Ford V-6 beats v-8's in towing competition

[turbo36]

Now this is very interesting.

Chrysler shows off Ram plug-in hybrid electric truck, won't sell it to you -- Engadget

 

[Egon]

Always curious; I'm wandering why the big fuss over this new v-6 turbo of Fords. Turbos been around for some time. To me it would seem just like any other new engine model introduced. Some of the first in commercial production mode listed below .[Not the first turbos though by far]

1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass Jetfire
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Monza Spyder
1973 BMW 2002 Turbo
1974 Porsche 911 Turbo
1978 Buick Regal
1978 Saab 99
1978 Peugeot 604 turbodiesel
1978 Mercedes-Benz 300SD turbodiesel (United States/Canada)
1979 Alfa Romeo Alfetta GTV 2000 Turbodelta
1980 Mitsubishi Lancer GT Turbo
1980 Pontiac Firebird
1980 Renault 5 Turbo
1981 Volvo 240-series /QUOTE]

 

[RobertN]

All the safety stuff, crush zones, fancy feature rich interiors makes them heavier. All the HP wars give HP the advantage over mileage.

Lose some of the features that add weight, and drop the HP. Then you would most likely see a mileage increase.

Wonder what these new trucks do weigh, compared to say a '66 F100, or a '76 F150?

It is impressive though, that they get any resemblance of mileage out of these motors. Considering if you tried for that HP 20-30 years ago, by the time you cam/carb/intake/headers most motors, you'd be lucky to get 9mpg on the highway. I remember driving a stock '76 Chevy 1/2 ton 4x4, 350 4bbl, granny stick shift, dual tanks. Even with stock tires, that thing got miserable gas mileage. Bump that motor up to modern HP numbers, and the mileage would have dropped from 10mpg to 5mpg!

So which is it, major or minor? I suspect that the Chrysler R&D team didn't consider those changes as minor.

In the Ford V6 mileage link listed above, if you look at the comparison chart and stretch your imagination a bit, isn't it interesting that they are about all in the same ballpark? Nobody is close to some magical figure of 20+/25+ mpg. It must say something about physics. What's the old saying about squeezing a turnip?

 

[dstig1]

Yup, and under the

Once again, NO IT'S NOT!
Now for real world data vs your "paper physics",

Like I said, you'd argue it to death. I worked in the automotive industry for a while, and I have kept up on the engineering trade literature since then. You want to know one of the things that recently has gotten a lot of engineering buzz? Computer controlled thermostats for the cooling system to replace the basic thermo-mechanical devices on all cars now. You want to know why there was so much excitement? 3% potential fuel savings. Too bad they never thought about bed covers :confused2:

I won't argue further on this. It is futile.

Always curious; I'm wandering why the big fuss over this new v-6 turbo of Fords. Turbos been around for some time. To me it would seem just like any other new engine model introduced. Some of the first in commercial production mode listed below .[Not the first turbos though by far]

The big difference here is that it is a direct injection gasoline engine that is also turbocharged. That has been a very difficult thing to do which is why all gas engines have been indirect injected up until now. Ford put out their first one in the past year or so in the Taurus. I'm not sure if anyone else has one out yet. If so it would probably be in Europe as the injectors are Bosch, IIRC.

-Dave

 

[slowzuki]

Direct injection has been studied by every major manufacturer for at least 10 years. GDI, stratefied charge etc. Mitsibishi has one on the market a while back if I recall right.

Despite all the claims to the otherwise, improving epa mpg by that amount on the same truck platform, without reducing the power output of the engine, is a lot of work.

Under the new epa ratings, a good driver can quite easily beat the ratings. Was quite a bit harder under the old system.

BTW cylinder deactivation and variable timing on a V-8 are not "minor" changes! You try to do it to your old 350 small block and see how far you get.

It would be impressive to see what this tech would do in a 4 cyl in a ranger sized truck for mpg.

 

[Dmace]

I hate to break the news to you Dmace, but bed covers hurt the gas mileage. It's hard to believe but it's been proven.

Yep, all modern trucks are designed to get the best milage with the tailgates up and the beds empty. Proven fact over and over. I can't believe people are still spreading the myth that covers improve milage.

I refuse to believe that. There has got to be more to it than that.

There is more to it. Funny how many people have "proven" facts yet never show it. It was PROVEN many times that leaving the tail gate down hurt fuel mileage compared to leaving it up BUT a tonneau cover always got the same or better gas mileage as the tail gate up, it NEVER went down with the cover. Mythbusters has "proven" it a few times.
Where's their proof...

You want to know one of the things that recently has gotten a lot of engineering buzz? Computer controlled thermostats for the cooling system to replace the basic thermo-mechanical devices on all cars now. You want to know why there was so much excitement? 3% potential fuel savings. Too bad they never thought about bed covers

A 3% fuel savings by ONLY changing a thermostat is reason for excitement. Replacing an old technology engine with one at almost half the size costing billions of dollars in engineering for a lousy 10% is not. Amazing what a tough concept this is for some people. :laughing:

 

[Markcuda]

Did you prove your 10% gain?

 

[Diamondpilot]

I hate to break the news to you Dmace, but bed covers hurt the gas mileage. It's hard to believe but it's been proven. It's kind of like having the tailgate down, they do worse that way also.

You saw Myth Buster also.

Chris

 

[Ford850]

There is more to it. Funny how many people have "proven" facts yet never show it. It was PROVEN many times that leaving the tail gate down hurt fuel mileage compared to leaving it up BUT a tonneau cover always got the same or better gas mileage as the tail gate up, it NEVER went down with the cover. Mythbusters has "proven" it a few times.
Where's their proof...

Thanks for providing the facts. According to your article, the cover did not improve milage, as I originally said. With the cover it got the same milage as an 'empty bed with the tailgate up' when driving 55 (best mpg), and it got the same as and 'empty bed with the tailgate down' when driving 25 (worst mpg). I'm still trying to figure out how you improved your milage by 10% by simply adding a tonneau cover.

 

[Dmace]

Thanks for providing the facts. According to your article, the cover did not improve milage, as I originally said. With the cover it got the same milage as an 'empty bed with the tailgate up' when driving 55 (best mpg), and it got the same as and 'empty bed with the tailgate down' when driving 25 (worst mpg). I'm still trying to figure out how you improved your milage by 10% by simply adding a tonneau cover.

I was referring more to the quote by DodgeMan who said:

I hate to break the news to you Dmace, but bed covers hurt the gas mileage.

In the case of the Mythbuster's it didn't improve mileage much but that is also a very short test and still far from years of real world numbers. A bed cover will never "hurt" gas mileage.
It's not that tough to "figure out" how I improved my fuel mileage. I hand calculated every fill-up for over 6 months after my purchase because I was curious how long it would take to pay for itself in fuel savings. I was averaging 14.8-15.3 mpg before and 16.2-16.5 afterwards driving the exact same route using the exact same gas station and pump and driving exactly the same.

BTW cylinder deactivation and variable timing on a V-8 are not "minor" changes! You try to do it to your old 350 small block and see how far you get.

I consider those minor compared to dropping 2 cylinders, lowering the displacement by almost 40%, adding a variable geometry turbo and direct injection. Try doing all that to your old 350 and see which gets you 10% better fuel mileage easier.