backtop


Print 123 comment(s) - last by deadrats.. on Jul 16 at 10:53 PM


Ford's upcoming 2009 F-150 is delayed slightly due to slowing demand for gas-guzzling pickups.
Ford looks to smaller displacement engine with turbochargers to boost fuel economy in its full-size truck

When people think of the Ford F-150 full-size pickup, most think of a hulking, crew cab, 4x4 cruising down the street with a Triton V8 under the hood. At the very least, you'd expect to see a base model version with Ford's venerable 4.2 liter V6 providing the motivating force for the vehicle.

With gas prices putting many Americans near the breaking point -- and sending sales of full-size trucks and SUVs downward -- Ford is looking to downsize its powertrain offerings for the F-150. According to Ford Product Chief Derrick Kuzak, the F-150 may be offered with an EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. The turbocharged four-banger would provide in excess of 260 HP and 300 lb-ft of torque. For comparison, the current base V6 provides 202 HP and 260 lb-ft of torque, while the smallest V8 offering is rated at 248 HP and 294 lb-ft of torque.

Dan Kapp, Ford's Powertrain Research and Advanced Engineering Director, went on to praise EcoBoost turbocharging and stated, "In probably the most extreme cases, we’re going to be downsizing on the order of 40, 50 percent. That would take, for example, a three-liter V6 down to a two-liter four-cylinder engine. A 2.5-liter four-cylinder could be something on the order of 1.5-liters."

With these factors, an EcoBoost six-cylinder engine can produce like an eight-cylinder and a four-cylinder engine like a six."

The EcoBoost 4-cylinder engine for the F-150 would only be available on a select few trim levels. According to PickupTruck.com, the engine will likely only be made available on the regular cab 4x2 and 4x4 models. The introduction of the EcoBoost four-cylinder engine will also help to boost Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).

While the four-cylinder EcoBoost variant may boost economy on the low end, Ford is also preparing a 3.5 liter V6 EcoBoost engine for the F-150 in 2010. The engine eclipses the current range-topping V8 in the F-150 with 350 HP and 390 lb-ft of torque -- this compares with 300 HP and 365 lb-ft of torque for the current 5.4 liter V8 engine.

The EcoBoost V6 will also manage to better the V8 in fuel economywhen paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission. Fuel economy is said to rise from 14 MPG /19 MPG (city/highway) to at least 16 MPG / 22 MPG.



Comments     Threshold


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

Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:38:26 AM , Rating: 3
My girl just got a 2007 Mazda CX-7, a CUV based on the same relative idea, a turbo four banger to grab bigger economy out of SUVs/trucks. Its got 244 HP and 258 ft/lbs of torque, and the damn thing flies off the line while getting a rated 19/25. Not bad for a 5000 lb. truck and a four cyl!




RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 7:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
That thing weighs 5000 lbs?!?!?!


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, 4780 w/ 2wd, as we have it. 4997 w/ AWD.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 7:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
Eeep, my bad, I was using gross weight. Curb weight is 3780 lbs 2wd, 3996 AWD. Major fail typo!


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 8:15:25 AM , Rating: 1
Oh ok. I was about to say. Mazda doesn't have any real truck frames to build that thing off of so I was wondering how a car platform based vehicle could weigh so damn much.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By jonodsparks on 7/14/2008 9:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just about everything Ford, Mazda, and Volvo produce (including SUV/CUV) are all based on either the Mazda3 or the Mazda6 frame. Ford had the bright idea a few years back to make use of all these brands they carry to share some of the design load. Mazda designed the frames and performance features (Zoom-zoom baby!), Volvo did all of the safety features (safest car on the road after all) and Ford provided the manufacturing infrastructure. Seems to be working out really well for them. They have some very successful vehicles, but as a proud 08 Edge Limited owner, I'm biased.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Stacey Melissa on 7/14/2008 1:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
My Mazda3 was made in Japan, so I rather doubt it's coming of the same line as the Focus and the S40, although I have heard it shares the same platform as those other cars.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By teldar on 7/14/2008 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's the european focus the 3 shares the platform with.

And the CX-7 is its OWN platform. It's a chimera of several different things. It's something that's dying in today's automotive world. A platform that ONE vehicle is built upon.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By afkrotch on 7/14/2008 10:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
You mean more like 1/2 the parts are made in Japan and then it's assembled elsewhere. It's not like every Japanese car is being shipped around the world in containers on ships.

Your Mazda3 may have come out the same factory as a Focus or S40. They may even share one section of a production line.

There's no such thing as "Made In XXX location" anymore.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Cygni on 7/15/2008 2:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, buddy, you probably need to look a little more into the car industry before you make statements like that.

The Mazda 3 rolls off final assembly in Hofu, Japan. Its shipped over seas, just like millions of other cars a year, in huge car carrier ships known as RORO's... roll on/roll off. Many Japanese cars are yes, still made in Japan, including the Mazda 3. Just as many European cars are still produced in Europe.

Does this mean that the Mazda 3 shares no commonality with Fords other platforms and parts assemblies? Of course not. They can saves huge amounts of money by tapping into proven products and designs in Fords catalog, and vice versa.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By rett448 on 7/15/2008 7:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
The C1 platform is shared by many Volva, Mazda and Ford cars including the mazda 3 and Volvo S40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_C1_platform

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_car...


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Cobra Commander on 7/14/2008 12:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Porsche's Cayenne exceeds 5000lbs. to my knowledge and they have no truck frames.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Damn they must've crammed it full of crap.

Chevy's SSR weighed around 5000 pounds but it was built off a truck frame.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Hare on 7/14/2008 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
Porche Cayanne Turbo 2007 is 5192 pounds (4.8L engine, 368KW and 700nm torque ~516lb-ft).

Btw. The Cayanne uses the same base as VW Touareg. Audi Q7 also uses the same frame with some modifications. The Audi weights 4900pounds (with moderate engine) and the VW weighs about the same.

Of course they don't use a truck frame. These are "agile" 4x4 cars that handle well.

Btw. The V12 TDI Audi Q7 outputs 500hp and 1000nm of torque ~


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By theapparition on 7/14/2008 8:46:10 AM , Rating: 4
OK,
I'm going to bring up the dreaded "V8" word again, mainly because I'm so familiar with them.

You state it gets 19/25. Which is not too bad for a crossover (relatively speaking). However, if you look at a vehicle like the Pontiac GTO, that also has a 3800lbs curb weight, and gets 17/26. All with 400hp on tap! Where is the supposed benifit of the "turbo" engine? Even the example in the article goes to show that mpg improvements went from 14 to 16mpg. To meet CAFE, more signifigant changes will be necessary, primarilly with weight reduction.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By B166ER on 7/14/2008 9:25:38 AM , Rating: 4
I'm no car aerodynamic expert, but I would immediately assume the benefit is that the CX-7 likely isn't as air shape efficient as the GTO. Sports cars usually are a bit more efficient (there's a better word for this, I cant remember) than than trucks/SUV's, but I could be wrong. I do realize the CX-7 has a more aerodynamic shape than most SUVs, but I cant imagine it would have the same coefficient as the GTO.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
Drag does not affect gas mileage to that kind of degree.

The reason the GTO gets such good mileage is because of its gear ratios. The T56 6-speed has a .75 5th gear for city cruising and a .5 6th gear for highway cruising. This allows the engine to run below 2000 rpm at 50 mph and 80 mph.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By 16nm on 7/14/2008 10:27:28 AM , Rating: 4
And the GTO is able to push a tall gear like that because of its relatively low drag coefficient. I can't believe YOU need to be told this.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By 91TTZ on 7/14/2008 11:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's able to push a tall gear like that because the big engine has loads of low-end torque. A smaller engine wouldn't have low-end torque like that.

