Fonefiddy. I agree about the MPG for the chevy. I think cylinder deactiviation is a not worth anything in the real world. They seem to be getting similar mileage to the 5.4
BUT, the yukon or tahoe or whatever with the 6.0 hybrid is getting 20mpg city 20mpg highway. I think thats the first real attempt to increase MPG and its decent in my opinion.
Dascro, from an engineers standpoint, would you not agree that the GM engineers disagree with your statement. They must have some facts in order to make the decision to equip the GM engines with cylinder deactivitation. I personally feel the 5.3 is a better engine than the 5.4 but I dont have any real facts to back that up with. Its just a personal choice that I like the simplicity of the lsx engines and they have proven to be workhorses that last.
Now, the only possible reason I can come up with assuming your right is that cylinder deactivitation has a way to trick the epa tests. A GM truck 4x2 with 3.73 gears is rated at 15/20 based on the 2008 standard. A similar f150 is 13/18 or 14/19. Thats at least a 5 percent gain. What are your thoughts?
Well they must have some data that says it provides them some benefit. Every manufacturer is in a struggle to get the best MPGs out of their trucks. 1 mpg is very significant(which makes me doubt mods where people claim 2-3) so if they felt that in some condition, or in the EPA tests this could net them 1 or so MPG I am sure thats why they did that. Keep in mind company engineers are exploring many ideas, maybe they found this reliable with a potential gain and marketing took over? IDK
It makes sense to me in more aerodynamic vehicles, cars and even mini-vans but I'm not sure about trucks. Also, I really don't know anyone that has one in a flat area. I am in the appalachian mountains of PA, other experiences come from the mountains of Arizona and the hills of North Carolina so maybe in the plains it is different. I would guess that in the plains, in gentle highway driving in an unloaded truck you would get something.
As to whether the 5.3 is better than the 5.4. Thats a broad statement and you are right its mostly opinion. I like both but think they both accel in a different area, the 5.3 is a good daily driving or car motor, while the 5.4 is like an old fashioned truck motor. I'd buy either without a second thought
I am a huge fan of the small block chevy motor for the reliability it has proven in th past. But I must say that in the past few years the ford mod motors have grown on me. I know so many people that have abused them for years and years and they are still running today!
I have suspected for many years now that engines are designed to beat the EPA test more than to get real world MPG. Remember the Toyota Prius? They rated it at 70MPG when it was first released, in reality 50 was possible on a good day, the numbers have since been changed slightly to more closely resemble reality. The smaller, lighter, Honda Insight was rated at 88 MPG, with reality being at 70......
I suspect its the same with pickups as well, I remember a newspaper ad a few months ago where the local GMC dealer was claiming 27-28 MPG on the 1/2 ton trucks. Not sure what the EPA estimate was for those trucks, but its probably worthless except maybe to compare it against other vehicles.
Aerodynamics can make a difference, but at the end of the day, a truck will still have tall, flat surfaces at its rear window, and tailgate. And despite what you folks have been told, rounding off the front corners does very little for aerodymamics.....What might make a real difference, is a smooth bellypan from bumper to bumper, lowering the truck to the ground would also help, but adjustable suspension would only add to complexity (and cost).
For my part, I have made mods to my old F250 that make it more economical than anything diesel sold today. When I bought it, 10-13 MPG (C6 auto and 4.10 gears), just by swapping to 3.08 gears, 20 MPG was possible, I have since swapped the tranny as well. With this current setup, I can select 2400, 2200, 2000, and 1600 RPM at 70 MPH, so I always have the right gear for the right conditions. Adding a turbo did not help or hurt high end MPGs.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Good post. Considering that they have to meet CAFE, a trick to get a few mpg better in the EPA tests would be worth it for them.
As it is today, no truck being made right now is going to get much above 20mpg. Aerodynamics play a huge role in this and we aren't going to be able to change that much. At least not with results that anyone is going to like
Does andybody know what the C/D ( coefficient of drag ) is on the Big 4 trucks. This is becoming a bigger and bigger topic around the Mustang boards these days along with fuel economy.
