1st for a third time.

They could just make the f-150 smaller, that would help too.

It's about time. Most of the F-150's sold only end up towing small boats or trailers full of landscaping equipment, so I'm sure that turbo 4 could handle it.

Eh...gotta wait till 2013 until it's out?

yea, to little to late.

if that was available now the f150 would be a rock star in the sale department.

hell a ranger with 180 hp and 230 lbs of torque from a 2.2 L diesel would be a rock star

to != too

2013, WTF? They will be bankrupt by then.

A 4-cylinder F-150 is silly, but a debut date of 2013 is just plain moronic.

A turbo 4 cylinder would be a viable option for an entry level work truck. However, Ford will also need to be resourceful in lowering the weight of the current F150. Or better yet, proceed with either continuing/upgrading the Ranger (past 2011) or build a 7/8 version of the F150.

IMHO, forget about that! A 4 cyl powerstroke turbo diesel is more likely to take place under the f-150 hood's than anything else.

A turbo 4 makes no sense in a truck. Definitely a diesel makes more sense. You could put in a turbo diesel V6 with cylinder management. Should give decent fuel economy with plenty of low end torque, large towing capacity, etc.

The turbo 4 will spell the death of the F150. I'll be dancing on Ford's grave come 2013.

....................................................................2013

Why is there such a large jump in size from the Ranger to the F-150?? They should downsize the F-150 to realistic standards. You can't even put a toolbox in the bed of it because it is so high off the ground. If you need a bigger truck, that's why they make the F-250, F-350, etc etc....

Hard to justify making the F150 as big as it is just "cause I might wanna tow stuff". 95% of the F150s I see on the road every day are hauling air, and I really doubt that many of the owners have a 10,000lb boat in their garage.

I agree with Spatch...it makes no sense to have a pickup truck that is so high off the ground you can't lift anything out of the bed. Downsize the F150 to a reasonable weight and size, keep the Ranger, but update the design. Leave the bubba-boat towing task to the F250.

2013 is a joke. The big 3 are the most technology-adverse car companies on the planet.

Wow.... you guys are missing alot of info.

The F100 is scheduled to arrive in 2012. Ford expects the F100 to be its most popular truck. Its supposed to be a 9/10th scaled down version of the F150 that wieghts less.

Ecoboost 2.5 turbo and the Ecoboost 3.5 turbo. They are expecting the 3.5 turbo to make 23MPG with 340HP and 350lbs of torque in 2012.

I am not so sure of these new power numbers, every dyno sheet I have seen of the ecoboost engines has the HP/torque numbers very close to each other. aka 300/300 or 350/350

@ WS:

[rant]
I really hate hearing this total BS argument all the time "all the SUV/etc. that I see are not hauling XXX ever, bla bla bla". My parents own a ranch and drive their truck hauling "significant" things probably a small percentage of the time by your standards, but you would not see them hauling things around because it is usually to the local stores, when they are driving back and forth between their home and ranch, it is usually empty. It is really not up to you to dictate the "needs" of others, people are perfectly capable of making those decisions on their own merits, ability to pay, needs for hauling xxx lbs/kg on a regular basis, need for YYY size bed, etc. Gas prices are still not the only metric that people use in buying their vehicles, get over yourselves... You see what you want to see, don't pretend that you have some major insight into people's "needs" just because you see them driving down the road for a stretch of a mile or two.
[/rant]

Hangman and Cobaltssman

Are you two on crack?
First
Hangman. Why does a turbo 4 make no sense in a truck. The point about the Eco boost is that they are dual turbo engines with loads of low end torque as well as high end power. The only thing that doesn't make sense is that Ford can't make any of them until 2013. They're going to kill themselves with their slow turnover.

cobaltssman
Again, I don't see how a turbo 4 which puts out as much power and torque as a V8 with better mileage will be the death of a manufacturer. If anything, I would expect that to be GM before Ford at this point. Ford's actually gone to making money most recently.

T

Show me a non diesel turbo 4 making the same torque that a v8 can. Last I checked, you can get over 400 ft/lbs out of a v8 easy. More is very possible depending on the size. Highest for a turbo 4 that I know of is an Evo, making 300 at 4400 rpm? Torque curve shows it coming in around 3k? Hardly a truck engine. I am sure there is a turbo 4 that makes more, but the curve must be awful and/or it doesn't run on pump gas. The STi makes less at 290 ft/lbs, but the curve is a little flatter.

And that's right, the Evo and STi mileage is horrible, worse then my GTO or Firehawk, both of which make more horse power and torque. And if that wasn't enough the GTO weighs 600 lbs more then the Evo X and STi. So you want to put something like that into an even heavier (1000+ lbs) truck?

Hey Chris,

As soon as you stop buying my gas with your 10mpg monster, I'll stop making judgements on your needs.

When is the hybrid version coming out ?

The only F-150s I ever see have beautiful, carefully maintained virginal rear beds; that's after I get on a ladder to inspect them at the local supermarket.

I LOVE WHINING !

Why hasn't any auto maker tried a turbo-hybrid-diesel? I remember reading where Honda has the technology to make a 55+ mpg diesel Accord available in the next few years. Is such a technology even feasible?

@mikey

A diesel hybrid would likely be too expensive to make any sales. Diesels are already quite a bit more expensive than gas engines, add in the also expensive hybrid setup and the price difference is just going to be too much to recoup over the life of the vehicle. I also don't think that people are willing to pay $30k instead of $20k for an Accord/Camry/whatever that has the same power.

As for the F-150 getting a turbo 4 with 260/300 HP/TQ, that is more than enough for a base model F-150 and I'm pretty sure that because its using 2 smaller turbos that both the torque peak RPM and turbo lag are lower.

Is it just me or does it seem like the F-150 is no longer a work truck, but just a show truck for macho mid-late 20s males that need a penis extension to feel tough? It could be because you don't see that many work trucks in the city where I live (though most seem to be chevys and some dodges), but most F-150s I see have immaculate paint and are special editions with fancy interiors, gigantic engines and are sporting aftermarket tail lights. Maybe the F-150 is the ricer for rednecks?

Maybe the F-150 is the ricer for rednecks?

couldnt have said it any better myself.

@avatar
look at rally cars they routinly make 500+ of torque at 3k rpms its more about a well designed intake then the fact its a 4 pop.
@gm0n3y
I see lots of non work trucks driving around but most work trucks ive seen have been the f150 the cabin in relativly roomy and it makes a decent amound of power as well as it can be purchased on fleet for very cheap. Just because you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Get out of suburbia and youll see what the real world looks like.
I agree with chris you may not be using that truck to haul or w.e all the time but the times you need to move a tree or haul a boat are what count. All of you complaining about trucks have never tried to haul boat or move furnature in a small car when going up a hill requires 1st gear at 25 mph thats not going to work.

@cobaltssman

can i have this dance?

@gm0n3y

it all depends on how much gas will cost down the line id pay 10K more if there was a clear break even point in the cost.

@unknown,

Fair enough, I live in a major city and often visit the inner 'burbs so I don't get to see what type of trucks people that actually need them drive. That being said, 80% or so of people live in urban (and suburban) areas so the trends seen there are MORE valid than those in the boonies where people buy trucks for workin'. Also, I'm not sure how fleet sales works into this at all, almost all work trucks I see are either owner operated or a small business with no more than 3-4 of them.

How long do rally car engines last? And still making the torque at 3k? Truck engines need torque instantly, not 2500 rpm above idle. Also, I am pretty sure rally cars run on racing fuel, not pump gas. I am also sure that there mileage is even worse do to the higher levels of boost used. There are the reasons why rally car engines aren't in their production look-a-likes.

Where is the production car that is a 4 cylinder turbo non diesel that makes more torque at the same rpm as a v8 and gets the same or better gas mileage? I am still waiting. By 2013, GM most likely will have there v8s up to 23 mpg in their trucks. Gen V small-block anyone?

And I also still stand by displacement over boost. Boost stresses the engine more, and that is a fact. You can build them to withstand it, but you are paying for that. I highly doubt a non diesel turbo 4 truck will last a million miles, let alone 200-300k. And I offer more proof about boost vs displacement fuel efficiency. The ZR-1 mileage numbers are out now, 14/20. I believe I said that if GM had room to fit a large 8.4L engine like the Viper's under the hood, it would be more fuel efficient. Guess what, the Viper gets 13/22 and weighs 100 lbs more. GM is also better at larger displacement gas mileage then Dodge. It makes a little less power granted, but still doesn't change the fact that the ZR-1 would have been more fuel efficient with a non-boosted small block then a boosted one, just wouldn't fit in the Vette.

Here are some numbers for you. LNF weighs around 307 pounds, without the turbo, piping, and inter cooler. Add that stuff, add another 50 lbs or so. Makes 260 lb-ft at 2500 rpm. Curve is flat too, one problem. It makes about 120 ft/lbs of torque at 1000 rpm. Less then 50% at 1000 rpm, around 46%.

L92 weighs 402 lbs. Makes 417 lb-ft at 4300 rpm. At 1000 rpm, makes around 300 lb-ft, more then the LNF does at peak, or 72% or total roughly.

Now if a 6.2L all aluminum engine weighs 402 lbs, then a 4.3L all iron LU3 probably weighs around the same or less. Peak torque, 260 lb-ft at 2800 rpm. Curve isn't as flat as the LNF, but it makes about 210 or so lb-ft at 1000 rpm, or about 80% of peak.

So you are going to spin your wheels for a while when hauling or towing for a less then 50 lb weight savings that most likely won't help your mileage at all because you now need to rev higher to move and keep moving do to the weight of trucks to begin with.

The F-150 really needs to be re-positioned in the market, as do all big so called "half ton" trucks. An F-150 can tow 10000 pounds. There was a time when the F-250 wasn't "rated" to tow that much.

Fact is most Bass Boats and such weigh 3000lbs or so. A 2008 Toyota Tacoma can haul 3500lbs with the Double Cab 4x4 V6. Thats not even with the towing package or the model with the best towing.

I'm considering just buying a single cab shortbed truck, something cheap, just to do my towing and hauling. Used probably. I don't have a truck now but you know what? A $10,000 piece of crap that doesn't come out of the shed, sits in the garage or is parked at a friend/neighbor/relations house and a $20,000 Malibu or Camry is still cheaper than a $32,000 F-150, especially when you consider the financing. Of course right now with 0% for 72 months the F-150 does have the better financing than what I'd get for new cars in terms of its rates, but on all other costs, the F-150 still isn't an attractive buy.

I will make this note about Ford though: I did a search of all cars on cars.com (insert gripe about the site here) for the vehicle with the most towing capacity between 2007 and 2009 with gas mileage above 21 mpg. The 2007 F-150 STX had more than 3500 lbs (but not higher than 4000 lbs) of towing capacity (in a light search) with a regular cab, 4x2, and the smallest engine. No other vehicle hit that mark according to cars.com.

Even the Tacoma didn't make that list. Wonder how comprehensive their searches are...

Scratch that, I was searching payload capacity (doh!) not towing capacity. Some wunderkind I am....

http://www.ford.co.za/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1132648513031&pagename=Page&c=DFYPage

Problem solved for 90% of ford truck buyers.