 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / January 2008Forget Modular, Say EcoBoost?
Ford Motor Company is introducing a new engine technology called EcoBoost that will deliver up to 20 percent better fuel economy on half a million Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles annually in North America during the next five years. The EcoBoost family of 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder engines features turbocharging and direct injection technology. NoOp Comment: Gas prices go up; turbos come back in vogue. Compared with more expensive hybrids and diesel engines, EcoBoost builds upon today's affordable gasoline engine and improves it, providing more customers with a way to improve fuel economy and emissions without compromising driving performance. "EcoBoost is meaningful because it can be applied across a wide variety of engine types in a range of vehicles, from small cars to large trucks - and it's affordable," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president of Global Product Development. "Compared with the current cost of diesel and hybrid technologies, customers in North America can expect to recoup their initial investment in a 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine through fuel savings in approximately 30 months. A diesel in North America will take an average of seven and one-half years, while the cost of a hybrid will take nearly 12 years to recoup - given equivalent miles driven per year and fuel costs," he said. Ford will introduce EcoBoost on the new Lincoln MKS flagship in 2009, followed by the Ford Flex and other vehicles. By 2013, Ford will have more than half a million EcoBoost-powered vehicles on the road annually in North America. NoOp Comment: Please Ford, loose the "Flex" name! In 2009, Ford first will introduce EcoBoost on the Lincoln MKS featuring a 3.5-liter twin-turbocharged V-6. It will produce the power and torque of a V-8 engine with the fuel efficiency of a V-6. In fact, with an estimated 340-horsepower and more than 340 lb.-ft. of torque, the Lincoln MKS will be the most powerful and fuel-efficient all-wheel- drive luxury sedan in the market. NoOp Comment: The 3.5 is what Ford needs in the base Mustang, and soon. EcoBoost's combination of direct injection and turbocharging mitigates the traditional disadvantages of downsizing and boosting 4- and 6- cylinder engines, giving customers both superior performance as well as fuel economy. NoOp Comment: Direct injection R-O-C-K-S! Too bad we couldn't retro fit direct injection, or could we? With direct injection, fuel is injected into each cylinder of an engine in small, precise amounts. Compared to conventional port injection, direct injection produces a cooler, denser charge, delivering higher fuel economy and performance. When combined with modern-day turbocharging - which uses waste energy from the exhaust gas to drive the turbine - direct injection provides the best of both worlds: the responsiveness of a larger-displacement engine with fewer trips to the gas pump. Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, for example, can deliver upwards of 340- plus lb.-ft. of torque across a wide engine range - 2,000 to 5,000 rpm versus 270 to 310 lb.-ft of torque for a conventional naturally aspirated 4.6-liter V-8 over the same speed range. At the same time, this V-6 gives customers an approximate 2 mpg improvement and emits up to 15 percent fewer CO2 emissions to the environment. Direct injection coupled with turbocharging allows for the downsizing of engines that deliver improved torque and performance. A small 4- cylinder EcoBoost engine has the capability of producing more torque than a larger 4-cylinder engine - nearly an entire liter larger in displacement - with better fuel efficiency. The real-world fuel economy benefit is consistent no matter the drive cycle, meaning the engine is efficient in the city as well as on the highway - unlike hybrids, which are most efficient in stop-and-go traffic. In addition, customers who tow and haul - and have long turned to more expensive diesel powertrains for their superior towing capabilities - can find the engine performance they need from an EcoBoost powertrain. EcoBoost - combined with multi-speed transmissions, advanced electric power steering, weight reductions and aerodynamic improvements - is part of Ford Motor Company's strategy to deliver sustainable, quality vehicles that customers want and value. Additional hybrid offerings and diesel engines are planned for light-duty vehicles. NoOp Comment: Sounds like a plan. I read elsewhere Ford wants to cut its vehicle weights by 250-750 pounds. I say, about freaking time! Longer term, Ford plans to remain aggressive in the development of plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles. "We know that what will make the biggest difference is applying the right technology on volume vehicles that customers really want and value and can afford," said Kuzak. "EcoBoost puts an affordable technology within reach for millions of customers, and Ford's systems approach adds up to a big idea that differentiates