This is what I have read and I will leave it up to you engineer types to tell me if this is accurate. For every .01 of increase in Cd, you can expect a decrease of .2 mpg. Example, the current mustang is a .36 CD while the corvette is .26. That is a 2 mpg gain from arodynamics alone. Thats big.
I knew it matterered but honestly didnt know it would impact fuel economy so much if this is accurate. A full size truck would have to have terrible numbers as boxed off as they are plus they sit so high up in the air.
Does andybody know what the C/D ( coefficient of drag ) is on the Big 4 trucks. This is becoming a bigger and bigger topic around the Mustang boards these days along with fuel economy.
This is what I have read and I will leave it up to you engineer types to tell me if this is accurate. For every .01 of increase in Cd, you can expect a decrease of .2 mpg. Example, the current mustang is a .36 CD while the corvette is .26. That is a 2 mpg gain from arodynamics alone. Thats big.
I knew it matterered but honestly didnt know it would impact fuel economy so much if this is accurate. A full size truck would have to have terrible numbers as boxed off as they are plus they sit so high up in the air.
Does andybody know what the C/D ( coefficient of drag ) is on the Big 4 trucks. This is becoming a bigger and bigger topic around the Mustang boards these days along with fuel economy.
This is what I have read and I will leave it up to you engineer types to tell me if this is accurate. For every .01 of increase in Cd, you can expect a decrease of .2 mpg. Example, the current mustang is a .36 CD while the corvette is .26. That is a 2 mpg gain from arodynamics alone. Thats big.
I knew it matterered but honestly didnt know it would impact fuel economy so much if this is accurate. A full size truck would have to have terrible numbers as boxed off as they are plus they sit so high up in the air.
Mercedes Benz has been experimenting with some odd, very futuristic looking shapes for semis... they've been getting roughly 25-30% mpg increase by simply messing with the shape of the thing.
I'd drive a truck that looked like a UFO, but when you have half the forum over here wishing for the pushrod inline 6 of 20 years ago, you think something that looks like it rolled out of area 51 is gonna fly with them?
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
Does andybody know what the C/D ( coefficient of drag ) is on the Big 4 trucks. This is becoming a bigger and bigger topic around the Mustang boards these days along with fuel economy.
This is what I have read and I will leave it up to you engineer types to tell me if this is accurate. For every .01 of increase in Cd, you can expect a decrease of .2 mpg. Example, the current mustang is a .36 CD while the corvette is .26. That is a 2 mpg gain from arodynamics alone. Thats big.
I knew it matterered but honestly didnt know it would impact fuel economy so much if this is accurate. A full size truck would have to have terrible numbers as boxed off as they are plus they sit so high up in the air.
I've never run the numbers for a pick up but in college we did a project of finding the C/D on the element or scion or something. It was shocking how high it was.
I don't remember the impact it has on fuel economy but your numbers sound resonable. It is a MUCH larger factor than most people realize. In all honesty we probably shouldn't even be mentioning this in the dicussion about trucks. By the very nature of trucks they have a heavy drag. If we got rid of most of that we'd no longer have a truck. I'm sure there is some room for improvement though.
Mercedes Benz has been experimenting with some odd, very futuristic looking shapes for semis... they've been getting roughly 25-30% mpg increase by simply messing with the shape of the thing.
I'd drive a truck that looked like a UFO, but when you have half the forum over here wishing for the pushrod inline 6 of 20 years ago, you think something that looks like it rolled out of area 51 is gonna fly with them?
LOL! I know what you mean. Those 300's were dang good engines but technology pushes on. At some point you have to accept that and realize its a good thing. I have a friend that is hopelessly stuck in the 60's so I can understand where your coming from. He is the mechanical type and can work on anything but the new stuff intimidates him. I think thats why he cant get out of the 60's era.
