Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 06-14-2011, 01:15 PM
lonewolf777's Avatar
lonewolf777 lonewolf777 is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 79
lonewolf777 is starting off with a positive reputation.
62mpgs = pipedream

a half ton 4x4 8 cly getting 62 mpgs?
__________________
03 4x4 xlt 4.0 v6
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:23 PM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
Where did the article say 8 cyl or 4x4? Anyway, the CAFE mileage calculation is not the same as the current EPA window sticker. Its based on the old test, and without the 20% penalty that makes the window sticker more real world.

Imagine a full-size pickup roughly the same weight and power of a 1972 F-100 4x2, but with state of the art powertrain. A turbo four could easily beat a 240ci six in hp/torque, from idle on up. An 8-speed transmission compared to three. Aerodynamics and weight will be the tough parts. All that could double the current mileage. Getting to 62 still might violate the laws of physics.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:49 PM
Beechkid Beechkid is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,178
Beechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to behold
The tech part of the article is great. The "hook" for the title is typical Internet Brands, the Globe, the Inquirer trash marketing....not an ounce of quality and for the writer, befor you even get past the 1st paragraph you see the absurdness of it.

Discusting.
__________________
Member: Never trust a person over 40 who drives a Chevy club
Flatheads ain't so bad!
Certified backyard mechanic I & II
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-14-2011, 05:56 PM
Pugman0911 Pugman0911 is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
Pugman0911 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I read about the new small Diesel engines that the F-150 was to get last year. The only problem I saw was that our Government along with Ford built the engine factory just north of Mexico City and the engines were sent to England for the Landrover. Don't expect to see any in North America as our Government and Big Oil will keep the small Diesels out!

So far only MB & VW have any here and then it's a very small amount!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:28 PM
excursiondude's Avatar
excursiondude excursiondude is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tinley Park Il.
Posts: 257
excursiondude is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Too bad they LIE to us, all the tests are done with pure gas that burns better. we are FORCED to use fuel with crap ethonal in it to lower our mpgs and make us use more fuel. more fuel=more taxes
__________________
02 4X4 Excursion Limited v10 Mine
Cooper discoverer ST, towing Rockwood Roo 23SS
06 Expedtion EB... the Wifes.
66 Cadillac Eldorado. My toy
I have this plan to live forever; so far my plan is working
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:09 AM
Ziegelsteinfaust's Avatar
Ziegelsteinfaust Ziegelsteinfaust is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 1,119
Ziegelsteinfaust is starting off with a positive reputation.
I think a fully prepped for mpg F100 would be hard pressed to get close to 30, but it seems to me 25 should be quite easy.

You just have to do everything possable, and not skip out. Intake, exhaust, electric fans, under pulleys, tuning, keeping the truck clean, and a tonneau cover. Then you can add roller rockers, and taller thinish tires on lighter weight rims "with-in safety limits" to finish up if you wanna go the last inch.


I've gotten 22 hwy out of my 07 gmc, and its bigger in every conceivable way then my 66 F100.

Also a guy I knew was getting 24+ hwy out of a 77 chevy with a 4.8 4l60 transplant. It wasn't fully tuned yet when I knew him. So its hard to say how much would of been left in it if any at all. It was tuned to get running and lose the codes at that point, and not for anything else.

Diesel is a game I don't understand, but car-crafter was getting over 30 with with his. Plus alot of performance parts, and rims not really that good for mpgs. I would be interested in building a diesel mpg miser if I ever get a chance.
__________________
Sitzungstiefpunkt und fahrend langsam

......................_____
.........________//__{\_____
,,,,,,,/__(O)___//___/__(O)_/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:32 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
The article, and I, was talking about factory new trucks engineered for mpg by Ford in the future, not aftermarket mods. Agreed, even 30mpg would be impossible with an old existing truck.

Late model diesels have not been designed for economy, but ridiculous towing capacity that almost no one uses. Light duty diesels face an uphill battle because of soot and other emissions.

