F150 ecoboost takes on hellcat, plus others

[fordtech1]

That F150 was running at Brainerd when I was last there. The owner is a great guy and the truck does run exceptionally well. I didn't line up against him because I didn't want to get beaten by a truck! Some of his wins were due to the other drivers not doing a good job but that takes nothing away from a 12.4 second truck. By the way, 4 wheel drive is a huge benefit for launching but a detriment toward the end of the quarter.

 

I would love to see that engine in a Mustang but it would likely need AWD to put that low end torque to the pavement.

Yeah I could tell some of his benefit was from poor launches from other drivers. However, with 4x4 he doesn't have to worry about that. Also, I think once that truck gets to speed the aerodynamics of a brick come into play. Still, can't take away how impressive that truck is. Same with your Continental. Very impressive with the 3.0 and just a tune.

[Kev-Mo]

Dang - that was fun to watch!

[Kev-Mo]

400lbs?? That is unreal. Given fact visually if anything IMO the Camry looks bigger.

Any opinions on just where the Camry gets that weight reduction?

 

It is said here in the Mountain West, where we have occasional 'weather' events, that if a Toyota or Honda is parked next to a Ford in a hailstorm, the Honda especially, and the Toyota will be more likely to sustain damage. This anecdotal, from more than one source I spoke to that does hail repair. My niece's 2015 Civic is covered in dents...as are many others seen around town.

 

That will certainly account for several lbs. of weight.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Kev-Mo

[akirby]

 

It is said here in the Mountain West, where we have occasional 'weather' events, that if a Toyota or Honda is parked next to a Ford in a hailstorm, the Honda especially, and the Toyota will be more likely to sustain damage. This anecdotal, from more than one source I spoke to that does hail repair. My niece's 2015 Civic is covered in dents...as are many others seen around town.

 

That will certainly account for several lbs. of weight.

 

Most people would trade that for better fuel economy. I can't remember having a car outside in a hailstorm.

[Kev-Mo]

 

Most people would trade that for better fuel economy. I can't remember having a car outside in a hailstorm.

I can't remember Alpharetta GA being famous for having Hail Storms. Happens all the time here - Typically 5 times per year at my house. Bronco game was delayed this past Sunday - Lightning and hail. Then of course 30 min later - put on your sunglasses and back outside for activities. Unless you lived here you probably would not understand.

 

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/hail-climatology-united-states

Edited September 19, 2017 by Kev-Mo

[akirby]

True. But I still think most buyers care far more about fuel economy than dent resistance in a hailstorm.

[SoonerLS]

True. But I still think most buyers care far more about fuel economy than dent resistance in a hailstorm.

Where in the world are you finding car buyers who think that logically? Europe?

[SoonerLS]

I can't remember having a car outside in a hailstorm.

Oh, I can. Several times. Twice in my Lincoln, even--and one time I was stuck on the side of the road waiting for the storm to pass because this stupid chick in an Escape pulled over into me while I was passing her.

 

Ironically enough, she barely scuffed my passenger-side rear door handle, but left a huge dent in her driver's side front fender where she made contact.

[akirby]

Where in the world are you finding car buyers who think that logically? Europe?

 

Not logical at all. When a buyer goes into a showroom they can see styling, features and the window sticker with MPG. MPG translates to how much money they'll spend every month on gas. Most would not even think about the thickness of the sheetmetal and whether it's more or less likely to be dented in a hailstorm. Even if they had hail damage before they probably don't realize there is a difference between vehicles in that regard.

[Kev-Mo]

 

Not logical at all. When a buyer goes into a showroom they can see styling, features and the window sticker with MPG. MPG translates to how much money they'll spend every month on gas. Most would not even think about the thickness of the sheetmetal and whether it's more or less likely to be dented in a hailstorm. Even if they had hail damage before they probably don't realize there is a difference between vehicles in that regard.

 

I agree with you on the notion that the last thing a person is thinking when they buy a car is how will it hold up in Rocky Mountain hail.

