintain speed in your, or my sedan, than in a brick of a truck, with likely at least twice the weight, and far more rolling resistance and aero drag.

        A turbo engine only gets good cruising MPG if it is cruising with negative manifold pressure, and normal I4 fueling. It doesn't make that much power at that state. Probably not enough to hold an EMPTY new F150 at a steady highway speed. Ok, so add more power... by adding BOOST. That changes the fuel curve to maintain a proper, (and usually properly RICH) fuel ratio.

        Now you are burning gas FASTER than a V6 or a V8 that can run without boost, and have enough horsepower at speed to keep the truck moving, and run more appropriately lean under less operational load per cylinder, without damaging parts.

        It isn't anecdotal, it is physics, chemistry, and REALITY.

        BTW, some people have reported BETTER mileage in Ford Rangers with a small-block ford engine swap, than with the more over-worked 3 and 4 liter V6s... because they can turn lower RPMs, both at take-off, and at speed, with more torque available. That probably holds true for Explorers/Mountaineers with the 5.0 V8 vs the 4.0 V6.

        I had a 4.0 liter 4x4 Ranger, and it sucked for gas mileage. wouldn't get better than 18mpg in town, or on the highway, because from a stop, especially if it was loaded, you had to run the engine up to get the truck to move with traffic. And at speed, the engine was turning almost 2500RPM... A V8 with more torque can handle a lower final drive, and probably turn less than 2000RPM at cruise, and pull away from a stop with less throttle needed.

        But that is anecdotal, but still bears resemblance to reality.

        But in your case, if the sedans and SUVs you talk about are being driven in stop and go traffic, with the same gearing for different engines... your results are probably to be expected.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Like GM recruiting Robert Lutz and engaging the talents of the erstwhile Daewoo, Ford's EcoBoost motor technologies (I guess the TwinForce name has by now been completely discarded?) is the sort of big news whose benefits most of the car-buying public will enjoy without knowing (or, really, needing to know) that this is big news. It's good news indeed. Good for you, Ford US.

      Now put one in the Focus and give her a hatch back and all is forgiven :)

      I read somewhere (Autoblog, I'm pretty sure) that the next generation Chevrolet Cobalt will feature a 1.4L motor offering similar fuel injection + turbocharging. If anybody knows what GM is calling their house brand of this motor technology, I'm curious. (VW has been using it for a while already, and they don't give it a name, do they?)

      A kind and relevant word about ULSD, or 'New Diesel.' In the US, the retail price of a gallon of diesel is now high enough to have eroded the cost advantage over a gallon of gasoline, even accounting for the fuel economy return. Yes? I have stopped considering it for a new car. That's the (relatively) bad news.

      The good news is that EcoBoost and its peers is obviating the need for diesel. Did I mention it's big news?
        • 7 Years Ago
        I think Ford is on the right track. Something has to be done to increase power with smaller engines, reducing weight (one of Ford's pillars for fuel economy increases). This is a great step forward, but needs to be sooner than 5 years...we're wasting daylight.
        • 7 Years Ago
        VW calls direct injection + turbocharging TFSI. Well, they used to. Now they oddly have a TFSI engine with no supercharger/turbocharger at all.

        The closest thing GM has to a name for that is ECOtec, as the turbo 2.0L ECOtec is direct-injected.

        No one is quite sure what this 1.4T engine goes into, although one of the current guesses is the Cobalt replacement, the Delta II-platformed Cruze.
      • 3 Years Ago
      If you need a truck, you need a truck.. to haul, tow, pull , etc.. If you need a full sized truck, you don't want a 4 banger. I drove a Ranger 4 banger for 10 years. I loved the litte truck.. when I was done beating the dog **** out of it there was nothing left to trade in. I did not buy another one because it was only 4 cylinders, but rather because it was uncomfrotable to drive. So now I drive a full size, quad hemi .. an unpgrade and luxury I payed upfront and in fuel for dearly. I also pay in the form of haivng to drive and park that in the city sometimes. There is a huge gap and opportunity in the truck market and it looks like this. 250hp 25mpg city 3500 towing Comfortable Seating for 5 midsized with fold flat midgate and deep dry secure bed storage (creative, versatile bed space) In a perfect world it has some sort of light frame structure, is RWD and is 2 door and has the stance of a muscle truck. But likely it will be unibody, FWD, 4 door - but, at a savings of $300/month in gas and about 3 feet shorter we can make consessions. Build that, and drop your 4 cylinder, turbo ecoboost into it.
      • 7 Years Ago
      A turbo 4 cylinder may get better mpg than a NA V8 when new.

      It is also going to wear out faster.

      A 4 cylinder is going to have to produce more torque per cylinder at the same rpm, or run at a higher rpm than the v8. Either of these things are going to accelerate wear. The 4 cylinder has fewer and smaller bearings over which the load will be distributed.

      What is cheaper replacing the engine more often or filling the tank more often? It sounds like 6 of one 1/2 dozen of another.

        • 7 Years Ago
        Nice generalizations.
        Inline 4 cylinder engine, 5 main bearings
        V8, 5 main bearings

        There is more to it than just slapping on a turbo & direct injection.

        and 5w-20 oil be gone!
      • 7 Years Ago
      Inside of 3 years these turkeys will have the resale value of a Yugo.
      • 7 Years Ago
      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
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I think Ford should just update the Ranger and stick with it and its size. I don`t like the idea of a midsize F100. Its lust too close to the F150 and confusing at the autoparts store. Ranger is a good name and compact is a good size.
        • 7 Years Ago
        I can think of one reason to call it F-100 rather than Ranger: sales crown. It can be lumped in with total F-series sales. Kind of like the Camry Solara, etc.
      • 7 Years Ago
      This is an okay move. I'm rather unimpressed with the mpg though, GM will likely have a 6-speed in their trucks before this motor debuts, and since they get 15/20 right now with their 5.3L engine and a 4-speed, they could make at 16/22 6-speed, more if they play tricks with the final drive ratio. And I assure you most full-size truck buyers will get the V8 if there is no mpg difference.

      To be honest, the smarter move is just to make a smaller truck. Put the turbo-4 in that with a 6-speed and make 18/25 or better. Now you're talking. This goes for Ford and GM.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Rocking out, 90mph @ 2000 rpm !
        • 7 Years Ago
        GM somewhat has a 6 speed auto in the '09 silverado 1500

        Since the 5.3 doesn't have VCT, if you are looking for a work truck the 6.0 seems a better option (and the 3.73 vs 3.42 axle of the 'enhanced tow package' really says work all over it)
        The 6.2 is designed for premium, doesn't have cylinder shutoff, not that it matters too much.
        But if you are a well off ethanol junkie, the 6.2 on E85 might be something.

        15/20 for a 5.3, 6L80, 4x4 & 16/21 for 4x2 seems right.
        and more importantly, not slow anymore. (finishing the 1/4 mile still in 2nd gear)
        • 7 Years Ago
        If GM offers the 3.08 axle in 5.3 4x2 (like in the Tahoe/Suburban), then 16/22 is do-able.
      • 7 Years Ago
      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
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Unbelievable! I dont understand why everyone here resorts to talking about what they did almost thirty years ago with a truck and think that it is the way to go now. Market changes have been dictated by customer demand. Trucks are heavier due to government intervention dealing with safety issues, they ride smoother and tow and haul much greater amounts than they ever have in the past. In fact all 1/2 ton trucks tow more than 3/4 ton trucks did just ten years ago! Why? Because we as consumer demand it. Boats and trailers are larger and heavier than ever before. People are driving further to get to their vacation destinations. You wouldnt dream of doing the things we do now with 1980's or even 90's technology. The people who think we should neuter trucks to fit their lifestyle are the people who shouldnt be buying a truck as their daily driver in the first place. Trucks are trucks and should be, not a watered down version. Another reason to not buy a truck is if you can't affford to put in an extra $25 per fill up compared to your daily driver.

        Trucks are more capable than they ever have been due to increases in options and needs of the consumer. Would anyone here be happy with a car that rides, handles, sounds like a mid 80's car? If you say yes you are full of it.

        • 7 Years Ago
        In 1980, I bought my first pick-up, a used Dodge w/a 318 ci V8, I must have looked at 50 trucks before buying the Dodge and fully half of them had six cylinders, including several 3/4 ton models. If you drove a pick up you didn't expect it to be as fast as a Mustang nor cruise at 80 MPH when towing a 6000# trailer. I expect we're returning to an earlier mindset.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Dangit! Double posting and I meant The T100 and F150's of yesteryear are now dwarfed by the monsterous Tacoma. Oi. Sorry late night post ranting
        • 7 Years Ago
        Those 80s trucks weighed 1200-1500 pounds less than current trucks, because they weren't built to crash into brick walls.

        They did fine with less than 200 peak HP because they had no VVT or EFI or computer airflow modelling or any of other wizardry.

        20 years ago a 170 hp engine would have 250+ ft-lbs at 2000 rpm... and wheeze and die by 3000.

        Today a a 170 hp engine is a four with a 4500 rpm torque peak, a 6K HP peak, and maybe 125 ft-lbs at 2000rpm.

        Build an engine today with the same 250 ft-lbs of useable power and the top end number that goes on the brochure is is going to be near 300 hp.

        Sticking a 200ish HP old school V6 in a heavy modern truck - with no turbo lag and a better torque curve - is pretty miserable with any kind of load.
      • 7 Years Ago
      If Ford goes through with the F-100, they need to aggressively market the vehicle and position it versus the Tacoma/Frontier/Colorado crowd. If all they make the truck to be is a more fuel-efficient F-150, they're only going to take away from F-150 sales, and not pull customers away from the Tacoma.

      I know changes have to come on the Ranger, but it's in a position in the market (compact truck) that nobody is in right now. It's outselling the Colorado and Frontier right now, and if it turns into just another bloated mid-size like the Tacoma, they won't move too many.
      • 7 Years Ago
      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...
        • 7 Years Ago
        Dan, CAFE is equalized for fuel energy content. The Ethanol folks made sure of that.
        • 7 Years Ago
        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
        • 7 Years Ago
        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.

        • 7 Years Ago
        "Good fuel economy in a truck? Lots of torque from a relatively small displacement. Whatever could they use?
        Hmmm, what a conundrum! "



        • 7 Years Ago
        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.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Ford is getting very desperate to offer this ridiculous combination. I suppose GM will now be forced to offer a full size pickup with a modified version of their 260 hp ECOTEC 2.0 turbo.
    • Load More Comments