alfadriver wrote: since I have 2.5 of them. Well, not own, exactly.
Are you trying to tell us covertly that Ford is working on a 3 cylinder version for the Fiesta?
alfadriver wrote: since I have 2.5 of them. Well, not own, exactly.
Are you trying to tell us covertly that Ford is working on a 3 cylinder version for the Fiesta?
tuna55 wrote:alfadriver wrote: since I have 2.5 of them. Well, not own, exactly.Are you trying to tell us covertly that Ford is working on a 3 cylinder version for the Fiesta?
No,that I have 2.5 EcoBoost F150's.
Working toward the future and all.
edit- it's why I have a biased opinion. If that is not clear.
alfadriver wrote:tuna55 wrote:No,that I have 2.5 EcoBoost F150's. Working toward the future and all. edit- it's why I have a biased opinion. If that is not clear.alfadriver wrote: since I have 2.5 of them. Well, not own, exactly.Are you trying to tell us covertly that Ford is working on a 3 cylinder version for the Fiesta?
Darn. That would have been neat exciting news.
alfadriver wrote:tuna55 wrote:Yes, you got it! It will be the new Fiesta SVT with 250 HP!!alfadriver wrote: since I have 2.5 of them. Well, not own, exactly.Are you trying to tell us covertly that Ford is working on a 3 cylinder version for the Fiesta?
I like this answer better
tuna55 wrote:SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: An 8-speed would be ideal for a pickup truck, but towing is where I'm concerned.Huh? What math did you do to get to that figure? It's not as easy as that in optimization land, more does not equal better...
I'm not understanding what you are counter arguing.
What I'm saying is that an 8-speed auto would be better for a pick up for fuel mileage, sorry if I wasn't specific.
My concern for towing is if it's gonna burn up overdrive gears or not.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:tuna55 wrote:I'm not understanding what you are counter arguing. What I'm saying is that an 8-speed auto would be better for a pick up for fuel mileage, sorry if I wasn't specific. My concern for towing is if it's gonna burn up overdrive gears or not.SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: An 8-speed would be ideal for a pickup truck, but towing is where I'm concerned.Huh? What math did you do to get to that figure? It's not as easy as that in optimization land, more does not equal better...
Right, and I am not so sure that it is. Is 22 speeds better than 8? 35 better than 22? Just because it has more speeds does not make it more fuel efficient. A transmission with more gears will have more weight and more rotating mass and take more time shifting and wasting power than just putting it down, it all depends on how broad the brake specific fuel consumption curve is. From what I remember, I'll bet that beyond 6 or so, we're solidly into "marketing" territory, rather than efficiency gains.
I like gadgets too and the truck is really nice.... My perception of new engines in Fords is that they have been released before being fully developed. The twice turbo'd V6 is very strong and new techy too. I just consider the warranty a smart buy.
In reply to ls1fiero:
I realize it was advertising/marketing, but did you see the "torture test" videos Ford had of the Ecoboost just before they were available to the public? I was in awe. 150K miles on a dyno, 24 hours towing 2 Sprint Cup cars around a track at speed, put the same engine in a SCORE truck and completed the Baja 1000, a few other random silly tests, and all allegedly on the same engine. 165K total miles of all of that, re-dynoed and had no loss of power, then torn down live at the North American Auto Show and inspected, everything was within specs.
I am anything but a Ford Fanboy, but I'd love an Ecoboost F150, I just wish you could get it in a single cab, short bed, 4x4, i.e. SWB bare bones Ecoboost work truck. I don't want an extended/quad cab, or LWB.
Also, his fuel is paid for, so economy is a moot point when on business Basically, he wants to come in under the vehicle allowance so he gets a brand new truck paid for and money in the bank.
I think he found the only viable caveat to my statement.. pretty cool. If he doesnt care how much gas he uses (let alone have to pay for it) id go for whichever is most fun to drive.
ls1fiero wrote: I like gadgets too and the truck is really nice.... My perception of new engines in Fords is that they have been released before being fully developed. The twice turbo'd V6 is very strong and new techy too. I just consider the warranty a smart buy.
How much more would you want?
DI has been in the market for a decade.
Ford DI had been in production for a little over a year before the truck version came out.
And all of that is following close to 6 years of development.
How do you define fully developed?
Can it be better? Any technology can be better- engines have been developed for over 100 years, and they still get better. EFI has been in main line production for over 30 years, and it can get better. Catalysts have been on cars since the 70's and they can get better.
There's no such thing as fully developed. Just fully developed for that moment.
For me fully developed would mean that all owners of specific vehicles do not have catastrophic failures of the same components. Unless they were developed to fail. Specifically the Turbo Diesels. Turbos and Diesel have both been around for decades but they were very problematic in Fords for a while there. They are better now and you shout more than I do so off topic I go. Time will prove one of us right Hope its you...
Vigo wrote:Also, his fuel is paid for, so economy is a moot point when on business Basically, he wants to come in under the vehicle allowance so he gets a brand new truck paid for and money in the bank.I think he found the only viable caveat to my statement.. pretty cool. If he doesnt care how much gas he uses (let alone have to pay for it) id go for whichever is most fun to drive.
Yes, but the thing is that he will probably be quitting in a year, so then he'll own a truck he'll have to deal with. He should get $800/month, what I suggested to him was to get the smallest payment/longest term financing at 0% and then overpay the hell each month with all $800. In a year, that would be $10k off a $30k truck when all is said and done. So, he'd have a one year old truck that had $10k of depreciation taken off his hands by somebody else.
