Do you think that Ford would consider making a super efficient 4-cylinder F150 pickup with EcoBoost technology? I would want one. I think the company should use it's efficient Ecoboost technology to do this.


The 2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost 4 Could Make a Great 2015 F150 SFE - Torque News

 

A small turbocharged engine will definitely improve fuel efficiency, but to get significant improvements, other things have to be done. Ford is doing one thing to help; reducing weight with the aluminum body.

It still takes the same amount of energy to push a given amount of weight to a certain speed, whether that energy is generated by a big or small engine. When you inevitably have to slow down, you scrub that energy into heat with your brakes. So if you can implement something to capture that energy that normally turns into heat by the brakes, you will improve your efficiency. This is one thing that hybrid/electric or all electric cars can implement by using regenerative braking to charge up a battery. Then the next time you need to start going again, you re-use this recovered energy to power an electric motor to help push the car, and reduce the load on the gas engine. Toyota reports that their Prius recovers up to 20% of the braking energy. This can provide significant improvement in efficiency.

 

In terms of cars, and i suppose trucks too. The government is the biggest hurdle in actually making vehicles more efficient.

Notice how almost all new cars look the same? Thats because the laws of aerodynamics dictate body shape. every other vehicle designed for efficiency( at high speeds) is not shaped that way. They are skinny and long as in dragsters. Or skinny and round as in formula 1 cars, which look alot like fighter aircraft front sections.
Government mandates automobiles must be seated side by side. Which limits the amount makers can reduce wind resistance.

Mandates are also in place for mechanical brakes and steering. weight could be saved by using electronic/electric versions. As far as i know the EU allows electric brakes, unsure about steering.

Mandated safety equipment. Air bag systems add weight. You do not get a choice. this is not a consumer driven option. The amount of them is the only choice you get.

 

Actually, airbags were a consumer driven option. I was working at Ford when it was sued by the parents of a girl who got herself killed in a collision while driving a Pinto. They claimed that Ford could have offered an airbag in the car at the time, which they claimed would have prevented her from getting killed. But Ford only offered airbags in the Lincolns at the time.

The other safety features may not start out as consumer driven, but will eventually end up being that way: "Why can't (insert manufacturer) build a (insert product) that does (insert some magic) to prevent (or enable) (some other magic)?" Another example would be ABS. Of course, before they become mandates, they become selling points.

I don't think I would trust something as important as brakes or steering to be wire-activated in a passenger car. Maybe in a fleet car that gets regular inspections, but not in regular consumer cars, where most owners practice such poor maintenance that 90% of cars that go to the scrap yards end up with the same fluids that were installed in the factory when they were built.

By the way, the reason dragsters are called "dragsters" is that they have a lot of drag. That's part of the challenge of the race, to push a brick through air at high speeds, when the amount of power required goes up with the cube of the speed. Think of those open, 5 foot tall tires at 300 mph; the tops of the tires are hitting the air at 600 mph. If they wanted to decrease drag, they would put fairings ahead of those tires.

But you're right about one thing; you can reduce a lot of drag if you reduce the frontal area, like a plane or train. There are vehicles on the road with 1-wide seating; I don't think there is a government mandate for side-by-side seating. The real problem is practicality. The ideal shape for minimal drag is a tear drop, but it's hard to build a usable car or truck shaped exactly like that. Even subtle changes from the ideal shape can significantly spoil its aerodynamic efficiency.

 

"By the way, the reason dragsters are called "dragsters" is that they have a lot of drag."

Really?

From the NHRA….

When the first track was created, the idea of what drag racing has become today did not exist. These were just races, plain and simple – drag racing did not earn its name until sometime later. To be honest, no one actually knows the real story of why they decided to call straight line speed races, drag races. One theory is that because these races stem from a challenge made from one party to another that the first racer may have said, “Drag your car out of the garage and race me!” Another idea seems more rooted in fact and based upon where the race would take place. Paved roads were few and far between in the early days of motoring so the main “drag” or road through town could have been the setting for early races. As the sport evolved and began taking place on sanctioned courses, some drivers would “drag” through the gears or hold the car in the same gear for a longer period of time. We may never know the first time a sanctioned race was called a drag race, but all of these ideas are possibilities.

 

I think it's probably the idea that the main drag through town is where they were held.

 

I can believe that about "drag racing" the family sedan. But I think "dragsters" are a different story.

I heard the association with high drag from someone on a race team a long time ago, and given that they use those huge open tires, they do have a lot of drag. So it was easy to believe that "dragsters" were so called because of that. Who knows, maybe he was spinning a story; he was really drunk at the time.

 

Government is the problem in the way of great MPG, look at Europe.

Drag racing refers to main drag, cruising, stop lights etc.

The way to go about a high MPG pickup is a ute all ausie style, ranchero, small pickup kinda thing. Specifically take the new explorer and make it a unibody pickup.

 

There are certainly a lot of safety requirements on cars that make them heavier. But if they weren't there, and someone got injured or killed because of it, you can be sure that some ambulance chaser will file a suit against someone to try to collect damages.

I think a lot of European cars get better gas mileage than ours because they're much smaller cars. Small cars are available here as well, but they didn't seem to be popular among American buyers, at least not until gasoline got to $4+/gallon. I clearly remember when Toyota sold the first Prius in this country, Ford was trying to sell the Excursion. What a contrast in size, weight mileage, efficiency. Then of course, there was the ultimate posuer vehicle, the Hummer H2.

 

The problem with pickup trucks actually stems from government mandated emissions standards that are based on the number of passengers a vehicle can carry, this is at odds with the original and primary design function of the pickup.. to carry large loads. To make these vehicles more emissions compliant they have to be able to carry more people and that either results in a reduction in cargo capacity to the point it's practically useless or the vehicle has to get much larger/longer.
Realistically most people that are currently driving a full size crew cab pickup don't need it, they could easily be driving a vehicle half that size or less the vast majority of the time, but they have become accustomed to being able to carry 6 adults or tow a 1000 sq/ft bungalow around if they wish so a little 4cyl powerplant in one of these monsters simply won't deliver the expected milage gains unless the vehicle also gets much smaller.

 

I wonder if the government mandate comes from their recognizing that more people buy trucks as their daily drivers, than those who regularly use them as the work horses as they're intended.

I think Ford (and other makers) are somewhat guilty of this, marketing their trucks with a macho image. It was definitely the case with the Hummer H2 or the Excursion.

Slightly off topic here: I love Mustangs; I own two 69s and one 87. But as much as I'm impressed with the new 5.0 DOHC engine, I'm more than a little disappointed with the 2015 model and its prodigious weight, especially after reading the teaser rumors from over a year ago that they were supposed to be smaller and lighter by as much as 400 pounds. Their rated gas mileage have gone down as well, though the 4 cylinder turbocharged engine does better. Ford restyled it in the hopes of making it more attractive to European buyers. But my feeling is that maybe a small percentage of buyers, made up mostly of enthusiasts, will go for it. For the bulk of Europe, the new Mustang is just too big and heavy, and is not fuel efficient enough.

 

The 2.3 is not much different in CI then a 2.7, and in the real world I would bet the 2.7 does better for the vast majority. The 2.3 may cheat the cafe rating though, and look good in commercials.

If you want mpg get a 2.7 rcsb, add a tonneau cover, bolt-ons, and lower the truck. Then drive like an old lady, and see how much you can get.