R.I.P Ford V8

[chunkypeanutbutter]

Yeah, actually I could care less.

I plan on never buying a new car.

[Guest]

I'll believe when I see it. Until then, I consider that article to be B.S. If it is truly because of CAFE and EPA standards, all automobile manufacturer's will have to meet those standards. Not just Ford. I like the sound of a V-8 as much as anyone else. But, if I can have an engine that produces more power and save me money on gas, I'll take it. It is amusing to read the "chicken little" comments though.

[dieseldawg142]

....

Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142

[Ace-Garageguy]

There's also the issue of insane complexity and just exactly what you're going to do with the turbo-charged tiny engines AFTER they're out of warranty.

The car manufacturers don't really give a damm about that, but consumers just might want to devote a little thought to the issue.

Servicing will be complex, and expensive. Parts will be expensive. Small-displacement engines asked to make big horsepower, even with turbochargers, can only do it with high revs and high boost pressures. High revs and boost pressures mean more rapid engine wear. More rapid wear means earlier engine replacement or major repair. Think about it.

So far, in my somewhat broad experience, I've seen a lot of turbos needing replacement at around 80.000 miles. These things spin at 30.000rpm, run practically red-hot, and have internal seals that fail, letting the turbo "coke up" with burned oil. The turbo slows and stops. You lose whatever power it added, and you're left with a tiny engine trying to drag around an unnecessarily heavy vehicle. Gas mileage and drivability go to shitt, and you have a BIG repair bill, coming directly out of YOUR pocket.

When there was just a little rationality still loose in the world, one of engineering's basic tenets was "the best solution is the simplest solution", widely known as KISS...keep it simple, stupid.

Unfortunately for the real world, the blind obsession with "progress" comes at the cost of idiotic levels of complexity and shortened service live, and the resulting VERY high cost to keep a post-warranty vehicle operational.

Research the Ecoboost under-warranty problems and fixes, and extrapolate the cost of maintaining these things once the factory no longer foots the bill under warranty.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Quick GMC]

When the EPA mandates a MPG of 50 or more, they aren't going to get it with a pushrod V8, or a DOHC.

I think most of the complaints about not having a V8 would cease after driving a turbo 6 that is set up well. The muscle car died decades ago. Todays "muscle" is fat and bloated with technology and wiring harnesses. The old Challenger was on steroids. The new Challenger is that same guy on steroids, but now in his 60's with bulging veins and his stomach sticks out farther than his chest.

Nothing is the same as it was 10 years ago, and nothing then was the same as the previous 10 years. Evolution is unstoppable, adapt or die.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Quick GMC

[Matt Bacon]

But the new engines are built with materials, engineering tolerances, build quality and full computer modelling of combustion, heat, flow etc that engineers even ten years ago couldn't dream of. That's why companies are increasingly happy to extend warranties out as far as seven or more years -- you don't think they'd do that if somehow things were becoming LESS reliable as technology progressed, do you? A turbo's not actually a complex device. And my brother in law's built enough of them over the years to know how dramatically things have moved on there, as well. These days, there's no argument for Keep It Stupidly Simple as an engineering principle...

bestest,M

.

[johnbuzzed]

When the EPA mandates a MPG of 50 or more, they aren't going to get it with a pushrod V8, or a DOHC.

I think most of the complaints about not having a V8 would cease after driving a turbo 6 that is set up well. The muscle car died decades ago. Todays "muscle" is fat and bloated with technology and wiring harnesses. The old Challenger was on steroids. The new Challenger is that same guy on steroids, but now in his 60's with bulging veins and his stomach sticks out farther than his chest.

Nothing is the same as it was 10 years ago, and nothing then was the same as the previous 10 years. Evolution is unstoppable, adapt or die.

And today's muscle will pretty much beat all of yesterdays' muscle in just about every category- acceleration, top end, handling/G's, etc. All the while, the A/C is on, great tunes are eminating from sound systems that put many home audio systems to shame, the GPS will tell the driver the nest way to get there, and the gas mileage will be better on the trip than those old musclecars ever even hoped to get- often using regular gas, always unleaded. Detonation? Not on your life. Overheating problems? "Not anymore, man." Bodies and interior components last longer, warranties for 100/000 miles are not unusual.

To me, this is like the "golden days of modeling" debate. Were they actually 50 years ago, or are we there now? Either way, I miss my old V8's.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Of course, manufacturers are going to do their level best to make sure the vehicles make it through warranty. And that's ALL they're going to do.

The point is...if you buy one of these things or keep it AFTER WARRANTY expires, you're going to be screwed.

I see enough earlier EFI-computer-equipped pre-insane-complexity vehicles scrapped or abandoned (because their second or third owners cannot possibly keep up with the repair costs) to have a pretty good idea where this trend is headed. Increasingly complex and tech-dependent vehicles will become rapidly obsolete and disposable, like smart phones. It will not be cost-effective to repair them, so consumers will be forced to keep the new-car-needle stuck in the financial vein.

Even now, there's no good support for a 1989 EFI American vehicle. I've had to convert one of my trucks back to a carb. There just isn't going to be any way to do that when something being built now is that old. A typical owner of my '89 truck would junk it, or face more repair cost than it was "worth".

If you live under the hood every day, I'll respect your opinion.

Otherwise, well...

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

As long as CAFE standards keep rising (and there's no reason to think they won't), the auto engineers will be forced to keep increasing a car's MPG in one way or another. They have already cut a lot of dead weight, through lighter, high-strength steel and other materials... and they have probably managed to wring out just about as many MPG they can out of a V8. They're now getting silly with 9 and 10 speed automatics, to try and squeeze out another tenth of a mile per gallon. Is a 10-speed automatic a simple device? Or a ridiculously complex device whose only reason for being is trying to make a V8 just a tiny bit more efficient? Is a turbocharged engine any more "complex" than a 10-speed transmission?

Hanging on to V8 technology while trying to constantly gain more MPG from them seems like a losing proposition. There is a limit to how little fuel you need to burn in order to create combustion, and eight cylinders are always going to need more fuel than six or four cylinders will, no matter what.

The future is smaller engines, turbos, CVTs, electrics, and alt fuel vehicles. The V8 may not fully disappear in our lifetimes, but I really don't see the automakers hanging on to it for very long, given the ever-increasing mileage standards, when there are far easier ways to increase a car's mileage.

[aurfalien]

All true for sure and for the masses. But for us, ppl who like to tinker, MPH and bitchen engineering are irrelevant.

I like to tinker, and Bill brings up the point of working on your own gizz. I think congress is still wrestling with the "Right to repair act", dude I can't even work on a Nissan Cube for Pete's sake!

I think this will be a boon for aftermarket though.

[Harry P.]

Of course, manufacturers are going to do their level best to make sure the vehicles make it through warranty. And that's ALL they're going to do.

The point is...if you buy one of these things or keep it AFTER WARRANTY expires, you're going to be screwed.

I see enough earlier EFI-computer-equipped pre-insane-complexity vehicles scrapped or abandoned (because their second or third owners cannot possibly keep up with the repair costs) to have a pretty good idea where this trend is headed.

If you live under the hood every day, I'll respect your opinion.

Otherwise, well...

What kind of warranty covered your big old V8 back in the 50s and 60s? Nobody gave you 10 years, or 7... or even 5... yet people survived.

Aurtomotive engineering and tech have moved forward in leaps and bounds. Today's turbos are better engineered than those of 10-20 years ago.

[aurfalien]

What kind of warranty covered your big old V8 back in the 50s and 60s?

You never really needed one. Just a near by Sears and Pep Boys and your good to go (for tools and parts).

Edited January 14, 2015 by aurfalien

[Harry P.]

All true for sure and for the masses. But for us, ppl who like to tinker, MPH and bitchen engineering are irrelevant.

I like to tinker, and Bill brings up the point of working on your own gizz. I think congress is still wrestling with the "Right to repair act", dude I can't even work on a Nissan Cube for Pete's sake!

I think this will be a boon for aftermarket though.

You can't seriously expect the automakers to cater to that tiny slice of their customer base that "likes to tinker." Face facts... the vast majority of car buyers couldn't care less about "tinkering." Many of them have literally never opened the hood... they take the car in to be serviced for everything. That is the customer base the automakers have to appeal to... the vast majority, not the handful of "car nuts."

