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

Discussion in '3rd Gen - 2007 - 2017' started by 762mm, Oct 15, 2019.

  1. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Ultimate Member Supporting Member

    Posts:
    4,561
    Likes Received:
    1,828
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2019
    762mm likes this.
  2. Trainmaster

    Trainmaster Old School Member

    Age:
    53
    Posts:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    771
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Location:
    Rockaway Beach, NY
    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.
     
    762mm likes this.
  3. Muddy Bean

    Muddy Bean Full Access Members

    Posts:
    751
    Likes Received:
    413
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Location:
    Michigan
    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
     
    cullinan18 likes this.
  4. Black

    Black Full Access Members

    Age:
    36
    Posts:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    523
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Location:
    Kentucky
    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.
     
    762mm likes this.
  5. stewartsoda

    stewartsoda Member

    Posts:
    9
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    May 8, 2019
    Location:
    Idaho
    I'd take the EcoSport over that CRX in a crash anyday, though. New cars are heavier and much safer.
     
    cullinan18 and 762mm like this.
  6. Black

    Black Full Access Members

    Age:
    36
    Posts:
    1,210
    Likes Received:
    523
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Location:
    Kentucky
    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?
     
    762mm likes this.
  7. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Ultimate Member Supporting Member

    Posts:
    4,561
    Likes Received:
    1,828
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
    762mm likes this.
  8. jeff kushner

    jeff kushner Full Access Members

    Posts:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    949
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Location:
    Maryland
    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
     
    cullinan18 and 762mm like this.
  9. JasonH

    JasonH Full Access Members

    Age:
    41
    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    34
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2018
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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?
     
  10. JExpedition07

    JExpedition07 Ultimate Member Supporting Member

    Posts:
    4,561
    Likes Received:
    1,828
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
    Trainmaster, 762mm and f150dave2002 like this.

Share This Page