Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

Drew Dowdell

Editor-in-Chief
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    55,847

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    524

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Drew Dowdell

  1. Drew Dowdell
    Lower octane will have the computer retard the timing a lot.
  2. Drew Dowdell
    I have to beg to differ on the cost of premium fuel. Most places around me at $0.20/gal difference per grade so that's $0.40/gal differece. I've seen places as high as $0.30/gal difference per grade. For my car with a smaller 15 gallon tank(lets say it empties for argument's sake) that's 6 dollars a fillup more. I drive right around 12,000 miles per year. At 24mpg that's 500 gallons at 26mpg that's 461 gallons. Let's just say regular unleaded is $2.00/gallon(it's been hovering right around it for awhile now, here at least). So premium would be $2.40/gallon. 500x2.0= 1000 461x2.4= 1106. You're not actually saving any money using the premium fuel you're just getting better mileage. So it's useless. Exactly! It's just hype and hoopla for the most part. If you're buying the truck for the Eco, you're not doing the planet any favors because FE gains are negligible. If you're buying it because you're a tightwad then you're gonna hate buying 91 Octane. If you're buying it for any other reason then you have no reason not to look elsewhere. Based on my personal experience and circumstances, a small diesel is the best way to be cheap and eco-friendly. Once again. The F-150, with either 2.7EB or 3.5 EB, does not need premium, nor is it the recommended fuel needed. One of the problems is... Every vehicle on the road is tested with premium fuel. I believe 93 octane. "The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend)." http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates It's a problem for believing the EPA certifications certainly.... but most vehicles should lose power/mpg at about the same percentage. When there is a much larger than average drop in power like the Mustang EB is showing, there is cause for concern.
  3. Drew Dowdell
    The Camaro has been winding down substantially over the last few months as they lead into the new model. The first Alpha Camaros just got delivered in the past 2 weeks. I heard the Mustang outran grandpa on his hover round too!!
  4. Drew Dowdell
    And that's with huge increases in incentive spending!
  5. Drew Dowdell
    The age of the Buicks are showing. I think all three sedans get replaced over the next year.
  6. Drew Dowdell
    and with that, I think this thread has completed it's usefulness for now.
  7. Drew Dowdell
    Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln. Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93.... Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln. Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93.... FYI, the Navi is 91 recommended to get the 380/460. And from what I've read, yes the PCM in the F-150 will take advantage of the better fuel - the guys in the F-150 forums say yes. Yes, when you mentioned it, I went and looked up the spec on the Lincoln Media Site. And that is probably at least partially the reason for the jump in fuel economy in the EX EL when I ran 91..... get the power sooner = get off the gas sooner.
  8. Drew Dowdell
    C/D's Lightning Lap Mustang was plagued by engine/power issues. They specifically ragged on it for being overly sensitive to fuel quality. I can only imagine what it would be like in a pickup or whatnot. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the only things I notice between 87 and 91 were a change in engine smoothness and a big change in fuel economy. But I wasn't drag racing any of these vehicles, so I couldn't tell you what 0-60 times were. I don't know what the max acceptable horsepower drop is, but I'd think 35hp is a bit much.
  9. Drew Dowdell
    Interesting. So they gave the regular tune to Ford and the premium tune to Lincoln. Makes sense..... I wonder if the PCM actually gives you back that horsepower in the Ford if you fill it up with 93....
  10. Drew Dowdell
    I wonder about The % drop for the GM 2.0L Turbo I4 Ecotec LTG Engine, since it too recommends Premium Fuel. Putting in 87 will retard timing, hurt power output and MPG. Same with GM's 3.0 and 3.6 turbos. And same thing with the 4.0L turbo V-8 coming too from GM.Hmmm As I said... I'm aware there is a power drop on lower octane fuel on pretty much all decently powered turbo engines (My Encore is 87 octane recommended as is the 1.5T from Ford, so I doubt there is any power drop there). A 9 horsepower drop like in the Fusion 2.0T is fine and well within expectations. The Mustang has a 35 hp drop, that seems fairly severe.
  11. Drew Dowdell
    I'm aware of this and trying to find the answer.... but the drop in the Mustang is rather a surprising amount. the Fusion 2.0T drops from 240 to 231 on 87 octane.... 9 horsepower is expected and acceptable on a turbo engine. The Mustang is dropping 35 hp, that is not insignificant.
  12. Drew Dowdell
    You really shouldn't have made me go look this stuff up. Apparently Ford expected the Mustang Ecoboost to lose 13% of it's power when running on regular instead of 93..... Power drops from 310 hp to 275 hp just by filling it up with 87 instead of 93? Does that mean the 400 hp MKZ will drop to 345 hp if I put 87 in it instead of 93?
  13. Drew Dowdell
