Has that ever happened.....

 

We are definitly at the point where the law of diminishing returns is comming into play with regards to engine efficiency, and unless these things are lightened up considerably I don't see us aproaching 30mpg anytime soon. But with the right transmission and rear end gearing we should be able to get well into the 20s. But IMHO the right transmission is a manual and I don't see them comming back real soon. And I know they have lockup converters now but that only solves half the problem, you still have a lot of parrasitic losses inside the tranny. But on the other hand manual transmissions require someone who knows how to drive to get the most out of them, but perhaps thats why we'll never see them in a half ton again.

 

Problem is that most people can't drive to begin with so to quote a friend " I just stick the key in it and go". Could you just imagine how dangerous the road would be if you gave drivers something else to pay attention to other that their radios, in dash t.v.s, cell phones, and vanity mirriors? Scary stuff there.

Just to throw in some life experience on the fuel mileage to engine size debate, I have a c-15 and a friend that has c-13's. I get about 8-10 mpg give or take with a full load. He said he gets around the same loaded. Now granted these are two different tractors. My truck weights 22K and his is 18K and prob different rear gears. But the c-15 is 550hp and the c-13's are 350hp. Our 400hp 3406B gets 4-5mpg loaded, flat running and a tail wind,and was one of the best engines at its time. Its not bad technology, just old technology. If my tractor were lighter I'd prob get better mileage but I thought I'd throw that in here.

 

Has it? If it has, I've never seen it...which truck did that?

Not arguing, just curious, that's all

 

He's back .. !

Ok, did a little more research. I have been unable to come up with a copy of the ad that I am reffering to in a earlier post about the 30 mpg V-8 full size truck. I will keep looking though.

Here is what I have come up with - in 1978 according to the EPA, you could buy a new full size F150 (not the lighter ones like the early 80's swiss cheese frame models) with the six cylinder 300/6 and manual 4 spd. It was rated at 28 mpg freeway. Not quite the 30 mpg that I referenced remembering from the Chevy ad, but still not to shabby. The F150 carried a 19 mpg rating in the city.

So, I still stand by that if Ford though outside the box, and with a little rethink by us, you could have a 30+ mpg full size F150.

Of course I will add that this might be a regular cab short bed, but if the technology existed almost 30 years ago to return this kind of mileage, certainly with todays tech we can at least pick up a lowly 10% better mileage, which would put you slightly less than 31 mpg freeway.

I have stated, half the power, twice the mileage, while this may be a over simplification due to certain physical laws govering gasoling engines, I can guaretee you that the 1978 F150 probably did not have the power to top much above 90mph, but that is fine, where you can use even that speed legaly in America ? So why pay the price when you can't use it?

Not to start this whole thing over again, I defer to Tom when he states that a 4 door F150 pickup might not generate this kind of mileage, I also agree that most people would not buy one of these 1978 model trucks today, if there were other options. I would though, but make mine please with a modern 5 sp automatic.

However, and this is really my point - with just a little forethough, if all that was available thru fuel economy standards, were the higher mileage trucks, say a minimum of 28 or 30 mpg hiway, then just as many new trucks would be sold by Ford, as all of the makers would be in the same boat, and held to the same mileage standards. it certainly would not give the imports any edge over domestics as the playing field is level.

So I offering a fact based opinion that it is possible to improve efficiency in terms of fuel mileage, and still have your full size F150. If it was done 30 years ago, it has to be still possible today.

I for one don't care to be called a Troll when I offer a fact based different view. Disagree with me is fine, but don't resort to name calling please.

David

 

I believe it was me that mentioned the word "troll", and I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

I know I haven't posted as frequently as many on this board, but I have been on here since 2003, and one common recurring theme is people blaming the auto industry for these huge, gas guzzling vehicles. Every time it seems that a new truck is designed, people seem to think that the engineers should work magic. Have the big, beefy truck they want, with the auto tranny, enough features to put a lexus to shame, towing capacity to outdo the competitors' 3/4 ton models...and 30 MPG!

This kind of thinking really gets to me, as I honestly think that modern automakers do a great job giving us what we want.

