Comments on: Ford to improve fuel economy of heavy-duty pickups http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html Car news, reviews, and specs for the auto-industry Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jackjimturkey http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-350378 jackjimturkey Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:58:09 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-350378 Blakkarr: I'd like a bowler. Bryce: “I've never lost a sale over the rear axle ratio.” They day you GAIN a sale because of an axle ratio is the day you know the consumer has become educated. Good data later. I like conservative estimates. Veda: "US going around toppling dictators with some lies is insane.” Even more so, when you keep in mind that we’re also propping up other dictators. Blakkarr: I’d like a bowler.

Bryce: “I’ve never lost a sale over the rear axle ratio.” They day you GAIN a sale because of an axle ratio is the day you know the consumer has become educated. Good data later. I like conservative estimates.

Veda: “US going around toppling dictators with some lies is insane.” Even more so, when you keep in mind that we’re also propping up other dictators.

]]> By: 1c3d0g http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349694 1c3d0g Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:29:00 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349694 About damn time they focused on aerodynamics. But I agree, they need a smaller Diesel engine. Where's that damned 4.4L Diesel you've told us about, Ford? About damn time they focused on aerodynamics. But I agree, they need a smaller Diesel engine. Where’s that damned 4.4L Diesel you’ve told us about, Ford?

]]> By: SwerveEarly http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349293 SwerveEarly Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:58:28 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349293 Their truck trail GM gas/diesel and Dodge diesel in MPG. So this was a cheap easy fix. Anyone who cares was shopping around and opting for their ratio of choice anyway. Their truck trail GM gas/diesel and Dodge diesel in MPG. So this was a cheap easy fix. Anyone who cares was shopping around and opting for their ratio of choice anyway.

]]> By: jdasch1 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349291 jdasch1 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:53:28 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349291 Now add another gear or two to the tranny or a gear splitter and watch the MPG climb!! Now add another gear or two to the tranny or a gear splitter and watch the MPG climb!!

]]> By: lucklaster http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349280 lucklaster Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:53:19 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349280 It's good PR for Ford and for the salesman on the lot. They can say that they made some gain. It's during the product year - they can't do much - so why not make a tweak and claim something - better than doing nothing while they work on the next years'. It’s good PR for Ford and for the salesman on the lot. They can say that they made some gain. It’s during the product year – they can’t do much – so why not make a tweak and claim something – better than doing nothing while they work on the next years’.

]]> By: Veda http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349271 Veda Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:53:05 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349271 "The claim that changing final ratio will improve mileage by over 10% is as insane as comments about US invading oil producing countries." US going around toppling dictators with some lies is insane. “The claim that changing final ratio will improve mileage by over 10% is as insane as comments about US invading oil producing countries.”

US going around toppling dictators with some lies is insane.

]]> By: Blakkarr http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349269 Blakkarr Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:59:31 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349269 Autonut, You might find it interesting that by using a lower final ratio ever so slightly, they are using a bit more torque to overcome the trucks' mass and very lacking aerodynamic efficiency. This basically means, while slightly slower, and maybe acceleration is not a major concern for those who actually buy a super and heavy duty truck to actually work, it does allow the truck to more efficiently use its output to get and keep moving. While Some would like to imagine that that a bunch of trained monkeys just toss parts together to make a truck at FORD or any other company, they do have engineers who do try to do their best. Sadly, they are usually hamstrung by bean-counters and execs who don't really care until it is almost too late. I realize I did not say this before, but it didn't hit my until I get back to work. But surprisingly it doesn't take that much to get another mile or two per gallon out of one of those behemoths. Why they didn't do it before? We'd have to ask FORD, and they are talking about squat. Autonut,

You might find it interesting that by using a lower final ratio ever so slightly, they are using a bit more torque to overcome the trucks’ mass and very lacking aerodynamic efficiency.

This basically means, while slightly slower, and maybe acceleration is not a major concern for those who actually buy a super and heavy duty truck to actually work, it does allow the truck to more efficiently use its output to get and keep moving.

While Some would like to imagine that that a bunch of trained monkeys just toss parts together to make a truck at FORD or any other company, they do have engineers who do try to do their best. Sadly, they are usually hamstrung by bean-counters and execs who don’t really care until it is almost too late.

I realize I did not say this before, but it didn’t hit my until I get back to work. But surprisingly it doesn’t take that much to get another mile or two per gallon out of one of those behemoths. Why they didn’t do it before? We’d have to ask FORD, and they are talking about squat.

]]> By: kool_aje http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349261 kool_aje Thu, 03 Jan 2008 04:18:29 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349261 They just need Diesels. They just need Diesels.