Ford's sustainability strategy in the market." Patrick Maybe I'm getting ahead of things but does anyone else smell the death of the V-8 coming? > Ford Motor Company is introducing a new engine technology called > EcoBoost that will deliver up to 20 percent better fuel economy on [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > Patrick Not for me. I'm sure I have my little 5.4 till I'm dead and gone... :-) > Maybe I'm getting ahead of things but does anyone else smell the death of > the V-8 coming? [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >> >> Patrick I'm not talking about existing cars but new ones. Seems like they are going out of their way to say a V-6 with forced induction is as good as a V-8. The argument has merit but it just seems like the opening salvo in getting rid of them in future production cars. I personally would mind a Mustang with a turbocharged V-6 if it is done right and especially if it means the continuation of the pony cars. > Not for me. I'm sure I have my little 5.4 till I'm dead and gone... :-) > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >>> >>> Patrick > I'm not talking about existing cars but new ones. Seems like they are > going out of their way to say a V-6 with forced induction is as good as > a V-8. The argument has merit but it just seems like the opening salvo > in getting rid of them in future production cars. I personally would > mind a Mustang with a turbocharged V-6 if it is done right and > especially if it means the continuation of the pony cars. Well, with "Eco" in the name they are touting the performance of a V6 and the economy of a V6. Hmmmm... looking at the sheets the 4.0L V6 is rated at 17/26 (manual) vs the GT at 15/23... ok, so the V6 is a bit better on paper... in real life i think the numbers are even a bit closer, having owned both a 4.6 and a 4.0L... I know a number of guys with turbo'd S197 V6's... they are indeed extremely fun! Most of them are in the 360 to 400 RWHP range... with gobs of torque! LOL! But while a turbo'd V6 might have the performance of the V8, it will never get the plain sexy growl of the V8... You can make a V6 sound good... but it will be a V6 sound... With GM and Chrysler coming out with high HP V8's, i don't see how Ford could possibly drop the V8 out of the Mustang.... "John S." <fishinjts@netscape.net> wrote in news:99ee49ca-1bbd-4323- b8ba-da2a233eadfd@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: >> I'm not talking about existing cars but new ones. Seems like they are >> going out of their way to say a V-6 with forced induction is as good as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > With GM and Chrysler coming out with high HP V8's, i don't see how > Ford could possibly drop the V8 out of the Mustang.... Discontinuing V8s is nothing short of blasphemous IMO. V8s are one of the few things left that differentiate American makers from their foreign counterparts. Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s altogether and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. > "John S." <fishinjts@netscape.net> wrote in news:99ee49ca-1bbd-4323- > b8ba-da2a233eadfd@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the few things left that differentiate American makers from their > foreign counterparts. I smell the early 1970s coming up on us. Gas prices are high, global warming fanatics are whining, CAFE standards are increasing etc. If the Democrats get control of the White House and Congress then I say all bets are off regarding V-8s and performance vehicles, in general. > Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s altogether > and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? Don't speak too loud. They might hear you. > If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm ready to buy one today. If we can get that much range then hot rodding them is just a few resistors, capacitors and revised computer code away. >> "John S." <fishinjts@netscape.net> wrote in news:99ee49ca-1bbd-4323- >> b8ba-da2a233eadfd@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Democrats get control of the White House and Congress then I say all > bets are off regarding V-8s and performance vehicles, in general. I'd be worrying more about China and countries on that side of the world before I started worrying about Democrats. Fuel demands from over there will explode soon. Until that happens, the status quo will remain. I still think that global warming is overblown, and that there is plenty of fossil fuel to be had - it will just cost more to have it. Politics and business control the cost and flow of the oil spigot, and we won't be seeing radical changes any time soon IMO. They will keep the costs up just high enough to profit but just low enough not to invoke riots. >> Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s altogether >> and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? > > Don't speak too loud. They might hear you. Given today's technology, diesels are superior to gasoline engines in both power and economy. VW's Polo (Europe-only turbo-diesel) gets between 60 and 70 mpg. Who the hell