|
PCOS Bill posted:It has better power, but that doesn't make it a good sports car, oh my god. How do you seriously think "HAS POWER" is all it takes? I occasionally present a tongue in cheek comedic counterpoint to the "hitting the apex on every corner between my house and the grocery store" crowd who loses it when somebody buys an automatic BMW. It comes and goes, even i don't know anymore. leica posted:lol Maybe somebody can pop in with some anecdotal evidence about driving down the road and ecoboost f-150s spitting bearing caps at them out of the exhaust. Boaz MacPhereson posted:I'm curious as to what the livernois guys are going to get out of the 2.7eb. A shortbed 2.7 looks pretty good. I think the 2.7 could be pretty tapped out but under-rated from the factory. they're talking about bone stock 29psi boost and near-diesel cylinder pressures.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Powershift posted:I occasionally present a tongue in cheek comedic counterpoint to the "hitting the apex on every corner between my house and the grocery store NORMALLY ASPIRATED" crowd who loses it when somebody buys an automatic BMW. It comes and goes, even i don't know anymore. FTFY I try to hit the apex but other cars are next to me 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:I know and it's not like I can even afford a 20k used BMW right now but I'm sad to see the last holdout on NA inline 6es finally called it quits due to emissions and fuel economy. Hey, you can still get a brand new n/a inline six. in a forklift
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Hey, you can still get a brand new n/a inline six. Or a Ford Falcon (for now)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Ford still sells the falcon in RWD with a naturally aspirated i6 and 6 speed manual for less than 40 grand. Sales must no doubt be off the charts, keeping it alive for years to come, and now i've made myself sad. In general, the new car buying public is terrible, and turbo engines are one of the rare intersections where their interests and my interests meet, so i'm ok with that. edit: that 40k AUD is 30k USD right now. By the time it's dead, it's cost to produce will be low enough to make it practical for ford to sell in the states. Powershift fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
So, since normally aspirated engines are going the way of the Dodo, what is toyota doing for fuel economy? Do they even sell a turbo anything? I remember the Supras and MR2s had timbos, but now I don't know anymore. Maybe they know the average toyota owner would slag a turbo in a hurry with how the appliance buying crowd treats cars. E: I imagine that the certified pre-owned ultimate driving machines with turbos are going to be a shitshow in a few years. With as little maintenance as Aiden's first bimmer is gonna get during the lease period. BloodBag fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
I guess Ford apologists claim turbos are the future because some turbo Fords get slightly better fuel economy than (barely)equivalent VWs and V8 RWD Chryslers. I doubt the actual segment fuel economy leaders are particularly worried about it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Taco Box posted:So, since normally aspirated engines are going the way of the Dodo, what is toyota doing for fuel economy? Do they even sell a turbo anything? I remember the Supras and MR2s had timbos, but now I don't know anymore. Maybe they know the average toyota owner would slag a turbo in a hurry with how the appliance buying crowd treats cars. Hydrogen, hybrids, and diesels on trucks now that Chrysler, gm, and Nissan have broken that ice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I guess Ford apologists claim turbos are the future because some turbo Fords get slightly better fuel economy than (barely)equivalent VWs and V8 RWD Chryslers. I doubt the actual segment fuel economy leaders are particularly worried about it. I would say turbos are the future because they offer a little bit of free efficiency. It's hard to argue with the improved thermodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Sadi posted:I would say turbos are the future because they offer a little bit of free efficiency. It's hard to argue with the improved thermodynamics. It's not as free as it seems at first glance because you have to run a richer mixture when you're under boost to keep things safe. You can get astounding mileage out of a tiny turbo engine if and only if you stay out of the boost, in which case you may as well not have the turbo. Mostly this lets them have competitive power numbers with the ability to sip fuel if you drive light footed. In reality people are having fun with their fast F-150s that go 'woosh' when you step on the loud pedal, and getting the same fuel economy as if they drove a V8 with a heavy foot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's not as free as it seems at first glance because you have to run a richer mixture when you're under boost to keep things safe. You can get astounding mileage out of a tiny turbo engine if and only if you stay out of the boost, in which case you may as well not have the turbo. Mostly this lets them have competitive power numbers with the ability to sip fuel if you drive light footed. In reality people are having fun with their fast F-150s that go 'woosh' when you step on the loud pedal, and getting the same fuel economy as if they drove a V8 with a heavy foot. Boost is effectively extra cubic inches on demand. The reason I dislike I4 turbos is that when not on boost they have very little power. At least with a turbo 6 banger you have a little power when out of boost and can run bigger turbos because you don't need them to have full boost at 2000rpm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