]]> By: TOZO http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349248 TOZO Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:42:33 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349248 I hope they don't forget the light duties as well. I hope they don’t forget the light duties as well.

]]> By: autonut http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349244 autonut Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:31:12 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349244 Blakkarr, Ford's claims that changing rear axle ratio will improve fuel economy by 1.5 mpg or 10% of trucks consumption is as realistic as hyman within Paris Hilton. It's a myth, just like the one they were singing 5 years ago to environmental groups about getting green. Above mentioned truck are for working people to haul staff around and pull things, accelaration is very low on the list of attributes of working implements. Those trucks are working implements. And if it would be so easy to improve mileage by 10% or even 5% why not do it to the whole fleet of vehicles? Or at least provide it as an option. If in reality it will improve fuel consumption by .5 mpg it will be a miracle. In the same fashion Ford can lower ratio on the final drive gear of transmission(which is already overdrive). When you carry heavy load or pull something you are advised to cancel overdrive anyway. johnnycanuck, put it perfectly well. Blakkarr, Ford’s claims that changing rear axle ratio will improve fuel economy by 1.5 mpg or 10% of trucks consumption is as realistic as hyman within Paris Hilton. It’s a myth, just like the one they were singing 5 years ago to environmental groups about getting green. Above mentioned truck are for working people to haul staff around and pull things, accelaration is very low on the list of attributes of working implements. Those trucks are working implements. And if it would be so easy to improve mileage by 10% or even 5% why not do it to the whole fleet of vehicles? Or at least provide it as an option.
If in reality it will improve fuel consumption by .5 mpg it will be a miracle. In the same fashion Ford can lower ratio on the final drive gear of transmission(which is already overdrive). When you carry heavy load or pull something you are advised to cancel overdrive anyway.
johnnycanuck, put it perfectly well.

]]> By: Bryce http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349238 Bryce Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:51:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349238 This could be a pretty damn good selling point to Fleet and commercial customers. 1.5 MPG will never mean anything to the average consumer but add that to five or more trucks over 12- or 20,000 miles/year. The resuling savings could be well worth the purchase. Assuming five trucks averaging 13.5 MPG (instead of their original 12 MPG, hypothetically) and $2.79/gallon, at 12,000 miles that's $1,550 in annual savings and $2,583.33 at 20,000 miles/year. That's the type of inexpensive investment that will make me money. This could be a pretty damn good selling point to Fleet and commercial customers. 1.5 MPG will never mean anything to the average consumer but add that to five or more trucks over 12- or 20,000 miles/year. The resuling savings could be well worth the purchase. Assuming five trucks averaging 13.5 MPG (instead of their original 12 MPG, hypothetically) and $2.79/gallon, at 12,000 miles that’s $1,550 in annual savings and $2,583.33 at 20,000 miles/year.

That’s the type of inexpensive investment that will make me money.

]]> By: gbb http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349233 gbb Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:17:53 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349233 I had a '95 F250CC PSD with the 3.55 gear and later, a '99 with the 3.73. I never understood why they dropped the 3.55 ratio in '99 and went to the 3.73 as the std gear. The older truck with the 3.55 was easily 2 mpg better on the hwy than my '99 with the 3.73. Even the older 7.3 had PLENTY of torque to pull the 3.55 gear. The newer 6.4 had 650 lbs/ft of torque. I think it will pull a 3.55 gear pretty well. This is a good deal, practically a no brainer. I had a ’95 F250CC PSD with the 3.55 gear and later, a ’99 with the 3.73. I never understood why they dropped the 3.55 ratio in ’99 and went to the 3.73 as the std gear. The older truck with the 3.55 was easily 2 mpg better on the hwy than my ’99 with the 3.73.

Even the older 7.3 had PLENTY of torque to pull the 3.55 gear. The newer 6.4 had 650 lbs/ft of torque. I think it will pull a 3.55 gear pretty well.

This is a good deal, practically a no brainer.

]]> By: jonnycat http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349229 jonnycat Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:04:10 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349229 The 3.55's won't only affect acceleration times, they'll also lower the towing / hauling limits. What they should do is keep the 3.73's standard and offer a 3.31 as an option, so dealers don't accidentally order them, and Ford can have a MPG leader and towing leader. The 3.55′s won’t only affect acceleration times, they’ll also lower the towing / hauling limits. What they should do is keep the 3.73′s standard and offer a 3.31 as an option, so dealers don’t accidentally order them, and Ford can have a MPG leader and towing leader.

]]> By: johnnycanuck http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349228 johnnycanuck Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:02:43 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349228 This is like using a band-aid to close after open heart surgery. This is like using a band-aid to close after open heart surgery.

