Ask the Car People.SM


If 62 MPG Becomes Law... - READ ONLY

36 messages,  Last post on Jul 28, 2011 at 5:56 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Legislation

Messages Page 4 of 4

#27 of 36 Re: We've seen this movie... [benjaminh] by oldfarmer50

Jul 06, 2011 (3:54 pm)

Replying to: benjaminh (Jul 06, 2011 12:08 pm)
"...A Ford 2.0 ecoboost turbo has about as much power as a 5.0 from the 80s..."
 
Yes, and a Mitsu EVO 2.0L turbo is a rocket but it costs $45,000. I just don't see getting today's performance out of a gas sipping engine without it costing a fortune.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to save money at the pump but I don't trust people with a different agenda to give me the performance I might want at a price point I can afford.

#28 of 36 Re: We've seen this movie... [oldfarmer50] by benjaminh

Jul 06, 2011 (4:35 pm)

Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jul 06, 2011 3:54 pm)
I agree that the feds haven't given us a lot of reasons to trust em. To me it's more the two wars we're in, but never mind on that ot situation.
 
Bottom line is that 50 mpg CAFE is going to happen whether people like it (me) or not (you). But I think there's hope for people who like performance and economy--which is both of us and and millions of others out there.
 
I just looked up the stats for the pretty much top of the line Mustang from 25 years ago in 1986 (argh, time flies, I'm getting old!). The 302 was actually heavily revised for that year:
 
"In 1986, Ford released the first multiport fuel-injected 302 cu in (4.9 L) V8, rated at 200 hp (150 kW). With high swirl E6SE heads, the early production High Output EFI engine intake possessed higher compression and dual exhausts."
 
Now here's what you can get in a 2.0 Ford Ecoboost:
 
2.0-LITER ECOBOOST GIVES FORD FOCUS ST OWNERS TURBOCHARGED, DIRECT-INJECTED THRILL RIDE
 
    2.0-liter EcoBoost™ in Ford Focus ST will deliver up to 247 horsepower and 250 lb.-ft. of torque using high-tech tools like turbocharging and direct gasoline injection
 
    Twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) working with turbocharging and fuel injection maximizes horsepower, torque and fuel economy at all engine speeds, helping eliminate lag and flat spots in power delivery
 
    Focus ST powerplant marks another milestone in Ford goal to offer 90 percent of its North American lineup with EcoBoost by 2013
 
If they are putting this in a high end Focus, it is not an engine that is impossible for people to afford. It's probably only a bit more than an old tech V8. And yet it gets more power. Great work Ford!
 
Here are the full stats direct from Ford:
 
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33575

#29 of 36 F-150 by benjaminh

Jul 06, 2011 (6:07 pm)

Bet you could put one of those 2.0 ecoboost engines in a full size truck and it would perform just fine and get 30 mpg hwy...

#30 of 36 Re: F-150 [benjaminh] by robr2

Jul 07, 2011 (7:39 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Jul 06, 2011 6:07 pm)
Bet you could put one of those 2.0 ecoboost engines in a full size truck and it would perform just fine and get 30 mpg hwy...
 
Which I think Ford is working it's way to slowly. The V6 Ecoboost has a good take rate in the F150. As people get over the need for a V8 and they find the V6 to work just fine, then the 4 will be the next step.

#31 of 36 Re: F-150 [benjaminh] by andre1969

Jul 07, 2011 (10:30 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Jul 06, 2011 6:07 pm)
Bet you could put one of those 2.0 ecoboost engines in a full size truck and it would perform just fine and get 30 mpg hwy...
 
Personally, I'd have reservations about an engine that small in something that heavy. I'd think it would constantly be working its little butt off, and would wear out.
 
But, who knows? It might work out just fine. I'm sure back in the late 60's and early 70's, people would have thought the idea of something as small as a 3.8 V-6 in a nearly 4,000 lb car getting 30 mpg on the highway, being able to do 0-60 in around 7.5 seconds, AND being fairly reliable to the stuff of pure science fiction.
 
But, I just described my 11 year old Park Avenue Ultra. And, since then, cars have only improved for the most part. So, I'm sure that the auto makers will be able to get more hp and fuel economy out of ever smaller engines as time goes by.

#32 of 36 Re: F-150 [andre1969] by benjaminh

Jul 07, 2011 (12:06 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 07, 2011 10:30 am)
andre: Good point. But a lot of people buy something like an F-150 more for style and light duty, not really for super heavy duty stuff. For them, once they get used to the idea, a full sized cab plus truck that can get 30 mpg on the highway will be a plus. And more than that it will be required whether people or manufacturers like it or not by the new CAFE requirements for 2025.
 
People who truly need heavy duty trucks with huge towing capacity will still be able to get an ecoboost 6 or 8 cylinder, but my guess is that in a dozen years a large 4 might become standard....Just a guess.

#33 of 36 Re: voters don't want an increased gas tax [bhill2] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 27, 2011 (11:59 am)

Replying to: bhill2 (Jul 05, 2011 11:17 am)
I'd support job creation (public works) on a large scale, since US corporations refuse to hire--they are hoarding cash big time. We really need to curb the massive re-distribution of wealth going on right now.
 
62 mpg would only benefit the oil companies, who hardly need benefitting, (people tend to drive more with higher mpg cars) and probably winnow down automakers into the Big Two, (Chrysler won't cut it) which of course decreases competition.
 
The real problem is not being addressed. The price of gasoline does not reflect the environmental damage being done, and the oil companies therefore don't have to bear it.
 
I'd also consider *exploring* the possibility, in the interests of national security, of nationalizing the oil industry. Of all the world's major producers, only the US and Canada don't do this.
 
Why exactly is the oil under our feet not the property of us all, as a country? How does the USA compete without energy for the future?
 
Right now, if YOU don't buy the gas, the oil companies will just sell it to anyone willing to pay for it.
 
I'm not sure I'm for this, but sometimes it makes more sense than burdening everyone EXCEPT the oil companies with taxes, regulations, etc.
 

#34 of 36 Re: voters don't want an increased gas tax [Mr_Shiftright] by benjaminh

Jul 28, 2011 (12:22 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 27, 2011 11:59 am)
I agree with what you wrote there, Shifty, but I think you're howling at the moon a little bit too. Again, I'm with you in spirit, but I just don't think that stuff is going to happen.
 
Given that we've got CAFE at 54 for 2025 instead, what are your thoughts on that?

#35 of 36 Re: voters don't want an increased gas tax [benjaminh] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 28, 2011 (5:56 pm)

Replying to: benjaminh (Jul 28, 2011 12:22 pm)
Well you know, SO FAR, the effect of emissions regulations on automobile design is unarguably positive....although I have to say the *transition* of getting there was sometimes not so good.
 
To put things in perspective:
 
If the entire population of the United States of America decided to get into *all* their cars and light trucks at the same time---there would be no one in the back seats of any car on the road.
 
This suggests to me two things:
 
1. The extra space in large vehicles is probably used but a small fraction of the vehicle's total use.
 
2. Many people who own large SUVs and trucks probably NEVER use the extra space.

Messages Page 4 of 4

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement