First Drive Review: 2011 Ford F-150 Introduction and 3.7 V-6, Part 1

First Drive Review: 2011 Ford F-150
Photo by: Sam VarnHagen/Ford Motor Co.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3

We drove the 2011 Ford F-150 in Dallas last week, but Las Vegas might have been the better locale for it, because Ford is making one of its biggest truck gambles ever. The automaker is introducing three all-new engines for the best-selling vehicle in its lineup and pitching the F-150 as an alternative to the outgoing Ranger compact pickup.

Ford is replacing its legacy two-valve and three-valve 4.6-liter V-8 twins and the venerable three-valve 5.4-liter V-8 in the F-150 with technically advanced six- and eight-cylinder engines that Ford says will be the most fuel-efficient in the industry. Ford says that each new engine delivers best-in-class towing and all will be paired with a six-speed automatic transmission.

In perhaps the riskiest move of all, Ford is positioning one of two V-6 engines, the twin turbo gasoline direct injection 3.5-liter EcoBoost mill, as every bit the equal of a conventional large displacement V-8. It’s going to take more than a first-drive hot streak to convince some traditional truck buyers that’s the case.

Ford F-150 Engine Comparison Chart

Electric Power Steering

The first surprise we experienced, though, wasn’t related to the powertrains at all. It was the F-150’s new steering system that caught our attention from the moment the truck started moving.

Turning the truck at low speeds required much less effort than it has in the past, thanks to its all-new, electric power-assisted steering that replaces the old 12-volt engine-driven hydraulic steering system with an electromechanical motor-driven connection to the steering system. Each wheelbase and cab configuration gets its own steering calibration.

EPS Diagram

While we generally liked the new steering, in some of the trucks we drove, such as the 3.7-liter V-6, the steering felt too light and overboosted during low-speed driving around tight turns until we got used to it.

At highway speeds unloaded and while towing all of the trucks had a solid steering feel that was very similar to that of the 2009-10 F-150.

Electric steering is available as standard equipment on all engines except the 6.2-liter V-8, which keeps its legacy hydraulic steering setup.

3.7-liter V-6 (Standard Engine)

We’re impressed by Ford’s all-new Duratec 3.7-liter V-6. The 3.7 is the new base engine for the F-150, rated at 302 horsepower (@ 6,500 rpm) and 278 pounds-feet of torque (@ 4,000 rpm) on regular unleaded fuel, though it will also burn E85. If there’s a sleeper in the F-150 engine lineup, this is it. Its unloaded driving performance took us by surprise.

The dual-overhead-cam, all-aluminum, 60-degree V-6 is stuffed with technology. Starting with composite upper- and lower-intake manifolds to feed air to the engine, the engine’s heads have four valves per cylinder (two intake, two exhaust) that are combined with twin independent variable camshaft timing, or Ti-VCT in Ford speak. Ti-VCT varies valve actuation throughout the power band so there’s improved torque at the low end, cleaner emissions and better fuel economy throughout the rpm range. Bucket tappets that actuate the valves are low-friction and designed to boost mileage further.

The 3.7 V-6 also features a die-cast aluminum deep-sump oil pan that helps the engine go up to 10,000 miles between oil changes. The high use of aluminum throughout the engine saves weight and improves fuel economy, expected to be at least 23 mpg on the highway.

37-f150-1-560

Ford had us drive the 3.7 in two scenarios: in wide-open-throttle against the clock and on country roads.

In the wide-open-throttle scenario, we drove a two-wheel-drive STX SuperCab model and recorded a zero to 60 mph sprint of 9.07 seconds. That’s not far off from mid-8-second times we’ve recorded in the 2009-10 5.4-liter V-8 F-150. And it’s very respectable considering this is the base engine.

It was driving at highway speeds that blew our minds after we experienced a 6-2 downshift at around 60 mph after we went wide open throttle to check out the engine’s passing performance. The engine leapt from about 2,000 rpm to around 6,500 rpm and ran all the way to 7,000 rpm before it upshifted into third. While we’ve had 6-3 downshifts with a V-8, we can’t recall ever experiencing a 6-2 downshift. The 3.7’s tenor immediately changed from muted lugging to screaming sports car. It’s like driving a domestic half-ton V-6 that thinks it’s a Japanese-engineered hi-revving V-6 that thinks it’s a V-8.

The 3.7 can tow too: up to 6,100 pounds, although we didn’t test it with a trailer. To help the naturally aspirated six-cylinder launch truck and trailer, Ti-VCT is combined with an optimized exhaust architecture to help boost low-end torque before peak torque at 4,000 rpm. On a dyno chart provided by Ford, you can see a brief torque peak between 1,500 to 2,250 rpm.

According to Al Cockerill, Ford’s rear-wheel-drive V-6 application supervisor, wide diameter exhaust pipes runs about 18 inches further back than normal behind the engine’s two exhaust manifolds before they join in a collector and continue as a single wide pipe out the back.

37-f150-2-560

The exhaust manifolds collect and channel combusted gases from the three cylinders on both sides of the engine.

Using wider, longer exhaust pipes behind the manifolds improves exhaust scavenging. Scavenging is a process that reduces power loss; the engine doesn’t have to work as hard to pump exhaust gases out of the chamber, and the low-pressure of the exiting gases helps fill the cylinder with new air.

Extra torque from exhaust scavenging also helped the 3.7 hold gears longer instead of experiencing shift fussiness often found in other six-cylinders trying to optimally move a heavy half-ton truck.

Engine sound from the 3.7 was muted except at the high-end of the rpm band when it sounded like a sports car. The 3.7 didn’t have anything near the authoritative exhaust note of the 5.0 and 6.2 V-8 engines. It sounded like a quieter version of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 when the 3.5 was running off-boost.

3.7-torque-560

Zero to 30 MPH (SuperCab): 3.44 seconds
Zero to 60 MPH (SuperCab): 9.07 seconds

What We Like

  • 7,000 RPM redline
  • 6-2 downshift at 60 mph (twice) blew our minds. Ford says it’s rare but normal
  • Good driving performance in a two-wheel drive SuperCrew
  • Estimated 23 mpg highway fuel economy

What We Don’t

  • Too soon to say. We like this engine but haven’t towed with it
  • An F-150 with a V-6 is not a Ranger replacement

Page: 1 | 2 | 3

Comments

wow Im really happy to see a real good solid non turbo v6 that can pull a full size truck its about time. Im still not sold on the durability of a super complex turbo v6 but I see no reason why this would not be durable. I wonder how the new pentastar 3.5 v6 will fair.

Ya we need a new Ranger with these new V6 engines , Toyota and Nissan would be in serious trouble then .

Too bad they never tested the same truck model,cab configuration,axle ratio's with all of the new engines...looks to be a testing of mixed up truck styles..

I would like to see a singlecab 3.7 vs ecoboost vs 5.0 vs 6.2,then all the other cab configurations super,crew and axle ratio's ,2 wheel and 4 wheel drives...oh well !!!

Mike, is the 3.7 available with the 4 door crew cab, or just the extended cab?

@Don

Yes, it is available with the crew cab, but only in 2WD models.

@Don
The 3.7 is available in the Supercrew but only with 4x2.

"An F-150 with a V-6 is not a Ranger replacement"
I couldn't agree more. I know that Ford is sticking to this philosophy, but there are quite a few folks for whom the Ranger would be a perfect fit that will not buy an F-150. I enjoyed my Ranger 4x4 immensely before I sold it (after 10 yrs of ownership). When I bought it, I was not interested in an F-150, nor could I afford a 4x4 F-150.

I fully agree with the articles conclusion that this is not a Ranger replacement. The truck (F-150)is a fine truck loaded with capability but its just too big. The F-150 is a vehicle that I would buy if i were a contractor or tradesman of some sort. What made the Ranger great was that it was rugged and had a full frame underneath it for starters..it was a real truck..but at the same time you could commute with it and actually fit it in a parking spot at work. It was manuverable. My son and I take our Ranger out on the small trails in New Hampshire to our favorite fishing spots (places an F-150 could never get to) or I use it for a weekend trip to Home Depot to pick up mulch or something for a home project. The mileage was reasonable as well. The F-150 is too much truck for all of that. I'm sure some folks could use the F-150 for towing and heavy hauling but the Ranger had its practicality as well. It was very versatile. The T6 Ranger would be a better match for my needs as its larger then the curent Ranger but not titanic like a full size truck..but whatever..I've been a Ford guy all my life but I'm not going to whine about the Ranger going bye bye for too long tho. If Ford Mo Co doesn't want to provide the product then i'll take my business elsewhere. Just visited the Nissan Dealer in Fitchburg Ma this weekend. The Frontier looks like a great truck. I need a test drive.

Derek kuzak (Ford's Chief of Product Development) and Herman Salenbauch (Ford's director of advanced product creation) get your head out of the sand! Listen to what the people want. We want a Global Ranger with a 2.0L Ecoboost, 3.7L V6, and a 2.0L 5Cylinder Diesel (you know the one found in a Volvo). Don't go abandoning a segment, become the leader in a segment! If you guys want to hand over your small truck market share to Mahindra, then you should lose your jobs! You have all these great powertrain options (listed above) yet your refusing to bring the Global Ranger to the US. People don't want to drive a Full-Size F150 as a commuter, nor do they want to substitute a Ranger for a Transit Connect, or a Fiesta. Wake up, and Man up!

Guys, you need to re-read the story on the global Ranger. It is 10% smaller than the current F150. That would make it about the same size as older generation F150's. That would still be too big for "small" truck owners.
I had not realized how big the new Tacoma had gotten until yesterday when I was behind a current generation Tacoma and an older generation Tacoma at a traffic light. The new Tacoma dwarfed the older one.
That would be the impression current Ranger fans would have if they saw the new Global Ranger.
Don't get me wrong, I've owned two Rangers.
If I had the choice between a 9/10 Ranger and an F150 I'd buy the F150. The market isn't big enough or strong enough for 2 trucks close to the same size.

Ford doesn't want to hurt the sales of their F150, I agree the F150 of today is not even close to a replacement. Some folks just don't have that "bigger is better" attitude. I wish I could find an american truck the size of the global ranger to replace my F150 supercrew 4x4, as I am getting tired of the size and of cleaning the truck because it is tall (Im 5'8"). I was hoping Ford would bring another truck over here to replace the Ranger, now i am not sure what I want to do.

My F150 is paid for (2001 supercrew 4x4 with 138K on the clock), but I want a new truck in about 2 yrs or so, something with ~ 23-25 mpg and 4x4, preferrably midsize. I don't mind buying another F150, but I damn sure don't care for the price. I have thought about buying a 3.7L V6, but fear they won't provide it in the configuration I want and I WILL NOT buy a complex Twin Turbo V-6 or antoher V8, racing is not my thing anymore so acceleration is not really a big issue for me.

Just so many what if's and I may just do what the above poster said, go to Nissan and get a Frontier crew 4x4 with a standard, since they have made all the fullsize auto's now. Some folks just keep practicality in their purchases, others not so much. I am trying to start a trend in my household, what better way to reduce the size of my vehicles when I purchase new ones? We have amidsize car, so why not a midsize truck? My family is only Four people and none of us are FAT.

Lou, some of us like the size of the old F150, and quite frankly don't need the capabilities of the new F150 with 11,300 pounds of towing capacity. I am not rich, so I don't own anything that heavy. I could afford a new F150, but i am not going to unless I could get a bare bones with a V6 and 4x4. Many people are practicle in their purchases, nothing wrong with that. The fact remains, the ranger still is smaller. Why do people buy the tacoma/frontier when they could get their larger counterparts for just a little more money? I am sure they have legit reasons for this. My F150 is tough to manuever sometimes and it pales in comparison to the newer ones in size, maybe 90% of the size of your new F150. I'll either go with a new F150, ext cab, 4x4 or I will go with a Frontier with a manual trans and 4x4 crew cab, for less money than the F150. I already have a 1992 F150 with a 5.8L for towing.

I do think Ford is dropping the ball by letting the Ranger die. Ford has always been the king when it comes to offering truck choices to its clients. IMHO a global 9/10 Ranger is not the right way to go. It is too close in size to the current F150. I bet that is why Ford is not planning on importing it. I bought an F150 for less than a comparably equiped Tacoma. The current Ranger in a crewcab with major updates would be the way to go. It then becomes a clear choice between the two trucks.
I see your point, but then again I also see Ford's point.

@Lou- The new 2012 Global Ranger is not 90% of the size of the F150. I've seen it in person, and I'm almost tempted to go measure the wheelbase, and the overall length of the truck to prove my point... I'll say that it is about 75-80% of the size of an F150.

Lou- I agree with Ford as well, it's a business decision that they have thought out, and I do understand their point. Good post though........ Tacoma's are priced too high, and I could care less for the grandpa looking interior of them. Just not my style, so yes...I would take and F150 over a tacoma just as you have :)

@ Brian Williams:
Brian I would agree with you also that the new global Ranger is not 90% the size of the f-150. I also agree that is roughly 75% the size of a full size truck but I guess its nit picking. Its appox the size I would be looking for in a pick up truck. I think the current Ranger needed to grow just a bit. Not so much in length but the cab is too narrow. It looks like this has been taken care of in the new truck. Facebook has newly released video of this truck and it looks great. Just type in 2012 ford Ranger and it will bring you to the page and to a few videos. It looks like this new truck has been tested extensively. I like it.

3.7-liter V-6 (302 hp / 278 tq)
Zero to 30 MPH (SuperCab): 2.17 seconds
Zero to 60 MPH (SuperCab): 9.07 seconds
3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 (365 hp / 420 tq)
Zero to 30 MPH (SuperCrew): 2.74 seconds
Zero to 60 MPH (SuperCrew): 6.82 seconds
5.0-liter V-8 (360 hp / 380 tq)
Zero to 30 MPH (SuperCrew): 2.72 seconds
Zero to 60 MPH (SuperCrew): 7.38 seconds
6.2-liter V-8 (411 hp / 434 tq)
Zero to 30 MPH (SuperCrew): 2.84 seconds
Zero to 60 MPH (SuperCrew): 7.15 seconds

Finding it strange that the base engine post the lowest Zero to 30 while Zero to 60 is the highest (the later part is expected)... Is the SuperCab that much lighter than the SuperCrew?

@Tony: Great catch! I accidentally put the 0 to 20 mph figure as the 0 to 30 mph figure for the 3.7-L. Correct number (as seen in the graph on page 3) is 3.44 seconds 0 to 30 mph with the 3.7-L V-6. I'm sorry I made that mistake.

@Mike: Understand; makes sense now!
Keep up the great work!
Any chance we'll see you guys doing a F-150 4-way shoot-out (if we can call it that), similar to the HD's? We'd enjoy that a lot.

@Tony: How about a V-6 Work Truck Shootout?

@Mike: That would be great too! Possibility of including the compact trucks available with V-6 engines?

@Dan
@ Brian Williams

I was going on the recent post about the "new" global Ranger.

Exerpt "The global Ranger is also bigger than the truck it replaces, making it close in size to the F-150, Kuzak said."

"The new Ranger is 90 percent of the size of an F-150," Kuzak said. "In the rest of the world, compact trucks have grown over time. They’ve become dual-use [vehicles for work and family] and they’ve increased cab size, payload and towing."
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/09/ford-previews-all-new-global-ranger-but-its-not-coming-to-north-america.html#more

Ah yes, some of us like the "small" size of the old F150. Try real measurements (width x height):

'97 F150: 78.4 x 72.5
'04 F150: 78.9 x 72.8
'10 F150: 78.9 x 74.6

As far as suggesting a Ranger would hurt Tracoma, they are suggesting that a marginally more fuel efficient vehicle in a smaller package at the same price is a better deal. You're not going to lure many Taco & Frontier buyers away with that package.

And, as mentioned a thousand times already. The segment is shrinking.

Here's the problem:

The current Ranger is too small. Yes, there are a very small group of very loyal customers that like its small size. But those people aren't buying enough Rangers.

You make the Ranger bigger, which is almost mandatory, and you start losing highway MPGs due to the increased aerodynamic drag.

Maybe a 3.7L V6 could hit 27MPG in the current Ranger form factor, but put it in a slightly larger model and maybe you're hitting 26 or 25. With the F150 projected to hit 24 to 27 with the 3.7L V6, you've got a negligible difference in efficiency.

In the end the chief selling point for Ranger die-hards is the size, and I believe Ford's internal numbers that say there aren't enough of you to please. Sorry.

These new F-150s are GREAT! Okay guys, now it's time for a good, long article about the first drive of the EcoBoost and the 6.2L BEAST!

First off who ever made the decision to kill the Ranger should be fired but thats my two cents... on a second note for all you guys talking about buying the compact Nissan I know two people who have owned them in the past 4 years now and both agree that they never got close to the posted fuel mileage expectations. In fact my 04 F150 was getting better mileage than their compact... not bashing at all just letting you guys know to double check the posted mileage and talk with some guys who might own them first before you get something you might later regret.

+1 on what Rich said. The new Ranger is 90% as big as an F150, according to the recent post on this site. That's a negligible difference in relation to an F150. If you want a good all-around truck, buy an F150. If you're h*llbent on getting a smaller truck, then buy a Mahindra or go buy a 2010 Ranger/Colorado/Canyon. It's very simple

@ Shawn
Thanks for the heads up on the Nissan . I was told the very same thing today by a friend. He said the F-150 may get better mileage then the 4 liter Nissan. Why that is, with a smaller truck and a smaller engine is a mystery to me. I was also told they need premium fuel. those two facts alone make buying a Nissan not so much of a bargain. Not many options left out there. Not that I would consider purchasing anyway.

you need do better to convince me to get a v6...hi look more in long run,try to sold a v6 after 100k....

