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 considering four-cylinder EcoBoost for F150 - Autoblog

 

Pretty good numbers from a small engine.

 

Oops, posted this same thread in another forum here a little while ago.

Now this is interesting, but a little dissappointed with the mpgs. Only 16/22. I thought the EB motors were supposed to provide the power of a larger displacement motor with the mpgs of a smaller displacement motor? Now the power is right where we like it, just need to know where that power comes to play in the rpms.

 

I agree. I want to know when this power is supposed to hit. At 9 million RPM, or a decent range? More like 1,600 / 4,200?
I say get rid of these pathetic motors. Bring in some heavy hitters and make them sip gasoline. I want big power with awesome gas mileage. Too much to ask for? I somehow doubt this.
We can send a man to the moon but can't design a motor to hit 350 HP / 450 Ft lbs and still get 26 MPG? Bull. I'm over exaggerating, but not by much. The point I'm trying to make is this; There is no excuse to give the public underpowered motors that still drink gasoline like it's free. I'm tired of hearing about Ford Rangers only getting 21 MPG highway - if babied. A 4.0L V6 should be getting much better mileage than that.

Oh, and one more thing. Make them affordable.

 

Sounds like a flop mpg wise. I also highly doubt the little 4 turboed or not will put out any torque below 5000rpm. Just because you stick a small engine in a truck doesn't mean it will get good mpgs.

 

As much as these trucks weigh I wouldnt figure it would even get that mpg. I bet that truck will be slow as hell...

 

Sounds like another 300 I-6 (all due respect, and I love mine).

I say screw the small engines. I find it very hand to believe Ford can't make a good solid baseline motor that gets 28MPG+ with good HP and torque numbers in the lower RPM range.

 

Sure, you can get 26 MPG out of a truck , just cut the size hugely, make the frame out of plastic, and then it will be light enough to get that kind of mileage.

Just the whole design of a truck goes against economy. Very long, wide and tall, and weighs 5000+ lbs to support the loads people will be using them. Its like pushing a wall made of lead down the highway. You could put the smallest engine you can find, and it would still get terrible mileage

 

What I'm saying is this; Make it happen. I understand what you're saying and I agree with the last part about small engines. I just find it hard to believe Ford cannot do any better than they have since the early 90's late 80's. I just really believe Ford can make much more fuel efficient trucks without sacrificing power. There is no need to sell the public underpowered bricks. And don't make them so expensive Joe Blow with a decent job can't afford one.

I guess I'm just frustrated. All these automotive companies are just ripping everybody off in a hundred different ways. New body styles doesn't mean better internals; what really matters. I've been wanting to buy a Ford Ranger for quite a while, but what stops me (besides the down payment at the moment, heh) is the mileage they get. My truck can hall and tow as much as a Ranger and I have plenty of room in the cab for the same gas mileage as I hear many of you get with the 4.0's and even the 3.0's. Now something there just isn't right.

Okay, rant over.

Edit:

What is with Cummins owners claiming 21 MPG highway? Is this true? Why does a Cummins get 21 hwy with a 8,000 lb truck and my 300 only gets about 16.5 hwy moving a 4,000 lb truck? This is what I'm saying. "Make it happen"!

 

The first Powerstrokes delivered 23mpg hwy (not towing) in an early '90's F-250 extended cab 4x2 with an E4OD transmission. So, its not too much to ask, with over a decade of technology development, that they should not only equal that, but do better.

Jim

 

Why can the older cummins get up to 21 mpg? because its a diesel. Diesel fuel has more energy per a given amount of fuel, and diesel engines are much more efficient then gasoline engines, its also not 8000 lbs, try more like 6200 lbs. 21 Highway is also very rare, you could expect 18-19 most of the time, and the new cummins are lucky to break 15 highway.

The reason the ranger gets terrible mileage is because its a truck, by nature they are not aerodynamic, and the 4.0 isn't exactly a very efficient engine either, with its design tracing back to a 60s V4 engine. If you want to get better mileage, get the 4 cylinder.

Gasoline engine technology has pretty much hit its peak in terms of efficiency,

 

Exactly! This is what I'm saying.

Yes the Ranger is a truck, but aren't they much more aerodynamic now? They are supposed to be light, also.How much does an ex-cab 2wd Ranger weigh, I wonder?
That explains a lot. I forgot about the diesel aspect. What you said about getting the 4 cylinder is just my point; I shouldn't have to. When I said 8,000 Lbs, I was referring to the quad cab Rams. I was told they weighed 8,000lbs. I thought that sounded a bit much, heh.

 

Not really rare. May bee its rare for a powerstroke to see 21 mpg. My uncles Cummins regularly sees north of 23 MPG highway hand calculated numerous times. I heare lots of peopl getting good milage out of their Cummins.

 

What ya'll are forgetting is the emissions controls.

Ever-tightening emissions regulations are forcing some rather bizarre compromises in terms of fuel efficiency and engine design. Keep in mind that the EPA's design requirements are such that a vehicle MUST still meet emissions requirements after 100K miles with NO maintenance whatsoever. Between the use of a fuel-hungry NOx catalyst, and idiotic design requirements, it's a wonder we still see double-digit fuel economy numbers at all.

When I was an active contributor on FullSizeChevy.com, there were frequent reports of 50% mileage increases on the 6.0 gas motor when an aftermarket custom tune was utilized that made better compromises in the Power/Economy/Emissions triangle.

The Feds mandate that Emissions be the primary design constraint. Coming in a distant tie for second and third is power, by market HP wars, and economy, by weak and flexible mandate. Juggle those design constraints around a little, (and still pass emissions, but not by quite so large a margin), and you can generate some better numbers.

Another factor is the rather idiotic fuel blend requirements; you have some 100 or so individual blends used in various parts of the country, all of which contribute to worse fuel economy in the pursuit of questionable emissions goals. We're starting to see this in diesel as well.

All thanks to the EPA.

-blaine