Print 66 comment(s) - last by puritanal.. on Aug 2 at 12:02 AM

2012 Ford Explorer

EcoBoost 2.0-liter four-cylinder  (Source: Dana60Cummins/Wikipedia)
The new EcoBoost engine option gives up 40 hp to the V6, but betters it in low-end torque and fuel efficiency

With rising gas prices and the government's keen eye on CAFE numbers, more and more fuel efficient vehicles are starting to flood the market. Turbocharging was once relegated to performance cars and diesels, but now manufacturers are starting to adopt the direct injection and turbocharging for their mainstream gasoline engine vehicles. Hyundai has found success by replacing its V6 engine on the Sonata with a 274 hp turbocharged inline-4. Likewise, Ford has found success with its EcoBoost V6 engines in the Taurus SHO, Flex, and F-150. 

Now, Ford is bringing a new 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder to the recently revamped Explorer crossover. While the Explorer is currently available with a naturally aspirated 3.5-liter V6 that produces 283 hp (@6,500 rpm) and 252 lb-ft of torque (@4,100 rpm), the new EcoBoost generated 240 hp (@5,500 rpm) and 272 lb-ft of torque (3,000 rpm). The new engine is paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission and is only available with front-wheel drive models. 

Many people would likely give up the 40 horses for the added low-end grunt and the fuel economy increase. The V6 is rated at 17/25/20 (city/highway/combined) while the new EcoBoost four-cylinder is rated at 20/28/25. Ford says that these numbers better segment rivals like the Toyota Highlander and the Honda Pilot.

Much like the EcoBoost V6 engine option (which is more expensive than the 5.0-liter V8), the EcoBoost four-cylinder in the Explorer will command a $995 price premium versus the V6.

"Today's SUV buyers place a high priority on miles per gallon, so Explorer has expanded its portfolio of fuel-efficient engines with an all-new EcoBoost offering," said Amy Marentic, Ford group marketing manager. "SUV buyers deserve efficiency with their capability, so Explorer now offers best-in-class V6 and four-cylinder fuel efficiency." 

Ford has seen the sales of its V6-equipped F-150s eclipse those of the larger V8 engines as buyers flock to power and fuel economy -- the company is hoping that that same formula works for the Explorer which has already sold more units in the first six months of 2011 than the old model did in all of 2010. 

Ford is also bringing an EcoBoost three-cylinder engine to its subcompact Fiesta.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is it worth it?
By cknobman on 7/28/2011 11:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
Lets figure:

20mpg for 1 year @ 18000 miles = 900 gallons * 3.75/gal = $3375 cost for fuel.

25mpg for 1 year @ 18000 miles = 720 gallons * 3.75/gal = $2700 cost for fuel.

~$675/year in fuel savings (considering cost of fuel does not go up or down).

RE: Is it worth it?
By Brandon Hill on 7/28/2011 11:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it depends. If people trade in every five years, that is a $3375 savings. That's a lot of beer money :)

RE: Is it worth it?
By Solandri on 7/28/2011 3:04:32 PM , Rating: 4
Not so fast. There's something wrong with those mileage numbers. It says 17/25/20 city/hwy/combined for one engine, 20/28/25 for the other. The difference between city mileage (17 vs 20) is 3 mpg. The difference between highway mileage (25 vs 28) is 3 mpg. Yet somehow the difference between their combined mileage is 5 mpg? That doesn't make sense. There's no algebraic combination of A*city + B*hwy which can give you combined ratings of 20 and 25.

If 17/25/20 is correct, then the weighting to get the combined mileage is A=53%, B=47%. You drive 53 miles at 17 mpg (3.11 gal), 47 miles at 25 mpg (1.88 gal), for a total of 5.00 gallons over 100 miles, or 20 mpg.

But if you apply A=53%, B=47% to 20/28/25, you get 53 miles at 20 mpg (2.65 gal), 47 miles at 28 mpg (1.68 gal), for a total of 4.33 gal over 100 miles, or 23 mpg.

