Ford Trucks to Get 62 MPG?

[nwngunner]

Back at the 2009 auto show vw showed a mid seat roadster with 400hp and something like 70mpg it was another one of their tdi's.

I understand its the epa killing us, how ever i think it is entirely possible for a small 6cyl turbo diesel in a pickup to get 30mpg. **** my 8.0l gas 3500 dodge gets 12 to 14 pulling on the highway as long as i am not fighting the hills with a heavy load.

There is a greater amount of savings gained by getting the vehicals that get 12 to 14mpg to 20, then there is getting normal cars above the 30mpg.

Then again, my buddy has a 91 eclipse with the 1.8 and 5 speed gets over 30mph. New tech is not always better tech. I like the concept of stored energy.

Take a look about 90 to 100 years back, we had stationary gas engines that would run for hours on very little gas. The reason being, low rpm higher torque and massive flywheels which stored energy until the engine speed slowed to a set point in which the engine would then fire again. Yes heavy loads made the engine run harder and use more fuel but not drastic.

For the most part we are dealing with 75 year old tech in the engines in our cars. Offenhauser back in the 30s was working with DOHC and i know for a fact in the 40s was working with fuel injection.

 

[mjncad]

**** my 8.0l gas 3500 dodge gets 12 to 14 pulling on the highway as long as i am not fighting the hills with a heavy load.

That's a lot better than I guessed the Dodge V-10 gasser would get. My 6.8L Ford V-10 gets about the same mileage as yours.

 

[Renze]

Electric cars are actually coal/nuke fired..Where do these tree huggers think the power comes from? Depending on where you live, electric supply rates are going through the roof. Mine are and I can see the nuke cooling towers from the pasture..Explaination please?

Very good point

If I was going to complain about gas mileage, I wouldn't have bought it..

Because saying this, in relation to that:

Guess I'm the typical "ugly American" to our non-US friends...So be it. My ancestors left Europe et.al. for a reason.

You wont hear me, as a "non-US friend" call you "ugly American"
I just hate to hear people complain because they live above their standard... just carry the consequences.
I tend to pay "speed tax" regularly because i like to ride up front A speeding ticket is sour money, but this ticket now and then, is just the cost of it, so i wont complain either and carry the consequence

 

[slowzuki]

Back at the 2009 auto show vw showed a mid seat roadster with 400hp and something like 70mpg it was another one of their tdi's.

They also have the 2L and 3L little cars, not 400 hp but tiny diesels, 100 mpg+ but also tiny cars. The trick is the tiny car not the motor.

I understand its the epa killing us, how ever i think it is entirely possible for a small 6cyl turbo diesel in a pickup to get 30mpg. **** my 8.0l gas 3500 dodge gets 12 to 14 pulling on the highway as long as i am not fighting the hills with a heavy load.

Sure it could, in a tiny pickup. Put a 12 v cummins in an S10 with 155 series tires, a lowering kit and some aero styling and you'll get 30 mpg easy.

There is a greater amount of savings gained by getting the vehicals that get 12 to 14mpg to 20, then there is getting normal cars above the 30mpg.

Depends on the number of vehicles sold in that range.

Then again, my buddy has a 91 eclipse with the 1.8 and 5 speed gets over 30mph. New tech is not always better tech. I like the concept of stored energy.

Lots of old small cars get over 30 mpg. The safety equipment and love of this year has 15% more headroom has caused growth in most vehicles. Look at the ranger, one of the last small trucks, they're planning on killing it due to bad sales despite the good gas mileage.

Take a look about 90 to 100 years back, we had stationary gas engines that would run for hours on very little gas. The reason being, low rpm higher torque and massive flywheels which stored energy until the engine speed slowed to a set point in which the engine would then fire again. Yes heavy loads made the engine run harder and use more fuel but not drastic.

No the reason those stationary gas engines used little fuel is because they were something like 1 hp and weren't hardly loaded to that even. Efficiency wise they are likely poorer that even a modern lawnmower engine.

For the most part we are dealing with 75 year old tech in the engines in our cars. Offenhauser back in the 30s was working with DOHC and i know for a fact in the 40s was working with fuel injection.

Sort off, the basic engine is old, with extremely advanced technology layered on top. Computers are basically the same as thousand year old abacuses as well but you can't call it the same thing.

 

[mjncad]

Here you go Renze. From today's N.Y. Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html

I'd make a lousy European as I can't stand public transportation, and bicycles are a good way to die with all the cell phone distracted drivers.

To quote the animated TV series Family Guy's Peter, "Ridin' on a bus, ridin' on a bus. Sittin' next to bums. What's that I see, hope it isn't pee."

 

[Renze]

Here you go Renze. From today's N.Y. Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html

I'd make a lousy European as I can't stand public transportation, and bicycles are a good way to die with all the cell phone distracted drivers

Those are cities i've never been in... Probably never will be either. Its been a couple of years ago i took a train. **** trains are allways late in Holland, they thought it would help to privatise the government owned railways... Any old farmer could tell them that privatisation of a monopolist would only make matters worse

 

[OkieDave]

So according to the article, Ford dumped Navistar for Cummins and Allison? Interesting...

