Comments on: Ford boosts fuel economy for 2009

By: tyler_is_aero_tt

tyler_is_aero_tt — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:29:18 +0000

No I care, I love ford, but it’s just that people always bash them around and don’t realize that they are improving and awesome. Mustang ‘10 all the way!

By: yarddog82abn

yarddog82abn — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:01:58 +0000

WOWW so my next Ford truck will get 13mpg from 12mpg i get now, let me tell you 36″ tire’s and a 6″ inch lift kit, it KILL mpg, and then when you tow a boat…. WOWWW 10mpg… Then again I can’t be crying about the price of gas if I’m playing with the big boys…

By: 02WRXPSM

02WRXPSM — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:52:19 +0000

swamprat: that would negate the actual money savings, because premium can be up to 10% more expensive than 87.

By: jimothy

jimothy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:10:16 +0000

JasonZ: The new EPA figures are out, and it looks like we’re both wrong. The figures are 14/20 for the 5.7L Hemi 2WD. You were correct about the 4WD figures, however.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=26068

By: jimothy

jimothy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:35:36 +0000

JasonZ: Those numbers are for the 2008 model. The 2009 models are significantly changed, as I stated in my comments, and will more fuel efficient. By how much remains to be seen. Personally, I don’t expect to see 17/23, which would be a huge jump in efficiency, but the numbers will be higher than 13/19. Dodge has assured the automotive press of that.

By: swamprat

swamprat — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:35:24 +0000

02WRX-

Maybe the detonation can be counteracted with mid-grade or premium gas.

By: 02WRXPSM

02WRXPSM — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:56:26 +0000

Tuning the computer a bit means actually cutting in to the safety margins and design tolerances that were present when the drivetrain was originally designed — THAT is why they haven’t done this until their backs are pushed against the wall. You WILL see shorter engine lifetimes and more reliability issues if they are just tweaking the ECU and not actually upgrading components in the motor. Many, many existing cars (including my WRX) run excessively rich while the motor is cold and tend to retard the spark when the A/C is on, also running rich. This is to prevent engine damage from microdetonation and keep the cylinder walls cooler; they are literally bathed with gasoline, which then evaporates, cooling the cylinder wall for a fraction of a second before detonation. If you start leaning out that part of the cycle, you can definitely save gas, but you also take away the safety margins for preventing detonation and lean conditions.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:27:00 +0000

What makes me laugh is that folks on these boards were talking like getting more MPG out of the domestics would take many years and chassis revisions. But wait Ford did it and didn’t change the chassis.
That leads me to believe that their whole range of vehicles have been inefficient for a very long time.

By: livelyjay

livelyjay — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:19:52 +0000

@MercMark: Great point, it is very easy to eek out 1 or 2 mpg with some tuning of the fuel maps. When I had a fuel computer in my Mazda I was able to get 2 more mpg combined out of it because the tune was really bad from the factory.

By: MercMark

MercMark — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:36:26 +0000

1 mpg is easy to do. lets see 5 mpg!

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:31:35 +0000

tyler_is_aero_tt: Speak for yourself. Maybe you don’t care, but the rest of the world certainly does. Don’t assume anything.

By: swamprat

swamprat — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:45:32 +0000

Caldwell may be on to something.

It will be interesting to see the difference in acceleration that will show up in road tests. In the 1970’s, cars had abysmal ratings because of fuel economy and pollution control requirements.

By: JasonZ

JasonZ — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:42:18 +0000

jimothy – ahhh, thats not correct. The Dodge EPA ratings are out and they are not 17/23. not even close.

The Dodge is only EPA-rated at 13/19 for 2WD, and 13/18 for 4WD models

By: jimothy

jimothy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:04:50 +0000

“More importantly, the F-150’s rating of 15/20 mpg city/highway beats out offerings from Dodge, Toyota and Nissan and ties General Motors for the top spot in full-size truck fuel economy.”

Official numbers aren’t out yet, but the new Ram is supposed to reach 17/23 MPG with improvements to weight, aerodynamics, and a more effecient Hemi. These numbers seem hard to believe, but we should soon find out. While Dodge hasn’t released numbers yet, they have said it’ll top Ford and GM.

By: dl_caldwell

dl_caldwell — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:21:12 +0000

It’s mostly in the software. Tune the engine for performance you will get performance at the expense of MPG, tune it for maximum efficiency and you will get less performance. Two years ago they where competing on 0-60 times, now it’s MPG. I’m amazed this surprises anyone…

By: A4

A4 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:58:43 +0000

wahhh why didnt you do it sooner
i didnt wonder it your just trying to piss on domestics as usual lln

By: tyler_is_aero_tt

tyler_is_aero_tt — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:51:59 +0000

Too bad nobody cares about Fords anymore.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:46:29 +0000

Well, not really. The possibility that we’re all descended from aliens makes me wonder. This is just a case of following the path of least (rolling) resistance.