If 20/28/25 is correct, then the weighting for combined mileage is A=30%, B=70%. The 4-cyl engine gets 25 mpg combined. The 6-cyl engine gets 22 mpg. I'll assume this is the correct figure since A and B work out to be round numbers.

So re-doing the annual fuel cost savings, we get:

@18k miles/yr
22 mpg for 1 year = 900 gallons * 3.75/gal = $3068
25 mpg for 1 year = 720 gallons * 3.75/gal = $2700
$368 savings, 2.7 year payback

@12k miles/yr
22 mpg for 1 year = 900 gallons * 3.75/gal = $2045
25 mpg for 1 year = 720 gallons * 3.75/gal = $1800
$245 savings, 4.1 year payback

RE: Is it worth it?
By Solandri on 7/28/2011 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 3
Whoops, forgot to change the gallons used numbers. But the $ amounts are correct.

18k miles/yr @ 22 mpg = 818 gallons

12k miles/yr @ 22 mpg = 545 gallons
12k miles/yr @ 25 mpg = 480 gallons

RE: Is it worth it?
By Stiggalicious on 7/28/2011 3:25:10 PM , Rating: 1
The EPA's numbers are still quite plausible, actually.

When you completely change the engine dynamics for a car, the mileage dynamics also change.
Sure, the minimum mileage can change by only 3, and the maximum can change by only 3, but the change in engine can also cause its mixed mileage to shift more towards highway mileage. Turbocharged engines usually do that since they're more efficient while delivering a higher amount of power than while delivering a lower amount. If you notice that the peak power/torques are also at lower RPMs, that means it's working closer to its peak efficiency more of the time.

To help visualize, enjoy this simple, er, visualization. The bars are city/highway, and the * is mixed.
| * |
| * |

It's still quite valid that the mixed mileage can shift more than both the minimum and maximum.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Solandri on 7/28/2011 4:02:55 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, the minimum mileage can change by only 3, and the maximum can change by only 3, but the change in engine can also cause its mixed mileage to shift more towards highway mileage.

Nope, the "EPA combined" mpg is just a straight algebraic combination of their measured city and hwy mileage. I finally found it:

It's just 55% city, 45% hwy. So the correct figures would be 17/25/20 and 20/28/23.

RE: Is it worth it?
By tastyratz on 7/29/2011 10:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are close but not quite. Turbocharged engines are more *mechanically* efficient by utilizing losses, but they are not more *fuel* efficient making the same power at 100% engine output. Don't forget the turbocharger is not a free lunch, while it uses waste exhaust gas energy to spin it does so by placing a restriction in the exhaust and in off boost in the intake as well. This piled on the fact that you need less efficient air fuel ratios and timing to support a denser charge per liter lead to less fuel efficiency. Anytime you are in boost to get max power, you use more fuel than another engine of equal power NA uses.
Generally NA engines have a bsfc of .50 at peak, turbocharged might be .60.

Also overall fuel efficiency for light driving in a non stressed turbo engine that is not making boost will be better because it is a smaller engine I am totally on board with that.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Spuke on 7/29/2011 11:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
This piled on the fact that you need less efficient air fuel ratios and timing to support a denser charge per liter lead to less fuel efficiency.
How does this change on direct injected engines?

RE: Is it worth it?
By tastyratz on 7/29/2011 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
direct injection allows for a more precise mixture and flexibility, but you can't get away from needing a richer mixture under power for engine safety/reliability. the biggest benefit I think of direct injection is the precision control of the injection event relative to crank angle. This allows full flexibility and leaner cruising mixtures. high pressure turbocharged events benefit from the better atomization so you can run a leaner mixture than before per say, but it still needs richer at wot compared to a similar NA engine

RE: Is it worth it?
By Spuke on 7/29/2011 6:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
but it still needs richer at wot compared to a similar NA engine
Thanks for the explanation.

