In reply to yamaha:
But that is why. The SHO motor is very capable of making +400lb ft.
In reply to yamaha:
But that is why. The SHO motor is very capable of making +400lb ft.
In reply to alfadriver:
Hmm, can you enlighten on how different the two are though? I know the F150 version has double VCT(or whatever they call it now) while the sho has single.
alfadriver wrote:ProDarwin wrote:FWIW, the new sticker calculation is based off 5 different tests, one of which goes up to 80mph. Totally insane driver, but still, 80mph. Or I should say *should* be based on 5 different tests. Either way, way, way. way closer than the Euro test is in predicting real world fuel economy.Tom_Spangler wrote: I'm also skeptical about the mileage. EPA numbers and real-world numbers rarely seem to coincide, especially in trucks.I think this has a lot to do with the "low" speeds seen in the EPA tests vs. typical highway cruising at 65-75mph. The large CdA of a truck is going to make the difference between 55mph and 75mph HUGE.
You are talking about the US06 test (http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm). It still has an average speed under 50mph, but is a useful addition to the test cycles. I don't know how the new set of tests is weighted/adjusted once all 5 results are in, but I'd imagine the US06 test still makes up a very low % of the overall number.
Agreed, it is much more accurate than Euro tests.
ProDarwin wrote:Tom_Spangler wrote: I'm also skeptical about the mileage. EPA numbers and real-world numbers rarely seem to coincide, especially in trucks.I think this has a lot to do with the "low" speeds seen in the EPA tests vs. typical highway cruising at 65-75mph. The large CdA of a truck is going to make the difference between 55mph and 75mph HUGE.
Yep. The only way I can get the 21 mpg my truck is rated for on the freeway is to keep it under 60.
In reply to ProDarwin:
Well, maybe the average is less than 50mpg, but the fuel economy of a car that isn't moving is pretty bad.
The top speed is high, and the drive cycle is abnormally agressive. So the reality is that the cycle will give numbers that are quite a bit worse than reality.
I've not personally done the calculation, but I do know that it's part of the 5 cycle test. Along with the 75, highway, 50F 75, and the SC03. Should be.
yamaha wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Hmm, can you enlighten on how different the two are though? I know the F150 version has double VCT(or whatever they call it now) while the sho has single.
F150 is a TiVCT and the SHO is an IVCT set up, sure. Even with that, the cams are totally different from each other. The Ti part was supposed to give more fuel economy, not power. And noting the peak power numbers, it doesn't give more power. The more torque is at lower speed, where it runs more boost- the iVCT motor CAN do that, but is torque limited to not do that.
Personally, I prefer the iVCT motor.
alfadriver wrote: I've not personally done the calculation, but I do know that it's part of the 5 cycle test. Along with the 75, highway, 50F 75, and the SC03. Should be.
It definitely is part of the 4 or 5 test setup they started in 08 (20F 75 btw). Yes, the cycle is much more aggressive than others.
What is not clear is how it is weighted now. It used to be that the highway number was multiplied by 0.78 and the city number by 0.9 to get the sticker #s. Then those numbers were also weighted 55/45 to get the combined #/
I have searched many times, but have yet to understand how the new system works :(
alfadriver wrote:yamaha wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Hmm, can you enlighten on how different the two are though? I know the F150 version has double VCT(or whatever they call it now) while the sho has single.F150 is a TiVCT and the SHO is an IVCT set up, sure. Even with that, the cams are totally different from each other. The Ti part was supposed to give more fuel economy, not power. And noting the peak power numbers, it doesn't give more power. The more torque is at lower speed, where it runs more boost- the iVCT motor CAN do that, but is torque limited to not do that. Personally, I prefer the iVCT motor.
What does TIVCT and IVCT stand for?
Good to hear the trans on the SHO hasn't failed. Unfortunate about the transfer case. Any idea if the failures were fluid related?
Back on topic....
Land Rover has used aluminum bodies for quite awhile. No problems there. I'm sure Ford has done their research in regard to how to properly care for aluminum in the long run.
In reply to alfadriver:
Gotcha, that actually makes sense.
ProDarwin wrote:alfadriver wrote: I've not personally done the calculation, but I do know that it's part of the 5 cycle test. Along with the 75, highway, 50F 75, and the SC03. Should be.It definitely is part of the 4 or 5 test setup they started in 08 (20F 75 btw). Yes, the cycle is much more aggressive than others. What is not clear is how it is weighted now. It *used to be* that the highway number was multiplied by 0.78 and the city number by 0.9 to get the sticker #s. Then those numbers were also weighted 55/45 to get the combined #/ I have searched many times, but have yet to understand how the new system works :(
Thanks for the temp correction- I found an EPA calculator spreadsheet that does all of the work for you. From the documents I found, the US06 is itself broken into a city and a highway part. The city part is 11% of the city fuel economy, whereas the highway part is apparently 70(odd)% of the highway number. Which does make sense, since the HWY test is very easy and generates very high numbers.
I didn't run any numbers in it- I can, but any data I get, I can't post anyway....
edit- BTW, have you ever seen a US06 run? I have yet to see an actual driver who drives that badly. I know they exist, but are rare.
In reply to Xceler8x:
IVCT = Intake only variable cam timing TiVCT = Twin independant Variable Cam Timing.
alfadriver wrote:ProDarwin wrote:Thanks for the temp correction- I found an EPA calculator spreadsheet that does all of the work for you. From the documents I found, the US06 is itself broken into a city and a highway part. The city part is 11% of the city fuel economy, whereas the highway part is apparently 70(odd)% of the highway number. Which does make sense, since the HWY test is very easy and generates very high numbers. I didn't run any numbers in it- I can, but any data I get, I can't post anyway.... edit- BTW, have you ever seen a US06 run? I have yet to see an actual driver who drives that badly. I know they exist, but are rare.alfadriver wrote: I've not personally done the calculation, but I do know that it's part of the 5 cycle test. Along with the 75, highway, 50F 75, and the SC03. Should be.It definitely is part of the 4 or 5 test setup they started in 08 (20F 75 btw). Yes, the cycle is much more aggressive than others. What is not clear is how it is weighted now. It *used to be* that the highway number was multiplied by 0.78 and the city number by 0.9 to get the sticker #s. Then those numbers were also weighted 55/45 to get the combined #/ I have searched many times, but have yet to understand how the new system works :(
No, never seen one run. I'm not in the industry. Most of my knowledge of this stuff stems from a few powertrain classes in college (Kettering) where we had to replicate these tests mathematically using BSFC + chassis data for the vehicle. I've seen a few drivers that are probably that bad, but very few.
Can you share the spreadsheet you found or documentation that specifies how they are weighted? Was any of that public info?
In reply to Xceler8x:
IDK about fluid related, the only cases of the failures I've heard of were 2010-11 cars that were over 400whp and saw consistant use at the drag strip(or douche street drivers). To be honest, it was probably due to brake boosting at the line or some type of added launch control. Haven't heard of any failures recently or with the '12+, so who knows. Doesn't seem to be like the 96-99 v8 cam issue....so I would surmise it hasn't been a fault of the design this time....just abuse.
In reply to ProDarwin:
It's public- google this "5 cycle fuel economy calculation"
And assuming that google doesn't bias my searches, the second one is an Excel file from the EPA. The first one is the description of how the calculation came about. But the second one will interest you. Being that it's an actual spreadsheet, it's not a normal link, so I don't want to put that link here for fear it not getting posted (message boards are supposed to not like files like that).
If that doesn't work, I'll try to figure out a different way. But it is an EPA file, and since I could get to it, public info.
yamaha wrote:Xceler8x wrote: The Ecoboost 3.5 has 365 hp and 420 ft lbs in the F150. A bit less torque in the Taurus SHO. Supposedly because the trans can't handle that torque output.The transmission/transfer case can hold the torque, its just the differences between the two's packaging. Transverse vs Longitudinal mounting often means the only thing in common is the long block.
Or put another way, it's a lot easier to stuff coolers and space to flow air out of them in an F150 than there is in a Taurus.
The lowest rated Ecoboosts are also the ones with the worst cooling/no oil cooler.
Alright, well this is pretty darned cool. Ford ran a 2015 F150 2.7T disguised as a 2014 in the Baja 1000 and drove it straight from Mexico to the NAIAS in Detroit.
They stamped out 2014 bodies in aluminum to run as prototypes to hide in plain sight. 
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/2014-detroit-auto-show/2015-ford-f-150-baja-1000-prototype-ford-snuck-in
Thats actually pretty awesome 
Yep. The only way I can get the 21 mpg my truck is rated for on the freeway is to keep it under 60.
I was just reading one mag last night that tested the 3.0 ram on cruise control at 75mph for 300 miles and got 28.5. Then they went back out and went slower and got 31.x.
They stamped out 2014 bodies in aluminum to run as prototypes to hide in plain sight.
Well that explains why the panel fitment looks like E36 M3.
Vigo wrote:They stamped out 2014 bodies in aluminum to run as prototypes to hide in plain sight.Well that explains why the panel fitment looks like E36 M3.
It doesn't look much different than the oem truck......only the gap between the hood/fenders is large.
Vigo wrote:They stamped out 2014 bodies in aluminum to run as prototypes to hide in plain sight.Well that explains why the panel fitment looks like E36 M3.
Which panels looked like they didn't fit? or which pictures of that article are you referencing to?
I would not have been able to tell, especially since the car was covered in dirt, and generally modified to run an off road race like that. If they were one off aluminum stampings, they were really good.
In reply to alfadriver:
I think he's trolling for the sake of having of trolling.....unless the complaint is the hood/fender gap. They're all that way for whatever reason(possibly heat extraction)
I would guess it is from them stamping aluminum on steel molds, or if the truck was in an alteration they could get the hood up.
Remember it was a functional prototype, not a fitment model.
In reply to Flight Service:
Still, what isn't fitting? The truck looks good to me.... maybe I have low standards.
panel gap on the hood is a little wide. That could be the standard but I doubt it.
In the end if the gap is even is more important that it being wide.
Yup, just trolling, about how the gap from headlight to fender grows along the top, about how the grille is closer to the pass headlight than the driver one, how the hood to fender gap on the pass side looks like ass, how the grille is closer to the valance on the driver side than the pass side.
I was just making a joke since it wasnt built to look right, but now i'm surprised how many of you cant see it! Aren't we the same group of people that's supposed to be able to spot a previously wrecked used car?
You'll need to log in to post.
