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.

.

A sedan of sufficient size for what? Winning the arms race for biggest/heaviest vehicle? You can get a fairly recent model Rolls Royce which weighs in at a very safe 6000lbs for less than most Ford Rangers are going for these days, and it should easily wreck any other car on the road in case of a serious accident. ;)

In all seriousness, most people in the US use their primary vehicle for hauling a single person back and forth to work 15-20 miles each way, twice per day, and to carry a few bags of groceries, an occasional trip with 3-4 people to the local mall or theater, and a very occasional trip to visit relatives to eat turkey or exchange colorfully wrapped boxes. It's a minority of people who need anything more than the space to carry home that new grill, above ground pool or 60" TV they buy at Lowes/Walmart once per year. If truck/SUV ownership reflected truck/SUV need, it would likely be <10%.

As an anecdote, my neighbor was asking about my Insight. I've gutted the back so it has around (what I'd estimate) 40 cubic feet of cargo space. He commented that while the reliability and fuel economy sound nice, it probably wouldn't work for him because it wouldn't be able to hold all of his dirty laundry he drives around with every day. :rolleyes:

GM's V8s since the late '90s have all been based on the same LS architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_bas...l-block_engine

Literal dirty laundry? That must smell nice after a hot day.

Carmakers don't do what is best for anyone else. They do not make the best cars for the environment, people's finances, or to minimize road congestion. Manufacturers and dealership only want to make as much money as possible. Do they attempt to accomplish this by selling $13,000 lunchboxes with manual transmissions, windows, seats, and an AM radio? No, they hardly stock their cheapest cars. You tell yourself that you want one and you are going to save money, gas, and space. Shucks! They are all out! Well, the next-smallest is only a couple thousand more, is only a little bigger, and gets almost the same fuel economy!

Then the salesman convinces you that you need the luxury package and perhaps upgrade to an even larger vehicle, which is only a little more expensive, and a little less fuel efficient.

If the dealership does have the $13,000 car in stock, hardly anyone will want it, it is not designed to attract buyers, but they can say they offered a small, inexpensive, and fuel-efficient car, but nobody wanted it.

Yes, in the United States people generally want larger things than people in other countries. People here are taller than in many countries, so to a point it is reasonable. I always figured that people in Afghanistan were small and short was because they could not afford enough food. They also drove thirty year-old Corollas because it was all they could afford.

People in the U.S. have Affluenza, or just more available credit than sense. Purchase a vehicle they can afford with cash? [Excuses] They purchase the most expensive thing they can finance.

Then they will trade it in before it is paid off.

A while ago we compared a Camry and some Toyota SUV. I forget which. The two vehicles were comparable in every way, except you can wear your giant sombrero for Cinco de Mayo.

Sold!

Why doesn't the Camry get significantly better fuel economy than the SUV? The only math that adds up is that they have a larger profit margin in the larger vehicle and are successfully convincing customers to go that way.

Why does your neighbor transport hundreds of pounds of dirty laundry every day? Is this freshly dirty laundry or the same stuff forever?

I do not have hundreds of pounds of clothing...

Well, the Corvette has something like a 6.2L V8 and it is rated for 28 MPG highway. Aerodynamics has more to do with efficiency than engine size or vehicle weight.

Which Corvette is that? I looked at the Z06 Coupe with 1/2/3LZ and each of them was rated 15/22.

My bad, I read it from Wiki. Likely not rated for that, but able to achieve. Model C5

"The new engine, combined with the new body and its low 0.29 drag coefficient, was able to achieve up to 28 mpg on the highway."

Except for heavy-duty Diesels, it seems like this trend has not changed much. Toyota might be the only one effectively challenging this sort of "tradition" with the TR engine series which only car application was the JDM Toyota Comfort.

You really should try to read.

I understand, people want bigger vehicles, except when they can't finance a vehicle the size they want or fuel economy is too low.

I probably shouldn't try to second-guess what people want. It's a free country.

EDIT: My apologies, I think I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post.

Doesn't make you wrong.

I believe slowmover's point would be that from 4000lb up there's no additional benefit. The sweet spot, as they say.