RE: Is it worth it?
By JediJeb on 7/29/2011 5:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Where fuel efficiency increases come in relative to turbo versus NA engines is that with the increased torque you can get away with a higher gear ratio so you travel farther per revolution of the engine. It is a trick that some people are using when putting the 4 cylinder Cummins (Bread Truck) engines in vehicles. They crank up the boost and the fuel injectors which should be using more fuel, but they also put in crazy high gear ratios and get better fuel efficiency in the end.

Same reason I can get fair mileage from my F150, because I can run in 5th gear at 30 mph or lower. Even in town I can do a quick 1,3,5 shift and be in overdrive for most of the distance between stoplights. It isn't as easy to get away with that in the V8 5.0L trucks because their torque curve maxes out at much higher rpm than my I6 4.9L.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Philippine Mango on 7/29/2011 12:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
The actual equation the EPA uses is 45% highway driving 55% city driving but thanks to your math, you came close. Just an FYI

RE: Is it worth it?
By aguilpa1 on 7/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Is it worth it?
By GruntboyX on 7/28/2011 11:50:19 AM , Rating: 3
Its not greed. It cost more to build that direct injected and twin turbo charged motor. The V6 is much less complex. While the displacement is smaller on the I4, it isnt the sole contributing factor in price.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Iaiken on 7/28/2011 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can start with the fact that it's an all-aluminum engine and that aluminum prices are 6x that of cast iron before you factor in the additional machining costs.

RE: Is it worth it?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2011 2:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
The V6 they use is also all aluminum. I don't know anything other than truck motors and diesels that are built with a cast iron block anymore.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Iaiken on 7/28/2011 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
Correct, for some reason I read that as Duratorq (cast iron block, aluminum head) while Duratec is all-aluminum. But at least they are not as absurd as BMW's current engine naming schemes.

RE: Is it worth it?
By cknobman on 7/28/2011 11:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
I live in DFW Texas and I drive 20-22k per year so I used 18 as a conservative estimate.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Spuke on 7/28/2011 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Charging an extra $1000 for a smaller engine is a despicable thing to do by Ford and just shows how greedy they are.
The tech costs more money. I guess you haven't been reading the previous articles on this.

RE: Is it worth it?
By aebiv on 7/28/2011 12:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
I average 51k a year, but then again my job requires a lot of travel.

RE: Is it worth it?
By wyrmslair on 7/28/2011 1:16:56 PM , Rating: 3
Um, it looks like neither of us is near the average, which you are correct to state as around 12K miles per year, but you are as far below the average as I am above at 25K miles per year. Either way, the numbers justify well enough around the average and there are as many of us who exceed the average by enough margin to make that $995 a good trade off for a reasonable increase in mileage without much trade off in power. If gas goes up at all, it just gets better.

As for the price being too high, turbo engines cost more money to make period. Realistically, compared to the cost of one of these, I'd say it's a relatively small percentage. You do realize that a sunroof costs $900 right? So a major engine option switch running $1000 isn't exactly highway robbery. Not to mention a diesel option would probably get another 5 mpg and cost another $1000 to $2000 over the turbo 4?

Basically, if it doesn't work for your needs, then fine don't sweat it. That doesn't make it despicable. In some cases, a smaller engine isn't a cheaper engine to make just because it has less displacement.

RE: Is it worth it?
By tng on 7/28/2011 1:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
I average about 25K a year and I am only home for 6 months of the year. If you live in a large urban environment, you need to get out to the suburbs and spend some time there, understand the other side.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Jeffk464 on 7/29/2011 12:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
With the number of miles you drive a year you could save a fortune by buying a 2012 ford focus or even a toyota prius. Why would you drive a low mileage vehicle?

By the way popular mechanics just did a review on all the current crossovers and the consensus was the new dodge was the best. This was do mainly to its Mercedes based chassis, and not on dodge know how.

RE: Is it worth it?
By tng on 7/29/2011 8:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
I drive a 99 Honda Civic 2dr Coupe. My last fill up I got 45mpg.

I would entertain the idea of the Focus, but not the Prius, I just can't stand the looks.

RE: Is it worth it?
By Jeffk464 on 7/29/2011 12:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
By the way anyone else realizing how amazing this engine will be in the ford focus? Screams Ford SVT team.

By VahnTitrio on 7/28/2011 11:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
Does it list the towing capacity of the Ecoboost? Around my parts people buy large vehicles because they intend to use them (there's probably a trailer for every family here). Now this obviously won't be able to tow huge loads but can they eek a 5000 lb capacity out of it? 3000?

RE: Towing
By Brandon Hill on 7/28/2011 11:05:29 AM , Rating: 3
OUCH! Just checked, maximum towing dropped from 5000 pounds to 2000 pounds with the EcoBoost.


RE: Towing
By DanNeely on 7/28/2011 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
As long as the standard v6 remains available I don't see much of a problem. Towing might be common where VahnTitrio lives; but most suv's are only used to carry people/cargo internally. It's not a problem for the general suburban yuppiemobile use.

RE: Towing
By Brandon Hill on 7/28/2011 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. Most of these vehicles will be piloted by moms hopping curbs at Target ;)

RE: Towing
By DanNeely on 7/28/2011 1:11:02 PM , Rating: 5
Most of these vehicles will be piloted by moms <strike>hopping curbs</strike> who slow down to 1 mile and hour when approaching a 1 inch high speed bump at Target


RE: Towing
By mcnabney on 7/28/2011 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
That 2000 pound towing sounds stupid-low. My 4cyl 2.5L Mazda 5 can tow that much.

RE: Towing
By THEfog on 7/29/2011 2:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah something about that number seems way to low. My 4Cyl 2.89L B2600 Is rated for 5000 Pounds and its simply a rear wheel drive Tradie ute.

RE: Towing
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 2:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
I read that they completely lost any resemblance of off road capability too. Too bad, I guess this is what is sorta happening to the 4 runner too though.

RE: Towing
By mindless1 on 7/28/2011 9:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's only available with front wheel drive, so yes of course there's no off-road capability.

RE: Towing
By Iaiken on 7/28/2011 11:50:18 AM , Rating: 4
Towing capacity has as much to do with the suspension and transmission as it does the engine. When you're looking in the 5000lb+ range you're talking AWD, locking differentials, low range mode, stiffer suspension, larger breaks, etc.

The new six speed transmission is front wheel drive and geared for fuel economy. Likewise, the vehicle looks like it is going to be about 440lbs lighter and that negatively affects it's ability to safely tow a load. So with the engine accounting for 120lbs of the difference the remaining 320lbs probably came from the absence of AWD, smaller breaks and lighter duty suspension.

RE: Towing
By theapparition on 7/28/2011 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Time to sell the boat and buy some jetskis. 2000lbs you say, OK, make that one jetski. Sorry family, we can only go out one at a time.

Maybe I'm over dramaticizing here, but that is a huge hit to towing capacity. Even 5000 for the V6 isn't enough to do that much with. My boat trailer weighs close to 2000lbs.

RE: Towing
By MonkeyPaw on 7/28/2011 12:52:42 PM , Rating: 5
You can always not get the ecoboost option, save $999, tow more, and be happy. As long as the options are there, its not a problem. And as someone already said, the extra towing capacity comes at a cost of efficiency. Besides, the new explorer is on a car frame, so its not really a towing machine from the start.

RE: Towing
By GruntboyX on 7/28/2011 11:48:25 AM , Rating: 3
The unibody construction coupled with the part time AWD system just doesn't make a good towing vehicle. Contrast that with the Durango which is RWD and a more traditional suspension, it can tow 7000 lbs and has full time FWD. Popular mechanics has a nice piece on the off road prowess of these new CUVs

RE: Towing
By Jeffk464 on 7/29/2011 12:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
These crossovers are basically restyled minivans. Don't expect large towing capacity.

RE: Towing
By PhantomKnight on 7/29/2011 10:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
We have the same problem here in Australia with regards to Turbo charged engined cars not able to tow as much. Eg, my 1800 kg (400lbs) sedan has an inline 6 4.0ltr Turbocharged engine, putting out 360hp at the rear wheels, and is only rated to tow 1200kgs (2600lbs). Where as the 5.4ltr V8 and N/A i6 4.0ltr version, is rated at 2300kgs (5100 lbs). As best as I can figure is that due to it being a turbo'ed petrol engine, there is an issue with heating up the turbo and reducing longevity.