Now that direct cylinder gasoline injection is starting to be used, along with turbocharging, spark ignition (gas) engine efficiency can approach diesels due to the increased compression and stratified charge. Fuel is sprayed directly toward the spark plug at the time of ignition allowing for a excess of air in the rest of the cylinder and still have an easy to ignite mixture at the plug. Because there is no fuel present during the compression stroke, pre-ignition is impossible, just like a diesel. Detonation risk is less due to weak mixture except right at the spark plug. The trick is to use all this for mileage instead of increased power.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-15-2011, 10:33 AM
Beechkid Beechkid is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,178
Beechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to behold
I know Ford has been working on replacing racker arms/camshafts with electronic servos that would open the valves....

To me that would be great...the after,arket could go wild with cam programming and the oem's could really bump up mileage

BTW, For years my dad ran the F150 (and F100) with the 300 cid & 3sp/5sp od trans. City mileage was always 15-18 even with a load, low 20's hwy and he tracked on 3 separate occaisions, when towing (3,000 lbs), hwy mileage was consistantly 27-28 mpg!

IMHO, like everyone else, 25-30 mpg is possible with todays tech!
__________________
Member: Never trust a person over 40 who drives a Chevy club
Flatheads ain't so bad!
Certified backyard mechanic I & II
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-15-2011, 03:55 PM
4dfan 4dfan is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 118
4dfan is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Have Obama and the State of California decided what the 2025 Ford F-150 is going to cost?

It sounds like a good idea, but telling Detroit how to build cars didn't really work in the seventies. People just switched from cars to light trucks that had the power and rear wheel drive handling they wanted.

With higher gas prices, people will start making more economical choices, and Ford is working on solutions to meet that demand. But the economy still needs functioning trucks. If they start chiseling away at the carriage to make it get 62mpg, what happens to people who actually need their vehicles to haul heavy loads? Do we just force them to buy a Mack truck, because Ford can no longer make a light truck for the job?

That's the problem with libtards. Instead of letting real engineers and scientists work on finding solutions to problems, they come up with some libtard fantasy of how things ought to be, then work backwards.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-16-2011, 10:58 AM
Beechkid Beechkid is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,178
Beechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to beholdBeechkid is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4dfan View Post
Have Obama and the State of California decided what the 2025 Ford F-150 is going to cost?

It sounds like a good idea, but telling Detroit how to build cars didn't really work in the seventies. People just switched from cars to light trucks that had the power and rear wheel drive handling they wanted.

With higher gas prices, people will start making more economical choices, and Ford is working on solutions to meet that demand. But the economy still needs functioning trucks. If they start chiseling away at the carriage to make it get 62mpg, what happens to people who actually need their vehicles to haul heavy loads? Do we just force them to buy a Mack truck, because Ford can no longer make a light truck for the job?

That's the problem with libtards. Instead of letting real engineers and scientists work on finding solutions to problems, they come up with some libtard fantasy of how things ought to be, then work backwards.
The author has stated 62 mpg based upon "some" academics"....no board, advisory group, research agency or college has made that recommendation- Its just trash talk.

When CAFE standards are established, the OEMS are members of the advisory panel/group, they have full & complete input along with MIT, etc. on what can be accomplished and the timeframe. It's kinda like the 3rd taillight requirement, the oems sate, participated on the panels and field test groups in NYC taxi, after the advisory board 100% agreed to what, where, when & how the lights should be required, and the actual cost was around $1.50 plus $3.50 labor to install in each new vehicles, the execs at detriot went public saying they had no position in the matter but the new requirmeent would raise car prices...

Some execs (like politicans) just like to stir the crap to make themselves look good (they think)....."It's not my fault- they made me do this!"
__________________
Member: Never trust a person over 40 who drives a Chevy club
Flatheads ain't so bad!
Certified backyard mechanic I & II
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-17-2011, 09:05 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechkid View Post
I know Ford has been working on replacing racker arms/camshafts with electronic servos that would open the valves....