]]> By: corvette http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349225 corvette Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:53:57 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349225 i dont think ford could pull it off in time their going under fast they need a life line and they dont have one. i dont think ford could pull it off in time their going under fast they need a life line and they dont have one.

]]> By: Bryce http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349217 Bryce Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:35:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349217 Retail consumers side with Ford, GM, or Dodge because of looks, power, and loyalty (perception). If consumers understand that a 3.55 is standard and that they can still get a 3.73, 4.10, or 4.30, there won't be a problem. If consumers don't realize this, I imagine that there'd be a small backlash against Ford. But I've never lost a sale over the rear axle ratio. Retail consumers side with Ford, GM, or Dodge because of looks, power, and loyalty (perception). If consumers understand that a 3.55 is standard and that they can still get a 3.73, 4.10, or 4.30, there won’t be a problem. If consumers don’t realize this, I imagine that there’d be a small backlash against Ford. But I’ve never lost a sale over the rear axle ratio.

]]> By: LP640 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349213 LP640 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:18:33 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349213 ^Blakkarr those Bowler cars are wild ive seen them in action and theyre pretty cool. ^Blakkarr those Bowler cars are wild ive seen them in action and theyre pretty cool.

]]> By: Blakkarr http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349211 Blakkarr Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:12:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349211 Autonut, I guess it's because, as it was stated in the article, the Acceleration would be effected. this might point to a major reason why people bought trucks to begin with. Detroit stopped making cars with Rear-drive and powerful V8s in the early 1990s. Ford was the last hold out. It was the acceleration. Even Toyota tries to sell the Tundra on the basis that it's quicker. But if F/econ means trading a sec to sixty, while not effecting the the real reason to buy a truck, to haul stuff (and not so much haul "ass"), then I really wouldn't mind. Acceleration and speed fans will and do now have several cars that they can go to AND go further on a gallon of gas. I see trucks and SUVs being trimmed back. A return of Compact trucks and a major upsurge in Mid-sized trucks. Oh, something interesting... http://www.bowler-offroad.com/ Autonut,

I guess it’s because, as it was stated in the article, the Acceleration would be effected. this might point to a major reason why people bought trucks to begin with. Detroit stopped making cars with Rear-drive and powerful V8s in the early 1990s. Ford was the last hold out.

It was the acceleration. Even Toyota tries to sell the Tundra on the basis that it’s quicker. But if F/econ means trading a sec to sixty, while not effecting the the real reason to buy a truck, to haul stuff (and not so much haul “ass”), then I really wouldn’t mind.

Acceleration and speed fans will and do now have several cars that they can go to AND go further on a gallon of gas.

I see trucks and SUVs being trimmed back. A return of Compact trucks and a major upsurge in Mid-sized trucks.

Oh, something interesting…

http://www.bowler-offroad.com/

]]> By: Blakkarr http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349209 Blakkarr Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:04:56 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349209 LP640, Normally I would agree, but FORD and any truck manufacturer, has to make due with what they have coming down the line now. Unfortunately that means that they still have contract obligations that say they have to use the same gas-guzzling engines, the same needlessly overweight frames and bodies and so on for the next five to ten years. Besides, I'm sure that Toyota and GM will double their F/Econ in full-sized trucks before 2020. FORD will likely lead the way as they have no choice. They're mainly shooting blanks in the Car market. LP640,

Normally I would agree, but FORD and any truck manufacturer, has to make due with what they have coming down the line now. Unfortunately that means that they still have contract obligations that say they have to use the same gas-guzzling engines, the same needlessly overweight frames and bodies and so on for the next five to ten years.

Besides, I’m sure that Toyota and GM will double their F/Econ in full-sized trucks before 2020. FORD will likely lead the way as they have no choice. They’re mainly shooting blanks in the Car market.

]]> By: autonut http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349208 autonut Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:04:23 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349208 The claim that changing final ratio will improve mileage by over 10% is as insane as comments about US invading oil producing countries. If it is so easy (and it actually is) why Ford did not execute this last July to get better mileage for their 2008 fleet? On a satirical note: Ford may sell 100K F250 and F350 trucks would it make sense to work on final ratio of the rest of lineup? The claim that changing final ratio will improve mileage by over 10% is as insane as comments about US invading oil producing countries. If it is so easy (and it actually is) why Ford did not execute this last July to get better mileage for their 2008 fleet? On a satirical note: Ford may sell 100K F250 and F350 trucks would it make sense to work on final ratio of the rest of lineup?

]]> By: peter g http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349202 peter g Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:42:13 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-to-improve-fuel-economy-of-heavy-duty-pickups.html#comment-349202 Wow...That's not gonna be too hard, is it ;-) Wow…That’s not gonna be too hard, is it ;-)

]]>