Why no diesel?
By Isidore on 7/28/2011 11:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
In Europe this type of vehicle would just be sold with a turbocharged diesel which is a much better engine for towing than an anaemic 4 cylinder gasoline engine. Also, front wheel drive only is a poor choice for a tow car

RE: Why no diesel?
By Brandon Hill on 7/28/2011 11:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Because Americans have been "told" that hybrids are the answer to all our fuel economy woes.

When most Americans think of diesels, they think heavy duty pickups and VWs

RE: Why no diesel?
By Spuke on 7/28/2011 12:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Because Americans have been "told" that hybrids are the answer to all our fuel economy woes.
No Americans generally don't like diesels. You know that. Supposedly there is a shift in that thinking but we'll see when the new Cruze diesel hits the streets.

RE: Why no diesel?
By twhittet on 7/28/2011 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't European diesel and American diesel slightly different? I thought American diesel wasn't refined the same way, making 1 more reason small diesel cars don't work well for us.

RE: Why no diesel?
By Iaiken on 7/28/2011 2:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel standards in Canada, the US and Mexico converged with those of the EU back in 2008 and the current TDI's engines that are imported are identical to those used in the EU.

RE: Why no diesel?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2011 8:13:36 PM , Rating: 1
No Americans generally don't like diesels. You know that.

That and the fact that we have a viable trucking industry that the government loves taxing the living hell out of, so usually diesel fuel here costs more than regular grade pump gas. Kind of hard to push a technology that costs even more at the pump than people are paying now. And before anyone says it, yes I understand that you still end up paying less because of efficiency. But it still causes a marketing and image problem.

RE: Why no diesel?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Why no diesel?
By drycrust3 on 7/28/2011 12:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
Do you make cars for a living? No.

What does America make and sell that no one else does?

RE: Why no diesel?
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/28/2011 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 4
Bullshit, world's finest bullshit.

RE: Why no diesel?
By Spuke on 7/28/2011 3:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
What does America make and sell that no one else does?
Do you mind not lumping all 300 million of us into one person please? I know plenty of Europeans as well as people from other nations and I would not lump them in with a$$wipes like yourself. Euro people are not robots and neither are we.

RE: Why no diesel?
By thurston2 on 7/28/2011 10:53:57 PM , Rating: 1
You need to let go of all that hate.

RE: Why no diesel?
By GruntboyX on 7/28/2011 11:52:42 AM , Rating: 4
Europe subsidies the cost of Diesel in much the same way America subsides the cost of corn.

If Diesel was taxed the same way Petrol was, then it would be a wash. Couple that with Americas more stringent Diesel air quality standards and it doesn't make it a viable option. I like to think that America cares more about its environment than Europe ..... I jest.

RE: Why no diesel?
By Las123 on 7/29/2011 4:39:08 AM , Rating: 1
I am not aware of any subsidies for Diesel in Europe. If anything all type of fuel costs way more in Europe than in the States and Diesel is typically more expensive than Petrol and is a major source of tax revenue.
Just a few examples: today a gallon of diesel here in England is 8.70 dollars and a gallon of unleaded is 8.43
I would not call it a subsidy.

By Iaiken on 7/28/2011 10:58:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ford Drops All-Aluminum EcoBoost Four-cylinder into the Explorer, Tacks on $995 Premium

This is pretty much par for the course when you're moving to more advanced engines that are made from lighter/costlier materials. The V6's weigh 159lbs less than their 5l V8 equivalents and the i4's weigh 120lbs less than their V6 counterparts. This means a weight savings of anywhere up to 5% (depending on the car) and a semi-proportional increase to fuel economy. Meanwhile the aluminum being used is 6x as expensive as the cast iron used in fords older engine blocks and it is more difficult to machine.

