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

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

762mm

Full Access Members
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Posts
639
Reaction score
388
Location
Quebec, Canada
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?
 
Last edited:

Traveler

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Posts
100
Reaction score
32
Location
Mesa AZ
I've been telling people the same thing for years

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

cmiles97

Full Access Members
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
457
Reaction score
191
Location
Tampa, FL
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

That One Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,509
Reaction score
3,119
Location
New York
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.
 
Last edited:

jeff kushner

Full Access Members
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Posts
2,332
Reaction score
1,275
Location
North of Annapolis
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

Full Access Members
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Posts
140
Reaction score
145
Location
flyover country
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.
 
OP
OP
762mm

762mm

Full Access Members
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Posts
639
Reaction score
388
Location
Quebec, Canada
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?

o_O
 
Last edited:

jeff kushner

Full Access Members
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Posts
2,332
Reaction score
1,275
Location
North of Annapolis
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

That One Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
6,509
Reaction score
3,119
Location
New York
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)
 
Top