 

I think my point is missed however. Someone asked several posts where on earth is Toyota finding 200lbs over the Fusion. I simply pointed out the I had anecdotal evidence while investigating hail damage for my niece, that the body panels were thinner on most Asian cars, especially Honda. This is one of their tactics to shed weight. Good idea? Not sure, I like the thought that my Ford won't dent as easily when a kid throws his bike and it bounces off my door. Others don't care, until it happens...

 

So the point is, Honda and Toyota produce overall lighter cars using techniques like thinner body panels, and maybe thinner metal elsewhere.

[jpd80]

Thinner higher tensile steels of course and Asian carmakers have been using 0.6mm steel panels for years while others stuck to more traditional 1mm steel for outer panels. The big difference is redesigning panels and frames to better absorb and dissipate crash forces.

[jpd80]

Just thinking about this hat 400 lbft 2.7 EB, I'd love to se a face off between it and an early 3.5 AB F150 just to see how close the two are....the result might be quite fascinating.....

Edited September 19, 2017 by jpd80

[akirby]

I agree about the body panels but I don't think that's all 200 lbs.

[jpd80]

I agree about the body panels but I don't think that's all 200 lbs.

What I was alluding to is the use of HT steels in the integral framing means thinner sections can do the same job as heavier mild steel

especially when they need to consider small offset crash testing as well as older front and side / pole crash tests.

 

Actually, that's one of the areas where the latest Mustang falls down really badly, the Euro NCAP uses a pole test and is showing up

a lot of rear passenger injuries that don't seem to happen under US crash test protocols.I'm thinking that Ford just mailed in the answer

for crash testing and never bothered to check if NCAP was changing / getting harder with scoring..they scored 2 stars out of 5 twice now..

Edited September 20, 2017 by jpd80

[jasonj80]

What I was alluding to is the use of HT steels in the integral framing means thinner sections can do the same job as heavier mild steel

especially when they need to consider small offset crash testing as well as older front and side / pole crash tests.

 

Actually, that's one of the areas where the latest Mustang falls down really badly, the Euro NCAP uses a pole test and is showing up

a lot of rear passenger injuries that don't seem to happen under US crash test protocols.I'm thinking that Ford just mailed in the answer

for crash testing and never bothered to check if NCAP was changing / getting harder with scoring..they scored 2 stars out of 5 twice now..

Ford has been mailing it in on harder crash tests for a while now, look at the IIHS scores. When Volvo left so did the care for safety.

[jasonj80]

Just thinking about this hat 400 lbft 2.7 EB, I'd love to se a face off between it and an early 3.5 AB F150 just to see how close the two are....the result might be quite fascinating.....

Would be interesting with the 2.7L having the 10 speed and the old 3.5L having the 6 speed.

[akirby]

When Volvo left so did the care for safety.

 

 

Just because they aren't bending over backwards to cater to the latest IIHS "move the carrot" test variation does not mean they don't care for safety. New Fords are as safe or safer than the previous models.

[Kev-Mo]

I agree about the body panels but I don't think that's all 200 lbs.

Agree - but this is one of their techniques. The aggregation of marginal gains =200lbs.

We know they are doing this and finding weight savings elsewhere using the same concept.

[SoonerLS]

I'm thinking that Ford just mailed in the answer

for crash testing and never bothered to check if NCAP was changing / getting harder with scoring..they scored 2 stars out of 5 twice now..

I'm thinking Ford looked at the test, said, "eh, it'll pass," and decided that it would cost more to get 5 stars than they would make on sales of the car. They're "native" to Europe, so the chances that they don't know what the tests are doing are basically 0--it's just that they're not going to let the tail wag the dog.

[jasonj80]

 

 

Just because they aren't bending over backwards to cater to the latest IIHS "move the carrot" test variation does not mean they don't care for safety. New Fords are as safe or safer than the previous models.