To me that would be great...the after,arket could go wild with cam programming and the oem's could really bump up mileage
BMW already does a variation on that, electric variable valve lift. Its typical German mechanical complexity that still uses cams, but it gets rid of the throttle plate (like a diesel) and therefore pumping losses from pulling manifold vacuum.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-26-2011, 01:04 PM
greenpus greenpus is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 971
greenpus is starting off with a positive reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excursiondude View Post
Too bad they LIE to us, all the tests are done with pure gas that burns better. we are FORCED to use fuel with crap ethonal in it to lower our mpgs and make us use more fuel. more fuel=more taxes
I live in IL and buy gas that has no ethanol. Not all of us are forced to use ethanol blends...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-02-2011, 11:39 AM
muscletruck7379's Avatar
muscletruck7379 muscletruck7379 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Harrisburg, NE
Posts: 2,654
muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.muscletruck7379 has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimandmandy View Post
BMW already does a variation on that, electric variable valve lift. Its typical German mechanical complexity that still uses cams, but it gets rid of the throttle plate (like a diesel) and therefore pumping losses from pulling manifold vacuum.
actually what I think beechkid is referring to is using solenoids (piezoelectronic, like a powerstroke injector uses) on the valves, eliminating everything from the rockers back. mack made an engine with it. would be freakin sweet if you ask me. as of right now you can buy plans for a little 2cyl that uses "electronic valves"

its actually not that new of an idea: Popular Science - Google Books page 109 if it doesn't link right.

I think that with the right parts and mods (and a fairly deep pocket) that 40 could be done driving at 55 mph in a truck, but i think that with enough dime my little falcon could do 60... I'm aiming for 25 with my bronco.
__________________
1973 f250 highboy 4x4
1984 full size bronco, -DIS, wide band megasquirted 300 and np435 w/ dual range aux tranny on the way! - finally updated! 12/29/2011
1988 f150 extended cab 4x4, mostly stock.
1984 mercury capri, 5.0 conversion, my little monster...
1961 ford falcon, all stock, in family since '68
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-05-2011, 01:47 PM
Jaime74656's Avatar
Jaime74656 Jaime74656 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lexington
Posts: 2,045
Jaime74656 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.Jaime74656 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
JaimeSugrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4dfan View Post
Have Obama and the State of California decided what the 2025 Ford F-150 is going to cost?

It sounds like a good idea, but telling Detroit how to build cars didn't really work in the seventies. People just switched from cars to light trucks that had the power and rear wheel drive handling they wanted.

With higher gas prices, people will start making more economical choices, and Ford is working on solutions to meet that demand. But the economy still needs functioning trucks. If they start chiseling away at the carriage to make it get 62mpg, what happens to people who actually need their vehicles to haul heavy loads? Do we just force them to buy a Mack truck, because Ford can no longer make a light truck for the job?

That's the problem with libtards. Instead of letting real engineers and scientists work on finding solutions to problems, they come up with some libtard fantasy of how things ought to be, then work backwards.
thats why im keeping my old trucks that were built 98 and before, they can get heavy haul jobs done easy
__________________
Sandy: 1995 F150 XLT - 90.0% STOCK 6.0% Custom and changing
Jaime's Project thread (
Jaime's hilo del Proyecto
): http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/10...ct-thread.html
Currently working on: headlamps/lighting
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-09-2011, 09:12 AM
jimandmandy jimandmandy is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Running Springs CA
Posts: 5,228
jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.jimandmandy has a great reputation on FTE.
Its not the thing of simple-minded scare headlines. The proposed regulations are extremely complicated, but have loopholes for trucks big enough to drive a 1-ton dually thru. The adjustment is based on how big a shadow the truck casts on the ground and in any case is not even in the same county as 63mpg. Try more like 25mpg my 2016 and 30mpg by 2025 for the biggest light trucks. "Like EPA, in recognition of the utility requirements of full-size pick-up trucks and the unique challenges to improving fuel economy compared to other light-duty trucks and passenger cars, NHTSA intends to propose a lower annual rate of improvement for light-duty trucks in the early years of the program. For light-duty trucks, the proposed overall annual rate of fuel economy improvement in model years 2017 through 2021 would be 2.9 percent per year."

Details here. 2017-2025 CAFE Details Emerge, Loopholes Appear Gaping | The Truth About Cars
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2011, 09:12 AM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup