Obama to announce auto mileage, emissions standards

[blackshine007]

Well, I have to stick my nose in and say that yes, the technology is there. Anyone with a properly tuned turbo knows that. Sctty411's car gets 40+ mpg on the highway and he's making some very nice numbers. A couple of years back, there was a 400 whp MR2 in one of those magazines that averaged 37mpg. The technology has always been there. The key is having the right size turbo. But the only downside to that is within those maps, there's fuel taken out to make those numbers which causes it to run lean, which in turn shoots up the NOx levels. With the Diesel technology, urethea injection could bring down the NOx, and with the proper gearing, even the trucks could make that possible. But that would mean goodbye to big V8's. Fuck em, we don't need them anyways. Ford's next line of fuel efficient big vehicles are gonna be turbo'd with the elimination of most of the V8's. In the coming years, ya'll are gonna be very familiar with the "Ecoboost" name.

[BanginJimmy]

But that would mean goodbye to big V8's. Fuck em, we don't need them anyways.

Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?

[blackshine007]

Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?

Maybe you should reread what I typed. Turbos are the way to go. The whole original idea of them is to increase the efficiency of the motor. Look at it as having the power of a large displacement motor with no fuel economy penalties. I have an '86 F150 and I'm almost tempted to drop a Mustang SVO motor in just for the benefit of getting 24mpg as aposed to 17mpg it currently gets from the 5.0L V8. That SVO motor made more tq and hp than the V8. You can still pull with a turbo motor too. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford made the 3.7L Econoboost V6 the top motor for the superduty trucks to go along with some diesel engines.

[BanginJimmy]

Maybe you should reread what I typed. Turbos are the way to go.

A turbo isnt going to increase towing capacity. I drove my brother in laws 1500 with the 4.8 and towed a boat. It towed alright, but it struggled at times. I had no problems at all towing the same boat, with almost 300 extra lbs of camping gear in the bed when I drove his new truck that has the 5.3.

[blackshine007]

A turbo isnt going to increase towing capacity. I drove my brother in laws 1500 with the 4.8 and towed a boat. It towed alright, but it struggled at times. I had no problems at all towing the same boat, with almost 300 extra lbs of camping gear in the bed when I drove his new truck that has the 5.3.

Those 2 motors make damn near the same hp give or take 10 hp. The difference between those 2 motors is that the 4.8L makes 20-30 ft lbs of tq less than the 5.3 so naturally you will notice the tq advantage on the 5.3L motor. Your point on that holds no water. Some of the most powerful production vehicles are turbo. Look at your diesels. Look at some of your performance economy cars like the SRT4 Neon that returned 30mpg on the highway according to the epa. Or the turbo cobalt running 13's getting 30mpg on the highway. Or the Mini cooper S returning 34mpg highway. And then let's turn to GM's Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky cars. The n/a car with the 2.4L gets 26mpg highway while the turbo car with the 2.0L returns 28mpg and both share the same transmissions and rear ends. I think my point is clear. You can make power and reduce displacement without any adverse effects.

[NevrNufTorq]

Those 2 motors make damn near the same hp give or take 10 hp. The difference between those 2 motors is that the 4.8L makes 20-30 ft lbs of tq less than the 5.3 so naturally you will notice the tq advantage on the 5.3L motor. Your point on that holds no water. Some of the most powerful production vehicles are turbo. Look at your diesels. Look at some of your performance economy cars like the SRT4 Neon that returned 30mpg on the highway according to the epa. Or the turbo cobalt running 13's getting 30mpg on the highway. Or the Mini cooper S returning 34mpg highway. And then let's turn to GM's Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky cars. The n/a car with the 2.4L gets 26mpg highway while the turbo car with the 2.0L returns 28mpg and both share the same transmissions and rear ends. I think my point is clear. You can make power and reduce displacement without any adverse effects.

sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it.

next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80

[blackshine007]

sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it.

next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80

I think I mentioned something about having the proper sized turbo. I'm willing to bet that the turbo on your Supra is probably a large single turbo. The type of turbo I'm talking about involves a turbo that spool s up very early. All of the aforementioned cars I brought up makes their peak tq numbers below 3000 rpm. At cruising speeds, you typically want to be riding within 75% of your peak power band in order to get decent gas mileage. That's why the Vette is getting better because at cruising speeds, it's well within the tq range and will do better. I bet the supra is basicly dumping gas. I make 90% of my peak tq at 2600 rpm. My lil v6 will average around 28mpg with peaks of 32mpg highway on occasion. So please don't think I'm trying to say that any turbo on any vehicle will help it get better. It has to be properly matched to the vehicle to get the best overall results. Not just to win races.

[BanginJimmy]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ford made the 3.7L Econoboost V6 the top motor for the superduty trucks to go along with some diesel engines.

If Ford did that they would completely lose the market to companies that are still building the vehicles that are actually useful.