The move the carrot is pretty much every STEM field there is, without moving the carrot nothing happens; but then again people want the old school panther to come back because it was the best thing ever, even though they never would buy it new. Had EPA not moved the carrot we'd have cars that pollute 100x's more than they currently do. Had IIHS not moved the carrot we'd have vehicles perform like they did in the mid-90's. Had NHTSA not changed the rules cars wouldn't have airbags, side impact beams or heavier door latches. It is not like these agencies just move the carrot, manufactures are told years in advance that the carrot is going to be moved. Ford has just chosen that short term profits are more important that long term sales and they do the bare minimum to meet the requirement. NHTSA is changing the standards again and Lighting will be included in star rating, just like rear view cameras must be standard on all vehicles next year after a phase in period. Ford could have said in 2016 or 2015 we're just making them standard across the full line they wait and do it by the minimum % they were required too. This year the final base Truck versions get them just to make the requirement.

 

While a newer Ford is safer than an older Ford, a new Rav4 or CR-V is safer than a new Escape and even more importantly has less of a change being involved in an accident in the first place. Toyota and Honda didn't wait until 2022 to make the avoidance safety equipment standard and didn't wait until a new generation or MCE to improve the structure, Honda and Toyota did improvements following the poor showing in 2014 for the 2015 MY to achieve a good rating. In 2017 when Ford did the Escape update they just improved to acceptable.

[rmc523]

The move the carrot is pretty much every STEM field there is, without moving the carrot nothing happens; but then again people want the old school panther to come back because it was the best thing ever, even though they never would buy it new. Had EPA not moved the carrot we'd have cars that pollute 100x's more than they currently do. Had IIHS not moved the carrot we'd have vehicles perform like they did in the mid-90's. Had NHTSA not changed the rules cars wouldn't have airbags, side impact beams or heavier door latches. It is not like these agencies just move the carrot, manufactures are told years in advance that the carrot is going to be moved. Ford has just chosen that short term profits are more important that long term sales and they do the bare minimum to meet the requirement. NHTSA is changing the standards again and Lighting will be included in star rating, just like rear view cameras must be standard on all vehicles next year after a phase in period. Ford could have said in 2016 or 2015 we're just making them standard across the full line they wait and do it by the minimum % they were required too. This year the final base Truck versions get them just to make the requirement.

 

While a newer Ford is safer than an older Ford, a new Rav4 or CR-V is safer than a new Escape and even more importantly has less of a change being involved in an accident in the first place. Toyota and Honda didn't wait until 2022 to make the avoidance safety equipment standard and didn't wait until a new generation or MCE to improve the structure, Honda and Toyota did improvements following the poor showing in 2014 for the 2015 MY to achieve a good rating. In 2017 when Ford did the Escape update they just improved to acceptable.

 

As we discuss every time this topic comes up, most of the issue he and I and others have is with the way they rate the vehicles. When they add a new test, suddenly the same vehicle that was 5 stars last year is now rated at 3 stars. Looking at the rating, you'd think they removed all the airbags or something, when in reality, the vehicle didn't get less safe, they just added a new test that changed their rating system. I get that you can't keep raising the number of stars (we'd be a 100-star rating by now or something crazy like that), but there has to be a better way to phase in test scores. Maybe it's as simple as doing something like showing the new and old rating side by side on the window sticker for....I don't know....say 3 years (?) after a new test is introduced? The left side represents the crash test scores prior to introducing new test X, the right side represents crash test scores after new test X.

[akirby]

The issue is moving the carrot just to be moving the carrot even though it doesn't make things measurably better. Adding offset crash testing was probably a great move since a lot of crashes happen that way. But when you start talking about degrees of offset then you have to start asking exactly how many real world accidents occur at EXACTLY that degree of offset and at that particuliar speed, because if you change the speed or the angle just a little bit the results can be different. And even then the difference between performance of a 3 star and a 5 star vehicle is not life and death, it's just degrees of injury which will also vary considerably based on the size and weight of the occupant and other factors.