I have been shopping the new F series Superduty real hard lately, and I can tell you that when you speak to a dealer they are bragging on how the new Ford Diesel, and Tranny are all in house designs. I would say that the Article is a little off. In fact, there was an interview with the project manager for the new Diesel Eng on You tube.

From TFA:

However, EcoBoost is just one part of the equation. The second part of the equation responsible for increasing fuel efficiency are the new types of transmissions Ford is placing in their trucks. Fordç—´ new model diesel trucks incorporate Alison transmissions. Alison is a highly respected company that is committed to designing and manufacturing transmissions that will enhance fuel economy and still provide the power and torque required by a work-truck. Indeed, Ford has invested a considerable amount of money on the design of a new eight speed automatic transmission. This transmission is exclusively Fordç—´ own design, and is going to be built in the United States starting in December 2011. According to a resent Ford press release, their eight speed transmission will provide a 2 to 6 percent increase in fuel efficiency over their six speed transmission.

Emphasis mine. Sounds like both are true--Ford-designed, Allison-built.

 

[Don87]

Yes, they all use the same best possible situation to do the testing. They want the best foot forward.

Ford has never bought into the hype of the cylinder shutdown, hybrids trucks, ect. They know it just does not work in the real world.

The 100 mpg carburetor of the 70's is also a farce. Simple physics and chemistry prove id does not work. Fuel only has so many BTU's per gallon. Efficient fuel delivery can only do so much.

Chris

Wrong.

(I don't mean to single you out, but your post got to me big time)

It wasn't the seventies, it was ctually a little earlier

The 'Pogue' carb is the one spoke of earlier.

A little info on the 'Pogue carb', and to those young pups that don't know gasoline.

There was once a time when you actually were able to purchase real gasoline...............

And that 'real gasoline' could be converted to a vapor, by use of heating coils, from your exhaust system.............thus an entirely closed system, changing the liqiud to a gas.

Liquid gasoline is only about 65% burned in the internal combustion engine, whereas a gas............is 98 to 99 percent burned in the same engine.

Same concept as propane, but done with.............."original gasoline", not the garbage marketed today which has caused a cancer increase of 75%, because of the 'carcinogens' that are added.

And back in the early 80's.........Ford motor comany did install carbs on (some) F150 pickups that would get over 50 MPG(with a V8), but those trucks were promptly recalled and the carbs were changed.

The technology is there, but it is a conspiracy to get you to buy more oil!

I don't care if ya'all believe what I typed or not..............but I would appreciate it if ya'all did some research before you try to insult my intelligence!

 

[Don87]

Exactly...nothing is 100% efficient.



The TrailerTail reminds me of the tailcone they put on the space shuttles when they transport them via 747. I wonder how well they hold up in real world use. Anyway; trailers, SUV's and anything with a flat back creates turbulence and/or slight vacuum that increases drag since the air does not exit the vehicle envelope cleanly. Granted, a car drafting closely behind a semi will see a marked improvement in MPG; but as the Mythbusters proved, one has to be dangerously close to realize the fuel savings.

As for Colani; some may call him visionary, some may call him crackpot; but he reminds me of archijerks in a lot of ways spewing all this artsy-fartsy frou-frou language about how (fill in the blank) evokes a sense of (fill in the blank) while being majestic...blah...blah...blah. I do think he has some interesting ideas that need a practical engineer's touch to determine if they are viable or not. Now Burt Rutan of aviation fame is a visionary engineer in my opinion that makes his wild ideas work.



Once again this is a case of the chicken and the egg conundrum. However had NG been the dominant fuel in the early part of the 20th Century, gas and/or diesel would be the curiosity instead. One of the issues with NG powered cars is getting the refueling time down to something comparable to gas/diesel powered vehicles. Early pumping systems were pathetically slow; but still faster than recharging electric vehicles.

Mythbusters is a farce...........as was proven by the episode about a car behing sandwiched between two tractor-trailers, and becoming part of the tractor trailer.

The trucks were going at different speeds, hit the car(which was stationary), at different times, and different angles. Totally fraudulent detemination on their part!!!

Totally discredited themselves........with their own video..............go figure:confused2::confused2::confused2:

 

[Don87]

Fiat?..."Fix It Again Tony"?

Thanks but I'll stick with my American pickups and the wife's Hummer. $4.00 gas didn't change my life anymore than $7.00 gas will. I don't like paying more for gas, but I'll make do.

Just towed a car trailer load back from the sportsmans club with my 400+ HP GMC and didn't even know the trailer was back there and the truck gets 20MPG on the highway....Try that with one of those EuroPeon beer cans...

Pedestrian safety?...Simple solution, try not to run over pedX'rs. I've been driving to the city for 20+ years in pickup trucks and haven't hit anyone yet. Would think that a Fiat would hurt pretty bad if I got hit on foot with one of those too.

dunno if anyone elso caught this Euro- pe-on :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: