Originally Posted by packplantpath

Daytoman, you could be the most clueless poster here.

1- everybody is going to aluminum eventually.

2-saying "physics" doesn't make you right. Because it is clear you don't know any or you would know turbos increase efficiency.*

3-there are thousands of trucks that get exactly the mileage on the sticker you claim isn't possible.

*in gasoline motors, to get a certain amount of power calls for a certain amount of fuel with some efficiency factor. So to get X power you need Y volume of fuel multiplied by this efficiency factor E (to vastly simplify things). So the basic formula is X=YE where E is a fraction close to 1.

Technology is moving E smaller but is running up on the limits of what is possible and reasonably inexpensive. DI, turbos, vvt, cylinder deactivation, etc all move E slightly smaller. But the gains are small since all the big stuff was done years ago. The next big thing will be aerodynamics, but that will require radical departure in body shape (think Prius shape). Expect CVT to come soon too. There are even engines now that can lean burn gas like a diesel. That is exciting and had the biggest potential.

Engines lose efficiency due to thermal loss, friction, pumping losses, and parasitic loss. Turbos increase thermal efficiency, and reduce pumping losses. Reducing cylinders reduce pumping losses and friction further. EPAS reduces parasitic losses.

So what does all this mean? It means regardless of engine, to get 300 HP will use basically the same amount of gas (unless one had vastly more new technology). It means an engine with more power will burn more gas if it is used. It means when you have more power at 3000 rpms and use it to accelerate faster you use more gas than the NA equivalent because most people won't rev the NA engine to 5000 rpm every stoplight to match the power. It means the problem is in the real world, if you give people more power, they use it, and more power comes from more gas.

So yes, in some cases with people with a lead foot the NA motor will get better mpg. They are also going to be accelerating more slowly. Me? I'll take the power with the capacity to get slightly better mpg!

My only concern is reliability. That will improve with time too. And it isn't bad now.

Originally Posted by Jerry44

I doubt they would replace the base engine with an ecoboost anytime soon. Most of those base engines will be fleet vehicles with reliability and longevity being a major concern. Putting in an ecoboost would likely scare away a lot of fleet customers with concerns about reliability. Fuel economy is important to fleets but I bet it takes a back seat to concerns about reliability almost every time unless the ecoboost was way more fuel efficient. It's debatable whether those concerns about reliability would be justified but there is no doubt it would scare away some customers.

Originally Posted by Daytoman

Seriously?
Read some physics and you might understand...

Originally Posted by Jerry44

I doubt they would replace the base engine with an ecoboost anytime soon. Most of those base engines will be fleet vehicles with reliability and longevity being a major concern. Putting in an ecoboost would likely scare away a lot of fleet customers with concerns about reliability. Fuel economy is important to fleets but I bet it takes a back seat to concerns about reliability almost every time unless the ecoboost was way more fuel efficient. It's debatable whether those concerns about reliability would be justified but there is no doubt it would scare away some customers.

Originally Posted by Daytoman

Incorrect. Real world performance proves you're incorrect. It's amazing how many people can continue to drink the koolaid this long. In a vehicle this heavy you can't have both great power and great efficiency out of a small motor. You will always sacrifice efficiency for the power. That ratio levels out and reverses the more the vehicle weight goes down or if you never tow or haul. The weight has to come down a hell of a lot more than 700 lbs.... only then does your calculations play. Aerodynamics come into play too but .... This is a truck, not a sportscar. There's a limit to its aerodynamics. But no matter how much aluminum they use, these trucks are still HEAVY and they will never be much more slippery in the wind. Sorry buddy but you can't cheat physics. Talk about clueless! Lol

It's kind of like way back in the day, when I went from a 4 banger powered Ranger to a 4.0l V6 powered Ranger, my mpgs went up in every real world category. Your talking about two inherently efficient motors but one has more displacement and more power, both pulling around the same weight. Explain that Mr Physics.
If they would have boosted the 4 banger, sure it would haul or tow as well and maybe improved the mpgs somewhat under normal driving conditions but it could still not beat the mpgs of the V6 in real world driving let's not even talk hauling something, that would just make efficiency good out the window, It would still have to boost too much to get any real gains. Now then if you go and put a current EB in that same Ranger you would have the correct formula. It would top the others handily.
They need to apply that to the half tons.
They need to adjust their scale of thought. Keep the higher V8 displacement while working on making it more powerful and efficient while also keeping the truck as light as its application and cost will allow.
As for your claim of everyone using Aluminum. Not gonna happen. Too cost prohibitive. I doubt aluminum stays this prevalent in the next gen f150..

Originally Posted by packplantpath

From 3000-4000 rpm where most accelerate, the difference in HP is 50hp at 3000 and 25 HP at 4000 for the 2013 ecoboost and 5.0.

Originally Posted by lcchamp

... while we as a country are meeting CAFE standards on paper, that may differ substantially from reality...

Originally Posted by Jerry44

I know two guys that swear they get better than the rated fuel economy in their trucks... I have a light foot but I wish these trucks had an economy mode that really limited the turbos.

Originally Posted by HCFX2013

F-150's weigh anywhere between 4400 and 5000lbs, so I think the 2.3L TT would be a nice match for the F-150. It's being used in the new Explorer and Lincoln MKC. My mom has the MKC and it's got the 2.3TT, the car weighs 4200lb and it has less power than the Mustang numbers. It moves along nicely with a 0-60 of around 6.5 seconds. I think it would be a fantastic base engine in the F150.