My car has a twin turbo V6 with a ton of torque, but it comes at about 3500 rpm. At 2000 rpm I'd be bogging.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Spivonious on 7/14/2008 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but the twin-turbo Z is a blast to drive! :)


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By theapparition on 7/14/2008 1:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!

Torque (and more importantly where peak torque is located) is where its at for most driving.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/14/2008 1:57:24 PM , Rating: 3
And loads of low end torque does not come without consuming gas. Aerodynamic drag is the #1 factor in highway fuel economy. It is a funtion of not only the Cd (Coefficient of Drag) but also the frontal area. If the CX7 has a Cd of 0.30 and the GTO a Cd of 0.35, but the CX7's 1.5X (pulling these numbers out of my arse because I do no have actual data in front of me) more frontal area would give it more overall drag (you just multiply the 2 numbers).

Horsepower required to keep a vehicle moving at steady state increases to the 3rd power with speed. And horsepower is nothing more than torque at speed. Engine torque curves at various throttle settings and engine speed are mapped out on a dyno, and the rest of the drivetrain is designed from there.

So gearing is chosen for economy is based on the specific torque output / efficiency of the engine at a predefined speed. This speed is typically in the area of 55 to 65 MPH. (I've done these tests BTW). So whatever your engine choice is, you match the gearing to it, but drag still determines the final answer.

Weight along with rolling resistance play much smaller roles in fuel consumption at cruising speeds, but around town when you mash on the gas and then brakes constantly, it makes a big difference. Remember F=ma from Dynamics 201?

So Fit, based on your handle I would expect you should know better than that.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By deadrats on 7/14/2008 6:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
jimbo, you are way off base:

claim: "And loads of low end torque does not come without consuming gas."

fact: low end torque has little to do with how much fuel is consumed, torque is the rotational counterpart to force and is defined as force times lever arm. you can increase low end torque without effecting fuel consumption one bit by simply increasing the stroke of the engine (changing the crank and connecting rods). that's why diesel engines have so much low end torque and have such great fuel economy, they have long strokes and they don't rev higher than about 2500 rpm's.

claim: "Aerodynamic drag is the #1 factor in highway fuel economy."

fact: not true, the rpm the engine spins at the biggest factor by far as to how much fuel is used. horsepower is equal to torque times rpm divided by 5252 (the torque curve and the horsepower curve cross at 5252 rpm's). a car being driven at 50 mph in 4th gear will use more fuel than the same car being driven at 50 mph in 5th gear because in 4th gear the engine is spinning at more rpm's.

claim: "Horsepower required to keep a vehicle moving at steady state increases to the 3rd power with speed."

fact: i would love to know what exactly are you smoking? i nearly laughed myself senseless with the above statement. since you happened to mention "dynamics 201" and i was a physics major in college, i thought i would ask if you remember newton's laws of motion, specifically the one dealing with inertia (you know, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force)<---do you remember that little tidbit?

the amount of horsepower required to keep a vehicle moving at a constant velocity is lower than is required to accelerate it and the amount is equal to the reactive force exerted on the tires (and yes, at much higher speeds drag does come into play somewhat). however, the claim about as speed increases the amount of horsepower required to maintain velocity is cubed is absolutely laughable. a simple calculation would show you that you are wrong, if you had taken the time to figure it out:

assume that it only takes 10hp to keep a 4000 lb vehicle moving at 25mph, by your claim it would require 100hp to maintain a velocity of 50mph and a velocity of 75mph would take 1000hp to maintain said velocity (10^3, as per your claim), clearly you are wrong.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 12:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
At lower speeds things other then drag have a bigger effect, He never said it was the only effect. plus I doubt it takes 10 HP to KEEP a car moving at 25 mph.

But above 50 MPH the drag becomes more of a factor, I've got a 88 Dodge Dakota from Cheyenne W.Y. to North platte N.E. on a quater tank of gas with a 45 MPH wind to the back of me and I was traveling at 50 mph. The truck only has a 13 gallon tank. you do the math.

Wind was the NUMBER 1 factor in that witch amounts to 70MPG.

DRAG FORCE ON A ONE-SQUARE FOOT SQUARE PLATE

Speed

Drag Force Horsepower Required
to Overcome the
Aerodynamic Drag
0 mph 0 pounds 0 hp
100 mph 33 pounds 9 hp
200 mph 133 pounds 71 hp
300 mph 299 pounds 239 hp

You might want to look in too this before you start barking out nonesense.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 12:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
The tree may make this apear to be a comment to Jimbo. However, this is a comment to deadrats.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/15/2008 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel is not gasoline. The specific energy and burn type are completely different.

Physics major huh? So what exactly do you know about vehicle dynamics? Apparently not much.

http://www.solusinc.com/horsepower.html

...and
"There are two forms of drag on a car; rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Rolling resistance (tyres and drive train losses) increases slowly, but constantly with speed. Aerodynamic drag increases as the square of the speed (V in km/h) and power required to overcome that drag increases as the cube of the speed.

Power (Kw) = rolling resistance + V^3 Cd A / 76716 + rolling resistance"

from http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Miscellaneous/TorqueHP...

So as I said the required horsepower increased to the 3rd power with speed.

And again as I said, weight does not have much of an effect on mileage at cruising speeds. But when you constantly start and stop, it does. This is what you just reaffirmed.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By deadrats on 7/16/2008 10:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesel is not gasoline. The specific energy and burn type are completely different.


really, i never would have figured that out, thanks for the tip (please note the sarcasm).

the fact that diesel has a lower specific energy than gasoline is why diesel engines are designed with incredibly long strokes and low redlines, but that is also what gives them their superior fuel economy, not the type of fuel they run on. if you were to build a gas engine using the same design philosophy of long stoke/low redline you would see similar fuel economy from a gas engine.

quote:
"There are two forms of drag on a car; rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Rolling resistance (tyres and drive train losses) increases slowly, but constantly with speed. Aerodynamic drag increases as the square of the speed (V in km/h) and power required to overcome that drag increases as the cube of the speed.

Power (Kw) = rolling resistance + V^3 Cd A / 76716 + rolling resistance"

from http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Miscellaneous/TorqueHP...

So as I said the required horsepower increased to the 3rd power with speed.


you asked what my physics background taught me about vehicle dynamics, and then postulated "not much". in my defense i should point out that it did teach me how to interpret a formula, something evidently you don't know how to do:

"Power (Kw) = rolling resistance + V^3 Cd A / 76716 + rolling resistance"

is not the same as:

"power required to overcome that drag increases as the cube of the speed".

which in formula notation would be:

Power (Kw) = V^3

do i really need to explain to you that taking a number and cubing it is not the same as taking a number, cubing it, multiplying it by a decimal (the coefficient of drag) multiplying it by another number (the frontal area) dividing the sum by 76716 and then adding rolling resistance.

btw, there is something wrong with that formula, whoever posted it adds rolling resistance twice to the sum...

quote:
And again as I said, weight does not have much of an effect on mileage at cruising speeds.
.

never said it did, learn to pay attention.

so "jimbo", any other misinformed nuggets you care to share with us?


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/15/2008 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a car being driven at 50 mph in 4th gear will use more fuel than the same car being driven at 50 mph in 5th gear because in 4th gear the engine is spinning at more rpm's.