    Edification? The Suburban has a 6-speed auto just like the Expedition EL. You're thinking of the Yukon with the 6.2 liter that come with the 8-speed. The EX EL only gets close to small V8 fuel economy if you fill it with premium. (Ex EL - 21mpg highway per EPA, Suburban 23 mpg highway per EPA). If you fill the Ex EL with regular, you'll get 17-18 mpg highway. Since you keep bringing up the 6.2 liter (shouldn't have done that), I went and looked up the fuel economy..... it BEATS the 3.5 EB rating of 15 city/21 highway/17 combined by 1mpg on the highway and does it on REGULAR GAS! So you're still better off with the 6.2 over the 3.5 EB. The GM 6.2 liter also has MORE horsepower (55 hp more) and MORE torque (40 lb-ft more), and still bests the EB in fuel economy! So the answer is pretty clear to me - Whichever needs you have in a large SUV: Get the V8. Every day driving with relatively good fuel economy? Get the 5.3. Need towing and good fuel economy without spending $$ on premium fuel? Get the 6.2. If you're towing over 8,100lbs regularly... well then you'll be stuck buying premium fuel 33 gallons a a time or getting 18 mpg on your commute to work in the EX EL.
  14. Drew Dowdell
    No, the transmission remains the 6-speed from what I've read.
  15. Drew Dowdell
    Yes, defensive. I stated that they get the same fuel economy ONLY IF the Ecoboost gets higher octane fuel of 89 or 91. The 5.3 does the job on regular. The Ecoboost could only manage 18mpg with me on 87 octane where as the Suburban reliably gets 21 - 22 on the same trips. Most people aren't towing ever, and even those who do tow will don't do so regularly. Someone who tows with one of these regularly is the exception rather than the rule. Largely, these are turnpike cruise ships and nothing more. Try not to focus on the feature that is unimportant to most consumers just to try and defend your product. For typical, mundane, every-day, vast majority use, the 5.3 is simply the better package here.
  16. Drew Dowdell
    Well their goal, like everyone else's, is to increase market share right? Increased sales lead to increased market share (doesn't always work out like that, but that is the goal). I think that is all the article was implying. Everyone wants to gain market share, but when you're already as big in the US as Ford, GM, and Toyota, there will only be small movements in either direction. Companies with smaller sales numbers simply have an easier time making bigger jumps (Subaru) because they cover fewer segments.
  17. Drew Dowdell
    More than half my time spent here is just trying to keep the peace (such as that is), I have to do what I have to do.
  18. Drew Dowdell
    Well... sales can be up and market share be flat at the same time. Flat market share is not flat sales. The wsj should know this.
  19. Drew Dowdell
    I hadn't even heard of it, so I dunno how widely promoted it was..... but I've been in a bubble the last few months.
  20. Drew Dowdell
    I know the numbers are there, but honestly I didn't feel it. It may come into play more when towing a trailer, but in my case of long distance turnpike running, it was simply a non-factor. I didn't feel either were noticeably better on acceleration, I prefer the NVH characteristics of the 5.3 and the fact that I get stated fuel economy on regular gas instead of mid-grade. Neither is bad, I just prefer the 5.3 for my usage cycle and I have thousands of miles in each to satisfy my own opinion. I give higher marks to other EB engines in other applications (Fusion 2.0t v. Malibu 2.0t for example). No need to get defensive if I prefer a non-Ford product from time to time.
  21. Drew Dowdell
    I've cleaned up all of the off topic crap. Some of you might want to take a second try at replying. I'm watching.......
  22. Drew Dowdell
    You might want to look at what ppl are getting in 2.7L EB F-150 vs 5.3 Chevy/GMC and 3.5L EB vs 6.2L Chevy/GMC. Oh there is also that 5.0L in the F-150 that puts out more HP/torque than the larger 5.3L Chevy/GMC while having higher payload and tow ratingsAnd maybe pop over to Motor Trend and look at their RealMPG section too. I've done thousands of miles in both Expeditions EL and Suburbans. My experience is that the 3.5EB in the Expedition gets the same fuel economy as the 5.3 in the Suburban..... IF you use mid-grade fuel in the Ford. If you use 87 octane, the fuel economy of the Expedition drops substantially. Sooo, the power of a big V8 and the fuel consumption of a small one. Not bad. " But the small-block’s 4100-rpm torque peak never provided the instant thrust of the Expedition’s boosted V-6, nor the pull we expected from its burly exhaust note. " Use too much of that instant thrust and you'll pay for it at the pump especially if you're filling up with the recommended 89 octane. It's either Eco or Boost... but not both at the same time. Sorry, I just got better overall results from the 5.3 than the 3.5 EB over 1,000s of miles in each.
  23. Drew Dowdell
    Just start thread banning people who talk about irrelevant crap for 5 pages in every thread. Throw that hammer 'round. <- That, that hammer.
  24. Drew Dowdell
    Do I have to bring out the Let it Go video again?
  25. Drew Dowdell
    My argument is if one need to put 20-25k on the hood of a limited edition car to move it, obviously it was a rip of to begin with. And take a look at the as tested price in the video. It clearly shows a 10k difference. So yes, it is IN FACT correct. They don't need to put the cash on the hood. The 20% off is only available to the 10% of the dealer's stock by age.... so the 10% oldest new vehicles on the lot get that deal and GM isn't excluding the Z28 from eligibility. Let's not act like this is a deal on Z28 Specifically, because it's mostly going to be on manual transmission Cruzes and 2015 Volts. Buick did something similar last year. My Buick dealer had a Regal Premium hanging around that hadn't sold. The bought it themselves turned it into a CPO car and sold it for under MSRP while still making a healthy profit. So good luck finding even a single Z28 out there that meets ALL of these criteria and ALSO hasn't been put through the dealer trick above. And you better act fast... the 20% off ends today. Theres 9 shown right here that range from $51,913 to $55,977 http://jalopnik.com/on-black-friday-go-buy-yourself-a-camaro-z-28-with-a-r-1744593201 9 in a search radius of 1,000 miles.... or 9 in 785,398 square miles. And it ends at close of business today.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search