30 MPG...yeah, I have to agree that it's possible with some serious thinking "outside the box". If you were to reshape a truck...make it lower, lighter, less space under the truck, more aerodynamic...you could probably make it work. You'd have to put said truck on a diet, and possibly give it a small turbodiesel with a manual tranny...but after that it would probably return 30 MPG. BUT...what about the problems with such a truck?

Making it 4x4 would almost be pointless, as it wouldn't have the ground clearance to drive across anything other than firm grass. It would be much lower to the ground, and drivers would lose that "bigger than everybody else" feeling that they love so much. Such a truck wouldn't look "tough" in people's minds, and their ego would require them to get the bigger competitors trucks to quench their desire to look tough. I know, I know...I'm cynical in the worst degree about things like this. I see so many people buying trucks as showpieces, I just don't think such a truck would sell.

Thoughts?

 

30 mpg in a F150 with a V8............. come on now

I have a 77 F100 w/302, and it is running better than new, and the best I got on a 100 mile hwy trip driving like a grandpaw was 22MPG which is GREAT, but I've never seen those numbers again, and I try and drive like that all the time, but 18 is easy to get takeing it easy on the hwy. I've seen a thread where someone wanted to do get 30 mpgs, and had all these ideas, but never came back and said he did it.

Also my 79 Bronco (when it was stock), the best I got was 15.5 mpgs. They're not made for mileage.

 

I saw this thread and had to look out of curiosity to see what people were saying about fuel milage on the new trucks. It would seem the laws of physics do still apply and the old motors were not that bad, they were just not optimized very well from the factory. If anything I think the manufacturers have learned that smothering a large displacement motor with restrictive exhaust and low compression is not the route to better fuel milage. Here's some fuel for that argument. The 5.8 in my 1990 supercab 4x4 returns 12-14mpg city and 17-19 hwy, it makes a bit under 300hp but produces 400lb ft TQ from 2000rpm up. It's not a stock motor for the year but really isn't modified that much.. a little higher compression and improved airflow from the cam, heads and exhaust. All the old Ford motors(4.9 I6, 5.0 and 5.8 V8) get very similar milage in stock trim, ranging from 12-20mpg depending upon the truck it's hauling around. The I6 is/was a very torquey motor, in a lighter truck with a manual and higher gearing(3.08) it would return 20+ mpg, better than either of the V8s. But generally all these motors produced between 12-16mpg on average doing typical truck duty at real world speeds.

I don't put much faith in the EPA milage ratings, the speeds at which the tests were conducted as so low the HWY rating is at speeds less than what most people drive on city streets. There has never been a V8 powered truck get anywhere close to 30mpg.. I don't care what the EPA and manufacturers say, in the real world the numbers are much lower.

 

Tom, you are I are really not that far apart. I really only offered a opinion that Ford could offer a ful size F150 that was rated for 30+ mpg on the freeway. I also mentioned that it would take some rethinking on our part, the consumer.

When though I was pretty much told that such a vehical NEVER existed, not necessarily by you, or that such a vehical COULD NOT be produced, again not necessarily by you, I had to go back in history to correct those that don't seem to rememeber the not too distant past. I think that enough has been said, and is proof of concept that with the proper regulations, a different thought pattern on bolt the publics and the car makes, it WAS DONE, or at least in the case of the 1978 F150, close to at 28 mpg freeway.

I think without any questions, that taking away opinion, and looking at factful information we at one time were far ahead of where we are at currently in the fuel mileage department. We are however worlds ahead I feel on engine managment systems, transmission managment systems, creature comforts, overall driveability, etc. I would just like to add mileage back as part of the important things.

Just as a sidebar - in 1978 the EPA does not list less mileage for the 4x4 Ford F150, and the manual transfer case along with the manual hubs probably have alot to do with this. No extra drag in 2wd, other than a weight penality. Seems that the systems we have nowdays are not as "partial" as the old systems were. This also probably has a bearing for my old 86 4x4 mileage being as high as it was.

Another thought, and I think we argree on is that these might not be the funnest trucks to drive. I posted that thought before, and it is also something that you have also brought up.

Now is the time for Ford to design in the ability to improve fuel mileage in the 2009 trucks, there are people like me that this is important to. This is what I am suggesting. I also thought this forum was where we could post wants, thoughts and desires on what we would want in the new F150. I haven't posted saying that it was rediculous to have Ford produce the Boss 6.2, in fact I have even stated that it would be fun to drive. But that is not for me on a day to day truck, it may be for someone else, all I am asking of for others to pay as much consideration to my desire to have fuel mileage as consideration has been given to those who want high horsepower vehicals.

The real bottom line is that we had meetable CAFE regulations in the past, meetable with 30 year old tech, I would at least to hope that we could match those standards with today's tech, but I don't even see that option available for those of us who would choose a truck for mileage.

On a personal note, as you can tell I am a student of history - and I wil defend historical facts. Please don't even get me started on the Consitutional law issues facing Americans in todays political climate.... ok, so i have said to much already on that. I will shut up!

Regards, david

 

If you take the time to read my first post, I was not asking or saying a new F150 with a V-8 was going to get 30+ mpg hiway.

However, what I stated was that it would be possible for a new 09 F150 to get 30+ mpg hiway, with a bit of *rethinking*. Could this be a V-8, possibly, but it could also be a 4 cyl, a 6 cyl, a 10 or 12 cylinder for that matter. The amount of cylinders is not so important as is turning hydro carbons into usable efficient horsepower/mileage.

Possibly when the posting morphed into a discussion between Tom's and myself on our respective V-8 powered F150's, and the mileage they were returing, it gave you the idea that I was only reffering to a V-8 ?

I also posted on a diesel engine option at the end of the first post - which if done right certainly would return 30+ mpg hiway.

In reading back, I think a lot of people on here are having trouble with one word I keep refering back to. That word is rethinking. Evidently a lot of people really don't want to think outside of the box, or for what ever reason can't see any side but there own. Even I say the Boss 6.2 would be a fun ride. I can certainly see the other side of fuel mileage, the fun side. But on a day to day ride, not worth it in my opinion, as there is no where in America, save a race course where you could use all of that horsepower.

David

 

It seems to me that everyone is thinking that Ford can only make one type of truck at a time. Go ahead and get your Boss engine if you want, but don't push for big power through the whole engine line. After all why do you care how slow the economy oriented trucks are going to be when you're going to get the Boss in yours anyway. It's the same as when I say I want a manual, everyone jumps on to explain how much better the autos are. Now I don't agree that the autos are better but that is not the point, nobody ever suggested that the autos be dropped and only manuals should be offered. The problem is that in the past we had options to choose from, now the only options we have are for how we want our interior to look.

 

I used to drive for a company that ran all E-7 Macks, half the fleet had 350hp engine the other half had 427s. The 350s would get about 5mpg no matter who was in it, the 427s would get anywhere from 4 to 7 depending on who was driving. It's not how much power you have available (to a point but let's just say less is not allways the answer) but how much you use, once again it comes down to who is driving.

 

Well, Dave, I have to admit, you have thought this through better than I have. When I read your first post, I thought you were another person who was complaining about fuel economy with no logical solution...I've seen that a lot and it bugs me, both online and in the real world.

Lots of good ideas have been mentioned in this thread...would be interesting to see if anyone at Ford cares to listen to what people are saying...

 

That about all I can ask of Ford - It has been good to have a dialog and discussion with you. You have also brought up some good ideas that have been noted, and I have to say have helped and enlighted me to other thoughts on this whole thing.

Yup, I agree on the unlogical ones who complain but offer no solutions..

Thank you, David

 

Guys, I have to say that was a helluva read. Some good points on all sides, its conversations like these that can make the difference in the long run, even if is seems like no ones listening.

I know its a little late, but I thought I'd pour some fuel on the fire. My prefference has always been fuel economy over horsepower, and IMHO, 30MPG is doable, but major changes would have to be made for that to happen.

First, the gasoline four stroke engine has a ceiling of about 30% efficiency, second, the driveline takes around 30% out of whatever the engine can produce - thats a crapload of wasted fuel, over 70%!.

My solution would be to take a cummins 3.9L (as offered by ford in argentina) and set up a series hybrid drivetrain.

Such a setup could keep the engine at ideal operating range at any speed, since there is no longer a mechanical linkage to the road, and the electric motor/generator setup would be more efficient than any manual tranny. And then theres all the moving parts that have been elliminated (auto trans, driveshaft etc.)

But if I had my way, I'd just go pure electric and stop buying gas or diesel all together.