Do you think that Ford would consider making a super efficient 4-cylinder F150 pickup with EcoBoost technology


http://www.torquenews.com/106/2015-f...-2015-f150-sfe

 

why not a 2015, single cab, short bed, aluminum body with a base v-6, 3.08 rear gears and a thinner tire in the 215 to 225 width range?

smaller sport mirrors to reduce drag and a space saver spare to reduce more weight.

i need a truck because i need a truck but if ford think there is a market fo a run around town truck. i think what i described would get it done and return some serious mpg.

is ford currently selling a lot of single cab, short bed trucks? I am guessing no. If the ranger type buyer was a hot market, where are all the contenders?

 

Give this a look if you haven't seen it- the Dr Paul engine. The one shown is about the size of a large briefcase, a single bore with 2 pistons. The engine makes so much torque at a compression ratio of 1000:1 that a single crankshaft won't work. This engine has 4 cranks. This engine also makes 900HP and burns about 5 gallons of fuel every 8 hours of operation. Emissions, you ask about emissions? You can run this engine in your living room for the rest of your life and have no effects from emissions. With an aftercooler, the NOx never forms as well as CO. All that comes out of the exhaust is water and breathable air. So why isn't available? Because you can run on it anything- gas, diesel, kerosene, alcohol, methanol, ethanol, you name the fuel and it'll burn it. So why don't you have it? Because you can make fuel at home and the Feds have no way to tax you on it. The Feds make billions per day in tax revenue from fuel sales and they're not going to give it up. FWIW, Volkswagen is working on a similar engine and will have it on the streets next year in mules. I highly doubt they will allow them to be imported.
The commentary is fairly boring. The beginning of the vid shows the engine in design and then the engine running. After that boredom begins.

 

Yeah, and it requires a rebuild after every 12 hours of run time.

Read up on the Ford RS200 or any NASCAR engine.

As with all engines, you can have any 2 of 3 options fuel efficiency, power output, longevity.

 

I think I'm more efficient having a clutch under my left foot.

Adrianspeeder

 

Care to explain then how they've managed to keep a 3 cylinder version making 2400HP busy for the last 5 years, 24 hours a day making biodiesel at a garbage dump in Kalifornia? Yeah, I already know, you have no clue.

Well the biggest issue Adrian is that most drivers haven't got the foggiest idea how to drive a manual transmission. Then comes in this funny thing called emissions. A manual transmission vehicle can produce some wild emissions with the wrong driver. That's why we have automatics now that are computer controlled. It takes the decision making process of driving sytle out of the equation. It's pretty hard to screw up the emissions these days with a stock, automatic transmission vehicle. Can't do that with a manual unless you really reprogram the throttle body to where most folks would find it unacceptable.

 

Ford will do what is marketable.

I do not want more fuel-efficient vehicles because I cannot afford to use less gas. We use less gas, then governments raise taxes and fees to compensate for loss of revenue incurred while telling us to use more fuel-efficient cars. :-/


I'd love to see wide-spread use of diesel, however - Bringing Diesels to the 150 line would improve power, efficiency, and tunability for the consumer.

 

You are right, and that is why my '08 stroker with a six speed is the last new truck I'll ever buy.

Diesel is great everywhere else in the world without castrating emissions. What came on my 6.4L was garbage hence the straight pipe and tuner.

Adrianspeeder

 

I like this design.

 

Ford needs to bring the global ranger to the states and put that 2.3L ecoboost in it. Granted, I need more power, now that I might be trailering a Bronco. But I would not mind one for a DD that could still tow my boat well.

 

^^ That engine, if built right, could have massive power to tow anything, really. My subaru 2.5L had more torque than my Expy's 5.4L, thanks to 21psi

 

guy in video reminds me of something from "in search of"

episode between crop circles and big foot sightings.

also reminds me of the fables about 100 mpg carbarators.

the more he talks the more i say bs.

 

I agree

 

When I was looking at buying a new truck a few years ago, the Ranger was on the list. I compared prices, fuel economy and capability. It turned out the three attributes I compare on the F-150 had come to a point where the F-150 was comparable with the Ranger in price and economy. The one area where the F-150 blew away the Ranger was in capability. Yes, the 150 was more expensive and less efficient than the Ranger, but not that much more cost or less efficient and when considering the capability the F-150 won hands down. Now if Ford could make a very efficient 150 that didn't have a whole lot of capability then, I think it would be a winner. Personally I don't really need a truck on a day to day basis. I don't tow anything of note. I don't haul heavy loads, but I do haul large items occasionally. I would be all for a upper model truck with a very efficient engine.

 

they could make an ECOBOOST that worked first. Mine is an utter failure

https://www.facebook.com/ecoboosts?s...2f4dab77638418