Or, he gets a brand new company owned duramax quad cab 4x4 1 ton that we use to tow the rally car around Canada and use the companies free diesel... 
ls1fiero wrote: For me fully developed would mean that all owners of specific vehicles do not have catastrophic failures of the same components. Unless they were developed to fail. Specifically the Turbo Diesels. Turbos and Diesel have both been around for decades but they were very problematic in Fords for a while there. They are better now and you shout more than I do so off topic I go. Time will prove one of us right Hope its you...
Can't say that I understand your point.
If "fully developed" means that owners don't have failures, how do you find out if a system is fully developed without selling it? Or are you saying that you would not buy a car, but it's ok that others do?
As for the Ford Diesel vs. gas turbos issues... What was the issue with the Ford Diesels, and who developed the motor? Was it the turbos? Or was is other parts?
I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from.
And I also can't see the connection between turbo diesels and turbo gas DI engines. They may appear to be similar, but they don't share a single thing. That goes to every OEM.
(and I'm not sure how I'm shouting. SHOUTING IS ALL CAPS. I'm just replying to your points)
In reply to alfadriver:
Apples to Oranges as far as the topic of this thread is concerned, but the Ford/Navistar PSD 6.0l was famously a flaming pile of crap. Was almost a roll of the dice for which part would fail each month: PCM, injectors, FICM, turbos, head gaskets, alternators, intercoolers, and most infamously the EGR valves and EGR & Oil coolers. Broken EGR coolers can lead to a hydrolocked engine, resulting in a whole lot of more fun stuff.
Wiki wrote: The early 6.0 L Power Stroke engines have proven to be unreliable, and speculated to have cost Ford hundreds of millions of dollars in warranty repairs. They led to many recalls and the repurchase of at least 500 trucks.
I'm pretty sure I read of a class action lawsuit for 6.0 owners a while back.
Yes, but the thing is that he will probably be quitting in a year, so then he'll own a truck he'll have to deal with. He should get $800/month, what I suggested to him was to get the smallest payment/longest term financing at 0% and then overpay the hell each month with all $800. In a year, that would be $10k off a $30k truck when all is said and done. So, he'd have a one year old truck that had $10k of depreciation taken off his hands by somebody else.
Sounds like a good idear. I think y'all have that side of things completely figured out. I cant offer anything specific on the other side (which truck to do it with) because i dont have the personal experience.
However, i will say i am not as scared of the ecoboost as some people in this thread are.
In reply to bigdaddylee82:
My understhe 6.0 issues was due to them being developed for ULSD when such fuel wasn't available here in the U.S. On our high-sulfur diesel, the internals gummed up something fierce and caused the myriad of problems that they were known for.
Well, that, and weak head bolts. And a bad high-pressure oil pump location that required pulling the cab to repair/replace.
But mostly the diesel thing.
To the guy who said the Ford has the nicer interior...really?
This: (bleh reminds me of the 80s) http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/14401127+w750+st0/129_0903_10_z+2009_ford_f150_fx4+steering_interior.jpg
vs This: http://www.2011chevysilverado.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-Chevrolet-Silverado-1500-Dashboard-Interior-Design.jpg
And the HD has the Tahoe/Suburban/Avalanche interior which is just gorgeous IMHO: http://www.web2carz.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2011-chevrolet-silverado/2011-chevy-silverado-interior-1.jpg
In reply to miatame:
Looking at those three pics, I'd much rather spend time in the Ford.
Ford has always used better materials in their interiors than the other domestics. Just the way I see it at least.
In reply to miatame:
I keep telling people that their taste in design is quite a bit more importan than their opinion of the powertrains. For the most part, they are all darned good- you'll not find a bad powertrain in all of them.
But spending the kind of time with the truck people do, personal taste should rank pretty high.
If you like the looks of the GM, particularly the interior get it. If a Toyota is the only way you can be comfortable, so be it. If the Armada speaks French to you so well, ce la vie. And if the Ford is the most attractive- well, get it.
IMHO, we worry too much about the powertrain qualities and too little how well the vehicles FIT YOU. It's your money, your eyes, and particularly, your body. Get the one that fits the best.
there is no reason to have more than 6 speeds unless your engine only has a powerband of 500 rpm. the top gear is already set to produce the lowest engine rpm's it can handle while still having enough power to drive at crusing speed. when a manufacturer goes from a 6 to 8 speed trans the top gear is the same ratio. the gears are added in between making more of a close ratio trans than the 6.
This was not the case going from the old auto 4sp to the new 6sp's, but is true in all other cases.
red5_02 wrote: Ford has always used better materials in their interiors than the other domestics. Just the way I see it at least.
That is worrying. Why do all new affordable cars have such cheap feeling nasty interiors? And why do none of them have it where you can put your elbow out the window?
Wow...I suggest you sit in a 2011 Chevy and a Ford. Hard plastic is not what I call comfy and inviting. The Chevy is full of soft rubbery plastics and high quality faux grain. The arm rest is even softer on the section your elbow rests on and all the buttons have a high quality feel (except the steering wheel volume control, I think they forgot about that one).
I drive my company Fords and can't wait to get back into my Tahoe.
Obviously opinions vary...but those that differ from mine...well they are wrong.
93EXCivic wrote: why do none of them have it where you can put your elbow out the window?
a higher beltline gets better crash results. not being able to hang your arm out the window helps prevent things like this from happening. http://www.kpic.com/news/local/128286878.html
You'll need to log in to post.
