Do any trucks\SUVs share engines with sedans?
 

As far as I can tell, a base Super Crew F150 costs 50% more than a Ford Fusion sedan, but only uses 13% more gas, while weighing 30% more, displacing 42% more air, and definitely having worse aerodynamics. I have claimed before that car manufacturers try harder with SUVs (and trucks). I just wonder what MPG a sedan with a 3.6L engine would have, compared with a truck with the same 3.6L engine.

Do you guys have any relevant information?

Or cat pictures. It is a slow day.

I asked Google and did not see anything relevant.

For my cars I can pull up Wikipedia pages with all kinds of information, but when I put in Ford Fusion I only received confirmation that the car existed.

VW Types I and II. Same engine different gearing. It's all been downhill since.

There is a lot of examples, such as older Chevy 122 engines and the present-day Ecotec, and even the small-block V8 if we consider some versions of the Silverado 1500 and the Camaro and Corvette, despite eventual differences in the tuning for each application.

Lots of vehicles share engines. The more a mfg can use the same engine in multiple vehicles the lower the unit cost per engine.

GM has used the 2.5 4cyl in the malibu, Colorado, cadillac ats, acadia.
Same with their v6, goes in almost everything they make.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job showing the different vehicles who use the same engine.

Look who is silly! I needed to click past the disambiguation page!

Their Duratec 3.5 is in the 2018 Taurus and F-150. The only 3.5l that I could find on Edmunds was with a turbo and in the Raptor Super Crew model, but the Taurus is also available with a 3.5 turbo.

Taurus	F-150	Difference
365 hp	450 hp	23.29%
350 ft-lbs	510 ft-lbs	45.71%
AWD	4WD
16/24(19) MPG	15/18(16) MPG	18.75%
4,343 lbs	5,525 lbs	27.22%
76.2" x 60.7"	86.3" x 78.5"	46.47%

I wonder how similar the engines are, or is that pretty much all turbo? It performs like the sedan's engines unless you push it extra hard? Then again, it also has a ten-speed transmission, while the Taurus has six.

Irregardless, the F-150 weighs 27.2% more, has a 46.5% larger frontal area, and "only" uses 18.8% more fuel. The Taurus has a 31.7% smaller frontal area, so our rule of thumb indicates it should be 15.9% more fuel efficient. The Taurus is 21.4% lighter, so it should be 10.7% more fuel efficient from weight alone.

I cannot imagine the truck is more aerodynamic than the sedan. That just seems impossible.

I will bring attention to this long-dead thread again: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...aces-6412.html

I never see tables, but MetroMPG enabled them ten years ago. They are not easy to do--unless you cheat. I used https://www.teamopolis.com/tools/bbc...generator.aspx. I may have shared a different one before. It gives you a nice table with easy to read (and modify) code, but as Metro and Cfg83 explained that if you format your code nicely (with line breaks) you end up with blank lines before the table. If you do not want the unnecessary lines, you cannot have the nice formatting.

My 2018 Toyota tacoma shares a very similar v6 Atkinson engine to the Lexus and some other toyota cars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine

It's never exactly apples to apples since they tweak each one to that particular application.

My Toyota pickup I drove from 1985 until 1992 had the same engine as the Celica.

Honda has traditionally used the same engines in nearly all of their vehicles. The V6 in the Accord, Odyssey, Ridgeline and Pilot are all the same block, with slight variations such as intake/exhaust, maybe different cams. The 2.4L 4 cylinder block I'm fitting in my Insight (K24) was used in the Accord, Element, Civic Si, CR-V, some overseas models of Odyssey, and a ton of Acuras. Horsepower varied from 153hp to 205hp based on what was bolted on to it.

Until some recent point in time, the engine lineup for pickups was a shorter version of those for cars.

Pickups had shorter rear gears, and the engines used were tuned for high vacuum (short duration camshafts); the same as the entry-level versions in cars.

As to mpg, most engine time is spent in metro areas.

A pickup is not a highway vehicle due to design shortcomings: live axles, high center of gravity, terribly forward weight biased. If it weren’t for electronic bandaids (beginning with antilock brakes) few would be stupid enough to use them as such.

But they are the sedan replacement. Interior room, mainly.

After 1985 American cars aren’t the size most would prefer. The Caprice and Crown Vic soldiered on awhile, but advertising pushed buyers other directions. First the minivan, and ten years later, the SUV.

What’s the average annual number of miles for Americans? The median? And the most popular vehicles with combined EPA average under 20-mpg? Those are the inflection points. Size won’t be given up until fuel pricing forces it. They’ll keep an older one longer, cut out some lengthy annual driving trips, and forestall other capital expenditures first.

I’d argue it makes sense when the vehicle in question makes sense. A sedan of sufficient size (Charger/300). They at least are amenable to FE concious Driving. A pickup is only such when bed fully loaded (fulfilling its purpose).

Specifying the vehicle to the job puts MPG barely into the top five. It’s the type, then reliability and longevity. Brand differences are where MPG pops up. After drivetrain.

.