[Ace-Garageguy]

You never really needed one. Just a near by Sears and Pep Boys and your good to go (for tools and parts).

The man gets the point. And a reasonably competent shop could repair those vehicles, even if the owner couldn't.

Shops that can actually diagnose and repair the ever increasingly complex vehicles are increasingly few and far between.

But believe whatever you want. I know what I experience in the business, day in, day out.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

You never really needed one. Just a near by Sears and Pep Boys and your good to go (for tools and parts).

If you knew how to do your own repair work. And wanted to.

You guys who work on cars as your job or as your hobby keep forgetting that the vast majority of people don't know how to repair a car, and have no intention of doing so.

[Ace-Garageguy]

If you knew how to do your own repair work. And wanted to.

You guys who work on cars as your job or as your hobby keep forgetting that the vast majority of people don't know how to repair a car, and have no intention of doing so.

See post #41, post-edit.

[aurfalien]

Well, I feel the profit has shifted. Margins on cars are so thin that the manufacturers have shifted to making cash on the back end via maintenance.

As for ability, dude my gramma who was born in a barn pre WW2 could turn a wrench and helped me with a timing gun/gaping points before.

But now, pffffftttt fo-git-bout-it.

[1930fordpickup]

Change will always happen. Weather we like it or not. The first Baby Boomers will not be buying cars for much longer. Most are on the last one now. They do not drive as much and do not want the payment. If you keep selling to the same market your company may pass with them.

[Matt Bacon]

Yeah, this new-fangled technology is so unreliable that they're designing airliners that will be flying 100 years after they entered service, and frontline fighter jets that'll operate for the same timespan that separated the Wright Brothers from the Bell X-1. All they'll get is software upgrades in that time.

People don't get rid of two year old smartphones because they don't work, they get rid of them because fashion and "look at me" make them want to. You're not going to fix that with engineering, no matter how good it is.

For a long time, American cars were designed around bad but straight roads, long distances, cheap gasoline, and the frontier ideal that anything that the good ol' boys at the local blacksmith couldn't fix was a pointless complexity. That past is another country; we do things differently now. And as someone once said, "If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and I'm darn glad that Ford has decided to be part of the solution...

bestest,

M.

(and no, I don't spend the whole day with my head under the hood; equally, I don't think that the fact that you guys don't spend your lives designing mobile phones means that you're unable to have an informed opinion about them, either...)

Edited January 14, 2015 by Matt Bacon

[Lownslow]

Change will always happen. Weather we like it or not. The first Baby Boomers will not be buying cars for much longer. Most are on the last one now. They do not drive as much and do not want the payment. If you keep selling to the same market your company may pass with them.

i hope so for the sake of buick lol. the most stereotypical granny car, that florida has adopted it as its state vehicle.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yeah, this new-fangled technology is so unreliable that they're designing airliners that will be flying 100 years after they entered service, and frontline fighter jets that'll operate for the same timespan that separated the Wright Brothers from the Bell X-1. All they'll get is software upgrades in that time.

Three minor points...the B-52, which entered service in 1955, is expected to continue as an operational aircraft into the 2040s.

Metal commercial aircraft have operational lifetimes determined by structural metal fatigue limits, and are usually on the order of 30 years. It's yet to be seen how long all-composite-structure airliners like the Boeing 787 will fly. I've seen many large aircraft grounded and scrapped that probably could have delivered many hundreds or thousands of additional flight hours, because the engines, wing airfoils, and avionics / electronics were hopelessly outdated and inefficient. Cheaper sometimes to just start over, if you do all the numbers, than to try to keep old tech operational. BUT THESE ARE HUGE, REVENUE-PRODUCING AIRCRAFT, not something you get to the corner Wendy's in.

Far as front-line fighters go, both America's F-22 and F-35, very complex and technology-dependent, are now pretty much universally regarded as being unfit for combat, out-performed easily by the much simpler Russian Mig 29 / 35....which is also MUCH more easily serviced in combat conditions. What a concept. A combat aircraft you can work on in combat conditions.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[aurfalien]

Dayam, I think Bill just gave a major face palm!

