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

[JJG]

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?

The simple answer is, less and smaller components to manufacture. Ie: my 2000 Ranger with the 4.0L V6, our 2.3’s have more hp and torque with 2 less cyls and less journals on a crankshaft to machine.

Sponsored

 

[outdoorphotog]

love my 2015 focus 2.0 GDI 5-speed manual , excellent mpg and just enough power to be fun to drive.

 

[Apples]

One more little thing here. You really do not need a balanced shaft in an I4. They're included in most I4s, but as noted these are to quell NVH. Heck, the oil-pan based balancer in Mazda's I4, weigh in at near 80 pounds! I don't know what the one in the 2.3 Eco boost weights, but it does add to the engine weight, and most importantly, the rotational mass. If you don't mind the harshness, you can remove the balance shaft in an Eco boost, and after-market parts are available to do so. Not easy or cheap, by the way! But if you do, the difference in the rated of engine acceleration (increase in revolutions per second) becomes readily apparent.

 

[staryoshi]

Turbo 4s for torque n efficiency. Efficiency if you can stay out of the turbo that is

 

[OCL]

Turbo 4s for torque n efficiency. Efficiency if you can stay out of the turbo that is

I don't see how anyone can stay out of the meat of the boost. It's so addicting when that rush comes in. In city driving it's pretty dismal compared to similar displacement NA engines. On the highway is where you can minimize the use of the turbo. The reality is it ends up just getting similar fuel efficiency as a same power but larger displacement NA engine like a V6. Maybe....if you drive super easy it will get higher fuel efficiency. It's not easy to do though...

 

[staryoshi]

I don't see how anyone can stay out of the meat of the boost. It's so addicting when that rush comes in. In city driving it's pretty dismal compared to similar displacement NA engines. On the highway is where you can minimize the use of the turbo. The reality is it ends up just getting similar fuel efficiency as a same power but larger displacement NA engine like a V6. Maybe....if you drive super easy it will get higher fuel efficiency. It's not easy to do though...

I prefer a NA V6 for longevity, but I drive like a light-footed granny so economy is solid.

 

[BudB]

My brand new Ranger is my second turbo charged four cylinder. I had a 2016 Mercedes Metris cargo van. When I was considering getting it, and researching specs, I was amazed that it's torque matched that of the V6 Tacoma I'd driven the last 11 years before that, and even more amazed that the Metris reached that torque at 1800 rpm, while the Tacoma did at 4500.

While that Metris got great gas mileage on the highway, I was shocked to find out it only got 12 mpg while towing my boat. That Tacoma had done better mpg while towing than any vehicle I'd ever owned: 17 mpg with an 18 1/2 foot bass boat behind it. I haven't checked my Ranger yet. Do our Rangers do better than that Metris?

 

[Dgc333]

I don't see how anyone can stay out of the meat of the boost. It's so addicting when that rush comes in. In city driving it's pretty dismal compared to similar displacement NA engines. On the highway is where you can minimize the use of the turbo. The reality is it ends up just getting similar fuel efficiency as a same power but larger displacement NA engine like a V6. Maybe....if you drive super easy it will get higher fuel efficiency. It's not easy to do though...

I have been driving turbo 4cyl continuously since 1985. The Ranger is the third vehicle I have owned over the past 6 years with the Ford 2.3 Ecoboost engine. This engine has enough power off boost to easily keep up with traffic in town. So driving it conservatively will net you will get about the same mileage as a 2.3 NA engine.

 

[JimJa]

Although don't hold me to it, I believe the 2.0L blueprint has its origin in Europe. For example, Italy places a heavy tax on engines larger that 2.0L. Since the engine was in production and pretty well sorted when the U.S. began to "downsize" its engines IOT meet CAFE requirements, adapting the engine to U.S. specs was a natural, particularly given the tooling costs of a new engine formula. There are also balance issues for larger 4cyl engines. For example, engines above 2.5L have balance shafts. In addition to engineering costs, a royalty must be paid to the inventor for each engine with a balance shaft (originally did, don't know if that's still true).
As for a NA V6, if you check the torque numbers you'll find that most all V6s generate their max torque at a high RPM, much higher than considered normal in every day driving and well over 3,500 RPM. They tend to be pretty weak at lower RPMs. One exception was Ford's early 4.0L V6 in the Explorer that generated its max torque at 2,600-2,800 although it ran out of steam at higher RPM.
These days it's all about saving money and being price competitive in a given segment. There is even talk about having an independent power train supplier which will supply most engines to all manufactures. Probably not a bad idea since most folks could care less about what is under the hood. Unique and specific engines would remain with the individual company. As for me, I like that little 2.3L in my Ranger just fine, particularly since last week paid I $5.52/gallon for gas in Primm, NV.

 

[Montana Ranger]

I'd be a bit happier with a 2.x 6-cyl for the smoothness. One of the things it took time to get used to after my former 8-cyl truck was the vibration from the 4-cyl. First time I drove it, I though it sounded like a VW Beetle. But the efficiency and cost advantages of the 4 are the reality.

 

[Dgc333]

I'd be a bit happier with a 2.x 6-cyl for the smoothness. One of the things it took time to get used to after my former 8-cyl truck was the vibration from the 4-cyl. First time I drove it, I though it sounded like a VW Beetle. But the efficiency and cost advantages of the 4 are the reality.

The truck I got rid of when I got the Ranger was a Dakota with the 4.7l OHC V8. The Ranger with it's balance shafts is every bit as smooth as the 4.7 and is also smoother than the 5.9l in my 68 Barracuda but the 5.9 has a cam with a lot of over lap so it does lope at idle.

The only issue I have with the engine in the Ranger is it is as quiet as a Camery, can't even hear the exhaust out side the truck at idle. I have a request in with Mrs. Clause for a cat back. I realize it will never sound like the 4.7 or 5.9 but if it sounds as good as the 2.3 Ecoboost in my Mustang with a cat back I will be very happy.

FWIW, I had a 2.5l V6 in my 97 Avenger coupe. It was a gutless wonder until it was spinning at least 5000 rpm. It did not make for an enjoyable daily driver.

 

[Pinepig]

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.

BMW would like to have a word with your " somewhat " over 225 hp per liter in race applications.

 

[Apples]

I did mention race engines. For production engines, I think Koenigsegg's is currently the leader at 200 HP/L. (https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1127582_how-koenigsegg-s-3-cylinder-engine-makes-600-horsepower) I should mention, one version of the engine (not full production), makes 313 HP/L.

The surprising number, isn't just the HP/L. For me, it is the weight per HP that is getting smaller and smaller. The aforementioned 313 HP/L engine weights just 150 pounds.

 

[D Fresh]

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.

Litre bikes are OK. But in the motorcycle world nothing beats a 2-stroke on the pipe.

 

[Doc]

Litre bikes are OK. But in the motorcycle world nothing beats a 2-stroke on the pipe.

My first Dragbike was an RD 400 Daytona, wish I had it today !

Sponsored