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

Drew Dowdell

Editor-in-Chief
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    56,001

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    547

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Drew Dowdell

  1. Drew Dowdell
    The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5 It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens. A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed. I don't remember, is the Mustang 2.3 EB a flex fuel vehicle? If so, it should do really well on E85... enough to make a difference. Negative. No FF. Although there exists conversion kits for other engines, I imagine somebody thought to include the I4, amongst the many other upgrades. Or is FF considered a downgrade. That's a shame... had they built it to handle E85, they probably could have put an E85 tune into it and gotten over 350 hp. SAAB was working on engines like that before they died the first time. Engines that produced a lot more horsepower and better fuel economy running on E85 and then would dial it back to more conventional levels of HP when running on 87. I think it was a 310hp 2.0T on E85 back in 2006 or something.
  2. Drew Dowdell
    Per unit costs are likely the lowest for GM at the moment because they have more vehicles to spread the costs over. Ram doesn't have any SUV to share the truck parts with and the Ford F-150 is quite different from the SUVs at the moment, so component cost sharing there would be lower. This could very well change in the future as the FoMoCo SUVs switch over because they have fewer brands to maintain, but I imagine the additional parts cost (not the marketing cost) of producing a GMC is very very low.
  3. Drew Dowdell
    The Mustang is the new 2.3 Ecoboost, not the 3.5 It's mostly about avoiding PI and knock. Compression ratio is a big factor too in how much retarding happens. A 2.3L is about 11:1 CR if I recall, whereas a 3.5L is only 9.7:1 CR, and minimum retarding is needed. I don't remember, is the Mustang 2.3 EB a flex fuel vehicle? If so, it should do really well on E85... enough to make a difference.
  4. Drew Dowdell
    Keep in mind that in some models, the TDi trim was 30% of sales. Jetta, Golf, and Passat were three of the top sellers that sold about that rate in the past and now 30% of that volume is essentially gone. Jetta and Passat are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best sellers in the VW lineup.... so that is a huge chunk of their biggest sellers.
  5. Drew Dowdell
    Lower octane will have the computer retard the timing a lot.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!!
  8. Drew Dowdell
    And that's with huge increases in incentive spending!
  9. Drew Dowdell
    The age of the Buicks are showing. I think all three sedans get replaced over the next year.
  10. Drew Dowdell
    and with that, I think this thread has completed it's usefulness for now.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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....
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. Drew Dowdell
    No, the transmission remains the 6-speed from what I've read.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.......
×
×
  • 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