Not true either. It's because 5th gear at 50MPH is designed to better match the specific fuel consumption versus torque output of the engine.

At 50MPH it takes much more effort to push the car through the wind than it takes to spin up a crankshaft to some rotational velocity. Its moment of inertia is insignificant.

So get your "facts" straight and then we'll talk.

Your so called "facts" come from 0 background in the field.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 11:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
His physics major isn't doing him any good either. Witch I doubt he has.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By ziggo on 7/14/2008 1:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
The turbo-4 that this will be using is probably nearly identical to the one in my speed3. (slightly higer displacement, maybe a 2.5-2.7) They put a small k04 turbo on these that spins up very quick, my torque peak is 284@ 3450.

The DI allows for tons of valve overlap at low rpms becuase it wont blow unburnt gas into the exhaust. It raises the volumetric efficiency quite a bit.(for those ricy honda guys its like always on vtec) It also raises the amount of boost you can run as the fuel cools the charge during compression. Stock uns 15.6psi, many guys are running 18-19psi on the stock turbo with no problems.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
A truck really needs its max torque at 1000-1500 rpm. 3400 rpm is way too high.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Spuke on 7/14/2008 2:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A truck really needs its max torque at 1000-1500 rpm. 3400 rpm is way too high.
Not really, present trucks don't make peak torque at 1000-1500 rpm either. The 4.6L V8 makes peak torque at 4000 rpm (the 5.4L is at 3750). At 1000-1500 rpm it would be much less. As a matter of fact, it dips very steeply below 2500 rpm.

Since you wouldn't need the Ecoboost to breathe at high rpms in this application, you can go with a 2.5 to 2.7L like someone else suggested, optimize the cams for low rpm duty and use a really small turbo. There's other tricks but that's the gist of it.

With the weight that motor will be pulling around, the turbo will spool REAL fast, much like it would in a diesel engine. It will be pretty easy to beat the V6 and 4.6L V8's.

The 5.4L would take a twin-turbo V6 to match it. The 5.4L makes pretty close to peak torque by 3000 rpm.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By ziggo on 7/14/2008 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
So then the only acceptable engine for a truck is a large displacement diesel then?

And why does it matter in the first place? What reasoning do you have behind this? Engine Life?

I think a better requirement would be a large flat torque curve, which used to mean a high displacement, under square engine. This turbo-4 makes 90%peak torque from 3250-5750, or over 41% of the rev range. How is that inferior because it happens to turn faster to do it?

Moving even further, with advancements in CV transmissions, one could argue that the best engine would be a highly oversquare engine tuned for a very specific RPM. The only reason why the whole "area under the curve" arguement matters is because of discreet gearing.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Zoomer on 7/14/2008 9:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
CV transmission for a 5000 lb truck + trailer?

It would take some serious engineering (and $$$) to make sure the chain holds for an acceptable amount of time.

I think a constant rpm generator + electric engine would be more easily doable.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/16/2008 12:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
CVT Trannies cannnot handle the torque requirements yet. Maybe someday they will, but by then a hybrid drive with electric wheel motors should be the solution.

When I worked as a design engineer at a mining truck OEM, trucks over 105 tons (payload) used a system as mentioned above. Diesel engine connected to a big alternator which sent power to reaaaly big wheel motors.

Trucks under 105 tones used 6 speed automatic transmissions. They about the size of a Smart for Two.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By afkrotch on 7/14/2008 11:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
A truck at 1000 rpm is just sitting there. Idle. Non-moving. In the dead of winter, it'll probably be idle at 1500-2000 rpm.

Not sure why you'd need any torque at 1000-1500 rpm. I'd say 3000 rpm is when you'd want the most torque.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/16/2008 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Right. With an automatic transmission the torque converter multiplies your torque when it stalls, and continues to multiply torque until it locks up, so you are correct that you do not need full torque at idle.

With a manual transmission, you will typically see a "granny" 1st gear because you do not get any torque multiplication with a cluth.

As I mentioned in a post above, it's about choosing the right gearing to the engine. Of course you should start with an engine that has desireable characteristics as well.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/14/2008 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
My twin turbo S4 develops maximum torque at 1850 RPM.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Spuke on 7/14/2008 2:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My twin turbo S4 develops maximum torque at 1850 RPM.
This car is a great example. It can be done, it just takes a different approach. My Solstice is spooled up by 2500 rpm. Also, turbo's just don't turn on. They make boost progressively. You can get boost at 1500 rpm but not max boost although in a truck, you could. To see what I mean, drive a turbo car up a mountain road. Boost comes on MUCH quicker than on a flat road. More load, quicker spool.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Hare on 7/14/2008 3:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can also make wonders with the transmission. My TDI A4 has multitronic transmission (stepless: continuously variable transmission). It uses the transmission to keep the engine revs at optimum. When accelerating, the rpm needle stays at the max torque position all the way to ~100kmh. Great for performance and economy.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By theapparition on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not such a bad idea...
By KentState on 7/14/2008 5:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get that from? The GTO had a lower co-efficient that the Vette.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By theapparition on 7/15/2008 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try.

GTO .31
C5 .29
C6 .28

Not to mention that total drag is full cross sectional area multiplied by Cd. The GTO has quite a large frontal area compared to the vette.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By deadrats on 7/14/2008 6:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
no, the GTO is able to push such a tall gear ratio because of the 400hp and 400lb/ft it's engine produces, I can't believe you need to be told that.

for the record, aerodynamics do not come into play when measuring gas mileage on the EPA test cycle, all tests are done with the car on a dyno, with the tires spinning drums.

drag doesn't entire into the equation until you get well into the triple digits.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/16/2008 12:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
..and those drums simulate the aerodynamic load by applying a tractive load on the wheels. Just wondering, have you ever used a dyno?


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Polynikes on 7/14/2008 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I love my 6-speed. I'd have horrible gas mileage if it weren't for that.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Shark Tek on 7/14/2008 9:38:06 AM , Rating: 3
But i bet everything that the Top Gear of the GTO is a LOT MORE HIGHER than in the CX-7. It also have to do with the factory tuning. Experts agrees that the EVOX and the STI both have a killing tuning from the factory that once is corrected they can achieve better mpg.

I got a Civic SI with a 200hp naturally aspired 2.0l engine that is rated to 21/29 city/hwy. Chevy had launched a Cobalt SS Turbo with a 2.0l engine + turbo that produces 260hp. And guess what is rated to 22city and 30hwy. That is a lot for a turbocharger car with 260hp.

My point is that it can be done, turbo cars can performs better than N/A cars if they are properly tuned.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By abscoder on 7/14/2008 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...turbo cars can performs better than N/A cars if they are properly tuned...
And if properly outfitted. My STi currently does 475HP and 440 lb ft in a nice, broad curve. I still get 30 to 32 MPG at steady 75 MPH. That goes down significantly if I do a lot of WOT passing, however. :) But it demonstrates that your gas mileage running to the mall, doesn't necessarily have to suffer all the time just because you want to run sub 4 second 60's some of the time.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 5:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still get 30 to 32 MPG at steady 75 MPH.


Subaru's run extremely high revs as it is due to them wanting the car to pull in every gear. Especially STIs which are pretty much an off the shelf rally car. It's 6th gear is a whopping .75.

Considering the STI is rated from the factory at 23-25 mpg highway, I'd sure love to know how you increased your horsepower by 175 and torque by 150 ft-lbs and raised your gas mileage by 5-9 mpg. Sorry but I call BS.

