4-cyl engines for full-size trucks?
 

Some of you may already know that Ford is selling full-size trucks with a 4-cyl turbodiesel in Brazil and Argentina...
http://engineeringworkarounds.blogsp...th-engine.html

...but would it be a reasonable option for the American customer?
workaround ideas to discuss among friends: 4-cylinder turbodiesel engines into trucks: suitable to America?

Considering the lower purchase cost in opposition to a V8, a 4-cyl turbodiesel might be an attractive option for commercial operators who want a Diesel but are not willing to pay a sky-high premium for that.

Do the real world results stack up to the hype though?

In my experience with just 875cc in my Fiat, it does not.

Studies like this back that up:

ACFO

When Toyota entered the full-sized pickup market in Uhmerica they had one available engine: a six. They were failing to knock a decent chunk of market share away from the domestics so then they came along with another engine option: a four. Just about the entirety of Uhmerica went
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...lflaughing.gif

I don't know if even fleet managers went for that.

Someday... absolutely. But not any time soon.

The ACFO study is interesting in that it seems to back up the notion that huge engines pretty much ignore the environmental variances that vex those of us with small engines. For example, the F250 with 460/5mt that delivered 13 mpg whether it was loaded, unloaded, into the wind or with it, slow or fast, hot or cold. NOTHING seemed to matter; 13 was simply what we'd always get.

P.S. A good part of that is simply percentages as in, +-5% is virtually unnoticeable at 13 mpg (12.35-13.65) but quite noticeable at 40 (38-42).

Come to think of it, there is much in the ACFO test protocol that confuses me. Were there many test subjects with very few data points per subject or few test subjects with many data points? Were things like filling errors and environmental variables like changing seasons considered? Due to the behavior of percentages as I noted above, the smaller-engined, higher mpg vehicles simply are going to experience greater fe variances no matter how tightly the testing is controlled.

It isn't clear to me if ACFO is saying the worst drivers got 36% less than rated or if the spread including everyone was +-18%.

Not that they would, but Gm would be positioned decent to do it too. The international version of the 2.8 turbo diesel going into the new colorados is rated for 180hp, 325ft-lb. the '13 and earlier full size truck's gas v6 4.3L, was rated for 195hp, 260ft-lb. if we were paying $5/gal instead of $2/gal i could of seen it happening.

The study was done in metric units (NEDC).

It you use 20l/100km, +5% becomes 21.

If you use 10l/100km it becomes 10.5.

It doesn't skew numbers like the stupid MPG measure does.

Here's the better link I was looking for:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...ope-especially

and another:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...aims/index.htm

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the T100 yet. A co-worker of mine had one in 4-cyl/5MT guise and raved about it, despite being a dyed-in-the-wool, old-fashioned GM guy.

Ford now has a 4-banger EcoBoost F150.

I did.

Smallest '15 F150 Ecoboost engine is a 2.7 V6.

http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/

What engine is this? In the US?

....stupid page... yea! What frank said

The Greencar link offered more in the way of explanation. I have an inherent bias against Consumer Reports though; I've had too many personal experiences that completely clash with their conclusions for me to take them seriously and trust their objectivity.