R.I.P Ford V8

[Ace-Garageguy]

Exactly. The 2-litre turbo diesel in my big comfortable Skoda has run a real world day to day usage average of just over 45 mpg over the last three years. And get it on a nice long motorway run at 65 or so, and it's nearer to 60 mpg.

That's three times the economy of a "not bad at all for a V-8", which is why auto makers want to find an alternative...

bestest,

M.

And that's why I WISH we got some of the European fuel-sipping little turbo-diesels over here. 45/60 MPG is WORTH some extra complexity.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[johnbuzzed]

Does it have to meet federally mandated crash/safety/MPG standards? You're comparing apples and oranges.

One can always compare apples v oranges. Do things need to be exactly alike or even just very similar to be able to make a comparison?

[mnwildpunk]

Exactly. The 2-litre turbo diesel in my big comfortable Skoda has run a real world day to day usage average of just over 45 mpg over the last three years. And get it on a nice long motorway run at 65 or so, and it's nearer to 60 mpg. And that's with 170 BHP and 260 lbft of torque.

That's three times the economy of a "not bad at all for a V-8", which is why auto makers want to find an alternative...

bestest,

M.

my uncle has a skoda from the the late 60's that he says it gets 40-50 mpgs non diesel I think he said it is a two cycle sorry going off memory. So technology hasn't advanced that much I know its driven a lot to this day

[Erik548]

ford likes shooting its own foot, first an aluminum work truck... now this, whats next a fwd bronco and a f650 with only 100 lb/ft of torque

[johnbuzzed]

Our society has evolved to the point where we desire to be comfortable at all times; there must be no discomfort in our vehicles- neither hot nor cold, no background noise, we must be able to communicate with anyone at anytime about anything, listen to music at a quality far beyond the needs and comprehension of most of the general public, obtain directions at the touch of a finger, open and close windows and lock doors the same way- and adjust those nice, heated seats, too- and we need to have the bling. I would bet that a majority of people would not sacrifice any of that in their cars, and I'm not talking about "car guys" who have nostalgic sentiments for old Detroit iron. Think about a road trip in an early '60's whatever family sedan, with common factory options of that time, v the same trip in a 2015 family sedan, with contemporary common standard equipment. Which would be more comfortable? Be realistic and honest; I'm not asking about cool factor or neat cruising or any semantics- I'm talking about practical reality.

Funny thing is, all of those components that make current cars so comfortable add a lot of weight. Even the stuff that doesn't add to comfort, such as all those goofy service covers or 20-inch wheels. Maybe the wheels allow for bigger brakes, ergo, better stopping power- but with the just-about-rubber band tires necessary for those wheels, some comfort is lost- less sidewall=less cushioning= stiffer ride= more bumps. And the service covers- "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain"- what's the point of them? Granted, they might be lightweight plastic, but WTF is the purpose? They even stick them UNDER cars. Why do we need lanyards on gas caps- hey, if you forget it once, you'll learn. That might be a small weight saving, but a lot of small ones add up to one big one. Big-@$$ chrome exhaust tips- most contemporary systems are stainless steel; which can be highly polished- do we really need that chrome? Things like that "4MATIC" emblem. Make it a decal, it's cheaper and lighter. Dual-pane glass- come on, really? Floor mats- carpet cleaning is almost a science today. Does a trunk really need to be carpeted? I don't have time to go into this further, but I think many of you will be able to understand what I'm getting at.

[Ace-Garageguy]

my uncle has a skoda from the the late 60's that he says it gets 40-50 mpgs non diesel I think he said it is a two cycle sorry going off memory. So technology hasn't advanced that much I know its driven a lot to this day

And here's my big point. Look at the results of the 1951 Mobil Economy Run. Here's a link. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1191/1/Kyropoulos.pdf

(scroll to the bottom of document, page 15 for the results).

A very old-school, heavy, big Studebaker, with zero computer-controlled OR computer-designed anything managed 28.621MPG on an 840 mile trip from LA to the south rim of the Grand Canyon, via Death Valley and Vegas. Here's an article on the event. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1181/1/Economy.pdf

With the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on R&D in the past 64 years, and vastly complex engine management systems, we really haven't come all that far, as far as fuel mileage goes. Yes, we can get more power out of a given amount of fuel used, but the theoretically possible improvements in overall efficiency just haven't materialized, and the current numbers aren't as impressive as one would imagine they should be.