I remember back in 86 I think when the mustang people screamed that FI was going to ruin the cars. I remember when the mod engines came out there was no way they would ever be better than the old stand by 302. I admit Im a bit slow to change my thinking sometimes but I try to keep an open mind and listen to people who are a lot smarter than me and those folks are not too hard to find.
i can't help but be stuck in the 60's too. things where more honest then. period. i can't help but get so angry when people complain there new pickups still get 15mpg. dad's old flathead'l beat that and it hasn't been tuned since the early 70's. i hate to sound like a dinasour cause i know there's been improvments on things, but my bottom line is the auto industry is in trouble because they make their living on tricking/fooling the automotive public. i'd rather watch an f150 commercial on tv saying "the new 3v 5.4 is a flaming pig on gas cause the oil companies force us to make it that way" then hear some b.s that it's supposed to be good. -or- "the new f150 has lotsa plastic cause we can't afford '79 sheetmetal anymore cause we have to pay the u.a.w's $40-50 per hour so stand around in the factory to push buttons". if i heard that on t.v i would almost go buy a new f150 just for being honest, and leave the b.s to the chevy hammerheads
That oil company conspiracy is complete foolishness. For the most part, Ford and all the other makers have given the public what they demand with their dollars.
i can't help but be stuck in the 60's too. things where more honest then. period. i can't help but get so angry when people complain there new pickups still get 15mpg. dad's old flathead'l beat that and it hasn't been tuned since the early 70's. i hate to sound like a dinasour cause i know there's been improvments on things, but my bottom line is the auto industry is in trouble because they make their living on tricking/fooling the automotive public. i'd rather watch an f150 commercial on tv saying "the new 3v 5.4 is a flaming pig on gas cause the oil companies force us to make it that way" then hear some b.s that it's supposed to be good. -or- "the new f150 has lotsa plastic cause we can't afford '79 sheetmetal anymore cause we have to pay the u.a.w's $40-50 per hour so stand around in the factory to push buttons". if i heard that on t.v i would almost go buy a new f150 just for being honest, and leave the b.s to the chevy hammerheads
what are you?? some kind of crack head?? you are nuts, cars and trucks use to get way less milege than they do now. if your flathead get better then the 18 miles per gallon my 5.4L will get (and so i am not lieing thats when i drive it right and dont get on it) there is no fooling going on in the auto industry and if you are to goofy to realize that a truck you buy is not going to get the miege of a focus, then i feel sorry for you. also for your info they do not just stand around and push buttons for the money they make and nor do they (atleast at the plant here) make the money you stated one regular time. these people that run these machines have to change and adjust the tooling to get the parts in specs and then if the machine breaks down they ahve to trouble shoot it and then repair it if they can then if not they can call in skilled trades to do it. not to mention the factory has not a/c so in the summer when its really hot out its really hot in the plant. do you think they should all work like the japs make people work and pay them $8 an hour and then charge teh same price for the vehicle so they can make all the money they can off you then not put any back into anything. go crawl back under your rock.
__________________
EAT RICE, DONT DRIVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
That post is offensive. That japanese have a very advanced society. They are paid a fair wage. Toyota pays its american workers a fair wage. I believe the japanese are not fond of the term you used either. He made some bad points, yes. But please address them in a constructive manner!!
the actual toyota factory might, but my mom works there and dont get paid much at all. plus they only assymble the cars there, what about all the japanese owned companies here that are making parts for them, i know cause i have seen it and worked it for a day. not cool at all, they work you like a slave, in the heat, for only $11.00 and hour, these days that peanuts. then dont let me add in how bad they treat their workers, i dont know if i still have the article but they had the kentucky state workers rights in there on them and then they were talking about how one of the stupid goveners of the state gave toyota all the land the place is built on and then gave them MAJOR tax breaks and they are not putting any money back in the community as they promised. and oh yes there is always the, i believe it was a nissan plat in arkansas that had one of the japanese or chinese managers of the plant going down the like hitting workers on the back and yelling at them "worky, worky, worky". if you need me to i can list some of the things that are going wrong in the toyota plant.
__________________
EAT RICE, DONT DRIVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember a business report about toyota a few years ago when the matrix was still a fresh idea and selling like hot cakes. They were talking about how toyota was able to pull an above average profit per car (in the $600 range) and part of the reason was that toyota's workforce is not unionized, as far as I know, this is still the case.
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
