Last post on Jul 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM
You are in the Ford F-Series
What is this discussion about?
Ford F-150, Ford Explorer, Ford C-Max, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
#1 of 9 Message to FORD
Mar 19, 2012 (11:26 am)
If you wish to sell to those of the "boy-racer", 0-60, mentality, definitely a DEEP-POCKET minority "set", while at the same time having appeal to the MAJORITY, GROWING MAJORITY....$5 gallon soon, more probably than otherwise. Then combine the 2 technologies.
Use SkyActive for the majority market.
For the MINORITY market add an $4,000.00 option (equal to the current EcoBoost markup).
Base/native CR cognizant with the use of DFI, 12:1 or even 14:1. Then increase the "virtual" CR under BOOST by (pre-)CHILLING (34F?) a volume of coolant using the A/C. The REQUIRED intercooler could serve as a storage reservoir/accumulator provided the intake airflow routing was bypassed(***) except for the ~1% Boost periods.
Eliminate the throttle plate by adding a variable volume positive displacment SC. Variable frequency AC inverter providing power to the permanent magnetic synchronous AC motor driving the SC.
*** The intake airflow bypasses the pre-chilled intercooler unless the the accelerator pedal position dictates the use of BOOST. The level of Boost pressure would then dictate the amount of flow directed, diverted, through the intercooler in much the way that modern day HVAC systems make use of the reheat/remix airflow path to moderate the air outflow temperature.
Net HP/torque increase above current EcoBoost/TwinForce for equivalent engine displacement volume could be 30-50%.
#3 of 9 2011 F 150 Steering Problem
Jun 05, 2012 (10:36 am)
I have a 2011 F 150 with 10,000 miles. I have some type of looseness in the steering, as you would feel with a loose ball joint. I took it to the dealer last week and they could not duplicate the problem. They checked underneath and they could not find anything. It seems to occur when you short bumps one right after the other. It feels like it could be a loose joint. The service advisor who handled the truck said that I was not used to electric power steering. I have driven other vehicles with electric power steering and I do not feel this.
#4 of 9 Message to Wwest: Stop being a troll
Jun 07, 2012 (7:38 pm)
How does it feel, wwest, to be totally outclassed intellectually: http://www.f150forum.com/f70/how-similar-ecoboost-other-turbocharged-engines-156- - 880
I asked those that tune and work on turbocharged engines. They confirm I've been correct, and you have been belligerently ignorant.
Every single thing you've said about turbocharged engine operation has been wrong. You wasted significant time, numerous pages of text, $12, and your last remaining functioning brain cells adamantly defending points that were wrong.
Stop trolling Ecoboost forums, or at least troll one like F150 forums where half the posters are mechanics. Because 1-on-1 you just get more belligerent, even when I was talking total sense to you.
It would be entertaining to see you defend your 'guesses' in that crowd. Its even a way better value than your subscription to Ford parts, where you gained only a false perspective
#5 of 9 Re: Message to Wwest: Stop being a troll [bigmclargehuge]
Jun 07, 2012 (7:40 pm)
What is this nonsense about sacrificing fuel efficiency 98% of the time?
You're still falsely assuming that the turbos are not engaging during all acceleratory runs, and all hills.
You read Wikipedia and now you are married to the idea that CR is the only way to make efficiency gains, which is false. When it comes to high-torque applications, nothing can touch the EB's efficiency (minus a diesel). That is at ANY rpm or throttle application.
Accelerating under boost is more efficient than NA acceleration, including NA, DI, with similar torque ratings. Combustion efficiency caused by high CR works best in low-torque applications. At anything other than an idle, NA engines cannot get enough air through vacuum alone to produce as high a torque at as low an rpm as a boosted engine. They have to rev to achieve higher vacuum, and hence the creates wasted heat through friction of the cylinders with the extra revs.
And even on the highway, idle is not 100% of the time. Even Nebraska has slight inclines, merges, passing...
CR is only a theoretical indication of efficiency at any given rpm. When you add the variable of what an NA engine has to rev to to achieve meaningful torque, the efficiency skews highly towards Ecoboost.
Jun 07, 2012 (8:39 pm)
Silly boy racers and their vtecs and their SkyActives.
Ford is not going to listen to someone with crazy ideas about how their engines work, and even crazier ideas that are mechanically inefficient engines with AC compressors and superchargers.
If AC compressors cooling the intake charge was enough to gain 30-50% horsepower (or any for that matter) it would have been tried by now. Dumbest idea ever.
PLEASE go post your idea on F150 forums, where you are already a laughing stock.
#7 of 9 Re: Message to Wwest, stop being a troll [wwest]
Jun 08, 2012 (5:55 am)
If you wish to sell to those of the "boy-racer", 0-60, mentality, definitely a DEEP-POCKET minority "set", while at the same time having appeal to the MAJORITY, GROWING MAJORITY....$5 gallon soon, more probably than otherwise. Then combine the 2 technologies
Minority? V6 F-150s account for the MAJORITY of sales. And Ecoboost take up the VAST MAJORITY of V6 sales. It is Ford's best-selling engine in the truck. 43% for the one engine type. Higher take rate than the 5.0.
The reason it has such a high take rate, is likely the test drive, as this F150 forums poster confirms:
Hook up a boost gauge (even temporarily,) and you'll see boost vary with engine speed and throttle position.
What that means is that the Ecoboost is improving the driving experience from ALL throttle positions and rpms. Light boost makes acceleration feel 'effortless' for such a large vehicle, and requires a much lighter pedal application, because every application of the pedal results in what 'would be' the NA torque and a few milliseconds later, the more volumetrically efficient torque supplied by light boost, which is caused by the burning of any amount of petrol; even just accelerating with traffic (not quick 0-60s).
At ALL times when the engine matters (acceleration, inclines, on-ramps, even highway passing [not requiring full boost]) the EB feels better than the V8 many of those 43% likely test-drove side-by-side.
The only advantage a high-CR NA engine would have over the Ecoboost is when the engine is effectively irrelevant (could be a V12, could be an I4), such as off-ramps, coast-down, going down a hill, and sitting stationary. Nothing about engine size or displacement is going to matter much under the conditions your ideas favor.
Ford can dial up the peak boost and eventually replace the 6.2 if they wanted, and it would still get best-in-class city and highway economy. I suspect that is their plan for the future.
They are more efficient than equivalent V8s in ALL driving conditions, even while accelerating just as quickly (they are not weak NA V6s until 1% of the time boost is needed, you made that up because you're ignorant on how turbocharged engines work. They boost at EVERY stoplight, EVERY on-ramp, EVERY hill, EVERY merge, EVERY pass. That is WAY more than 1% of the time, and they are more efficient than NA V8 engines while doing so.)
Please take your theories to a forum where there are 10x the mechanics and tuners. You will find that NOBODY with experience or knowledge will agree with you. Psst... it's because you're wrong
It is a legitimate replacement for the pickup V8, with V8s only outperforming (including efficiency) less than 1% of the time.
Jun 21, 2012 (2:06 pm)
If you live in Southern California, have Ford Sync or Cadillac CUE, and can take a tv crew for a short ride Sunday afternoon or Monday morning, please email PRedmunds.com by Saturday, June 23, 2012.
#9 of 9 I can't believe you guys...
Jul 17, 2012 (3:40 pm)
are responding to wwest posts. I am ignoring him on at least a dozen boards. Don't feed the trolls...