[johnbuzzed]

ford likes shooting its own foot, first an aluminum work truck... now this, whats next a fwd bronco and a f650 with only 100 lb/ft of torque

The finest naval carrier aircraft of WWII were made out of aluminum. Lotsa stress there, no real problems with fatigue. And, that was 70+ years ago. Times have changed, so has metallurgy.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The finest naval carrier aircraft of WWII were made out of aluminum. Lotsa stress there, no real problems with fatigue. And, that was 70+ years ago. Times have changed, so has metallurgy.

And if Coke and all the other fizzy drink guys think aluminum is so cheap as to be disposable, what's the real reason for not seeing it more in lower-cost vehicle structures?

Granted, the profit margin on sugar-water and beer is way higher than it is on cars, but come on...most of you throw the can away.

[freakshow12]

Lol you guys must not have read any of my posts. That's fine, I know the product, I own the product, I have real world insight that wasn't apples to oranges. Keep bickering

[Erik548]

The finest naval carrier aircraft of WWII were made out of aluminum. Lotsa stress there, no real problems with fatigue. And, that was 70+ years ago. Times have changed, so has metallurgy.

but are the naval ships taken down trails and bounced off trees, have ladders thrown in back, or driven by employees who hate the job? yes the aluminum gets the average consumer but they will lose the fleet sales and the offroad aftermarket is gonna be nothing like the last gen f150s

[Ace-Garageguy]

Lol you guys must not have read any of my posts. That's fine, I know the product, I own the product, I have real world insight that wasn't apples to oranges. Keep bickering

I'm not disagreeing with you...not at all. Your real-world experiences are exactly what we need to hear.

[aurfalien]

Hi Erik,

I found your experience fascinating, enlightening and depressing.

And yea, EcoTurds is the correct name for em. The irony about EPA and resulting regulations is that the other side of the globe could give a rats a#$.

Its estimated that if every one drove a hybrid in North America, it would have no impact due to China's continued spewing of fromage.

Its like Caddy Shack, you still have that Bade Ruth floating around regardless of what side the pool you're in.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think part of the "truck" thing comes from market research, and how small trucks get used these days. Look around. Most shiny new trucks are "lifestyle statements", have bed covers, fancy interiors, and rarely get used as work or offroad vehicles, if ever. Most of the individuals using trucks for actual "work" (you know, where you get dirty and have to carry heavy, bulky things) are running second or third hand units, and the manufacturers don't give a rat's rear for them.

Materials often get substituted in places they have no rational or practical reason for being, like the obsession with fake carbon-fiber trim, and real carbon-fiber wheels that are exceedingly fragile and easily subject to dangerous road damage. Steel belongs in truck chassis. It's tough and relatively easily repaired compared to aluminum.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Matt Bacon]

And here's my big point. Look at the results of the 1951 Mobil Economy Run. Here's a link. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1191/1/Kyropoulos.pdf

With the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on R&D in the past 64 years, and vastly complex engine management systems, we really haven't come all that far, as far as fuel mileage goes. Yes, we can get more power out of a given amount of fuel used, but the theoretically possible improvements in overall efficiency just haven't materialized, and the current numbers aren't as impressive as one would imagine they should be.

I hardly think that's fair -- a bunch of cars on a long distance run, driven by people who were specifically trying to achieve high economy and who'd received coaching on how to do it achieved between 20 and 25mpg. If you're going to compare that with anything, it should be with the dedicated "motorway" section of the tests, where they are also trying to achieve economy. Today's VW 2 litre Bluemotion engine gets a Golf to recorded 78.5 mpg. That's 3-4 times the economy achieved in 1951. And yes, you can say that's not a "real world" number, but neither are the Mobil Economy Run figures -- where the report says "Driver training is the reason for the performance obtained during the economy run." If you want to compare real-world figures 1951 to today, the report kindly provides them. 1951 gives us 8.7mpg in urban traffic, up to 22.3 mpg on a free flowing highway. Lets call that about 15mpg in a combined cycle. According to Honest John's real world figures from real drivers, the Golf 1.6 Bluemotion gets about 56 mpg, day in day out. Again, that's a factor of MORE THAN 3.