Not sure why this is a story actually... :P

RE: Ahem...
By Mathos on 7/28/2011 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the other reasons for using all aluminum engine design. The main one being when the engine heats up, or starts to overheat, the whole engine is expanding and contracting at the same rate. Where as in older engines with a cast iron block and aluminum head setup, the iron block doesn't expand and contract at the same point as the aluminum head, which is what causes head warping, or block cracking during overheats.

RE: Ahem...
By jah1subs on 7/28/2011 4:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it is interesting to see the differences in MPG and the five year fuel costs. This is the smallest ecoBoost engine that Ford is selling. I am sure that they are experiencing a new learning curve with each engine. This is part of the price difference.

That said, this engine could be put into most of Ford's line-up increasing gas mileage across the board. Remember that the Focus and Transit Connect currently both use the 2.0L 4 cylinder normally aspirated engine.

RE: Ahem...
By DanNeely on 7/28/2011 4:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
It might show up as a performance upgrade, more likely Ford will make a ~1.5L DI turbo to replace the 2.0 naturally aspirated engine in their lower end cars.

RE: Ahem...
By Spuke on 7/28/2011 5:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
The Fiesta is getting a 1.0L 3 cyl turbo (in the article). The NA DI 4cyl will more than likely be only in the Focus and the 2.0L DI turbo will be spread around in other vehicles (the Edge is supposed to get this engine too).

RE: Ahem...
By Jeffk464 on 7/29/2011 12:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
Screw that, the focus should get the 2L turbo with a 6 speed manual and sport suspension.

RE: Ahem...
By Spuke on 7/29/2011 12:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Screw that, the focus should get the 2L turbo with a 6 speed manual and sport suspension.
The ST version of the Focus is supposed to get a higher hp 2.0L turbo.

By undummy on 7/28/2011 8:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad they couldn't sell it in AWD for the 4cyl/6cyl AWD MPG comparison.

Kia Sportage, Mazda CX7, Acura RDX, Subaru... have AWD vehicles with turbo power too. Time to compare tow specs, vehicle weights, MPG....

Towing and offroading are for the few.

But, if the unibody is the same as the v6, and with some temp gauges(oil, water, ATF), I would tow a gazillion pounds to see what breaks 1st.

Obviously, the unibody is up to strength with the v6. So, what is the tow limit fuse? the smaller engine? the smaller transmission? the smaller radiator? the smaller oil cooler? smaller brake rotors? what gives Ford? warranty statistical analysis(hint hint)?

By mindless1 on 7/28/2011 10:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'd imagine they use a less beefy transmission with different ratios and shift points to eek out a fair amount of that mileage difference, that it's not solely due to the new engine.

What about tuning the V6?
By stooley on 7/29/2011 5:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
I like the idea of the turbo 4cyl, but $995 more for less hp (albeit, more torque), less towing prowess, and only 3mpg improvement? This disappoints me. I have to believe that if they added Direct Injection to the V6 and found a way to drop 100 to 200 pounds off this porker, they could achieve the 3mpg increase while keeping or improving towing. It may be cheaper too. The EcoBoost in the SHO already has DI, so the heads are already in production.

On a different note, because of where I live (near Davenport, IA) I have almost always achieved the rated highway mileage as my average mileage. It's an area of nearly 450,000 people, so there is a bunch of city driving as well, but far more highway. So, as for payback, this turbo 4cyl makes sense for me. But, I feel that these EcoBoost gains are compared to a slightly neutered V6. Add DI to the V6, and there's a real comparison.

One day...
By Pessimism on 7/29/2011 2:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
We will be telling our children about the olden times when larger, more powerful engines cost more than smaller, more efficient ones. This seems so bass-ackwards. The V8 being the cheapest just seems so wrong.

By puritanal on 8/2/2011 12:02:34 AM , Rating: 2

By nvpyyasnzqya on 7/30/2011 9:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
welcome to our website:

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com --------

if you like to order anything you like.

More details,

please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;

Service is our Lift.

enjoy yourself.

thank you!!

-------www (point) ifancyshop (point) com-----

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki