Don't give me wrong I love my v-10 but when will Ford get a clue ? Some people are scratching their heads wondering why Ford is doing bad. Quality is an issue but so is fuel economy. When just about every Chevy is flex fuel and has displacement on demand how do they expect to sell vehicles. I have been looking at new trucks because I will be in the market for one in a year or two. I hate to say it but if I had to buy now it would be Chevy. I could burn E-85 and have " active fuel management ". I think Ford has two vehicles that are flex fuel .. the f-150 and a car. Just sad to see them fall so far behind. Seams like all they are worried about are limited edition Shelby mustangs that most people can't afford. I think they are finding out that a couple thousand Shelby GT's won't pay the bills.

 

Most Ranger and Explorer models are flex fuel depending on engine and year.

 

Sorry I ment to type in their current lineup. I just looked it up and they show the crown vic, F-150 and Lincoln town car. Not much there for new vehicle buyers.

 

I had just assumed the they still were, appears they are not.

 

I always thought that instead of MDS, they should just have another gear on the transmission, so you'd go down the road at about 750rpm when not under load. There's probably something like oil film thickness or bearing velocity that prevents this though.

I also think an optional high compression high performance E85 engine for the Mustang would sell, at least in some areas.

Just my thoughts.

 

Help me out here......I honestly don't know. (too lazy to look it up)

Does GM have the MDS and FF in the HD segment??? (vs our V10's)

Does the MDS HONESTLY add economy??? (based on the 1/2 ton comparos I've been reading it does not)

And I respectfully disagree about the Shelby.....Ford needs Halo vehicles to bolster an incredibly weak performance image.

 

The MDS only appears to improve EPA ratings and does nothing in the real world. The various tests of GM's pickups shows a hugh difference between the EPA ratings and real life mileage. My nephew works at a larger GM dealership and is driving a new Silverado with the MDS and he said the fuel mileage is not improved and it is obvious when the cylinders activate and deactivate.

 

GM's "active fuel management" (AFM) is a joke. You can ask anyone who isn't wearing their bowtie too tight and they'll tell you that economy is either the same or worse than the previous generation GM vehicles.

My wife's Suburban gets the same mileage as my F250. This is really bad considering the Sub weighs at least 1,000 lbs less and has much better aerodynamics (plus AFM).

 

I've heard some of the Hemi guys having luck with it, but that doesn't mean much. You can drop cylinders, add gears...whatever. It still stands that you need a certain amount of power to push these pigs down the road. It might be less than what they actually use, but not much less (as things stand). Power=fuel. Adding gears to lower the RPM's further might even increase consumption in some cases.

 

It does something in the real world, but it all depends what the land looks like where you live. Reason I state this is my brother in laws 06 1500 Hemi can get 25 mpg @ 65-70 mph. Seen it first hand. Almost exactly the same as a co-worker of mine. His 06 Durango gets over 22 mpg at roughly the same speed.

Albiet we don't have any mountains around here and the majority of road is flat. Getting that kind of mileage in both my Expy and F-150 would be a fairy tale and not to mention my 260 hp to the 345 hp of the Hemi.

 

MDS works, IF, and this is a big IF, you drive for fuel economy. If you like to play Jeff Gordon on the interstate, then no, it wont help.

 

True. I have a 6 speed BMW motorcycle I purchased in January. The prior owner told me he averaged 45 MPG. After several hundred miles, I found I got the same mileage. A friend of mine bought a new one and was told to not use 6th gear unless he was cruising on the interstate. I started riding in 5th gear unless I was on the interstate and my fuel mileage is now around 49-50. My low fuel light used to come on between 145 and 150 and now it comes on at around 165-170 and it holds around 3.2 gallons.

 

Chevy does not offer MDS or Flex Fuel for the 3/4 ton and up trucks. Well I figure if you need a bigger truck for pulling the MDS may be a waste but Flex fuel would be nice. I bought my V-10 because I wanted the superduty look and the biggest and best gas engine Ford had. That was also when gas was a dollar. As for the Shelby mustangs you are right about Fords image. What I was really getting at is how there are no intermediate performance orientated cars. You go from Gt to Gt500. They need something like the Mach 1. Or if they wanna keep up this retro thing bring back the boss. I'd like a 5.4l Flex fuel boss mustang.

 

MDS seems like the way to go over lowering RPM's. When you use MDS you are likely going to be in a more efficient part of the powerband under cruising (engines have a sweet spot on piston speed and the like that they will burn better, as mentioned above). You are also going to lose less energy to heat leaving the motor. Only 4 cylinders working leaves less direct area for heat to soak into the engine. Heat=power=fuel.

 

Dont they cycle through all 8 periodically to keep engine wear consistant, negating the affects of heating?

With modern variable valve timing, lowering RPM's could work quite well. Also remember that frictional losses increase as RPM increases.