needs hybrids with their eco- unfriendly, undisposable batteries? >> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. > > I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm ready to > buy one today. If we can get that much range then hot rodding them is > just a few resistors, capacitors and revised computer code away. Now you're sounding like my son with his electric RC cars. And you can't beat the torque curve on an electric... >>> "John S." <fishinjts@netscape.net> wrote in news:99ee49ca-1bbd-4323- >>> b8ba-da2a233eadfd@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > before I started worrying about Democrats. Fuel demands from over there > will explode soon. Until that happens, the status quo will remain. You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and try to get gas guzzlers taxed out of use? I think it will be high on their list. > I still think that global warming is overblown, and that there is plenty > of fossil fuel to be had - it will just cost more to have it. Politics > and business control the cost and flow of the oil spigot, and we won't > be seeing radical changes any time soon IMO. They will keep the costs > up just high enough to profit but just low enough not to invoke riots. Global warming is nothing more than a cash grab by scientists and government. They are trying to scare us all into letting them tax us even more and to dictate what we will be driving. They are panicking now because the weather data and new climate science is not supporting their fear mongering position that we are all going to die. IMO, the biggest reason we are paying $3.00/gal is a lack of refining capacity within our borders. We haven't built a new refinery in the USA since the 1970s. That is ridiculous. If the government would mandate a decent domestic refining capacity (and let them build the refineries) and require an increase of the on-hand storage amount of various petroleum products these price spikes would be a thing of the past, IMO. There is no doubt though that we need to stop using gasoline powered cars. The third world is going to suck up oil at a ferocious pace in the future and many oil exporting countries are close to being net importers because their economies are growing so fast. It's too bad our government is so inept to address this problem. There is no reason, IMO, that we shouldn't be well on our way to using renewable energy in a big way. >>> Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s altogether >>> and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > between 60 and 70 mpg. Who the hell needs hybrids with their eco- > unfriendly, undisposable batteries? Diesels are more efficient but a lot of that comes from the fuel containing more energy per gallon than gasoline. I'm not 100% sure but I think fewer gallons of diesel fuel can be made from a barrel of oil. Also, around here, diesel is a good bit more expensive than gasoline. Going diesel would be a stop gap measure, IMO. All electric cars is the end game. >>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm ready to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now you're sounding like my son with his electric RC cars. And you > can't beat the torque curve on an electric... The reason I mention the range is that enough electricity would be stored on-board to get some decent performance. Electric cars are like gasoline powered ones in that if you drive one hard the batteries die faster just like you would empty the gas tank faster. With range there will be more power on tap to make it perform better. Throw in a five minute recharge time and the line would form around the block for these cars. >>>> "John S." <fishinjts@netscape.net> wrote in >>>> news:99ee49ca-1bbd-4323- [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > to get gas guzzlers taxed out of use? I think it will be high on > their list. I think that whatever will turn a profit will be high on their list. Also, people are still buying Hummers, and SUV sales are going strong: http://tinyurl.com/2qd3sr >> I still think that global warming is overblown, and that there is >> plenty of fossil fuel to be had - it will just cost more to have it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > now because the weather data and new climate science is not supporting > their fear mongering position that we are all going to die. Indeed. Now, articles are surfacing indicating that the "global warming crisis" isn't what it's cracked up to be. Here is but one example: http://tinyurl.com/2mpm5n > IMO, the biggest reason we are paying $3.00/gal is a lack of refining > capacity within our borders. We haven't built a new refinery in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > various petroleum products these price spikes would be a thing of the > past, IMO. Bingo. Give this man a cigar. Michael, as you've so aptly pointed out, the current bottleneck is refining the crude into a usable product. > There is no doubt though that we need to stop using gasoline powered > cars. The third world is going to suck up oil at a ferocious pace in > the future and many oil exporting countries