I've rode with a guy who had a mildly modded WRX and even with some ECU adjustments for better power and efficiency, the best he got was like 27-28. I don't see how a fairly heavily modded STI is going to get at 5-9 mpg increase in mileage.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By abscoder on 7/14/2008 7:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just because there is more power on tap doesn’t mean it’s always being used, in fact less may be used under certain conditions. It’s more difficult to make more power without improving efficiency, and it’s that improved efficiency that helps me at the legal highway speeds. The entire intake track has been completely replaced with larger diameter and smoother passages, except for the intake manifold. This includes the turbo's inlet which is now 3 inches verses the stock 2.4 inches. The tumbler generating valve’s after the manifold and before the heads has been removed and their housing ported and polished. All exhaust piping, except for the manifold, has been replaced not just to increase size but also minimize bends. Both catalytic converters have been removed. Ceramic coatings and plenty of thermal wrappings help scavenge the exhaust. The entire fuel delivery system has been replaced to make sure that I don’t have to run 3 or more cylinders rich to make up for one running lean (as can happen with the stock setup) to keep the AFR and EGT where I want. She has improved intercooling so I don’t have to run any richer than necessary. Much improved fuel, timing, and boost maps definitely help and slightly improved aerodynamics don’t hurt either.

Aside from the improved efficiency in the system, I’ve clipped the turbine wheel 7 degrees on the larger, ported, and coated turbo. This raises the boost threshold a bit. Typically a stock STi (or WRX) will be build pressure while cruising at highway speeds, which will cause the ECM to inject more fuel. I do not build boost while cruising at 75 in 6th. Also consider that Subaru’s tend to run rich on the factory maps.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By AntiM on 7/14/2008 9:27:17 AM , Rating: 2
I looked at those last year when searching for a new CUV. It's a very good looking vehicle. The only problem is that is gets relatively low gas mileage compare to others in the same class (Honda CRX, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue). However, the biggest issue is that it requres Premium gas ! That's just plain stupid. I ended up with a Jeep Compass, rated at 26/30 mpg, with 170 HP. It's a tad underpowered, but it's good sized vehicle considering the fuel economy. I wish Mazda with come out with a version of the CX-7 that maybe has less HP but better fuel economy, and burns regular gas.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 9:41:17 AM , Rating: 3
Of course it requires premium. It's turbocharged. I run premium in my car because that's what it requires.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By sprockkets on 7/14/2008 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
The CX-7 no longer requires premium, neither does the Mazdaspeed3. It likes it though, but it just tunes down the hp output if you put in regular.

Big deal though, Consumer Reports though shows poor reliability on the CX-7, and it probably is due to the added complexity of a turbo setup.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/14/2008 2:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
And premium still costs only $0.20 per gallon more than regular. It did when gas was $1/gallon and it still does at $4/gallon. Funny how that works.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By ajfink on 7/14/2008 2:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I buy premium much more now than back in the day. Percentage-wise, it's not nearly as uneconomical, get a bit better gas mileage, etc.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Premium on an engine that does not require it is worthless. And in some cases can get lower mileage.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By afkrotch on 7/14/2008 11:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Cleaner burn, less crap in the engine, longer engine life. It's not completely worthless. My 96 Impreza still hums like a kitten and only things I've done with it is clean the air filter, oil changes, realignment, and tire changes.

I do beat the crap out of it and do quite a bit of offroading. When you own an Impreza, you gotta do some simulated rally driving.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Spuke on 7/14/2008 4:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, and if you have a 13 gallon tank like me and fill it at 11.8 gallons, you've saved a whopping $3 a week going from premium to regular.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Sunrise089 on 7/14/2008 11:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
You're actually making the opposite point you want to make. The CX-7 is a simply suburb vehicle for the would-be driving enthusiast who wants SUV-like vehicle capacity and ride height, but the fuel-economy of the turbo-4 has been bashed by the automotive press since day one.

The v6 in the larger CX-9 provides a more linear power band AND doesn't require premium fuel IIRC while providing relatively equal fuel numbers in a larger three-row vehicle.

The I4 is probably lighter and more compact, something that matters in the Mazdaspeed 3 or a hypothetical Mazdaspeed Miata powered by the engine. In an SUV though it was probably the wrong call to pick the turbo motor.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By ziggo on 7/14/2008 3:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
That would be one very mean Miata. I hope they do it.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By abscoder on 7/14/2008 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
How's this for a mean Miata? http://globalnetspace.com/miata/


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Cheetahwheelies on 7/14/2008 8:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
That is one INSANE NB! Too bad my stock '90 NA would kick its ass on a road course while putting a measly 89 RWHP to the pavement. I do appreciate purpose built race cars, though. That guy has definately done an excellent job.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By Zoomer on 7/14/2008 10:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see anything wrong with needing premium fuel, if it improves fuel economy at least proportionally. Even at 3/gal regular, $3.20 is only a price 6.7% premium. At $4, $4.2 is 5% more.

If needing premium allows for a 10% increase in fuel economy, I'm all for it. If gas prices go down to $2, it's a 10% premium. Remember that better fuel economy = better range with the same tank size.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By ICE1966 on 7/15/2008 5:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 1987 Ford Mustang GT, with 169k miles on it, and it gets close to 22mpg. yep thats right, almost 22mpg. It has the 5 liter V-8 that makes 225hp @ 4400rpm and 300ft.lbs. @ 3200-3400rpm. It has a 5 speed trans and 2.73 rear gear, all stock. The cars weighs in at about 3200lbs, and I have no problem keeping up with the 400hp GTO. in fact, I just tangled with one about 2 weeks ago on I-85. when we reached about 130mph, and I was still on his bumper, he gave up and slowed down. Hey, before I get beat up on this, I know it was crazy, but hell, most everybody has done a crazy thing or 2.
Any time your use forced induction on an engine it increases Hp but it does not make the engine efficent. Anytime more air is introduce into the engine, more fuel is needed so that the mixture does not lean out which can cause problems. you can adjust the timing to help, but the mixture still needs to stay within proper ratio. I like turbo 4 cylinder engines but I cannot see that as a true solution to help with fuel use. Ah, hell, I'm just throwing out some thoughts.


RE: Not such a bad idea...
By jabber on 7/15/2008 5:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
To a degree you are correct. Big engines with big turbos are not the answer for fuel saving. Anything delivering less than 30mpg in this day and age is a dinosaur and not something to be proud of.

Small high efficiency engines with small high efficiency turbos are.

I'm looking forward to the european manufacturers bringing out loads of 1000cc cars with twin turbos pushing out 100bhp+ and getting 60+mpg. Will be great fun. I love small cars by the way.


One issue
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 7:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
This would definitely effect tow ratings. But since a lot of people these days buy trucks and never tow anything, its a good thing. And really since this 4 cylinder is going to provide more horsepower and torque than even the lowest V8 offering, the trucks will even be more sporty.

A turbocharged V6 would be a lot of fun too. Up the boost on that sumb*tch. Now we just need to have diesel options for tons of tire burning torque. Especially out of the V6. ;)

Since GM already has the 260 hp Ecotec turbo-four, I'd expect them to follow suit.




