Is all the "fuel saving" tech really worth it in the long run?

[762mm]

Well ladies and gents, this is not a question per se, but rather a thought experiment: with all the computer modules cars & trucks have these days on internal combustion engines (some Mercedes have over 100!), is it really "worth it" in terms of long-term fuel savings vs. long term ownership costs?

It occurred to me this morning that all the b.s. in my 5.4L (variable valve timing, 3 valves per cylinder, rotating cam phasers, etc) plus all the other "improved tech" (electronic throttle body, "lifetime" fuel filter you can't change, etc) designed at saving fuel will actually cost me way more in ownership costs in the long run than the extra gas would've.

If this 5.4L was designed as simple & bulletproof as a V8 engine from the 80's or even the 90's, would it be drastically worse on fuel? Having owned vehicles from that era, my answer is that the difference would be minimal in reality. In the long run, all this EPA-appeasing tech is hitting everyone hard in the pocket... (long term vehicle owners)

Case in point: today a lot of vehicles are scrapped not because of bad engines, transmissions or differentials anymore, but because of bad modules or other electronics going haywire... which can cost thousands to diagnose and to replace, often exceeding the value of an older vehicle. This is especially true if a vehicle has been flooded - modern cars are an automatic "total loss", because of the cascade electronic failure that will ensue shortly, even if the vehicle runs "ok" at first.


Thoughts?

 

[Traveler]

I've been telling people the same thing for years

Sent from my moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL) using Tapatalk

 

[cmiles97]

Vehicles all last longer now than ever. Remember the cars from the 70s & 80s with odometers that only had 5 digits? 100,000 miles was zero again. Cars that went 100,000 miles back then were rare. Now folks drive them 200,000 and more.

Although I agree there are many manufacturers that are terrible once they get above 80,000 miles with reliability, there are many others that do it with ease. It's not just electronics.


25 Cars That Can Take You to 300,000 Miles
https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/cars-can-take-300000-miles.html/

 

[JExpedition07]

While I agree to a point today’s vehicles are different animals. I agree start/stop and such is useless but there is useful tech too. An 80’s or 90’s V8 would take 30 seconds to get the 6,000 pound Expedition to 60 MPH with its 170 horsepower and suck 9 MPG in the process. Trucks are a lot heavier these days, and as such need more engine. Just compare the 5.4 2V to the 5.4 3V, variable cam timing gives you more power, it’s not all for fuel economy. 50 extra horsepower and extra torque with a broader curve.

If you really want to put it to the test throw 8,000 pounds behind an old 5.0 Windsor Bronco then try it again with the 5.4L Triton. One will be pegged at redline and crawl, one will go up in 3rd or 4th gear and you won’t hear it over the radio. Give me a call if the Windsor doesn’t make it up the hill and you need me to tow your trailer and truck to the top lol.

 

[jeff kushner]

I still have a Turbonator in the box if anyone wants to increase the mileage in their Jeep by 55%!!


jeff

 

[jeff kushner]

762, the cars today are all built on a network, a computer network. So think about it, the network in your office gets info from a bunch of places, or more likely allows info to be accessed from a bunch of places....same thing in your car, all those sensors, all those PE/EP/A/D Pnuematic/electric & analog to digital.....and like computers, more info yields better data points to make tuning adjustments from.

Here's the math result..........IF and it's a big IF...but if everything works as designed, the system will contain costs(better mileage) while meeting pollution standards........if they don't work as designed, neither goal will be met.

Are they worth it over my '80 Chevette? Not a chance................


jeff

 

[grumpyoleman]

Remember too that the by product of better efficiency is that we get far more HP per drop of fuel than we used to. I had a 1996 F250 with the big 460. it was the ultimate Ford gasser at that point. That monster had a whopping 245 HP and 400 ft lbs of torque, oh and don't forget about 11 MPG on a good day. Now I drive a large SUV with a … all purists gasp … V6 that has 375 HP and 470 ft lbs of torque and gets 20 MPG +/-. Worthwhile investment in technology to me.

