silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Published June 18th! http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/auto...ws/4322127.html After three tankfuls and 1003 miles of highways, city traffic, and backroads, the 300C returned 20.7 mpg while the SHO averaged 21.8 mpg, a 5.5 percent advantage. Considering that the SHO not only has an extra cog in the gearbox, but also fuel saving electrically assisted power steering, we expected a bigger spread. But we’ve learned that dramatically increasing fuel economy in a large car isn’t easy. Not bad for a car that hasn't been broken in yet and driven with a lead foot most of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The 4300 lbs that the Taurus carries factors into the smaller-than-expected fuel savings, obviously. If the next Taurus is going to a stretched CD4 platform to save weight, my question is will the new platform be able to fit the 3.5EB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 It's a 365 hp large vehicle, and @ almost 21 MPG with aggressive driving I'm sold. We barely get that out of the G or the FX. What I'm impressed with are the performance stats vs. that of the revamped Hemi. All of that and this is a SHO without the Performance Pkg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Fuel economy aside, the SHO was our clear favorite. Ford’s blend of refinement and speed, now match some of the best from Europe. And the lines of the car, hearkening back to the second generation SHO, are very taught and fresh. But the 300C is still relevant, and we were impressed that this car’s dramatic exterior still turns heads. In this current climate, you could probably slide into a 300C for considerably less than the SHO. And the Chrysler certainly wouldn’t be a bad choice. But at the last gas stop, the car we all wanted to take home was the sleek new Ford SHO. This is a good battle between the past and the future, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Taurus takes the win over the 300C and that's something a lot of critics thought they'd never see. Edited July 16, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 If the next Taurus is going to a stretched CD4 platform to save weight, my question is will the new platform be able to fit the 3.5EB? I dont see it being a huge problem to make the engine bay a little larger if they know the packaging of the engine before hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Published June 18th! http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/auto...ws/4322127.html Not bad for a car that hasn't been broken in yet and driven with a lead foot most of the time This comparison is quite interesting. To get the 25% better FE a more precise and controlled test is needed. However most folks will not be able to keep their foot out of the hair dryers. You have to give the Hemi some respect. I've seen the inside of one. Mercedes had Illmore all over it during the design. Fo a push rod layout it does remarkably well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 1. The RWD advantage of the 300C appears to be a myth. With or without RWD, the 300C is just a very good car. Now so is the Taurus. 2. MDS (cylinder deactivation) is just as fuel efficient as EcoBoost. 10% to 20% improvement. The V-8 still has a future in the F-series trucks. Keeping this in mind it think Ford could squeeze another 10% out of EcoBoost if they can get it to work with ultra-lean burn? I would say add MDS to the EcoBoost, but I think they could get the same results electronicly without the mechanical complexity. 3. The 300C, would have a much better performance with just RWD. Would handle nicer, be lighter and cheaper. 4. The 300C, with RWD/AWD, 8" longer wheelbase and Hemi V-8 with MDS is still lighter than the Taurus. The D3 is still a pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) 2. MDS (cylinder deactivation) is just as fuel efficient as EcoBoost. 10% to 20% improvement. The V-8 still has a future in the F-series trucks. Keeping this in mind it think Ford could squeeze another 10% out of EcoBoost if they can get it to work with ultra-lean burn? I would say add MDS to the EcoBoost, but I think they could get the same results electronicly without the mechanical complexity. Say what? There is no way in hell that V8 with MDS can match a V6 Ecoboost engine FE. In realworld use, MDS is lucky to show an improvement of 10%, if that. Going by EPA standards, the 300C AWD gets 16/23 combined 18 MPG and the SHO is 17/25 with a combined 20 MPG. It might be closer in real world use, but there are too many varibibles there to make a compairson. Lets also not forget that the Ecoboost can live quite happily on regular gas, where as the HEMI is required to take super (as far as I know) I did some more looking at the MDS system on the HEMI and Chyrsler states that you have to keep the car at under 65 MPH to get the full effects of the system. I dunno about you, but default speed limit on highways around here is at 70+ 4. The 300C, with RWD/AWD, 8" longer wheelbase and Hemi V-8 with MDS is still lighter than the Taurus. The D3 is still a pig. Blame that on it having to be crossover too. Sort of the same situation as the Camaro and Challenger have...both are pigs because they are based on Sedans, and the Mustang was designed as a coupe. Edited July 16, 2009 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 This comparison is quite interesting. To get the 25% better FE a more precise and controlled test is needed. However most folks will not be able to keep their foot out of the hair dryers. I think it all depends, I know in my situation, my Mustang sucked gas down like there was no tomorrow when I first got