RE: One issue
By Lord 666 on 7/14/2008 8:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
What they really need are fuel efficient and cost effective diesel options. my cousin just sold his diesel p/u because in combination of the medicore fuel economy (teens), every time it went into the shop, it required expensive preventive maintenance specific to the diesel.

him and i only started talking about this because on my recent vacation from nj to fl, averaged 50mpg the entire time i was on I85 from Atlanta to Richmond in my 2006 TDI Jetta. he couldn't believe the fuel economy, but we both agreed diesel service is expensive. At VW, it costs me $100 every 5000 miles and $500 every 20,000 miles for their service. At 42,000 miles on the car, its already costed $1,600 in regular service. You will void the warranty if anything but their VW 505.1 synthetic oil or use greater than B5 biodiesel.

Hoping that Honda mainstreams diesels to the point of minimizing the service and maintenance expenses.


RE: One issue
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/2008 9:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
That beats me.... We don't have any magic extra costs in getting service to our turbodiesel Ford:s and VW:s here in Europe.
Maybe sulfur and cetane there? I am not a chemist and I don't know your real situation there, I have to rely on wikipedia :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel

Here in Finland we have "enjoyed" sulfur-free diesel since early 90's, and export it in quantities to rest of Europe.
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/fo...

We only have two different version of diesel, summer quality and winter quality


RE: One issue
By Radnor on 7/14/2008 9:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
As a European, i'm mind boggled with this news as well. Newsflash !! Ford is now using a Turbo and 4 Cil Engine!!!

Hell, my Lancia HF Turbo is from 1988 and it has Turbo, Intercooler, Electronic Injection. Imagine !! And to the nay sayers that the turbo doesn't give you enough bump, well, my car has basically 2 "engines". Below 2900 RPM i got a 90hp car. Above 2900Rpm i got a 150hp car. Does 0-240Km/h in well less than a minute. Stock.

Here comes the values:

Maximum Power:153 Hp @ 5500 Rpm
Maximum torque:191.0 Nm (141 ft·lb) (19.5 kgm)@ 3500 rpm
Stock 1600cm3 Turbo:0-140Km (87 mph) 9,8 Secs / 0-240 Km (150mph)34,6 Secs.

Its also built light weighted so it weights a bit less than 1000kg(2200lbs). Not bad for a 4 door sedan. And all this i can make between 7-8 liter per 100 km !!! Witch is an awful average for a European car, but hey, its a 1988 gas guzzling for our standards. In Miles Per Gallon it translates to 37.28 Miles per gallon FYI. And it is considered here a gas guzzling car.

Its nice the US Auto industry reckons they have to "update" their engines, but they are 20 years far off. I feel sorry for the US Auto consumer. I really do. People here in Europe already have much better to choose from. A 80 mpg car, is already here in europe Its a called a Smart (by Mercedes) or anything not too heavy with a 1.4HDI engine.

Really, i don't found it funny. Its the First time i did the math of MPG measurement. I read daily tech every day. I feel sad for those people who have 18 mpg car or less. Really.


RE: One issue
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:55:38 AM , Rating: 4
> "Its nice the US Auto industry reckons they have to "update" their engines, but they are 20 years far off."

You realize US automakers were turbocharging engines in the early 60s, a decade before most European makers even thought about it. American cars don't typically have turbos because US buyers didn't want them, plain and simple.

> "I feel sad for those people who have 18 mpg car or less. Really. "

I feel even sadder for someone with a 30 mpg car, but who pays $9/gal for gasoline.


RE: One issue
By Radnor on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: One issue
By rudy on 7/14/2008 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 3
I think you just don't understand its about the consumer nothing else. In europe high gas prices and small poor road conditions have pushed the market toward more efficient cars and small cars for decades. In the US lower gas prices and plenty of free space have caused people to not care. Now that gas prices are rising they care, and the companies are reacting. Remember not 1 thing that is happening now is new technology its simply the companies finding that the more fuel efficient designs are heavily desired now and so they are flipping back to them or engineering something that was done long before. Perhaps you are having a problem with the fact this is a DT news article and yes they try to make everything sound like a new break through.


RE: One issue
By Thorburn on 7/14/2008 10:51:10 AM , Rating: 4
Don't forget a US liquid gallon is 3.78 litres, an Imperial gallon as used in the UK is 4.55 litres, so presumably you are using different measurements - a car will go further on a UK gallon because it's more fuel.


RE: One issue
By Radnor on 7/14/2008 11:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
I recheck and i used the US gallon for the math. I might have some mistake but i used the 3.78 value. Should be right, there is always some rounding, but in the first decimal. So no problem.


RE: One issue
By jRaskell on 7/14/2008 1:09:40 PM , Rating: 3
At $8 a gallon, getting 37mpg, you're paying 21 cents a mile.

My gas guzzling 99 Trans Am averages about 24mpg. At $4.20 a gallon (roughly, fuel prices have been fluctuating a lot here in the US, and that's for premium fuel here in New England), I'm paying just under 17 cents a mile. That's 20% less than you're paying.

So honestly, your pity is ill placed, unnecessary, and most definitely unwanted. If you want to feel sorry about anything, feel sorry that your government is absolutely raping you with fuel taxes.


RE: One issue
By MrBlastman on 7/14/2008 11:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
Slightly unrelated but also don't forget to mention they were turbocharging aircraft engines in the 40's for WW2.

Quite a bit of the Mid-War to Late-War WW2 fighter aircraft were turbo or supercharged actually. So, this technology has been around for decades (but, you must also remember we were dealing with 1000's of horsepower, not hundreds here).

Like all great technologies, not suprisingly many of them are developed (or enhanced) in war time situations.

The only downside I see with a wider prevalence of turbo cars on the road is the lack of driving ability of the populace. Turbo cars require more finesse to drive and you can't just stomp on the accelerator and expect instant power. Likewise, you need to have a stickshift in a turbo car because you have to constantly rev-match, double clutch or heel toe to stay in the power-band, especially when slowing down so you have enough reserves for emergency situations.

Or, you can be like that one kid who's turbo spooled at 12 mph...


RE: One issue
By Lord 666 on 7/14/2008 10:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
Good example is the fuel filter for a diesel passenger car vs. petrol.

Never had to change fuel filter on CRV petrol with 80,000 miles, but had to change on VW TDI at 38,000 at the cost of $68. Even worse, is that VW has no service interval for it; meaning it gets changed when needed but not at a set mileage.

I only noticed there was an issue because what little performance the car does have faded away. Changed fuel filter and the car was back to normal.


RE: One issue
By Hare on 7/14/2008 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oh dear Lord! Could it be that because you normally don't need to change, it's not in the service program? Could it be that you just had bad luck (if you didn't put crap in the tank). Bad luck doesn't just affect diesel cars...

Can you give another example? I'm curious... and this time please give a good one. I've been driving diesels for a while and your "diesel specific preventive care" is bs.


RE: One issue
By Lord 666 on 7/14/2008 2:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wife currently has the car, but I'll post the service intervals from the manual. VW has the petrol and diesel compared side by side in the manual making it easy to show the extra "care and feeding" owning a VW diesel creates. Using synthetic oil, one would guesstimate a longer service life between oil changes than 5,000 miles.

Trust me, I love my 2006 TDI and might be getting the new common rail TDI when its is available for sale. Actually have a test drive scheduled this weekend on the demo car.

However, the Acura TSX diesel will be a great comparison as Honda has mastered the low service car. My point earlier was that if diesels are to gain in popularity in the US, the service intervals need to be improved to the point of what Honda has done to most of their cars; just change the oil, rotate the tires, and put fuel in it.

Hare - what is in your garage? This is not my first diesel, but i am trying to think like Joe Average out there about what needs to be done from a manufacturer perspective.