 

[762mm]

All interesting points, thanks! The engine HP and torque argument is certainly valid, but that's only applicable in certain situations. As an example, most people who drive an Expedition don't tow much with it. It's primarily a family hauler, at least out here. But it is true for other vehicles that are used more for towing.

As for regular daily drivers, the extra HP is nice, but not all that necessary because of speed limits and traffic in most places. Manufacturers use it as a selling (marketing) point, but you could get around with a basic pushrod engine back in the 90's too. It just took a few seconds longer to get going, lol. Fuel economy was worse for sure, but maintenance to keep the car on the road was much simpler. They used much less plastic in the engine compartment back then and so parts tended to last longer too.

On the topic of internal combustion engines, I personally think we are now at the pinnacle of what can be thrown at them for efficiency. The next step will be electric motors, with a whole new set of serviceability problems. The days of the DIY mechanic are just about over... and those new electric cars, once they age a bit, will become just as disposable as 3 year old cell phones. The vast majority will not make it past the 10 year mark before they are scrapped (speaking from experience, we had a few "hybrids" at work that gave up the ghost waay too early). Now that's eco-friendly, isn't it?

 

[jeff kushner]

I think you are right and wrong about the future 762.....yes, IC engines will come to an end, enjoy it now. The problem us guys here have with electric is that as Electric is rolled out, it will be loaded with AI and other tech but WE will never own one. I personally believe that the goal will be leased/shared cars. You will pay per mile but will never own the vehicle in which you ride.

Just my guess based on indicators....


jeff

 

[JExpedition07]

Here is a direct comparison on Fords large V8 in the nineties and your 5.4L 3V engine. 5.8L Windsor vs 5.4L 3V Showdown!

5.8L Windsor (1997):
Horsepower- 210 Horsepower
Torque- 325 lb ft

5.4L 3V Triton (2010):
Horsepower- 310 Horsepower
Torque- 365 lb ft

*(320 horsepower and 390 lb ft on E-85)

 

[JExpedition07]

Now take into account a typical truck the 5.8 came in. A 1995 Bronco has a curb weight of 5,000 pounds. An Expedition has a curb weight of 5,800 pounds. My EL comes in at almost 6,200 pounds. The 5.8 Windsor would be so taxed to move the vehicle compared to the 5.4 it’s fuel economy would be abysmal. And that is unloaded.

 

[Trainmaster]

Lots of trade offs here. Technology has helped in many ways and hurt in others. Some fuel efficiency tech is good and has reached great levels of reliability in spite of its complexity. Fuel injection and efficient mixture monitoring and control are examples. Less fuel in the crankcase, better mileage, less pollution.

Some technology is just plain stupid and not worth the additional cost/wear/reliability. Some costs us performance.

There's a cost/reliability/benefit balance that has to be judged, and the judge of this should be the user, and the manufacturer, not the government.

Luckily we can still purchase a car with a gas engine or a clothes dryer with a mechanical timer. But often technology for the sake of fixing things that aren't broken is just stupid and costly. It's up to the buyer to determine what work for him and to vote with his money.

 

[Muddy Bean]

1 horse power.
Feed it grass.
Let it poop.
Ride it.

I mean how far do we take the argument that new tech isn’t doing anything for us. Embrace it or fight it. I love my 2015 with power everything frankly. Works for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Black]

Ethanol and added emission components are the problem.

My buddy had a 1989 Honda CRX that had a 1.5L (if memory serves correctly) and that thing would get 50mpg all day long and if you tried would get 60mpg on the highway.

Another buddy had a 1997 Honda Civic think that was a 1.6L and that thing would get 40mpg

My buddy got a Ford EcoSport as a loaner yesterday with a 1.0L turbo and it is rated at 28mpg combined.

We are 30 years of technology and science later and most of our Hybrids are not even getting 2/3s the mpg these vehicles were getting.
And to top it off those little Honda motors were quite low on the emissions charts.

 

[stewartsoda]

I'd take the EcoSport over that CRX in a crash anyday, though. New cars are heavier and much safer.

 

[Black]

I'd take the EcoSport over that CRX in a crash anyday, though. New cars are heavier and much safer.

Alright
My 92 Mustang with the 2.3L weighs in at 3069 lbs and the 2020 EcoSport with the 1.0L Ecoboost gets weighs in at 3125.

I’d see 30 mpg around town and could easily get 35 on the Highway keeping it at 70.
The EcoSport gets 28 combined.
Almost 30 years later and we have gone backwards?
What other science and or technology has gone backwards in nearly 3 decades?

 

[JExpedition07]

Alright
My 92 Mustang with the 2.3L weighs in at 3069 lbs and the 2020 EcoSport with the 1.0L Ecoboost gets weighs in at 3125.

I’d see 30 mpg around town and could easily get 35 on the Highway keeping it at 70.
The EcoSport gets 28 combined.
Almost 30 years later and we have gone backwards?
What other science and or technology has gone backwards in nearly 3 decades?

Our problem is ever tighter emissions, the more we choke the motors the less MPGs. I hear you, I remember my grandmother went from a big 90s Buick with the V6 that got high 20s for mpg to a 4 banger cruze. It got worse MPG than her boat buick all while being newer and lighter with a smaller engine.

 

[jeff kushner]

I bought the last new dishwasher with a mechanical timer......for 79 bucks but I won't fight auto tech, it's too intoxicating for those that grew up with computers, DOS 2.0, The Brick etc. Yes, today's cars are far above the 80's or earlier. 100,000 miles back then meant an alternator, water pump and maybe a starter, today, nothing is replaced in most cases inside the first 100,000 miles. It's also true that in bikes, we broke the 100hp per liter barrier in the late 70's with the '78 CBX........which is very close to what our 3.5's produce nearly 40 years later.....BUT it does it much safer, cleaner, smoother, more reliably and more comfortably then ever before.

Enjoy it while it lasts because I can promise you, it will change.....


jeff

 

[JasonH]

Our problem is ever tighter emissions, the more we choke the motors the less MPGs. I hear you, I remember my grandmother went from a big 90s Buick with the V6 that got high 20s for mpg to a 4 banger cruze. It got worse MPG than her boat buick all while being newer and lighter with a smaller engine.

I thank God for emissions tech. I would rather not be poisoned from leaded gas and NOx. The ICE needs to die. It converts under 40 percent of fuel into locomotion. Electric motors are over 90 percent efficient. Y'all can keep your horse drawn buggies and fume spewing deathtraps. I want the car from 100 years in the future that go 1000 miles on a puff of air and never wrecks, with a 200,000 mile service interval. People always want to go back to some good ol' day that never really existed. My question is...which decade?

 

[JExpedition07]

I thank God for emissions tech. I would rather not be poisoned from leaded gas and NOx. The ICE needs to die. It converts under 40 percent of fuel into locomotion. Electric motors are over 90 percent efficient. Y'all can keep your horse drawn buggies and fume spewing deathtraps. I want the car from 100 years in the future that go 1000 miles on a puff of air and never wrecks, with a 200,000 mile service interval. People always want to go back to some good ol' day that never really existed. My question is...which decade?

Why do you drive an Expedition then? They only come with a turbocharged V6 or V8........both larger engines that consume more fuel. You are on the wrong forum my friend. I’ll take my Expedition over a Tesla any day, I’ll make a bet on which driver survives between the 4,000 pound Tesla and 6,000 pound Ford in a collision. Elon doesn’t have enough steel to overcome physics when that big boxed frame rail comes knocking! Also not having to wait 2 hours for a charge and having a 525 mile range with my 34 gallon tank full of poison is great.