Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
CGIron

F-150 with a new engine making 44 mpg

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

I was talking about Pioneer...not Richard 

Oh him. Yeah he left in a hissy fit because we didn't all agree with his opinion that the Nautilus is a stupid name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

I think CAFE is based on the actual current test results before they apply all the adjustments.to come up with the Monroney values.

Correct, the raw data is uncorrected to align with the legislation but the sticker values are roughly 80% (?)

Remember when the press  tried to make everyone believe that half tons would need to get better than 30 mpg and cars bette than 43 mpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I PMed Richard not long after he stepped back, he  happy to talk about anything else but Ford Motor and its management. Maybe Rich just grew tired of fighting the same battles, saying the same things to the same people over and over, and just wanted to move on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just on the Archates Engine, the 2.7 delivers 270 Hp and 479 lb ft which seems impressive at first but I have a hunch that the tech Ford is using in the current 1.5/2.0 Panther diesel  (217 HP/370 lb ft) sees it on a similar power density as the Archates. Recent advances in combustion tech have shown that sending diesel and gas mixtures even leaner than before actually helps reduce NOX significantly (~90%) without heavy use of SCR. So my thought is that while Archates has done a great job with this engine, they might struggle to convince majors like Ford/GM that it's worth switching. I think those companies are already way ahead of anything Archates can offer with two crankshafts.

I don't expect anyone to accept my above beliefs without some sort of proof, I think that evidence will arrive soon in the form of GM's new 3.0 I-6 Turbodiesel.......

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem I've read on the GM 3.0 diesel is the mpg's and payload numbers are lackluster. If they are true Ford and Ram don't have anything to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 12:40 AM, MY93SHO said:

Problem I've read on the GM 3.0 diesel is the mpg's and payload numbers are lackluster. If they are true Ford and Ram don't have anything to worry about.

I think it's telling that GM hasn't been saying much at all  its new diesel, you'd think they would be short stroking it  all over the place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 9:40 AM, MY93SHO said:

Problem I've read on the GM 3.0 diesel is the mpg's and payload numbers are lackluster. If they are true Ford and Ram don't have anything to worry about.

What is the payload on the Diesel F150?  I know early EcoDiesels had very, very subpar payload.  IIRC one I saw as something like 750lbs of payload.  My car has more payload than that!

Although I don't get the Diesel light duty pickup.  On the way home, Diesel was around $1 or more per gallon than regular gas at the stations.  OUCH.

Edited by itguy09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, itguy09 said:

What is the payload on the Diesel F150?  I know early EcoDiesels had very, very subpar payload.  IIRC one I saw as something like 750lbs of payload.  My car has more payload than that!

The Rams might've been that low, but the diesel F150's payload goes from 1,720-1,940lbs. It's low-end for an F150, but still respectable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×