@"the same mountainbike"
When the party ends there’ll be one heck of a mess to clean up. There’ll be used behemoths all over the used car/truck market. It’ll be Deja vu all over again.
The most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
I saw an article in one of the car magazines recently that said in general, Turbos aren’t the eco friendly gas saving thing manufactures are touting them as. They only get good mileage if you drive so as to not spin up the turbo. So you drive like it’s a tiny engine, 80bhp motor… you get gas mileage that a tiny engine 80bhp motor would get.
But if that was marketable, then you’d just see cars with a tiny 80bhp motor getting great fuel economy, cheaper and far simpler than these “eco-boost” turbo charged replacements for 6 and 8 cyl power engines. Of course, everyone wants more power than the tiny engine, so they don’t drive on “economy mode” most of the time - the turbo is spun up, boosting the power of the engine. However, at least according to the article, doing that actually uses more gas than a naturally aspirated engine that would produce that power. It ends up dumping extra gas to cool down the combustion chamber etc.
So now you have a more expensive engine, with more complications and things that can go wrong, that in the real world also uses more gas when not idling. If this is true, it means eco-boost style engines are a far more complicated proposition than the advertising of get better gas mileage.
I’ve never been a fan of turbos. I’d much rather just have a plain ole V6 without one. I imagine there will come a time when thats all you can get though.
Higher altitude folks probably appreciate turbos more.
My Cruz, with the Turbo 1.4 L engine just went past 114,000, and still runs like the day I picked it up. I’m still getting over 40mpg per tankful, and it’s not burning any oil. Yet, if I get into a situation where I need some oooomph, it’s there. I’ve no problems with Turbos, if used correctly.
But if that was marketable, then you'd just see cars with a tiny 80bhp motor getting great fuel economy, cheaper and far simpler than these "eco-boost" turbo charged replacements for 6 and 8 cyl power engines. Of course, everyone wants more power than the tiny engine, so they don't drive on "economy mode" most of the time - the turbo is spun up, boosting the power of the engine. However, at least according to the article, doing that actually uses more gas than a naturally aspirated engine that would produce that power. It ends up dumping extra gas to cool down the combustion chamber etc.
Which is why, @jp10558, I’ve always said the Ecoboost is a lousy choice for a truck actually used as a truck. If you use it a “poseurmobile,” driving around hauling air all the time…you might get the EPA rating, but once you start hauling (or towing, God forbid)…“you coulda had a V-8!” for all the gas you’re burning!
On top of which, my truck is my mealticket. I want it built as simply as possible, so that there’s very little to break. I’m a KISS principle disciple, and my two biggest concerns are dispatch reliability and minimzing downtime…and if I have to give up an MPG or two to get it, oh, well…
(But don’t forget, what the auto mfr’s are trying to do ISN’T to build cars that get good fuel economy: they want to build vehicles that “test well” on the EPA Combined test. A LOT of the priorities used my the auto makers revolves around “teaching to the test” in edu-speak.)
Joe, I think your last paragraph “nailed it”. Manufacturers are designing to beat the tests, and apparently they’ve found that the best way to do so is with small engines with turbos. Whether a larger engine naturally-aspirated drives better than a smaller engine with a turbo is almost irrelevant. The design that does best on the EPA protocols is the one that’ll get the nod.
I consider this current gas price situation a blip in the overall slope upward. I’m looking for a replacement for my '03 Camry and one of my top criteria is fuel efficiency. Two years ago the price of gas was what? What might it be two years from now? Or 10 when I still have the purchase I made during some anomalous period of low gas prices?? I’m betting it will be right back up there…
The people who use LPG, Propane, are REALLY getting ripped…The wholesale price is $0.45 / gallon. Retail price can be 3 or 4 times that number or even more, as with those 20# exchange tanks for $20
I have 2 propane furnaces and one oil burner in my house. A 500 gallon buried propane tank and a 275 gallon oil tank. I had both filled this week. Fuel oil was $2.69, propane $3.79.
Cha-ching!
Naturally, you can’t compare to wholesale prices when talking about delivering relatively small qtys to residential properties.
Kinda like the stock market. Buy a good MPG car now, while gas prices are low. Drive the cars very little so you’ve got a nice low mileage car. When gas prices dip, sell your low miles car for the same price you paid for it today.
Buy a full size truck/suv when gas prices are high, get them for a song. Only use it for a few errands to keep miles low. Wait for gas prices to dip again, ask for the price you paid for it new.
Back on the original topic…good news for Ford and its workers as demand for the new F150 is strong:
Near disney this week a shell station had the price posted at $5.89. I thought it was a mistake but that was the price on the pumps too. No one there. A mile away it was $2.16. Guess maybe too lazy to change and just waiting for the $200 oil again.
Fuel standards for trucks maybe a way of accomplishing two goals. Obviously making such a large segment of vehicles more efficient is one, which up until more recently then cars, has been immune from the same restrictions. I have heard from many of you that many cars are just too powerful for an inexperienced driver and just maybe, fuel standards might seem to at least, lecel off this trend. 300 hp has for a few years been the standard in trucks. I don’t see that line needing to move much farther north then that for half tons including intermediates. When you consider the handing deficiencies in trucks in general, I don’t see it as a bad thing from either point of view. Car makers have always found a way and it’s a small price to pay to keep the market a little more sane.
Again, Ford sales have taken off…IMho, again, good for them ! Innovation when done right should also be financially rewarded by the market. Let GM with their push rods and Toyota with it’s general complacency battle it out for second and last place with trucks.
My bro in law just handed his 19 year old truck over to his son for many more years of use. That can only happen in states like Georgia. Maybe, with aluminum bodies, it gives those of us in th rust belt, a little more of an opportunity to choose to " experience" that opportunity. Thank you Ford !
Besides, gas just took a .20 hike around here. It may have just been a temporary hick up in the oil markets benevolence towards we consumers. I am not counting on sub $2.50 prices for summer driving.
@Ken Green, You can thank our government for dealerships not being able to order trucks without ordering cars to match. CAFE standards are based on percentages of the mix of cars and trucks. If the market is smokin’ hot for trucks and cool for cars, Ford can’t allow the unfettered sales of truck because the government won’t allow it.