OK, so a factor of three improvement may not seem so much for a technology in these days of Moore's Law, but for mechanical engineering, personally I'd say that being three times more efficient is indeed coming a pretty long way...

bestest,

M.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Matt Bacon

[Ace-Garageguy]

OK, so a factor of three improvement may not seem so much for a technology in these days of Moore's Law, but for mechanical engineering, personally I'd say that being three times more efficient is indeed coming a pretty long way...

bestest,

M.

Ah yes, but it's not 3 times as efficient for the same weight, same engine-displacement vehicle. THAT'S the point.

And the drivers of the manufacturer's cycles aren't driving like real-world drivers either.

Nothing ever returns the EPA estimates that are on the window sticker. They're fancy smoke-and-mirrors fantasy.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

And we don't have those supermileage vehicles here. Oil companies stop those from being sold here.

[johnbuzzed]

but are the naval ships taken down trails and bounced off trees, have ladders thrown in back, or driven by employees who hate the job? yes the aluminum gets the average consumer but they will lose the fleet sales and the offroad aftermarket is gonna be nothing like the last gen f150s

NOT ships- aircraft, that were catapulted from carrier decks in all kinds of weather, flown at speeds close to, if not over, 300 knots IAS, put through aerial combat, sustained battle damage, then successfully returned to land aboard a moving aircraft carrier- really, a controlled crash, the aircraft being brought to a stop via an arresting hook, which was secured to the framework of the aircraft. The hook caught a heavy, woven steel cable, that was securely attached to the ship. Then, the battle damage was repaired, and the aircraft flown again, often the same day, to do the same thing, by the same people.

Keep in mind that those aircraft usually took off with a full load of fuel in internal tanks, thousands of rounds of .30 and .50 caliber ammunition, drop tanks full of fuel, 500+ lbs of HE or AP bombs carried at hard points or internally, and in some cases, rockets or torpedoes- depending on the aircraft and the mission. Also, many of those aircraft hand folding wings for carrier storage. That compromised the structural integrity; some aviators did not like them, but it and they got the job done.

You're right, no trails or trees there there ...

Edited January 15, 2015 by johnbuzzed

[Matt Bacon]

Ah yes, but it's not 3 times as efficient for the same weight, same engine-displacement vehicle. THAT'S the point.

And the drivers of the manufacturer's cycles aren't driving like real-world drivers either.

Nothing ever returns the EPA estimates that are on the window sticker. They're fancy smoke-and-mirrors fantasy.

Nope -- the point is that manufacturers are addressing the problem by NOT building same-weight, same engine displacement vehicles. The 2015 Golf Bluemotion will carry four adults comfortably, safely and quickly on any journey the 1951 car could have made, with air conditioning, great sound system and no less than six cupholders into the bargain.

I know the EPA estimates and manufacturer's drivers aren't real world -- my point was that the Mobil Economy Run isn't either, and that the manufacturer's figures, based on optimised driving to achieve maximum economy ARE more comparable with the Economy Run, which was also based on optimising driver's technique to achieve economy, and picking a journey with lots of long open highways and very little city traffic. The Honest John 56 mpg figure IS real world, gathered from people who own the car and drive it every day. So compare that to the SoCal Car Club 1951 numbers, and you STILL get a factor of 3 improvement.

You want to see what happens when the engineers turn it up to 11 and REALLY focus on economy:

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/about-us/futures/xl1

That gets 120 mpg in the real world -- a factor of two more than a mainstream current car. I'd bet that we'll see 80-90 real world mpg from a practical mainstream small family car by 2020.

And I'm really looking forward to seeing what the XL-1 Sport's like with a 200 BHP 1200 cc Ducati engine in it...

http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-ducati-powered-vw-xl-sport-is-a-slice-of-ultralight-two-cylinder-awesomeness/

bestest,

M.

[Maindrian Pace]

"High risk website blocked" That doesn't happen very often, Not diving in there. Makes me question the validity of the article. Why isn't this information anywhere else?

[Matt Bacon]

"High risk website blocked" That doesn't happen very often, Not diving in there. Makes me question the validity of the article. Why isn't this information anywhere else?