 

 

While a newer Ford is safer than an older Ford, a new Rav4 or CR-V is safer than a new Escape and even more importantly has less of a change being involved in an accident in the first place.

 

You can't prove that simply based on test results and availability of equipment. Like I said above - real world accidents rarely if ever fit the exact test parameters. If there is real world data that proves that Rav4 or CR-V is safer than Escape that's fine but you can't make that leap of logic based on test results. That's the problem with these additional IIHS tests and I think Ford (rightly so) has decided it isn't worth it to do an emergency change to correct some of these results.

 

And how far should we keep moving the carrot? 60 mph head on and offset crashes? 80 mph? Let's do 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85 degree offset crash testing at 5 different speeds each.

 

At some point the added investment doesn't yield any real world benefits and I would argue we're pretty close to that point already.

[jasonj80]

You can't prove that simply based on test results and availability of equipment. Like I said above - real world accidents rarely if ever fit the exact test parameters. If there is real world data that proves that Rav4 or CR-V is safer than Escape that's fine but you can't make that leap of logic based on test results. That's the problem with these additional IIHS tests and I think Ford (rightly so) has decided it isn't worth it to do an emergency change to correct some of these results.

 

And how far should we keep moving the carrot? 60 mph head on and offset crashes? 80 mph? Let's do 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85 degree offset crash testing at 5 different speeds each.

 

At some point the added investment doesn't yield any real world benefits and I would argue we're pretty close to that point already.

It is Science and knowledge -- You never stop moving the carrot, it can always be better. I can also tell you that everything you just typed there can and is done currently on a computer, do a real world test and keep modeling more and more.

 

There have been scientific studies done on the reduction of accidents with electronic system and all show reductions in accidents.

 

IIHS Lane Departure Warning Reductions - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-lines-lane-departure-warning-blind-spot-detection-help-drivers-avoid-trouble

 

Rear View Camera reduce back out accident's - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/9/4-- Vehicles equipped with front crash prevention are much less likely to rear-end other vehicles, IIHS has found in the first study of the feature's effectiveness using U.S. police-reported crash data.

 

Front crash prevention - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/crashes-avoided-front-crash-prevention-slashes-police-reported-rear-end-crashes- http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/automation-and-crash-avoidance/hldi-research

 

Current data and total potential safety benefits - Estimation of Potential Safety Benefits for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems - https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812400_pcambenefitsreport.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[akirby]

It is Science and knowledge -- You never stop moving the carrot, it can always be better. I can also tell you that everything you just typed there can and is done currently on a computer, do a real world test and keep modeling more and more.

 

There have been scientific studies done on the reduction of accidents with electronic system and all show reductions in accidents.

 

IIHS Lane Departure Warning Reductions - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/stay-within-the-lines-lane-departure-warning-blind-spot-detection-help-drivers-avoid-trouble

 

Rear View Camera reduce back out accident's - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/51/9/4-- Vehicles equipped with front crash prevention are much less likely to rear-end other vehicles, IIHS has found in the first study of the feature's effectiveness using U.S. police-reported crash data.

 

Front crash prevention - http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/crashes-avoided-front-crash-prevention-slashes-police-reported-rear-end-crashes- http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/automation-and-crash-avoidance/hldi-research

 

Current data and total potential safety benefits - Estimation of Potential Safety Benefits for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems - https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812400_pcambenefitsreport.pdf

 

It's a no brainer that things like lane departure and collision warning help reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities although I don't necessarily trust IIHS data that supports their agenda unless it's independently verified. Also the data they posted on rear end collision was only based on Volvos and one could argue that Volvo owners are not necessarily representative of all drivers.

 

We're only saying that just because Ford hasn't updated Escape for the small offset crash test results doesn't mean it's less safe than Rav4 or CR-V. Especially since Escape now has lane departure warning and collision warning.

[fordtech1]

This seems fitting to this conversation.

 

http://jalopnik.com/the-2019-porsche-cayenne-added-110-pounds-specifically-1818573312