i fuckin love my ecoboost 2.0 so v0v
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
I'm a ford apologist but I just love my n/a i6 RWD falcon UTE Powershift made me sad. E: of course a turbo i6 ute would be even better... Things are right in the world when someone, somewhere is selling a fairly priced i6, RWD. V6 is the work of the Plus easier to add a turbo on 
Fo3 fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's not as free as it seems at first glance because you have to run a richer mixture when you're under boost to keep things safe. You can get astounding mileage out of a tiny turbo engine if and only if you stay out of the boost, in which case you may as well not have the turbo. Mostly this lets them have competitive power numbers with the ability to sip fuel if you drive light footed. In reality people are having fun with their fast F-150s that go 'woosh' when you step on the loud pedal, and getting the same fuel economy as if they drove a V8 with a heavy foot. Turbos are 'murica because I am free to choose and I always Choose the Boost -This message brought to you by citizens for national aspirations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
go3 posted:i fuckin love my ecoboost 2.0 so v0v 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
While dinosaur juice is still available and not too expensive, I plan to own as many dinosaur engines, ie rotaries, i6 and v8s as possible. No rush moving to electric (they'll only get cheaper), use dino tech and fuel while you can for the most fun you can have with them. You can never go back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Japan is scared of turbos, they're trying to make atkinson cycle happen. How the gently caress did that happen?!? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Sometimes I get the impression that I'm the only one who digs the new S55 in the F8X. 3.0L I6 with two turbos gives me Mk4 Supra flashbacks and that's a good thing. Also with an exhaust it sounds like an E46, if I wanted a V8 burble I'd buy an AMG or muscle car. That being said I come and go on wether or not turbos are good on commuter cars, but I guess everyone is so focused on emissions and out of boost fuel economy that they don't care that the engines will likely croak before 150k miles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's not as free as it seems at first glance because you have to run a richer mixture when you're under boost to keep things safe. You can get astounding mileage out of a tiny turbo engine if and only if you stay out of the boost, in which case you may as well not have the turbo. Mostly this lets them have competitive power numbers with the ability to sip fuel if you drive light footed. In reality people are having fun with their fast F-150s that go 'woosh' when you step on the loud pedal, and getting the same fuel economy as if they drove a V8 with a heavy foot. Would we be better off if we just had V8's that instead of having cylinder deactivation only activate automatically at highway speeds, simply had an on/off button that we could hit when we know we're just sitting in traffic around town and didn't need all 8 cylinders?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
IMO we should all be driving turbo V8s with cylinder deactivation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:IMO we should all be driving turbo V8s with cylinder deactivation. The 'V' is such a complication though, they should all be turbo straight-eights with cylinder deactivation. ...Great, now I have a boner at work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:The 'V' is such a complication though, they should all be turbo straight-eights with cylinder deactivation. You'd need a separate crankshaft sensor for each end of the block the flexing would be so bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:You'd need a separate crankshaft sensor for each end of the block the flexing would be so bad. I refuse to believe this could be an issue in today's world of modern materials. We had straight-eight engines in the fifties, why would a modern straight-eight suffer from the same or worse problems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I refuse to believe this could be an issue in today's world of modern materials.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:We had straight-eight engines in the fifties, why would a modern straight-eight suffer from the same or worse problems? Because they made 150HP at 3500RPM redline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:How the gently caress did that happen?!? No idea. We should let the people re-writing history books about it though. Mits, Subaru, nissan and mazda were all early enthusiastic adopters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
davebo posted:Would we be better off if we just had V8's that instead of having cylinder deactivation only activate automatically at highway speeds, simply had an on/off button that we could hit when we know we're just sitting in traffic around town and didn't need all 8 cylinders? I think that's a very good point. I wonder if there's a way of setting that up with custom ECUs? I assume it could only be done on engines that have cylinder deactivation capability, but other than that, what could potential problems be? Now I want to stuff a generation 4 LS in a car and make it a V8\4 on demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Speaking of I8s, saw this at a small local motor show:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