[Harry P.]

Bill, your underlying theme seems to be that we ought to hang on to V8s because they're relatively easy to fix and can be warranted for a long time. But we've passed the "easy to fix" threshold long ago.

Today's V8s are no easier to fix than any other engine. The days of the "shade tree mechanic" are long gone, at least as far as cars manufactured today goes. So there's really no good, logical reason for automakers to hang on to V8s, which are currently probably near the limits of their efficiency. Let's be honest... when automakers need to come up with gimmicky things like 10 speed automatics or auto shut down and cylinder deactivation and stuff like just to wring another tenth of a mile per gallon out of a V8 powered car, the days of the manufacturers relying on a V8 are pretty much numbered. Much simpler to ditch the V8 and the mega-speed trans and the cylinder deactivation and all the gimmicks needed to make a V8 "efficient" at today's standards, and just go with something that's actually more efficient without needing to rely on the add-on mechanical crutches to achieve that "efficiency."

[Matt Bacon]

Not sure what relevance the B-52 has to the discussion -- I didn't say that old technology couldn't be reliable. There are enough 1920s racing cars, 1940s warbirds and 1900s steam engines around in the UK for that to be a given, for me, not to mention the odd 150-year old wooden ship. You're the one who is claiming that NEW technology is bound to be less reliable because it's more complex -- where's the evidence of that from a B-52?

Secondly, the 777 is pretty far from all-composite structure -- about 10%, IIRC. I covered aerospace for an engineering materials magazine in the early 90s, and saw the parts being tested at Boeing, so I know what goes into one. You want an ALL-composite airframe, you'll struggle to find one since the Beech Starship -- maybe the Rutan/Virgin White Knight... The 787 is up to about half composite materials. And of course, it's "yet to be seen" how long aircraft with significant amounts of composite material fly for -- they're designed to fly for a lot longer than they've been in service for. What I do know is that all the materials science, all the extensive fatigue testing to get the things certified over the last 20 years, and all the increasingly incredible computer modelling work that's been done on the materials and structures suggests that they have massively better resistance to corrosion and fatigue than any metal.

...and I wasn't thinking of the F-22 or F-35. If the Pentagon wants to procure aircraft designed to "fight the last war rather than the next one" that's its prerogative, and it's up to you as US taxpayers to tell them whether you want them to or not. Anyway, that's a doctrinal problem, not an engineering one. As for "serviced in combat conditions" -- what does that really mean? The track record of serviceability of Russian supplied MiG 29s around the world isn't anything to write home about, let alone in an actual combat scenario (if you can find one...). A Mig-35 is state of the art modern fighter with the latest Russian and Western electronics systems onboard, intended to compete (note, not "fight") with the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen. It's hardly an "austere" fighter for lengthy remote deployments in the field. I don't doubt that it's much more easily serviced in the field than an F-22, but then so's the Starship Enterprise, as has been repeatedly proven...

Anyway, I'm not saying that older technology is unreliable. You're asserting that new technology inevitably is. None of those points provides any evidence for that...

bestest,

M.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Bill, your underlying theme seems to be that we ought to hang on to V8s because they're relatively easy to fix and can be warranted for a long time. But we've passed the "easy to fix" threshold long ago.

Not my point, and it always gets misinterpreted, just like I'm always attacked for wanting "perfect" kits when I make valid criticisms of glaring errors.

I'm pro-technology, when deployed rationally and intelligently. I am fully aware that without onboard electronics and advanced computer-modeling of engine specifics, vehicle internal combustion engines running on gasoline couldn't achieve today's levels of exhaust cleanliness.

But so much of what we get today is needlessly complex, and poorly thought out, and knee-jerk reactionary design rather than pro-active lets-make-it-efficient AND relatively simple.

Every week, I see or have to work on something that, had the designer given any thought to how you'd service the thing (which should come from working with your hands, in the field, BEFORE you get the cushy design job), could have been a piece of cake, or might not have failed the way it failed anyway.

There are usually better and simpler ways to do most everything I encounter, and it has nothing to do with cost. Occasionally i DO run across something that is very well thought out, easy to access, and robust enough to last well into the 2nd or 3rd owner's possession.