@ Rich
Do you work for Ford ? in all reality Ford can do whatever they want so far as not making a Ranger replacement and I can do whatever I want in respect to not buying a Ford next time around because they did not replace the Ranger , maybe Mahindra will get around to selling there truck in the USA although fugly its competition .

Simply put, had more of the so called die hard Ranger fans bought more Rangers the truck would still be alive, but there is not enough people buying the Ranger to make it a worth while investment for Ford.

Ford did what they had to do in order to survive and that was to cut vehicles with low or niche like sells. When you have too many people going after a small niche group I can only imagine it to be cost prohibitive to cotinue to design and engineer vehicles for that group. Without a good return on investment I doubt anyone could really develop a case to continue the Ranger.

why after 100 years of making internal combustion engines are we only this far?? by now, we should be able to run full size trucks on banana peels. if any other industry was this technologically challenged, we still be living in the dark ages.

Man, this is scary. Where is GM at. They need to figure out what to do about all this, or they are sealing their future in the grave. They still have the 4.3 liter V6? Although its a good engine, it is laughable its still in service.

Kudos to Ford for coming out with newer engines and a better selection of 1500 class trucks. The Silverado/Sierra are light years behind at this juncture, in both interior and engine technology, although I hate to admit it.

If GM answers back in 2012 with "business as usual" in this competitive segment, then I will have to agree that "New" GM is just as slugish, unorginized and clueless as "Old" GM. It seems pretty clear that Ford is listening to their customers.....

@ Top Dog - the reasons you have posted are why I would not touch a GM product. They need to prove to me that they have turned themselves around. Part of that turn around would be paying off debt. That would be debt owed to governments of the world who bailed them out but also the debts conveniently dumped on "old GM".
Ford does seem to be listening to their customers and providing them what they want. That's why I bought one.

@Top Dog,

I have the same sentiment. You are seeing the light. Welcome!!!

@Frank, not sure about seeing the "Light" just yet. Fords new engines are far from being proven in the real world. Where I do see the "light" is with Ford making a change to business as usual, and trying new items, even though those "modular" V8s have been around virtually unchanged since the early 90s.

All of GM's current engines are proven, but in the same breath, they are old news.......With the exception of the Duramax, all GMs engines are "antiquated" and could definately use an update.

@Top Dog,

Just because Ford uses better technology you are saying they are not proven. How many manufacturers already produce TDI engines?

Your skeptical only because it's going into a truck. That V6 TT spanks all the other V8s. Have you taken a look at the testing they do? Give it time and you will eat your words.

"Man, this is scary. Where is GM at. They need to figure out what to do about all this, or they are sealing their future in the grave. They still have the 4.3 liter V6? Although its a good engine, it is laughable its still in service." - Top Dog

Yes, you are seeing the light. Keep walking straight, please!

"All of GM's current engines are proven" - Top Dog

Really, even the turd of the 305ci or how about the utter failure of the 350ci Diesel, I can go on and on.

You are giving GM too much credit here and you are making them sound wayyyyyyy overrated. Pat yourself on the back, dude. Good job!

I think these engines need some time to "settle in".
There will always be unforseen glitchs. it is impossible to "dummy proof" a vehicle. Some dip s--t will do something lame or totally unexpected and blame the manufacturer.
Ford has too much riding on 5 new engines to let big issues pass initial QC testing.
There will be teething problems - no doubt about it. Every manufacturer has them.
That is why I chose to buy a 2010 model (and the huge discounts).
I don't think Top Dog is slagging Ford - just stating the obvious.

@Frank, WHOA! Thanks for the rant. I too could name quite a few Ford engines that would make a great paper weight....351 Cu IN (you pick windsor/cleveland), the last two Diesels (you pick). Face it, Ford has the same record GM and Dodge does, and all 3 of them have the 70's-90's to blame for their current situation.

Ford, IMO, is the only company currently listening to their customers. This is good news for everybody, but obviously not good for GM. This is a practice GM has never been into, and from this point on, they will fail in every catagory if it goes unchanged.

EXAMPLE; I can't get an LTZ GM truck without the center console. I have 6 people in my family...but I guess we have to go with the second class trim level interior (albeit im not missing the crappy wood grain). How about some electric extendable mirrors for towing? Trivial, I know....BUT that is what I WANT.

They will add the mirrors im sure at some point...if they are still around.

@Top Dog,

The 351's were more than adequate engines. 351C is one of the best engine you can find for racing.

A stock 4V 351 cleveland would beat a stock 350 chevy, have you seen the size of the heads, they are massive.

"the last two Diesels (you pick)".

The 6.4L has been more then stellar with the exception of mpg's. The 6.0L is a good motor once the bugs have been worked out.

The 6.7L

@Frank, The 3.7 liter TT is awesome. The 6.2l could be, if Ford wouldn't be so damn cheap! They need to go ahead and pull the trigger and make that thing a 4v motor. It has been proven time, and time again that those Modular V8s respond well to 4 valves per cylinder. This is a classic example of what is wrong with "The big 3". They only do the absolute minimum to get by. Well, now Ford is at least making an attempt to get it right.

Where you at GM?

@Top Dog,

3.5L TT.

Ford will make the 6.2L a 4v, they are just waiting for the competition to wake up. If anything, they will start from 3v then 4v.

I know the MOD engines respond well to 4v. I drive a 4.6L DOHC V8 SC in a Cobra and have driven N/A DOHC 4.6L V8 and they are stellar. You can gain a lot of RWHP by just changing the pullies on the SC'd 4.6L DOHC V8.

I wonder if GM/Chryco will ever go OHC Technology?

@Frank, sorry bout the typo.....3.5 it is. You kind of helped me with my point.....If Ford wanted to "Shock and Awe", they should have made it a 4v from the beginning...

Imagine how mad those owners will be when they come out with one a year from now. But hey, if you always wait for the next better thing, you will never buy anything!

Pushrod V8's are easier to work on but there is only so much you can do to get power and efficiency out of them.
I think that GM and Chrysler will have no choice but to change to overhead cam designs..
Look at motorcycles. litre class bikes are all overhead cam 4 valve engines (some 5 valve) pushing close to 200 hp reliably.
Imagine that kind of HP per cc in a truck or car.
Push rod V twins are double the cc's with 1/4 the power.

Backyard mechanics will cry and moan but so what?
New mpg guidelines and emission guidelines will probably make it all but illegal to modify these things.

@Lou, Agreed. However, remember that litre bikes have tiny pistons/rotating mass, and rev to the moon. This is how they make the HP.

I agree however, that their Cylinder Head technology is leaps and bounds above ANY automaker. I like to think about it this way...there are some 2.0l 4 cylinder car engines that make 200 hp. Turn it into a v8, and you would have a 400 HP 4.0l v8 engine. Wonder if it would get good gas mileage?

Also, GM needs to let go of the pushrod V8 (except for their crate engines), and join the new age. Reasearch the Zr1 engine of the late 80s early 90s. Those cars had a 350 v8 with 32 OHV setup. The power they made was unreal for the time. But, alas, GM learned nothing from it......

OR, they are waiting to deliver a devistating blow, but I doubt it.

"But hey, if you always wait for the next better thing, you will never buy anything!" - Top Dog,

Good one!

Once again we see... FORD is the undisputed KING of trucks.

government motors and dodge are left in the dust, literally.


Nice work Mike!

@ Lou and Top Dog Those small high revving engines exist. BMW 4.0l v8 400+ HP. Check out anything from Ferrari, they are the ultimate in high RPM and hi power engines. Do a little research on the torque output and how high the peak was. Fine for racing cars but useless in trucks meant to tow and haul. And when these engines are worked hard they get pretty poor mileage.

@ Jordan L - my point had to do more with overhead cam technology. If complex technology can live for years in a machine that revs to 12-15,000 rpm, it would survive very well in a slower revving V8.

@Lou and Jordan, I agree with you both, however, this is where te Big 3 need to do their homework. After all, an engine is just an air pump, and the more flow, the more power. But hey, I am no engineer! Im just sayin....

just what for a ecoboost 2.5l 4-C that puts out 310HP and 340Q that can tow 7,000 that will get at least Mid-20MPG
and you will under stand why ford is getting ride of the Ranger
4-c ranger only tows a jet ski and only gets mid-20MPG and if you go with the 4.0l v6 that can tow in the ranger it only get 21mpg 2wd
keep in mind for every 6-8 f-150 ford sell they sell one ranger



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com