are close to being net > importers because their economies are growing so fast. That's exactly what I alluded to above. > It's too bad > our government is so inept to address this problem. There is no > reason, IMO, that we shouldn't be well on our way to using renewable > energy in a big way. Again, IMO the only reason we're not on that path is because the status quo is currently the most profitable for those in power. >>>> Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s >>>> altogether and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > gasoline. Going diesel would be a stop gap measure, IMO. All electric > cars is the end game. Even though it's a "Kid's Page", this is an interesting link that explains quite a bit about crude, refining, and petroleum products: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html Read carefully, however, because the 20-to-7 ratio of gasoline to diesel does not mean that a single barrel of crude will produce 20 gallons of gasoline _or_ 7 gallons of diesel. A single barrel of crude will produce 20 gallons of gasoline _and_ 7 gallons of diesel (amount other products, i.e., jet fuel, LPG, etc.). Another interesting fact is that a gallon of gasoline converts to 124,000 BTUs, and a gallon of diesel converts to 139,000 BTUs: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html Finally, here's a link that goes into why a barrel of crude provides what it does: http://tinyurl.com/3cfvkz >>>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >>> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm ready [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > five minute recharge time and the line would form around the block for > these cars. Agreed. IMO, the secret to all-electric viability is battery technology, which is advancing at an ever-increasing rate. Here is but one interesting link: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7128/ >>><snip> >> You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and try [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Also, people are still buying Hummers, and SUV sales are going strong: > http://tinyurl.com/2qd3sr I think the public will buy them now but they can be legislated out of existence through CAFE standards and/or a gas guzzler tax. >>> I still think that global warming is overblown, and that there is >>> plenty of fossil fuel to be had - it will just cost more to have it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > crisis" isn't what it's cracked up to be. Here is but one example: > http://tinyurl.com/2mpm5n That article doesn't really acknowledge how large a group the global warming skeptics have become. Many of the scientists the UN lists on their report are on the record now saying their data and conclusions were taken out of context. Plus, the peak warming year was 1998 and for the last ten years the data has flat lined (and actually started decreasing) and has not shown an increase. Many are predicting we are about to enter a cooling phase. This has occurred in spite of CO2 gases in the atmosphere increasing during the same period. The alarmist's own theory isn't holding true since they say the temperature goes up with increasing CO2 levels. >> IMO, the biggest reason we are paying $3.00/gal is a lack of refining >> capacity within our borders. We haven't built a new refinery in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Michael, as you've so aptly pointed out, the current bottleneck is > refining the crude into a usable product. Chalk it up to the environmentalists again. Between this and them preventing us from drilling in the Artic and off shore they are slowly strangling us. >> There is no doubt though that we need to stop using gasoline powered >> cars. The third world is going to suck up oil at a ferocious pace in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Again, IMO the only reason we're not on that path is because the status > quo is currently the most profitable for those in power. I think we are reaching the tipping point though. >>>>> Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s >>>>> altogether and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > what it does: > http://tinyurl.com/3cfvkz I know they can "crack" the molecules in certain ways to make more of whatever they need. Probably the rust bucket refineries we have can't be retooled to make huge amounts of diesel? One way or the other we are still buying crude oil. >>>>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >>>> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm ready [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > one interesting link: > http://www.gizmag.com/go/7128/ Actually, did you read about the new lithium ion batteries developed by MIT? They use some type of fiberous material that gives them ten times the storage capacity of current lithium ion batteries. Let's just hope the technology doesn't "disappear" and actually gets put into wide use. This would give a range of 1,000-2,000 miles on a charge instead of 100-200 miles! >>>><snip> >>> You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and