A car in every garage and a turbo I6 in every car! Vote for me '16!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
How much money do I "contribute to your campaign" to stay NA only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I like turbo cars, and my lady friend's STI has over 200,000 miles on the odometer for the original engine (turbo has been replaced tho). v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How much money do I "contribute to your campaign" to stay NA only? I need NA people because they'll have to help subsidize repairs under my TurboCare program
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I've never heard someone with an ecoboost claim they get what the epa test cycle shows. The "best" i've heard on the 3.5 ecoboost is 17.9mpg for someone who mostly drives 60mph to and from work. I wish the epa test videos were posted so you could see how they drive because i bet to get anywhere near that you'd have to do 0-60 in 30 seconds and never hit boost once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:I've never heard someone with an ecoboost claim they get what the epa test cycle shows. The "best" i've heard on the 3.5 ecoboost is 17.9mpg for someone who mostly drives 60mph to and from work. I wish the epa test videos were posted so you could see how they drive because i bet to get anywhere near that you'd have to do 0-60 in 30 seconds and never hit boost once. The EPA estimates don't actually match how people drive IRL, which is a shame because it fucks with shift patterns and throttle responses and all sorts of poo poo and makes cars perform worse. I imagine this is why some tunes for some cars can claim to improve both power and fuel economy, since they put those computer controlled things in places that help real world driving. KakerMix fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:I've never heard someone with an ecoboost claim they get what the epa test cycle shows. The "best" i've heard on the 3.5 ecoboost is 17.9mpg for someone who mostly drives 60mph to and from work. I wish the epa test videos were posted so you could see how they drive because i bet to get anywhere near that you'd have to do 0-60 in 30 seconds and never hit boost once. 13-13.2 in my 3.5 F150, drive 40 miles/day of which about 25 is city and 15 is highway in mixed traffic. Even on the highway sailing along at 70, I get about 16-17 best case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:I've never heard someone with an ecoboost claim they get what the epa test cycle shows. The "best" i've heard on the 3.5 ecoboost is 17.9mpg for someone who mostly drives 60mph to and from work. I wish the epa test videos were posted so you could see how they drive because i bet to get anywhere near that you'd have to do 0-60 in 30 seconds and never hit boost once. I hit right between the numbers on my car, the Explorer though a little under. My 2013 Taurus SHO is rated at 17/25 and I see 19.x 50/50 mixed and 24 to 26 hwy on 93 octane. The 2014 Explorer Sport we have is rated 16/22 and that's a bit of a joke. I see 15MPG city and 19 to 20 Hwy. I can get it to kiss 22MPG unloaded with a single passenger, but we usually take it on road trips fully loaded with luggage and 4 to 5 people where I see high 19's @ 80MPH. If I really romp it in the city I can get it down to the 13's. It's a big heavy car though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:Yeah but one of those really nice lawnmowers they use on the golf courses. That's insane, I'm driving a Ford Escape with that motor and getting 26 or so on my I-70 across Colorado trips, averaging 60mph but spending time at 80mph to offset the time spent in towns. It gets worse in town but I didn't think it would be that bad. I'm going to have to reset it next time I'm in Denver and driving around just to compare. The vehicles weigh nearly the same, but my profile is larger and higher off the ground, so it should be worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:13-13.2 in my 3.5 F150, drive 40 miles/day of which about 25 is city and 15 is highway in mixed traffic. Even on the highway sailing along at 70, I get about 16-17 best case scenario. Which is insane. The 2014 silverado v6 we're seeing 21.5mpg with around 40 city/60 highway mix which is pretty drat with rating of 18/24.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:Which is insane. The 2014 silverado v6 we're seeing 21.5mpg with around 40 city/60 highway mix which is pretty drat with rating of 18/24. My antiquated 4x4 Nissan Titan driven fairly hard (but almost all highway) with a 5.6 V8 was at 13.3 lifetime average when I traded it in at 120,000 miles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
StormDrain posted:That's insane, I'm driving a Ford Escape with that motor and getting 26 or so on my I-70 across Colorado trips, averaging 60mph but spending time at 80mph to offset the time spent in towns. It gets worse in town but I didn't think it would be that bad. I'm going to have to reset it next time I'm in Denver and driving around just to compare. The vehicles weigh nearly the same, but my profile is larger and higher off the ground, so it should be worse. I get 22-24 here in CA in my 2.0 Escape. But, that's 80mph interstate with multiple climbs on the route. Coming out here we towed a 3.5K trailer and averaged 26 from FL to the CA border. Mileage also goes up when using premium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:24
|
|
