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.

I gave up on them when I saw completely different ratings on Pontiac grand am, chevy malibu, and olds alero. Then also to a lesser degree, differences between impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, century, regal, intrigue. It was obvious to me their sample sizes were too small to give a reliable result.

Oh...hmm I thought the 2.7 EB was a four.

Back in the day Toyota, Ford/Mazda Datsun, Nissan, Dodge, Chevy and a few others had 4 cylinders, some diesel. Of course these trucks were a tight fit for the driver if you were over 5'5 in height too. :eek:

Now with the bigger trucks the smaller engine wont cut it if its being used for work vs a passenger vehicle.

Having said that, there nothing like ripping around with a 7 liter 8 cylinder engine. :eek:

The T100 was available with a 4 cyl. It's amazing how much they still try to get for them used. My brother bought one new with a stick. It doesn't really matter to me anymore, used the trailer once in 4 months.

The ecoboost Ford is rated for 2mpg more highway than my 97 Ranger.

You will see "full sized" pickups with 4 cyl engines like the ecoboost. As far as diesels, when you consider the cost penalty of diesel, at least where I live, the mileage needs to be 37.5% greater for the cost per mile to be the same. $2.18 versus $3.00 the last time I bothered to check.

regards
mech

I see the civic si engine is making 209 hp, shame honda couldnt put that in their ridgeline. :turtle:

Makes sense. And comparing it to a V6, there is an advantage due to the lower amount of internal frictions in a 4-cyl layout, increasing the efficiency.


Gearing also plays an important role. Anyway, in many other markets, 4-cyl high-speed turbodiesels up to 3-litre have been widely used in work trucks up to Class 5 due to their lower purchase cost and lower tax incidences when compared to bigger engines. As you may know, in many countries the vehicles are taxed for their engine displacement.

So which is 'bigger', a 3-liter inline 4, or a 3-liter V6? Which would (assuming the same sort of turbo, ignition, &c) make more power/get better fuel economy? But I bet if two identical-output engines, one a 4 and one a V6, were available as options, over 80% of Americans would choose the V6.

The problem with 4 cylinder engines over 2.5 liters is harmoinic oscillations, a rocking motion front to rear caused by the forces created by the first and last cylinders. Balance shafts are used to offset those forces.

The 2.3 ecoboost engine has plenty of power, especially with a dual clutch, 6 or more speed transmission. If you want to tow more than 5k then computer controls could prevent the transmission from using too high a gear.

The vast majority of pickups never see more than 5k towing. Why should they be limited to ancient engine designs that destroy potential mpg, when modern small displacement engine are pulling better than 100 hp per liter on 87 octane pump gas.

regards
mech

I kinda think they did. Also note: every Tacoma you see without an extended cab or 4-door double cab is a 4 cylinder. The fleet Tacos I see are virtually all short cab vehicles.
Not always to the greatest effect. I test drove a bunch of trucks before picking out the one I finally purchased. None of the 2.7L 4-cylinder Tacomas I drove was very pleasant at highway speeds due to NVH from the motor. Good low end grunt though. Sometimes it's true what they say: there is no replacement for displacement.

Ford had a V4 (industrial engine), which SAAB used for awhile. It was made in their Cologne factory and originally used in street-sweeper vehicles.

By "bigger" I meant bigger in displacement, not in external volume. A 350cu.in. (5.7L) Chevy small-block V8 is smaller on the outside than a 4-litre DOHC V8 from Lexus/Toyota. There are many other factors rather than just the cylinders layout that would lead to a higher power or greater fuel-efficiency, but a more favorable R/L ratio might benefit the V6 for power and NVH. In regard to a 3-litre engine, Americans who are used to get a truck for commutting or leisure would get a V6 instead of a straight-4 because they usually see the # of cylinders as a premium feature, while in the 3rd-world the lower purchase cost of a 4-pot is more attractive for commercial operators, and it ends up also becoming cheaper to overhaul.

I don't see any T100s there. :confused:

Taco isn't full-size.

I won't say you're wrong about that, but I have operated vehicles with 4-cylinder engines considerably larger than 2.5 liters. Like for instance the 13.6 liter engine on a D-7 Cat: TractorData.com Caterpillar D7 tractor information (Which brings back not-so-fond memories of hand-cranking the 2-cylinder gas (IIRC) engine that was used to start the diesel.) Or the (horizontally opposed) O-360 (approx 5.9 l) in my Piper.

But my point was that if you had a 4-cylinder that was objectively better in all respects - HP, torque, fuel economy, price - than an optional V6 or V8, a large fraction of buyers would still go for the V-engine, because they've been conditioned by so much marketing crap to non-think that it's better.

Boxer engines are not quite as prone to vibrations, and tractor engines don't need to rev as high or idle as smoothly as automotive engines.

Global pickups have between using four cylinder diesels for quite a while, but as they get bigger, they're switching out to give cylinder and six cylinder designs

Double post

I assume that by "global pickups" you mean the ones we know as mid-size in Brazil but would be deemed compact in America. The only one currently available with a 5-cylinder that I'm aware is the Ranger, and in Australia the Nissan Frontier is available with a V6, but the 4-cyl ones are still the best sellers in a worldwide basis. Anyway, the Nissan Patrol, which is closer in size to an American full-size, had the 6-cyl TD42 replaced by the 4-cyl ZD30 in Australia and other markets with tighter emission regulations.

Yup. Most are sticking with the 2.5 to 3.0 4-cylinder formula, since 4-pots are getting mighty powerful nowadays, but I don't see these things getting anything smaller than the 2.8 to 3.5 range in the USA. Which might mean anything from I5 to V6 for the next generation of pick-ups stateside. Or, if we're talking Ranger or Ram sized, 4.0, at the very least.

Some folks are swapping Kubota and Yanmar stationary and agricultural engines in the 2.2L range into compact pickups such as the Ranger and the S10 in America, so we can guess the Ford's own 2.2L used in the current overseas Ranger wouldn't be so much of a bad choice. Anyway, in some ratings, it even has higher power and torque than the ISF2.8 used in the Brazilian F-350, altough in America I wouldn't expect such engines into an F-350. Maybe the 5-cyl 3.2L shared with the Transit could eventually be a good option for budget-oriented commercial operators... Anyway, since Mitsubishi Fuso already uses the Fiat/Iveco 3.0L 4-cyl turbodiesel into the U.S.-spec Canter, which has a higher GVWR than the F-350/F-450, a similarly-sized engine might not be so unsuitable to many Americans.