try [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think the public will buy them now but they can be legislated out of > existence through CAFE standards and/or a gas guzzler tax. That might depend on this year's election... ;) >>>> I still think that global warming is overblown, and that there is >>>> plenty of fossil fuel to be had - it will just cost more to have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That article doesn't really acknowledge how large a group the global > warming skeptics have become. True - it's just one example. > Many of the scientists the UN lists on > their report are on the record now saying their data and conclusions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alarmist's own theory isn't holding true since they say the > temperature goes up with increasing CO2 levels. Like we've already said, it's presumpuous of our species to think we can affect the planet to that degree. Sure we can screw it up some, but Nature will always prevail. >>> IMO, the biggest reason we are paying $3.00/gal is a lack of >>> refining capacity within our borders. We haven't built a new [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > preventing us from drilling in the Artic and off shore they are slowly > strangling us. It's them and politics as usual. Sheesh - you'd think I turned Republican or something... ;) >>> There is no doubt though that we need to stop using gasoline powered >>> cars. The third world is going to suck up oil at a ferocious pace [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I think we are reaching the tipping point though. We'll most likely find out next year after the new president takes office. >>>>>> Following this thought process, why not get rid of gas V6s >>>>>> altogether and just go to turbodiesel 4-bangers? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Another interesting fact is that a gallon of gasoline converts to >> 124,000 BTUs, and a gallon of diesel converts to 139,000 BTUs: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html >> Finally, here's a link that goes into why a barrel of crude provides >> what it does: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be retooled to make huge amounts of diesel? One way or the other we > are still buying crude oil. I haven't found out why that ratio exists yet. Don't know if it's determined by demand or by the nature of crude. Still looking... >>>>>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >>>>> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This would give a range of 1,000-2,000 miles on a charge instead of > 100-200 miles! Is this it? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/battery-hybrid.html If this works, it will revolutionize life as we know it! >>>>> <snip> >>>> You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and try [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > I haven't found out why that ratio exists yet. Don't know if it's > determined by demand or by the nature of crude. Still looking... It looks like the typical yield is about 20 gallons from a 42 gallon barrel but I think this can be increased depending on the quality of the oil and how much "cracking" is done of the heavier molecules. Light crude makes more gasoline per barrel than dark crude. I know Standard Oil came up with "cracking" when the demand for gasoline increased in the early 20th century and just distilling it from crude oil didn't meet the demand. Cracking uses pressure and temperature to break the heavier molecules into lighter ones. >>>>>>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >>>>>> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > If this works, it will revolutionize life as we know it! That could be it be but I read something last fall about it. Maybe they have refined the process to create the batteries further and that is why it made the news a couple of months ago. I remember reading these batteries delivered 10X the power from the same size of conventional lithium ion battery. >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >>>> Another interesting fact is that a gallon of gasoline converts to >>>> 124,000 BTUs, and a gallon of diesel converts to 139,000 BTUs: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html >>>> Finally, here's a link that goes into why a barrel of crude >>>> provides what it does: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > oil didn't meet the demand. Cracking uses pressure and temperature to > break the heavier molecules into lighter ones. Pretty cool stuff, actually. Shining moments in Chemical Engineering. >>>>>>>> If I can't have a V8 I'd rather have an all-electric. >>>>>>> I want an all-electric that gets 250-300 miles a charge. I'm [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > these batteries delivered 10X the power from the same size of > conventional lithium ion battery. I'm going to keep looking. This is awesome stuff. >>>If this works, it will revolutionize life as we know it! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm going to keep looking. This is awesome stuff. Stop drooling and put your credit card back in your billfold. It is frequently about a decade between scientific discovery and volume production of product; more if gov't approval is needed, or if any group hires a lawyer to stop things.  SignatureCheers, Bob >>>>If this works, it will revolutionize life as we know it! >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > production of product; more if gov't approval is needed, or if any > group hires a lawyer to stop things. Bob, you're an idiot. Cheers back at'cha, bud. Joe <drinks@five.com> wrote in news:Xns9A21C2CD3198Enospamforme@ 216.77.188.18: >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> You don't think they will push for tougher mileage standards and [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > I'm going to keep looking. This is awesome stuff. Here are a few follow-ups... A123Systems - using MIT Nanotechnology for lithium-ion batteries: http://a123systems.com/ MIT Press release re Chevy Volt and A123systems: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/volt-0810.html Web article re A123systems - 1st of top ten startups: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/top-ten-list-a123.html Wiki page re A123systems: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:A123_Systems > Joe <drinks@five.com> wrote in news:Xns9A21C2CD3198Enospamforme@ > 216.77.188.18: [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > Wiki page re A123systems: > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:A123_Systems The 40 mile range for the Volt isn't too impressive. I didn't see much in regard to actual range for their automotive batteries. > Maybe I'm getting ahead of things but does anyone else smell the death > of the V-8 coming? Perhaps... read on... --- As if to emphatically underscore this transformation, GM announced last week that it had canceled plans to build a new double overhead- cam gasoline V-8 for its luxury cars that was scheduled for production in its Tonawanda, N.Y., engine facility beginning in 2009. Word is that this new engine was truly spectacular - delivering an outstanding combination of power, torque, smoothness and overall operating efficiency that rivaled anything out there in the automotive world. Now, it's only the first visible casualty in what will become a long line of fundamental changes as the automakers wrestle with the reality of these new fuel economy standards. V-8s in luxury sedans and sports cars will fade away except in the most exotic of applications, replaced by direct-injection V-6 and super-clean diesel engines. For example, the new direct-injected V-6 in the 2008 Cadillac CTS (which develops 304HP) will become the biggest engine available in a Cadillac by 2010. Gasoline V-8s in general will gradually be replaced by diesels, especially in full-size trucks and SUVs (ironically the Tonawanda plant will get to build GM's all-new 4.5-liter diesel V-8 engine that will see production in 2010). And V-6 engines will give way to 4-cylinders whenever possible. These changes will filter throughout every segment and manufacturer vehicle lineup across the industry, with engines getting smaller and the choices we're used to becoming far more limited in scope. --- Patrick > NoOptio...@aol.com wrote: > > Ford Motor Company is introducing a new engine technology called [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > > Patrick >> Maybe I'm getting ahead of things but does anyone else smell the death >> of the V-8 coming? > > Perhaps... read on... ....... and so it begins. > --- > As if to emphatically underscore this transformation, GM announced [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >>> sustainability strategy in the market." >>> Patrick Stinkin' top-poster... Seriously, we had this discussion recently, when NoOp first posted the news about this fantastic new V6 engine. I postulated that future Mustangs would offer two options - a base V6 and a high-performance V6. Now it's looking like a hybrid four and (maybe) the new six. Personally, I'm looking into a v-twin for Spring. Should get somewhat better fuel mileage than either of the Frogs. dwight >>> Maybe I'm getting ahead of things but does anyone else smell the death >>> of the V-8 coming? [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] >>>> sustainability strategy in the market." >>>> Patrick > Stinkin' top-poster... > > Seriously, we had this discussion recently, when NoOp first posted the news > about this fantastic new V6 engine. I postulated that future Mustangs would > offer two options - a base V6 and a high-performance V6. An long as the performance is there they can put a heard of hamsters under the hood. A Grand National type V-6 wouldn't be bad thing, IMO. > Now it's looking like a hybrid four and (maybe) the new six. > > Personally, I'm looking into a v-twin for Spring. Should get somewhat better > fuel mileage than either of the Frogs. Watch out because they may mandate training wheels for them soon. > dwight > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] >>>>> sustainability strategy in the market." >>>>> Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.