Notices

62mpgs = pipedream

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 14, 2011 | 01:15 PM
  #1  
lonewolf777's Avatar
lonewolf777
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
62mpgs = pipedream

a half ton 4x4 8 cly getting 62 mpgs?
 
Reply
Old Jun 14, 2011 | 02:23 PM
  #2  
jimandmandy's Avatar
jimandmandy
Post Fiend
20 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
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
Old Jun 14, 2011 | 03:49 PM
  #3  
Beechkid's Avatar
Beechkid
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,104
Likes: 384
From: Southern California
Club FTE Gold Member
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.
 
Reply
Old Jun 14, 2011 | 05:56 PM
  #4  
Pugman0911's Avatar
Pugman0911
New User
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
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
Old Jun 14, 2011 | 06:28 PM
  #5  
excursiondude's Avatar
excursiondude
Senior User
15 Year Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: Tinley Park Il.
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
 
Reply
Old Jun 15, 2011 | 12:09 AM
  #6  
Ziegelsteinfaust's Avatar
Ziegelsteinfaust
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,240
Likes: 2
From: Chino Hills
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.
 
Reply
Old Jun 15, 2011 | 09:32 AM
  #7  
jimandmandy's Avatar
jimandmandy
Post Fiend
20 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
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
Old Jun 15, 2011 | 10:33 AM
  #8  
Beechkid's Avatar
Beechkid
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,104
Likes: 384
From: Southern California
Club FTE Gold Member
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!
 
Reply
FTE Stories

Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts

story-0

10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love

 Joe Kucinski
story-1

10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)

 Michael S. Palmer
story-2

Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath

 Verdad Gallardo
story-3

Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer

 Joe Kucinski
story-4

2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)

 Brett Foote
story-5

Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies

 Joe Kucinski
story-6

AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make

 Brett Foote
story-7

Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!

 Michael S. Palmer
story-8

Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home

 Verdad Gallardo
story-9

10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!

 Joe Kucinski
Old Jun 15, 2011 | 03:55 PM
  #9  
4dfan's Avatar
4dfan
Senior User
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
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
Old Jun 16, 2011 | 10:58 AM
  #10  
Beechkid's Avatar
Beechkid
Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,104
Likes: 384
From: Southern California
Club FTE Gold Member
Originally Posted by 4dfan
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!"
 
Reply
Old Jun 17, 2011 | 09:05 AM
  #11  
jimandmandy's Avatar
jimandmandy
Post Fiend
20 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
Originally Posted by Beechkid
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
Old Jun 26, 2011 | 01:04 PM
  #12  
greenpus's Avatar
greenpus
Posting Guru
20 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by excursiondude
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
Old Aug 2, 2011 | 11:39 AM
  #13  
muscletruck7379's Avatar
muscletruck7379
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,703
Likes: 4
From: Harrisburg, NE
Club FTE Silver Member

Originally Posted by jimandmandy
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.
 
Reply
Old Aug 5, 2011 | 01:47 PM
  #14  
Jaime74656's Avatar
Jaime74656
Logistics Pro
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,744
Likes: 5
From: Earth
Originally Posted by 4dfan
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
 
Reply
Old Aug 9, 2011 | 09:12 AM
  #15  
jimandmandy's Avatar
jimandmandy
Post Fiend
20 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,228
Likes: 5
From: Running Springs CA
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




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.

story-0
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love

Slideshow: 10 ugly Ford trucks that we still kinda love.

By Joe Kucinski | 2026-06-03 09:51:16


VIEW MORE
story-1
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)

Slideshow: the best gifts for dads & grads

By Michael S. Palmer | 2026-06-03 09:39:23


VIEW MORE
story-2
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath

Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.

By Verdad Gallardo | 2026-05-30 18:33:59


VIEW MORE
story-3
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer

Slideshow: 10 most expensive Ford trucks ever sold on Bring a Trailer.

By Joe Kucinski | 2026-05-27 16:24:34


VIEW MORE
story-4
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)

Here's everything that has changed for the latest model year.

By Brett Foote | 2026-05-27 16:17:28


VIEW MORE
story-5
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies

Slideshow: Top 10 Ford truck tragedies.

By Joe Kucinski | 2026-05-18 19:34:33


VIEW MORE
story-6
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make

And it might be even better than that.

By Brett Foote | 2026-05-18 19:26:42


VIEW MORE
story-7
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!

Slideshow: Does lowering an F-150 Lobo RUIN the ride quality?

By Michael S. Palmer | 2026-05-18 19:20:37


VIEW MORE
story-8
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home

Slideshow: Ford's bizarre fishing-themed Explorer concept has resurfaced after spending decades largely forgotten.

By Verdad Gallardo | 2026-05-12 18:07:46


VIEW MORE
story-9
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!

Slideshow: The 10 best Ford truck engines we miss the most.

By Joe Kucinski | 2026-05-12 13:09:47


VIEW MORE