Why are almost all modern engines 2.0-liters? - DRIVETRIBE

[SILK]

Interesting video from DRIVETRIBE about the shift to 2.0 liter engines across the auto industry. I immediately thought of our little 2.3L and how it seems to be very well suited for this truck. And why Ford has been putting 2.x 4-bangers in so many different vehicles.

I'm down with 4-cylinders if they're going to be good. I could do without the V6, but I hope the V8 and V10 stick around. My favorite engine sounds are a Ferrari V10 and a Japanese 1000cc motorcycle inline 4 at full beans.

Your thoughts on the move to the 2.0L engine and similar format in the industry?

Sponsored

 

[OCL]

I had the pleasure of owning a Buick Regal Turbo. It had GM's excellent 2.0 direct injected, twin scroll turbocharger. That was a great motor mated to a well tuned 6-speed automatic. Smooth, powerful, refined, and tons of torque even off idle. Fuel efficiency was also pretty good as long as I wasn't beating on it. On the highway the car would get 28 mpg at a steady 78 mph. It was hard to drive it that slow though. LOL!

I also test drove Jeep's 2.0T/8speed combo on a Wrangler Sport S model (2-door). It felt a lot like the Ranger's 2.3 turbo, but not as fast. It was quick and torquey off the line. It easily maintained highway speeds and had plenty of midrange for passing. I honestly would not insist on the Pentastar V6/8speed if it came to that. Although, the V6 version of the Wrangler felt faster off the line...but you really needed to rev that engine up. Once it's up and revving the Wrangler did move. FYI these were on stock Wrangler 2-door with stock size tires. Size up on those tires and pavement performance degrades quickly.

What do I think of 2.0 turbo engines? I think they're great. Would I prefer a V6? Like GM's 3.6 V6/8-speed combination? That combo is hard to beat for refinement and smoothness but....it doesn't have the ready torque of Ford's 2.3 Turbo. It's that low and midrange torque that is so enjoyable on these smaller turbo engines that I really enjoy.

What I would prefer is a 2.3 Turbo with the Ford Performance Tune. Then I get all that low and midrange punch AND the full top end horsepower of the high revving V6's.

My only gripe with these turbo engines: fuel efficiency drops dramatically when you're pumping up that turbocharger that's for sure.

 

[Dahveed]

It's all about power and efficiency. It's that sweet spot where the vehicle can make good power and still hit fuel mileage targets. My Ranger makes more power than my old '90 Ford Bronco with a 351W while getting nearly twice the fuel mileage and weighing about the same. Sure, the Bronco sounds better doing it, but that 12mpg hurts.

 

[OCL]

Well, I hate to admit it but my 2019 F150 XLT 2WD Super Crew with the 5.0 Coyote V8 and 10speed automatic gets the same fuel efficiency as my Ranger Tremor with the 2.3 Turbo. 18-20 mpg combined. I think most Tremor owners get about that same fuel efficiency so I'm not alone.

On all highway trips at 80 mph, my F150 would get 22 mpg. Granted that truck was a 2WD with Goodyear Wrangler Fortitude tires size 265/60/18 and had a big ass spoiler that looked like it belongs on a train.

 

[Dgc333]

Not sure that I would call it a shift to 2.x engines, 2.x engines have been around and very common since I got my license in 1970. I have been driving 2.x turbo 4cyl vehicles continuously since 1985. The thing that has changed is they keep making more power with the same or better fuel mileage.

The 2.3 Ecoboost in the Mustang is either 310HP or 330HP, that is more HP than every V8 Ford has ever put in a Mustang prior to 2005 with the exception of the 03 04 Cobras.

 

[RoadtripsOfUnusualSize]

My other Ford has a V-10. Big iron!

 

[SILK]

Not sure that I would call it a shift to 2.x engines, 2.x engines have been around and very common since I got my license in 1970. I have been driving 2.x turbo 4cyl vehicles continuously since 1985. The thing that has changed is they keep making more power with the same or better fuel mileage.

The 2.3 Ecoboost in the Mustang is either 310HP or 330HP, that is more HP than every V8 Ford has ever put in a Mustang prior to 2005 with the exception of the 03 04 Cobras.