Which website is blocked?

bestest,

M.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Nope -- the point is that manufacturers are addressing the problem by NOT building same-weight, same engine displacement vehicles. The 2015 Golf Bluemotion will carry four adults comfortably, safely and quickly on any journey the 1951 car could have made, with air conditioning, great sound system and no less than six cupholders into the bargain.

Thank you sir. You have just reinforced my earlier remarks that really significant improvements in vehicle efficiency are better sought by reducing vehicle weight overall, allowing smaller engines to drag them around happily.

But lots of 'Mercans still like big cars and trucks, with big ol, thirsty engines. And the efficiency improvements in those...of similar weight and engine displacement to their '50s predecessors...aren't that impressive for the millions and millions of bucks spent to get there.

Funny...the recent cheapening of gas prices over here is spurring a return to buying gas hogs en masse. Little car and electric sales have flat-lined. I guess now that gas is selling for 1/2 of what it was a couple of years back, the popular perception is that it's going to last forever.

[Matt Bacon]

Funny...the recent cheapening of gas prices over here is spurring a return to buying gas hogs en masse. Little car and electric sales have flat-lined. I guess now that gas is selling for 1/2 of what it was a couple of years back, the popular perception is that it's going to last forever.

Crazy, isn't it? We had "oil price shocks" in 2007-8, 1990, 1979, 1974 and 1956. The one thing that's certain is that gas is going to cost 2-3 times what it does now some day in the next ten years. The last shock almost killed the US car industry. Talk about those who don't learn from history being condemned to repeat it...

bestest,

M.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Matt Bacon

[Maindrian Pace]

Which website is blocked?

bestest,

M.

The link in the first post. Message:

High Risk Website Blocked

• Location: http://horsepowerkings.com/sources-ford-to-discontinue-v8-motors-in-mustang-f150-after-2017/

• Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/HTMLGen-A has been found on this website.

• Return to the page you were previously viewing.

[Tom Geiger]

There will always be a small and vocal following for old school technology. That's because it's what we experienced when we were young. The car manufacturers have capitalized on this by bringing back Mustang, Challenger and Camaro V8s, and the pricing of these offerings isn't for youth market starter cars. They are aimed mainly at the aging Baby Boomer population with a few dollars in their pockets. I don't think the price of gas affects this, as there is a following of same in Canada and Australia where fuel is much more costly than in the USA. Still, there have been a lot of very cool V8 cars sold in Australia. The end of the road will be when gas isn't available at any price.

It's not a matter of a V8 being more durable. Toyota and Honda have made their fortunes selling 4 and 6 cylinder cars to the masses, people who simply see them as reliable transportation. And the lifespan of these cars is a minimum of 200,000 miles and a lot of them for many more miles. They rewrote the book on quality and durability.

Time does march on, and perceptions of the public at large will change. Toyota has sold an awful lot of Priuses, no matter how we snicker at them. And say what you will about alternate fuel technology, but Tesla just rewrote the book on that one!

Ford is responding to the future market. The generation beyond us doesn't share in our passion to any great numbers. They don't mind 4 door cars, and 4 and 6 cylinders have always been mainstream for them. Fewer of them are car mechanically inclined because cars have always been complex for them. Not that they are slouches, nor are they afraid of new technology. Many of them are computer talented way beyond our understanding. The game of talent and skills has also moved with technology.

I will take a modern car with all it's safety and creature comforts any day. That's why I just bought a Buick LaCrosse for our family cruiser. It's comfortable, safe, peppy and still delivers 28 mpg. The comparisons between the 1971 and current Challenger is no contest. You can say that anyone who drives like an idiot deserves to be killed in the resulting accident, but maybe not the poor unfortunates who happen to be his passengers, or other unlucky motorists or pedestrians near him! There are many people who died when 1960s muscle cars folded like accordians who would be alive today in a similar accident. The extra weight on the newer car is partly because it's designed to keep that passenger compartment intact under very hard circumstances. Just go and find that insurance company video of the head on crash between a 1999 Malibu and 1959 full size Chevy. No comparison. And I want my family to be in the safest and most reliable vehicle they can!

[Matt Bacon]

Wow. That video is a real eye-opener. As far as I can see, the 2009 Chevy doesn't even get its windscreen cracked...

That's another one for the "factor of three or four": deaths per billion auto miles travelled in 1951 = 70; deaths per billion miles 2010 = 17...

bestest,

M.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Matt Bacon