eastsideTim said:
My only significant concern is they are still having longevity issues with displacement on demand V8s, and they want to use an even more “advanced” version of it on a 4 cylinder? I think I’d pass for at least the first few years until there’s a significant population of them that have hit the 100K-200K mile range without problems.
FWIW, they are also planning on a more advanced version of the displacement on demand, using all 8 cylinders. Should be fun.
It's not a shocking idea to run a turbo 4 in a truck. And it would not be the first time I've heard about that idea.... I'm sure it will be good. If the truck can be held to 5000lb, it won't be a horrible package.
And I'm also one who had to take back the idea that a turbo v6 truck would never catch on. I totally admit I was very wrong on how it would be taken by customers.
MotorsportsGordon said:
kilgoretrout said:
MotorsportsGordon said:
Datsun310Guy said:
The Ridgeline guys can hassle the Chevrolet guys then. A real truck doesn’t have a four banger.
Ridgeline guys have probably never heard of a Detroit diesel
I own a Ridgeline and, although I would never admit this to any of my friends/family, I have easily watched an hour of Youtube videos of various old dudes driving big rigs with Detroit Diesels. There are no gay jokes in anything I just wrote.
Lol in piticular I was referring to the Detroit diesel 453 engines which in fact are 4 cylinder.
Gotcha - yeah, that makes more sense. Maybe you have proven your point.
NickD
UberDork
5/18/18 3:46 p.m.
MotorsportsGordon said:
kilgoretrout said:
MotorsportsGordon said:
Datsun310Guy said:
The Ridgeline guys can hassle the Chevrolet guys then. A real truck doesn’t have a four banger.
Ridgeline guys have probably never heard of a Detroit diesel
I own a Ridgeline and, although I would never admit this to any of my friends/family, I have easily watched an hour of Youtube videos of various old dudes driving big rigs with Detroit Diesels. There are no gay jokes in anything I just wrote.
Lol in piticular I was referring to the Detroit diesel 453 engines which in fact are 4 cylinder.
There were also Detroit 4-71s
I'm on board with this idea. I find this engine to be 1000% more attractive than the ecoboost V6 and 500% more than a V8, purely because the packaging will likely make it a lot easier to work on. Now if the transmission proves to be robust...
That truck is ugly as hell though.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Why is being able to work on an engine a feature? Are you planning on it breaking?
In reply to alfadriver :
I absolutely expect it to need spark plugs, possibly some exhaust work, accessory work, replace a few sensors, etc. during its lifetime. I expect a turbo 4 to need a turbo rebuild/turbo seals during its lifetime, which sucks, but that sucks a lot less than double that on the V6, with the turbos in an area that is much more difficult to access.
Snrub
Reader
5/18/18 8:20 p.m.
Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.
Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.
Now let me get it in the truck I want instead of just offering it in certain trims. I hate how truck ordering is organized so much.
Datsun310Guy said:
The Ridgeline guys can hassle the Chevrolet guys then. A real truck doesn’t have a four banger.
Lots of Hiluxes disagree (and yes, I know you are joking)....
.
Antihero said:
In reply to NickD :
Exactly. I'm all for progress too. If a 4 cyl can produce twice what the 351 in my work van does while delivering twice the mpg.....sign me the berkeley up 11 mpg sucks.
Still funny though that my ranger has the "big" v6 in it and rereading old article about how powerful it is....... 160hp 225ftlbs.
Both my Porsche and my BMW have less horsepower than the current Hyundai Elantra........
irish44j said:
.
Interesting that I am watching "American Sniper" movie and scrolling around GRM. What's up with that?
Datsun310Guy said:
irish44j said:
.
Interesting that I am watching "American Sniper" movie and scrolling around GRM. What's up with that?
Is that photo a scene from the movie? I just pulled if off google lol....
what's up with what?
In reply to irish44j :
no - but those dudes and guns are in the movie. I think.
Snrub said:
I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years.
Toyota has used them for a very long time, right up to current day (2.7L 4-cyl)
NickD said:
In reply to pres589 :
The character line that runs downhill is also weird. Makes the front look taller than the rear of the truck.
All the Bro Truck kids do that anyway. Their "leveling kits" have gotten out of hand.
Antihero said:
irish44j said:
Antihero said:
In reply to NickD :
Exactly. I'm all for progress too. If a 4 cyl can produce twice what the 351 in my work van does while delivering twice the mpg.....sign me the berkeley up 11 mpg sucks.
Still funny though that my ranger has the "big" v6 in it and rereading old article about how powerful it is....... 160hp 225ftlbs.
Both my Porsche and my BMW have less horsepower than the current Hyundai Elantra........
alarming isnt it?
I'm a big proponent of driving slow cars fast, so not really an issue. I enjoy having to wring all the power out of the 1.8 in the e30 and the 2.5 4-banger in the 924S. And when I actually want to go fast, I have a tuned WRX for that, lol....
That said, I'm thinking back to my roommate's old Toyota 4x4 with the 4-banger on 30" tires. that thing was dangerously slow...........
Snrub said:
Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.
Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.
Gm has a 2.8 turbo diesel used in the Colorado and canyon
MotorsportsGordon said:
Snrub said:
Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.
Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.
Gm has a 2.8 turbo diesel used in the Colorado and canyon
Porsche had a 3.0L 4-cyl in the 944S2 and 968 
Grizz
UberDork
5/18/18 10:45 p.m.
In reply to Snrub :
The Colorado had a regular 2.9 4 cylinder
current diesel offering in the Colorado is a 2.4L diesel. Previously in non US markets there had been a 2.8L.
Mndsm
MegaDork
5/19/18 5:06 a.m.
irish44j said:
MotorsportsGordon said:
Snrub said:
Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.
Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.
Gm has a 2.8 turbo diesel used in the Colorado and canyon
Porsche had a 3.0L 4-cyl in the 944S2 and 968
Wasnt the 4cyl in late 90s Tacomas a 2.7?
ProDarwin said:
In reply to alfadriver :
I absolutely expect it to need spark plugs, possibly some exhaust work, accessory work, replace a few sensors, etc. during its lifetime. I expect a turbo 4 to need a turbo rebuild/turbo seals during its lifetime, which sucks, but that sucks a lot less than double that on the V6, with the turbos in an area that is much more difficult to access.
All of which will happen post 100k miles, and intervals in the 120k mile range. So unless you do this professionally, you won't be doing it much,
Snrub said:
Ford's 2.7L has receive positive feedback, there's no reason GM's can't too.
Current orthodoxy is .5L/cyl, I wonder why they went with a 2.7L 4-cyl? I can't think of such a large displacement 4-cyl in ~25 years. I wonder if 4-cyls was chosen for the ease of using a single turbo.
Things are changing in the industry. Most here will also expect undersquare or square chamber dimensions, but that will quickly change to pretty significant over square designs as it's more efficient. Also, you will see a general lessening number of cylinders per displacement, for both combustion efficiency and lowering of friction.
Basically, the last 30 years of power is very much transitioning to efficiency.