I don't think the argument is that the 2.0 is new, but I think they're saying that so many auto manufacturers are focusing on this 500cc/cylinder idea. I wasn't around in 1970, but I have to imagine that the % of new 2.xL engines are higher now than back then. The performance certainly has helped bolster their viability.

 

[rcairflr]

IMO Ford missed the boat by not putting the 2.7 Ecoboost in the Ranger. Based on fuel economy numbers for the F150 with the 2.7.
, the Ranger would have actually gotten better fuel economy with the 2.7. Plus it has been an excellent engine.

 

[Zvedza]

Maybe its for when i drive my supercharged 5.4 it feels that much better?

Joking, maybe...

But then again, 19-20mpg vs 8.7 mpg

 

[Peragrin]

IMO Ford missed the boat by not putting the 2.7 Ecoboost in the Ranger. Based on fuel economy numbers for the F150 with the 2.7.
, the Ranger would have actually gotten better fuel economy with the 2.7. Plus it has been an excellent engine.

except it would lower the tow ratings.

the 2.7l maxes out at towing 6,600 pounds or so. same with the 3.3l v6 Both of those engines in the F-150 tow less than a Ranger.

Between space, weight, torque, HP, etc a balance had to be struck The Ranger has the best towing in class because instead of screwing around trying to shove multiple engines in there, They picked one that could hit the desired performance numbers and built a ton of them.

 

[WNCblueridge]

It's all about power and efficiency. It's that sweet spot where the vehicle can make good power and still hit fuel mileage targets. My Ranger makes more power than my old '90 Ford Bronco with a 351W while getting nearly twice the fuel mileage and weighing about the same. Sure, the Bronco sounds better doing it, but that 12mpg hurts.
[/QUOTE
The spot I like the Ranger ecoboost is locking out upper gears to maintain 2000-2000 rpm. Still average 25mpg in that spot

 

[rcairflr]

the 2.7l maxes out at towing 6,600 pounds or so.

You better notify Ford of this. Ford says max rating with 2.7 is 10100

https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...eneral/pdf/guides/21Towing_Ford_F150_Dec3.pdf

 

[Apples]

There is a pot-load of technical reasons I4s max out at about 2.4L. Years ago, there were cars on the road with I4s in the 4, 5 and even larger displacements. But, they certainly didn't rev past about 2,500 RPM. As some one alluded to, it is related to volumetric efficiency. This is the same reason we have 4 valves. Attempts have been made to do even 6 valve engines, but past 4 isn't as efficient.

Honda solved this in one motorcycle engine by using 8 valves atop oval pistons. Darned expensive to manufacture to be sure, and the reason you'll never see any of those in a passenger vehicle.

And let's not forget, the only reason we're where we are now, is turbocharging. It is not uncommon to see 165 HP per liter, and in a few cases (race engines) somewhat over 225 HP per liter. But you don't see these HP amounts in passenger vehicles' V6s or V8s. Think rotating mass. And let's not forget engine weight.

 

[slowmachine]

Historically, inline 4-cylinder engines were maxed-out at 2.0 liters because of the inherent imbalance in this engine design. Anything larger needed some type of balance shaft to counteract the NVH forces. In the late 1970s, when Porsche was creating the 944 as the successor to the 2.0 Audi-powered 924, they fussed around for a long time trying to engineer a counterbalance mechanism for the 2.5 liter 4-cyl. In the end, Porsche paid Mitsubishi to use their patented system in the 944. I suspect this is still at least part of the reason so few 4-bangers are larger than 2.0 liters. The balance systems are expensive, and add weight and complexity to the engine design, both of which impact performance and reliability.

 

[OCL]

IMO Ford missed the boat by not putting the 2.7 Ecoboost in the Ranger. Based on fuel economy numbers for the F150 with the 2.7.
, the Ranger would have actually gotten better fuel economy with the 2.7. Plus it has been an excellent engine.

I think if Ford made that engine available, it would cannibalize F150 sales. Another reason why they didn't make a Ranger Raptor available in the US market. I think Ford could just as easily give us a Ranger Raptor with the 2.3 EB with FP Tune for 91 octane. 300+ hp. They already had the chassis in other markets! But if they did this, they run into pricing issues again. $55k for a Ranger Raptor or F150 Tremor with 2.7 TT?

Sponsored