RE: One issue
By Hare on 7/15/2008 2:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have a TDI Audi. Audi, Volkswagen and Skoda all use VAG engines so the service is pretty much the same. My service interval is 30 000km (over 18000 miles). You can google it "Audi Long Life service". I prefer to change the oil every 15000km but the service program is based on 30 000km recommendation.

I have no idea why you would need to change the oil every 5000 miles. What kind of oil do you put in that thing? Normal quality synthetic oil should be good for at least 10 000km - 15 000km.


RE: One issue
By Lord 666 on 7/15/2008 8:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, PD based TDIs require VW 505.1 (or better) synthetic oil or the warranty will be voided. PD design has much lower tolerances and requires their special blend.

Because of it, VW requires oil changes every 5000 miles in the US.

Here is a link if you want to get rid of the nag screen from 5000 to 10,000. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=200463

Check out this Wikipedia posting as there are differences between US and Europe service programs and warranties; specifically mentioning the Long Life Service exclusively for EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_I...


RE: One issue
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 10:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
Must've had a Ford or something.

A guy I talked to who lives around Dallas has a Silverado HD 2500 diesel and says he's getting 25 mpg.


RE: One issue
By Spuke on 7/14/2008 4:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
My brother-in-laws 2005 Silverado HD 2500 got 24 mpg. The newer one's can't seem to match those figures.


RE: One issue
By Jimbo1234 on 7/14/2008 2:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree with you there. Bring the diesel options. A small TDI would be most efficient and still provide plenty of torque for pulling. But bring along the 6 or 7 speed for performance since those redline so low.

And now with 5 or 50ppm sulfer (don't recall exactly which it is these days) diesel available in the US, there's no excuse.


2008
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: 2008
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 8:15:54 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah cause we haven't used them in anything until now....


RE: 2008
By Jay2tall on 7/14/2008 8:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
I tell you what though. I have a 4 cylinder 2004 Accord. I love that car, sold my 2000 1500 4x4 Dodge ram for it. Went from an average 14mpg to an average of 26-28mpg. That sure saved my wallet. For the number of times I actually need to haul anything, I've rented a Budget Rental Truck, it easily pays for the rental in gas savings. There are so many people that DO NOT need a utility vehicle like a pickup truck. And there is a drawback of the 4 cylinder. As above stated, I USED to get 26-28mpg on the accord. Ever since they went to 10% ethenol, I've taken a big hit and get about 24-26 if Im lucky. Prior to this move the least I've seen from my car in 1.5 years was 25 MPG and the most was 33 MPG. NOW after the 10% ethanol change, I've gotten as low as 22MPG and the most being 28MPG straight highway. My girlfriends parents have a 2005 v6 accord almost identical to mine and their impact was much less. It seems that E10 effects lower powered vehicles more. Just to keep in mind. I wish they would go back to 5% ethanol or can it all together, its so counterproductive it's ridiculous. I burn a larger volume of fuel to go the same distance I had before, how is that getting us on foreign oil if i have a 10% loss in mileage?


RE: 2008
By Jay2tall on 7/14/2008 8:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
OFF foreign oil, typo.


RE: 2008
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 8:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
With my 06 Cobalt 2.4L, I haven't really noticed a difference in mileage since I got it in Dec. 2005.

But you are right about ethanol being worthless. It's only advantage is that due to the higher octane rating, it can help prevent knock, allowing engines to run a lower grade of fuel than they'd otherwise be able to. This does nothing for gas mileage though.


RE: 2008
By Jay2tall on 7/14/2008 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 1
My girlfriend has a 93 Accord 2.2L and had felt the impact as well. I've heard owners of other newer cars as well not being effected as much. A friend of mine has an 06 Yaris hatchback and said she hasn't really felt the difference, if at all in city. Granted that is a much smaller car and a 2.4L in an Accord is hauling around more weight. That may also be the case with your Cobalt, it's a smaller lighter vehicle than my accord. A 2.4L in your isn't toting around as much as my 2.4L. Ethanol has less power per volume than gasoline regardless, so I have my doubts I am cranking out the 166HP my car is rated at.
I think the car companies are finally getting out of bed with Big Oil and are finally seeing the demand for better fuel economy. Prior there wasn't the demand, people were ok with their big guzzlers. Look at Europe, they've had super high fuel costs for decades, do you see them whining like us? NO they have 3 cylinder cars, FROM FORD non the less, so why don't they sell them here?


RE: 2008
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I think the car companies are finally getting out of bed with Big Oil


Get off it. They aren't now and never have been in bed with oil companies. They produce the products that people want to buy. People have wanted trucks, SUVs, and larger cars. Now that's changing so the automakers are changing. I think the ISPs are proof enough, companies only change their offerings when demand requires it.

quote:
NO they have 3 cylinder cars, FROM FORD non the less, so why don't they sell them here?


Because people wouldn't buy them. American's have a different mindset. We don't drive tiny cars. We have larger roads with wider streets. And enjoy having more space.


RE: 2008
By joemoedee on 7/14/2008 10:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because people wouldn't buy them. American's have a different mindset. We don't drive tiny cars. We have larger roads with wider streets. And enjoy having more space.


Agreed. America is basically designed around the Interstate Highway System, whereas Europe and Asia is not. Many people live in the suburbs, and take the Interstate to get to the city. Or you live in a Rural community, and take the Interstate to get to the suburbs or city.

If you live in the city, it behooves you to have a smaller vehicle (Parking and maneuverability), or to take advantage of mass transit.

America was developed around cheap fuel. As such, with sharing the highway with numerous Tractor Trailers, most feel safer in a larger vehicle versus a smaller one, regardless of actual safety ratings.


RE: 2008
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:51:10 AM , Rating: 4
> "I think the car companies are finally getting out of bed with Big Oil and are finally seeing the demand for better fuel economy"

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a rapid doubling of gasoline prices, could it?


RE: 2008
By hcahwk19 on 7/14/2008 11:38:39 AM , Rating: 1
I have a 2006 Toyota Solara 4-cyl and I can tell you this 10% ethanol scam makes a difference of at least 10% in mpg. For every 10 gallons of fuel I buy, I am only getting 9 gallons of gasoline! Until this ethanol scam started, I was routinely getting 30 mpg in mixed city and highway driving. I used to get 34-36 mpg on the highway at 75mph, 2-4 mpg above the EPA rating, when travelling between Birmingham and Tulsa, a 650 mile trip each way. Now I get a solid 32 mpg on highway. I used to get about 28 mpg in city driving, well above the 23 mpg rating. Now, if I do a lot of city driving, I am lucky to get 23 mpg. As they have progressed to using this 10% ethanol here in Tulsa, I have steadily seen my efficiency go downhill. I had a feeling that it was due to the 10% ethanol, and now that a state law requires stations to post if there is ethanol in their gasoline, I know I am getting shafted. Granted, gas is "only" $3.89 here for regular, it is still a form of theft by these stations and oil companies by using anything but full gasoline to cut some corners and try and make a buck or two more. And until the 10% notice law was passed, it was absolutely a form of false advertisement to sell it. Even if it cost me more money, I would rather have 100% gasoline to put in my car, since that is what it is designed to run on.


RE: 2008
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 12:10:35 PM , Rating: 3
Blame the environmental lobby. Oil companies are practically required to do blends because of the mandate that we have so much of our energy being from "renewable" sources. Never mind that we have to use even more energy to produce a poorer quality fuel. All in the name to save the environment. When all we're doing is polluting it more in essence.

