Sounds like a bad idea. Full size trucks are just too big and too heavy. Might as well put a weed eater motor on a riding mower and see how it does. I think it will be like comparing 2 strokes to 4 strokes. both can have similar hp but waayyy different power to wheels. I'd like to see this full size 4cyl truck tow a 15,000 pound trailer on a hilly road. Sounds like a big craze that everyone will want because its new. then they find out it sucks and that fancy torque converter will be a $2000 part that is 6 months behind. Way to go GM.
the spirit of this point i get...
the big ecoboost ford 1/2 ton has the
potential to really cross into heavy territory, and the new big engine 1/2 ton gm will as well.
who the fawk regularly tows 15 k with a 1/2 ton? hell more then 8 k? regardless of that, this little engine will outright bitchslap any of the sub big blocks before the 2000,s ... even though they have done the work to properly cool the turbo which will greatly increase the life span, i dont hold hopes of longevity due the the camshaft scenario they are using for fuel management across their new engine line. time will tell.
besides the fact you dont buy a 1/2 ton to tow 15 k with, most of the guys in that target market wont tow anything over a few bikes, snowmobiles or jet skis if they ever even put a hitch ball on the truck.
towing is not prime, 6-8 k is normal 1/2 ton work.. and like the new ranger i suspect this will be ok to accomplish...
the 3.x ecoboost is ridiculous. i suspect the new gm 6.2 could out compete function though...
thisengine as described...
tq over 320 ft pounds from 1500 to 4 k rpm is what matters. whether its steam, electric or i.c.e. how that level of power is created wont matter...in work done/required is the goal...
of course how it actually feels in execution is a different matter.
compared to a 351 windsor, old school 350 or a 360 mopar....or even a 300 six...built to mimic it...bsfc and emissions would be a galaxy apart.
like i said, i have used and owned some of the little ecoboosts....my only concerns are longevity...they work awesome, but my standard is 250 k miles if i am buying it to keep. (thats 4-6 years for me) all of the gizmos in the new vehicles leaves me uncommitted as the perceived reliability all of these wondrous ancillary things are only good for leasing at this point. drive it a year or two and get a different one.
yes, i see a better market to repower older jeeps with the 4 whizzers. the transverse engines are ridiculously cheap and i know how to put the m5 behind them reasonably.
where this gm development changes my stance on the ecoboost development, is my goals are not intended for the rbv initially, but will transfer later. i think the gm packaging, open tuning and powertrain interchange will be better.
though with the single engine initial production i can see the eco 4x4 powertrain from the rangers being the most cost effective swap. this is going to be awesome for older ranger trucks. 300 hp and 30 mpg is agret thing in my opinion....
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