it. Partly because my foot was into it all the time and it was still breaking in. Now with me owning it 3 years and having 64K on the clock, I can get over 21 MPG on my commute to work...and prior to this I was only getting 19-20. Keep your foot out (besides accelerating) and I think you should get the same MPG as the V6 Taurus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I think it all depends, I know in my situation, my Mustang sucked gas down like there was no tomorrow when I first got it. Partly because my foot was into it all the time and it was still breaking in. Now with me owning it 3 years and having 64K on the clock, I can get over 21 MPG on my commute to work...and prior to this I was only getting 19-20. Keep your foot out (besides accelerating) and I think you should get the same MPG as the V6 Taurus You got a good point. All engines will burn fuel when your foot is on the pedal. The more hp the faster the fuel burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 writer failed to mention the 300C dash pieces falling off, the door handle coming off in his hand, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going_Going_Gone Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Keep your foot out (besides accelerating) and I think you should get the same MPG as the V6 Taurus Acceleration is pretty much what you buy a car like this for, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 4. The 300C, with RWD/AWD, 8" longer wheelbase and Hemi V-8 with MDS is still lighter than the Taurus. The D3 is still a pig. Does that not make the SHO/EcoBoost all that much more impressive then, since it's able to be just as fast or faster, despite it's heavier weight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Interesting that the SHO got spanked in the 40-70 acceleration test (4.9 to 4.2). I'm guessing it was delays in multiple gear downshifting. I'm not criticizing (I would rather have the 6 speed), just observing. The Taurus certainly could use a diet (but, then again, so could I!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sorry, but I wouldn't put the Taurus on a diet if it meant giving up it's crash worthiness. IIHS rates Taurus good all the way around for 2009 IIHS rates 300C, Good frontal offset, Poor side w/o side air, Marginal w/ side airbags, Marginal rear impact. Safercar.gov database wasn't working. So I couldn't check there. No 2010 testing yet for Taurus. But I'm sure it'll be awesome still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueOval5.0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Make the EB an option on FWD as well, would save weight from the AWD model and increase efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Acceleration is pretty much what you buy a car like this for, isn't it? To a point, for example, I normally shift at say 4-5K RPM's on my Mustang, but can lower that down to 2-3K RPM if I want to shift gears. The Modulars have more mid-range power then down low power like the Ecoboost does. As long as you don't Constantly stomp down on the gas all the time, it won't affect MPG that much doing it once in a while. Basically you don't have to treat every stop like your trying do the quarter mile in the car...and some times you don't due to traffic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Make the EB an option on FWD as well, would save weight from the AWD model and increase efficiency. the transmission can't handle the Torque without AWD. The engine is Torque limited down low anyways by the computer because of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Does that not make the SHO/EcoBoost all that much more impressive then, No...and I'm waiting to hear 50 disagree with my opinion....because the drivetrain cannot handle the thrust of the engine...the engine needs to be limited...what a dick tease. Edited July 16, 2009 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Interesting that the SHO got spanked in the 40-70 acceleration test (4.9 to 4.2). I'm guessing it was delays in multiple gear downshifting. I'm not criticizing (I would rather have the 6 speed), just observing. The Taurus certainly could use a diet (but, then again, so could I!) Could possibly be the sweet spot for the hemi and not so much in the taurus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Make the EB an option on FWD as well, would save weight from the AWD model and increase efficiency. That would make for torque steer the likes of which haven't been seen...well..maybe ever! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) No...and I'm waiting to hear 50 disagree with my opinion....because the drivetrain cannot handle the thrust of the engine...the engine needs to be limited...what a dick tease. You took out half my sentence......I was talking about it's weight.....despite weighing more, it performed just as well if not better than the 300 despite the 300's weight advantage. Edited July 16, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 the transmission can't handle the Torque without AWD. The engine is Torque limited down low anyways by the computer because of this. I'm hoping maybe a 2.5 EB will do the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm hoping maybe a 2.5 EB will do the trick. Well, with less power, one would think so, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 No...and I'm waiting to hear 50 disagree with my opinion....because the drivetrain cannot handle the thrust of the engine...the engine needs to be limited...what a dick tease. You going to pay for all the transmission failures that would happen if it wasn't limited? Could always wait till it comes out in the Mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.