Also, is the 47 mpg is with four passengers and the trunk full of stuff going hwy speed?
And, as we saw first hand in Dearborn, they (Ford) are building mostly the tarted up model F150s as fast as they can. Makes no sense to me either.F150 pricing makes little sense to me. You can buy a less well equipped F250 for the same money as the lowest trim level available F150.
So the 47mpg would maybe drop to 44mpg if the car had 800 pounds of cargo in it? Which still has it getting double the mpg of most vehicles on the road, and this is supposed to make us TDI owners feel so triumphant why?jack is making a good point. Sure, newer gasoline powered cars do much better than they used to, but FE tends to drop more when loaded or driven harder.
I know I get tasked with driving a lot of different cars home and back, to give thorough test drives and get readiness to set after major work, even if I was not the one who did the job. And most all of them suck fuel down in a horrible fashion the way I drive. Just going by the amount the gauge drops, but still pretty obviously noticeably bad.
I replaced an engine in a Santa Fe, the standard 2.4L GDI bolted to the 6sp autobox. It was a shop trade in that we decided to fix and sell. I drove it to and from work for a week, and it netted an abysmal 22 MPG. And I didn't even drive it as fast as I drive my cars, kept it below 80 on the highway. That is a very popular vehicle. And this was just the FWD model. That is worse than twice the fuel consumption of my Golf. And I bet many Americans would consider that "good". I mean, it is a four cylinder, right?
I just finished and sold one of my project 2.slo Jettas, and it managed 24 MPG on its last tank with me. LMAO. At least it ran and drove well, and the new owner doesn't drive nearly as much as I do. I really think a lot of those cars' issue with bad fuel economy was the gearing. It screams along at nearly 4k RPM at 80. Which is ridiculous. I have often wondered what one would get with a TDI's 02J behind it.
I've had more fun behind the wheels of ~100 hp stickshift four banger beaters than just about anything with 3x the power.Wasn't a quick car, but not so horrendeously slow either. It was still kinda fun in its own way.
There absolutely is something to the adage: "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow."I've had more fun behind the wheels of ~100 hp stickshift four banger beaters than just about anything with 3x the power.
Had 'er pinned for almost 15 minutes!My wife an I used to "race" our rabbit Diesels and no one knew...
With the exception of Ram/Jeep. The 3 liter V6 diesel is spreading. In addition to the Ram 1500 and Jeep Cherokee, it will soon be on the lots in the Wrangler and Gladiator. So if you want a diesel SUV, there's your options. Of course that not the same as the Suburban or Excursion, but at least it is an option.Yes there are a few choices for fuel efficient relatively larger vehicles in the US and if I ask a question about how a certain gasoline powered vehicle operated under load is not to put down the gasoline engines, it is to get more date from people who have driven them under load conditions.
Ok, so gasoline engines have come a long way in the last decade or so. In the same way has light duty diesel engines have progressed (normalized to performance output vs efficiency under load). The availability of light duty diesel vehicles is just not here in the US so consequently we can say that gasoline technology is 'catching up' to light duty diesel engines. Well in a sense I agree, since light duty diesel engines are disappearing from our buying choices in the US so gasoline is ahead in this sense
Yeah, 40hp was the first three months of 1963 production. Then, they made all the US spec Transporters get the "ambulance" engine, minus the 12v electrics, which came in '67 to all ours as standard. So it was one of the last of its kind. '63s are also the last of the narrow rear hatch, and if it was a deluxe, the last of the wraparound corner windows.Maybe our first bus was a '63. I distinctly remember it was a 40 HP engine. But I don't remember a lot else. It was a long time ago.
A couple online automotive publications have driven/reviewed the diesel Wrangler in the last week. Must be getting close.Last I read Chrysler moved the launch date of the diesel Wrangler to "probably later this year." Gladiator is still scheduled for release soon. I think diesels in trucks these days more than ever are real when you see on on a dealer lot.
oilhammer, maybe our bus was a '64. It didn't have the narrow rear hatch. And it was a base version, with a walk-through. The '66 was a deluxe with with a full front seat. I gasp to think of what that van would be worth today in good condition.
So basically light duty diesel engines smaller than 3.0L range are pretty much non-existent nowadays in North America and in the foreseeable future!With the exception of Ram/Jeep. The 3 liter V6 diesel is spreading. In addition to the Ram 1500 and Jeep Cherokee, it will soon be on the lots in the Wrangler and Gladiator. So if you want a diesel SUV, there's your options. Of course that not the same as the Suburban or Excursion, but at least it is an option.