Either they need to develop a practical method of massive ethanol production that doesn't drive our food prices through the roof and switch entirely to ethanol or get off this fake "green" effort and let business go as usual. Since the former hasn't happened yet, that leaves the latter.

I swear I think I'm going to hate the color green from now on because of how often I hear that word. Especially when there isn't a damn thing "green" about any of this crap.


RE: 2008
By Spuke on 7/14/2008 4:28:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I swear I think I'm going to hate the color green from now on because of how often I hear that word. Especially when there isn't a damn thing "green" about any of this crap.
Hear friggin hear!!!!!! This enviro-bandwagoning is getting on my nerves and it's only begun!


RE: 2008
By Cheetahwheelies on 7/14/2008 9:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'll third that one! If we were really serious about ethanol, all southern farmland would have been converted to sugarcane. Corn based ethanol is nothing more than a huge boondogle for the midwest farming conglomerates. I am not trying to be regional here, just pointing out the absurdity. Sugarcane is approximately 8 times as fuel dense as corn.
I still think that ethanol is a stupid idea. What will the "greenies" say when we've sucked up all of our drinking water in order to turn our food into fuel? Not to mention the problems with piping alcohol, as it piggybacks water, which means that it has to be transported on a DIESEL powered truck. All the while decreasing engine efficiency, as others have pointed out. Go figure.


RE: 2008
By hcahwk19 on 7/14/2008 9:18:58 PM , Rating: 1
Trust me, I know the real problem does not lie with the oil companies and gas stations, but they do have a choice in not putting ethanol in the gasoline. The ethanol is an extra additive on top of the required formulations.

The environmentalists and their democrat lapdogs are the ones who have stood in the way of our energy independence for 30 years. This new "green/environmentally friendly" movement is simply socialism and communism under a new name. Instead of in the name of Marx, or Lenin, or Stalin, it is in the name of the planet. All this movement wants to do is thwart the growth of free market economies, with a prime focus on the US.
Those standing in the way of energy independence are using the same old arguments as they did 15 years ago when the first ANWR bill was vetoed by Slick Willy. They all said "it will take 10 years to get a drop of oil out of there, so we can't do that." Well, it has been 15 years. We could have had oil flowing for 5 years now, but here they are saying the same crap again. Now they are saying the 10 year BS all over again. Basically, since it can't be here tomorrow, we can't drill for it.
By their logic, we should never replant any trees when loggers cut them down, because it takes 20 years for them to grow to harvest size again.


RE: 2008
By Spivonious on 7/14/2008 11:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
So it's not just my imagination! I used to easily get 32-37 mpg on the highway in my 03 Focus ZX3 and now I'm lucky if I break 30mpg.


RE: 2008
By Jay2tall on 7/14/2008 12:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
It boggles me then that there have been no real increases in average fuel economy since around 1980. You would think technology would make the automobile engine more efficient over the last 28 years. I mean everything else is more efficient. I am not talking about physical size per say. I realized the US is different then smaller countries where a small vehicle is more beneficial because of road size, maneuverability, etc. You would, however think a 2.4 L engine from 2008 would consume FAR less fuel than a 2.4L engine from 1980.


RE: 2008
By jRaskell on 7/14/2008 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 3
This is only a problem of perception, and looking at only a single element of data between nearly 30 years of advances. You are ignoring the fact that today's 2.4L engine is FAR more powerful than your 1980 2.4L engine. In some cases, nearly twice as powerful. Today's cars are also dealing with much stricter emissions controls than they were in the 1980s, debilitating ethanol additives, an increase in power accessories, and bigger and heavier vehicles themselves.

So while fuel economy itself has remained relatively static over the last 30 years, virtually every element that adversely affects it has advanced continuously over that period of time as well.


RE: 2008
By Jay2tall on 7/14/2008 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
I can agree with that. However wouldn't you think this would be one area of interest to the consumer? Better mileage? I think it's odd that they haven't focused on that to much? We know they can do it, or at least made baby steps towards it. So why not?

They should really work on clean renewable electricity. Then we can make tons of hydrogen as a fuel for longer range, and electric for shorter distances. Problem solved.


power and torque curves
By Stacey Melissa on 7/14/2008 7:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
I hope people keep the usable power and torque curves in mind when buying these trucks. Turbos are pretty useless at the low end, which is where trucks most need good power and torque.

Maybe if it were a twin turbo system, it would work better. Or a supercharger could be better for low end power and torque, although not quite as efficient as a turbo.




RE: power and torque curves
By emarston on 7/14/2008 7:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
Very true if it's being used as a work truck. Lot's of people buy them and don't really need to tow much so this type of option makes sense. Especially, if you're just looking for something that can be a commuter and then on occasion haul crap.


RE: power and torque curves
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 8:23:43 AM , Rating: 4
It depends on the turbo they use. A smaller turbo makes its boost more quickly but just tops out sooner.

As I said in my other post. This will affect tow ratings. But many people never tow anything and at most move some furniture. So for those people, they could care less.

As far as supercharger efficiency, modern systems are so efficient its practically a non-issue. However, like with smaller turbos, the power curve can flatten out sooner. But on a truck, you're not looking to pull high revs.


RE: power and torque curves
By vapore0n on 7/14/2008 9:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know why you got rated down when you speak the truth.

If they want to make this truck viable having a 4 cylinder turbo engine they need to put a small turbo to compensate for the lack of power down low. Which would limit how much power in the higher powerband they get. Or pump the displacement, which is unknown for such small engines.

All in all, I think its a good move. A turbo v6 can replace the V8 while putting out better fuel economy (if you stay out of boost)


RE: power and torque curves
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 12:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont know why you got rated down when you speak the truth.


It should be clear to anyone who utilizes common sense these days that the truth isn't important anymore. Pushing an agenda is.


RE: power and torque curves
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/2008 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
hat the truth isn't important anymore


There are so many truths out there


RE: power and torque curves
By Stacey Melissa on 7/14/2008 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It depends on the turbo they use. A smaller turbo makes its boost more quickly but just tops out sooner.

Hence my hope for twin turbos: a small turbo for low RPM, and large turbo for high RPM.

quote:
As far as supercharger efficiency, modern systems are so efficient its practically a non-issue. However, like with smaller turbos, the power curve can flatten out sooner. But on a truck, you're not looking to pull high revs.

I drove a car with a Roots type supercharger back in college. A 3.8L V6 1989 Cougar XR-7. It had a noticeably flat power curve, except at the lowest RPMs, when it was obvious the supercharger was taking a bit more power than it could give back. Which was why I appreciated the stickshift so much - I could just rev up a bit before launch. :) Anyway, that engine got just a bit better mileage than the almost comparable 5.0 and 4.6 V8s Ford put in Cougars and Thunderbirds in later years. That was 1989; I wonder how much progress has been made since then.


RE: power and torque curves
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/2008 8:39:40 AM , Rating: 1
Turbos in the 80's and 90's were useless at the low end, but modern engines are much much better, different technique. Get a test drive.

For example
80% maximum torque at 1250 rpm and then holding 100 percent torque from 1500 rpm to 3500 rpm
( http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070529.001/new-vw-122... )

For a truck a bigger version, of course.

(Even better, a turbodiesel, even more power at ultra low rpm and lower consumption than gas. )


RE: power and torque curves
By DOCDAT1 on 7/14/2008 10:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
Old myth that...

