a turbo 2.7 liter diesel does a superb job propelling the Dodge (Mercedes) Sprinter vans, which are a good 1/2 to 3/4 ton, and can pull 27MPG while doing it..
That is not a "quick" model. It gets 27 MPG in some opportunities, but it's not going to do that in a 3/4 set up, crew cab, pulling a good size trailer. Nor are you going to see the endurance.
It's not a package that is attractive to the general public. It's economical from a business stand point, but don't expect to get there quickly.
My friend that has one, lost a crank in his at 40k. Yeah, everyone has problems.
Products ultimately have to be bought by consumers. They also have to pass US EPA and DOT restrictions.
I'd love to see a diesel Focus Wagon, but my singular demand, along with the substaintial increase diesel prices lately, won't cause Ford to bring it here nor make the the EPA allow it here under EU specification.
As it is, ethanol is getting bigger. If we can't stop that government mandate from happening, how can we expect to get something to happen for the private sectors customers?
Fancy technology on a brand new car = expensive. I dont see why people buy new "economy cars" that have a high initial cost, when you can buy a slightly less efficient used economy car for just a few thousand. It just doesnt compensate and is cheaper to get the car with less mpgs
I think the problem is that no manufacturer wants to take the risk of not offering the 300+ HP cars when that's still what's popular. They risk losing sales to the competition. If all the manufacturers did this at the same time then they'd be able to take the risk.
I think they should put a lot more effort into multiple displacement engines, capable of running on 2,3, or 4 cylinders during less power need situations. It's a good technology but needs some more improvement. Maybe instead of multiple displacement since it's sometimes prone to headaches with the design, concentrate on multiple cam profile engines like a reverse version V-tec or VVTLI, at cruise situations the cam profile changes to economy mode etc.
I was reading a really interesting 80s article about Ford's displacement on demand efforts. They had it working pretty well on a straight 6, however it transpired that gains on EPA highway cycle were rather small, due to the constant acceleration and deceleration not allowing the system to stay active, and remember this was aimed at a transparent "consumer grade" system where a driver wouldn't really notice the system kicking in and out. I don't think the EPA highway test has changed much in character, and the EPA numbers are the ones that the manufacturers have to play by, so within the contraints of consumer acceptable NVH and the EPA tests, DOD is probably not terribly cost effective to a manufacturer for the relatively small advantage on the EPA numbers. However, ford was saying that in steady speed running they were seeing 30-40% economy improvement. I think actually that this is something of a problem with many efficiency improvements, that they don't show strong enough on the EPA test cycle and also they may make compromises in smoothness and driveability that the average consumer is not willing to accept. These factors are worthy of consideration in evaluating "why they don't do it at the factory" for particular modifications. Ergo while DOD combined with a sympathetic driving style can give good improvements, it's application to production cars is going to be limited. It's getting even worse, now the EPA does harsher "more realistic" car abuse for it's testing, a lot of "steady speed" economy improvements will fall by the wayside. This you might notice is why some vehicles only get the EPA mileages with reasonable driving, and others get several MPG above on long runs.
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
Back in the day they had more integrity I think, I've got some old Popular Science mags, in one is a review of the diesel Chevette, 0-60 in 27 seconds, and they managed to find some nice things to say about it and gave it a review appropriate to target market.
exactly 0-60 in 5 miles
when i pull out on the highway, it sound slike im really flooring it and when you look ive managed ti get 25mph... it does take about 30 seconds to get to 60. but once your in 4th gear going 35-40 and you WOT it(opens up the
2nd barrel) it takes off
now going from that 1.6L to a 2.2L in my s-10 the truck seems like a damn rocket...
Good point...that bike was a choice SD26
No I don't need that fast of a bike for the street.
I can't say too much in my defense, but I did honestly downsize from a 750cc sportbike.
The 600cc Honda appealed to me for looks, handling, ride, longevity, maintenance, build quality, and at the time - price. FE was slightly considered. It is not published, but I assumed it was decent with the fuel injection and 600cc displacement.
I take it on 'sport rides' with other riders for fun and do some track days. Which was also a big part of that choice.
Here in Southern California I can ride a fun bike most of the year as my daily commuter and still get better FE than any stock car sold today.
Could I do better ? Sure
Since the time of purchase I have tried to be more 'green' in all of my lifestyle. Now it is more of a financial decision to keep it. When I replace it, FE would be more of a consideration.
When I purchase any vehicle, I do not need the fastest, biggest or most powerful thing out there. The truth is that it sells cars, which is what the manufacturers are in business for. Now that gas costs a lot more, mpg is more of a selling point. We'll see if the market will bear it.