The bible says trucks should be V8. But, I'd go for a diesel 4...

 

Not the old school bible - that one says they should be I-6 with a 3 on the tree. Single cab and flareside bed too.

 

I probably would not go for a 4 banger in an F-150. I have no doubt it could be done and the engine would be reliable, but... Whenever I buy a vehicle I always have to consider the possible resale of it. I think a 4 banger full sized truck would have a limited market so the resale value would be very low.

 

I'm right there with ya!

 

Why ask and not put up a poll?

 

No thanks. Quite frankly, I'm not really pleased that they ditched the 3.7L in the 150s for the 3.5L N/A, even though the 3.5 is still a great engine. Would the turbo 2.3 be enough engine for the truck? Sure it would. But why add complexity if you really dont need to? If someone trades vehicles in every few years, then thats all fine. I keep them for the long term. That means I am the one that deals with the wear and tear costs after a while. I highly doubt it would give any worthwhile MPG difference over the n/a 3.7 in a vehicle this size, anyway.

 

At least the good old 300 I-6 didn't sounds like a bee fart, and was pretty good on torque. I really do miss those motors. They could really take a beating.

 

They even offered the 300 on the 3/4 ton trucks. Great motor that would last. Lots of low end, not much on the high end. When I think about all the years that the 300 was the norm, with only a 3 or 4 speed, about 150 or so hp and 260 lb ft...... and they did real work with them every day, it kind of makes me laugh when someone puts down one of the new trucks as being "underpowered"........

 

Me too. But it matters where that torque is made. I would consider the 4 AFTER I saw real world mpg. I've seen my veterinarian pull some prodigious loads with his 3.7. The 3.7 in my son's Mustang has been tough under abuse.

 

The smallest I go would be an straight 6 as stated. Just like in my dads old F100 he got around 500K till the body gave up. Straight 6s give more torque than a v6. I think its time to think about a f250. I just think, ill keep my 03 and just rebuild it over nd over. But i remember a 2.3 in my mothers 74 Mustang. It was a good engine, but never ran smooth even when new. A friend has a V6 and it sucks, yes he can tow his trailer, but can only get it up to 100ks. And he hate the hills it dies out. My old 00/03-5.4 still pulls at 120+ then same size trailer and doesnt die up the hills in northern ON.
Trucks now are not trucks but the new family vehicle. I was at the dealership last week, and even the sale man said not too many hard core truck guys are buying the new ones. My old 2000 was the best I had. My 03 is just to loaded for a hunt/fish truck.

 

Agree

 

As someone who has had to endure two horribly cold natured Isuzu company box trucks in a row, count me in the non diesel fan category. They eat two batteries for lunch, and run 70 downhill.
I'm skeptical of Motor Trend for life after their pick of the Fiat Ram Ecodiesel over 2.7 Boost after the Boost trounced it in every possible power and acceleration category. By the time the Fiat reached a quarter mile, it's out of steam. (I relish calling a Dodge that's not a Dodge, a Fiat). I Did find their description of the 5.3 Chevy hilarious.

 

^^^ what issue was this?

For everyone saying a 4 banger wouldn't have the guts in a truck compare the 2.3EB to the old 2V 4.6L. Now take 500-700 pounds away and give it another 2 or 6 gears in the tranny. The torque curve of the 2.3 is flatter too. Now how bad does it seem?

 

I wouldn't personally go with a 4 banger since I like the SCREWs with 4x4 and all the goodies inside, I think it would just be too heavy for the 4 banger. Now take the 2.3L and offer it in the regular cab 4x2 work trucks, pair them with a good tranny and boost the mileage to 30mpg highway and that would probably be a very attractive pairing for fleet work, just my opinion though.

 

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a truck. All gas engine controls work to keep the stoichiometric ratio of air/fuel correct, the amount of fuel required is the same. The only benefit to less cylinders is that the amount of friction, rotating mass, etc is less, in the engine itself. It still takes the same amount of fuel to move the same amount of mass. That's why the differences between the 2.7, 3.5 and 5.0 engines isn't huge. It takes the same amount of fuel to move the same mass in the same way. how it's burned (4cyl, 6cyl or 8cyl) doesn't make a huge difference if all of them are working in the same burn ratio (14.7 ratio for so for air/gasoline by weight). turbos on the smaller engines just allow them to increase the amount of air pushed into the engine (and thereby more fuel via the injectors to keep the ratio correct).