Even a 4 cylinder turbocharged car from the mid 90's like the Saab 9000 Aero 2.3 turbo hit maximum torque (258 ft-lbs) at 1800 RPM. And this engine can be tuned to ~400 HP with stock internals and only bolt on mods...

I find it rather amusing that efficient small displacement turbocharged engines with high output is being hailed as something new and special, when several automakers have been making them for ~30 years.


RE: power and torque curves
By Stacey Melissa on 7/14/2008 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
The last turbo 4 I drove was a 2004 VW GTI with a 5-speed manual, and it still exhibited the characteristic slingshot effect as the turbo spun up. Maybe Saabs are different; they're certainly more expensive.


RE: power and torque curves
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2008 5:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
I've driven my brothers 97 Supra TT. You definitely feel them come into their power band. Acceleration starts to wane as the first leaves its power band and then the second comes in a second later.


RE: power and torque curves
By Andrwken on 7/14/2008 9:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
My 2003 saab 9-3 ss has a very quick response compared to years past (still laggy compared to a roots supercharger, but I'll take the mileage thank you). But the couple of die hard saab'ers I know claim they used to be laggy as hell until the new engine and turbocharger from GM. (which is the same motor as the supercharged cobalt)


South
By Calin on 7/14/2008 8:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
"and sending sales of full-size trucks and SUVs further south"

So you mean sales are moving to Mexico?




RE: South
By SanLC504 on 7/14/2008 8:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, just production.

(Reminded of Futurama episode where Bender reveals "Hecho en Mexico" on his case cover, which promptly falls off when closed. Nyuck nyuck.)


I love turbos!
By wingless on 7/14/2008 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
I LOVE TURBOS!!

They're great for fuel economy with one tune, and even better for performance with another tune. Modern ECUs are powerful enough to handle more than one profile. Actually my old 1992 Nissan 240sx holds FOUR different maps (and I have a map switcher ;). I also know several people with SR20DET, Nissan's JDM 2.0L Turbo, an they get ~22mpg/city and a proven 35mpg/highway when moderately modified. Theres a sweet spot that you can reach with a turbocharged engine that allows you to get higher-than-stock horsepower and better-than-stock fuel economy when modified (usually before much larger injectors are needed). If Ford uses those power plants in lighter vehicles the economy will improve even more. I'd like to see that EcoBoost 4cyl in a nice light, RWD, 6spd sports car to compete with Hyundai's new Tiburon next year. Yes, this car of mine sounds a lot like the Nissan Silvia S15 for a reason.




Who needs a truck now days?
By silversound on 7/14/2008 1:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think the sales of trucks will continue to fall due to their mpg.
Here in LA, nobody drives a truck except construction or hardware workers. Starting to see many mini cars like SMART and scooters on the road now, and went to a Toyota dealer yesterday, more than 2k mark-up price on the Prius! I was like who wanna get it with mark up price? The sales guy was like its OK, lotta ppl waiting try to get it and we are selling faster than we getting it..

Well its still true many ppl still drives truck like when I was in Texas, many ppl even like high-school girls drives a truck to school. But I think that number will continue to drop coz you dont need a truck to commute to work or school...




are they out of their minds?
By deadrats on 7/14/2008 6:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
not the ford engineers but the marketing weenies who come up with these ideas.

while i am not a mechanic by trade, i did work in a garage for almost 5 years and i also worked in a car dealership. i have turned more than a few wrenches and i have driven my fair share of cars. having said that, here is the problem with using a 4 cylinder engine (turbo no less) in a truck that weighs that much:

while i have no doubt that in controlled environment, on a dyno, testing according to EPA guidelines it can be shown that this new offering will have better gas mileage than a triton v8, the fact is that under real world usage the 4-banger will be working harder than the beefy v8 thus negating any potential fuel savings.

when you have to go up a steep hill (and where i live there are plenty) or when you are trying to pass someone at low speeds or when you want to merge on the highway or when you load up the back with 500lbs worth of bricks you need low end torque. when you have lots of low end torque you don't have to open the throttle as much to achieve the acceleration you desire, when you use a 4 cylinder turbo, you have to open the throttle more, thus using more gas.

i currently own a 2003 supercharged nissan frontier, even thought it's supercharged the blower doesn't really start making any meaningful boost until about 3000 rpm's, when i load the truck up, when i want to go up a steep hill, or if i want to pass someone at low speeds, i need to really step on the gas, thus killing fuel economy. now if i just want to go flying down the highway or race someone from 30mph to 80mph then the supercharged v6 is awesome, i've kept up with a 944 up to 90mph before he was able to pull away.

i would have prefered (and in fact am planning on doing it if/when this engine dies) if they had used a built v6, that 3.3 SOHC has lots of potential, all you need is a more aggressive intact, a nice cam, and hell throw a crank in there and stroke the crap out of it (<---which btw is what nissan did starting with 2004 and the 3.5L v6).

car makers need to stop letting marketing weenies dictate how cars will be made and start letting the pros (engineers and professional engine builders) dictate which path they'll follow.




By Alexvrb on 7/14/2008 6:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think just decreasing displacement/number of cylinders and slapping on a turbo is magically going to increase fuel efficiency. You're still extracting energy from fuel, and turbos can be tuned to burn efficiently, or to make serious power. Doing both gets trickier, especially given Ford's track record. If turbos were the end-all solution to fuel economy, why does Honda stick with NA and get good results? Why do turbocharged Saabs get relatively poor mileage, given their long track record with turbos?

My point is this: Ford's Triton V8s are inefficient, as are many of their motors. If they can't build and tune a drivetrain to get decent fuel efficiency now, I have my doubts that Ford can simply slap together some unproven new engines with turbos and change that overnight.

quote:
The EcoBoost V6 will also manage to better the V8 in fuel economy when paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission. Fuel economy is said to rise from 14 MPG /19 MPG (city/highway) to at least 16 MPG / 22 MPG.

How much of that is attributable to the transmission? The current models use a 4-speed. If you were to pair a 6-speed with the 4.6L, I suspect you would see similar gains - and that's on 87 octane. Yes, these days you can put 87 in most engines that recommend premium, even turbocharged engines. But their power goes down, and mileage suffers slightly as well. They rate the HP, torque, and MPG with the recommended fuel.

I love turbocharging, particularly for applications where you can't fit a big engine. It allows a small engine to make big power. But other than weight and size of the engine, I'm not seeing a huge benefit with regards to mileage when its slapped into the same (large, heavy) chassis. That's a lot of weight to lug around, and towing and hauling will require them to build their turbos to make power down low.




All very true, but...
By JanC on 7/14/2008 7:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
My suggestion would be to buy your next car with the sweetest sounding engine you can afford, because chances are next time you buy a new car, you won't hear a thing when you drive it...




1989 toyota pickup 30MPG
By Soulkeeper on 7/14/2008 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
My 20yr old toyota 22R carbureted 2.4L 4-banger consistently gets around 30MPG.
Nice to see Ford is almost there, at this rate they'll have hybrid/electric trucks by 2040.

I love my truck :)




By EricMartello on 7/15/2008 6:07:07 AM , Rating: 2
After years of essentially being shelved, save for performance cars, I find it a bit ironic that auto makers are going back to forced induction in order to make cars more fuel efficient. Turbo engines are more efficient as long as you stay off the boost...but once you get on them, their fuel economy is in line with an NA engine of the same effective displacement.

I'd like to see the F150 lighting come back with a twin-turbo V8...now THAT would be worthwhile. :)




"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki