backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 123 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Jul 16 at 10:53 PM


Ford's upcoming 2009 F-150 is delayed slightly due to slowing demand for gas-guzzling pickups.
Ford looks to smaller displacement engine with turbochargers to boost fuel economy in its full-size truck

When people think of the Ford F-150 full-size pickup, most think of a hulking, crew cab, 4x4 cruising down the street with a Triton V8 under the hood. At the very least, you'd expect to see a base model version with Ford's venerable 4.2 liter V6 providing the motivating force for the vehicle.

With gas prices putting many Americans near the breaking point -- and sending sales of full-size trucks and SUVs downward -- Ford is looking to downsize its powertrain offerings for the F-150. According to Ford Product Chief Derrick Kuzak, the F-150 may be offered with an EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. The turbocharged four-banger would provide in excess of 260 HP and 300 lb-ft of torque. For comparison, the current base V6 provides 202 HP and 260 lb-ft of torque, while the smallest V8 offering is rated at 248 HP and 294 lb-ft of torque.

Dan Kapp, Ford's Powertrain Research and Advanced Engineering Director, went on to praise EcoBoost turbocharging and stated, "In probably the most extreme cases, we’re going to be downsizing on the order of 40, 50 percent. That would take, for example, a three-liter V6 down to a two-liter four-cylinder engine. A 2.5-liter four-cylinder could be something on the order of 1.5-liters."

With these factors, an EcoBoost six-cylinder engine can produce like an eight-cylinder and a four-cylinder engine like a six."

The EcoBoost 4-cylinder engine for the F-150 would only be available on a select few trim levels. According to PickupTruck.com, the engine will likely only be made available on the regular cab 4x2 and 4x4 models. The introduction of the EcoBoost four-cylinder engine will also help to boost Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).

While the four-cylinder EcoBoost variant may boost economy on the low end, Ford is also preparing a 3.5 liter V6 EcoBoost engine for the F-150 in 2010. The engine eclipses the current range-topping V8 in the F-150 with 350 HP and 390 lb-ft of torque -- this compares with 300 HP and 365 lb-ft of torque for the current 5.4 liter V8 engine.

The EcoBoost V6 will also manage to better the V8 in fuel economywhen paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission. Fuel economy is said to rise from 14 MPG /19 MPG (city/highway) to at least 16 MPG / 22 MPG.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:38:26 AM , Rating: 3
My girl just got a 2007 Mazda CX-7, a CUV based on the same relative idea, a turbo four banger to grab bigger economy out of SUVs/trucks. Its got 244 HP and 258 ft/lbs of torque, and the damn thing flies off the line while getting a rated 19/25. Not bad for a 5000 lb. truck and a four cyl!




RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 7:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
That thing weighs 5000 lbs?!?!?!


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, 4780 w/ 2wd, as we have it. 4997 w/ AWD.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
Eeep, my bad, I was using gross weight. Curb weight is 3780 lbs 2wd, 3996 AWD. Major fail typo!


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 8:15:25 AM , Rating: 1
Oh ok. I was about to say. Mazda doesn't have any real truck frames to build that thing off of so I was wondering how a car platform based vehicle could weigh so damn much.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By jonodsparks on 7/14/2008 9:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just about everything Ford, Mazda, and Volvo produce (including SUV/CUV) are all based on either the Mazda3 or the Mazda6 frame. Ford had the bright idea a few years back to make use of all these brands they carry to share some of the design load. Mazda designed the frames and performance features (Zoom-zoom baby!), Volvo did all of the safety features (safest car on the road after all) and Ford provided the manufacturing infrastructure. Seems to be working out really well for them. They have some very successful vehicles, but as a proud 08 Edge Limited owner, I'm biased.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Stacey Melissa on 7/14/2008 1:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
My Mazda3 was made in Japan, so I rather doubt it's coming of the same line as the Focus and the S40, although I have heard it shares the same platform as those other cars.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By teldar on 7/14/2008 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's the european focus the 3 shares the platform with.

And the CX-7 is its OWN platform. It's a chimera of several different things. It's something that's dying in today's automotive world. A platform that ONE vehicle is built upon.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By afkrotch on 7/14/2008 10:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
You mean more like 1/2 the parts are made in Japan and then it's assembled elsewhere. It's not like every Japanese car is being shipped around the world in containers on ships.

Your Mazda3 may have come out the same factory as a Focus or S40. They may even share one section of a production line.

There's no such thing as "Made In XXX location" anymore.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Cygni on 7/15/2008 2:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, buddy, you probably need to look a little more into the car industry before you make statements like that.

The Mazda 3 rolls off final assembly in Hofu, Japan. Its shipped over seas, just like millions of other cars a year, in huge car carrier ships known as RORO's... roll on/roll off. Many Japanese cars are yes, still made in Japan, including the Mazda 3. Just as many European cars are still produced in Europe.

Does this mean that the Mazda 3 shares no commonality with Fords other platforms and parts assemblies? Of course not. They can saves huge amounts of money by tapping into proven products and designs in Fords catalog, and vice versa.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By rett448 on 7/15/2008 7:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
The C1 platform is shared by many Volva, Mazda and Ford cars including the mazda 3 and Volvo S40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_C1_platform

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_car...


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Cobra Commander on 7/14/2008 12:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Porsche's Cayenne exceeds 5000lbs. to my knowledge and they have no truck frames.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Damn they must've crammed it full of crap.

Chevy's SSR weighed around 5000 pounds but it was built off a truck frame.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Hare on 7/14/2008 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
Porche Cayanne Turbo 2007 is 5192 pounds (4.8L engine, 368KW and 700nm torque ~516lb-ft).

Btw. The Cayanne uses the same base as VW Touareg. Audi Q7 also uses the same frame with some modifications. The Audi weights 4900pounds (with moderate engine) and the VW weighs about the same.

Of course they don't use a truck frame. These are "agile" 4x4 cars that handle well.

Btw. The V12 TDI Audi Q7 outputs 500hp and 1000nm of torque ~


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By theapparition on 7/14/2008 8:46:10 AM , Rating: 4
OK,
I'm going to bring up the dreaded "V8" word again, mainly because I'm so familiar with them.

You state it gets 19/25. Which is not too bad for a crossover (relatively speaking). However, if you look at a vehicle like the Pontiac GTO, that also has a 3800lbs curb weight, and gets 17/26. All with 400hp on tap! Where is the supposed benifit of the "turbo" engine? Even the example in the article goes to show that mpg improvements went from 14 to 16mpg. To meet CAFE, more signifigant changes will be necessary, primarilly with weight reduction.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 9:25:38 AM , Rating: 4
I'm no car aerodynamic expert, but I would immediately assume the benefit is that the CX-7 likely isn't as air shape efficient as the GTO. Sports cars usually are a bit more efficient (there's a better word for this, I cant remember) than than trucks/SUV's, but I could be wrong. I do realize the CX-7 has a more aerodynamic shape than most SUVs, but I cant imagine it would have the same coefficient as the GTO.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
Drag does not affect gas mileage to that kind of degree.

The reason the GTO gets such good mileage is because of its gear ratios. The T56 6-speed has a .75 5th gear for city cruising and a .5 6th gear for highway cruising. This allows the engine to run below 2000 rpm at 50 mph and 80 mph.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By 16nm on