The 2017 Eco-Boost vs V8 Bench Racing / Whining thread

[MMC Racing]

This topic sucks

 

[MMC Racing]

This topic sucks

 

[6gun]

This topic sucks

Ya, but not as hard as twin turbos.....or maybe a turbo upgrade.....

 

[MMC Racing]

Ya, but not as hard as twin turbos.....or maybe a turbo upgrade.....

I already have twin turbos.

 

[abrown]

They should make it gerbil powered, two big spin wheels in the bed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Icecobra]

The EPA has almost nothing to do with fuel economy numbers here are a few facts..

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975, in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo and were intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) produced for sale in the United States. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), requires that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) establish standards separately for passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks) at the maximum feasible levels in each model year, and requires that DOT enforce compliance with the standards. DOT has delegated these responsibilities to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Through EPCA and EISA, U.S. law (49 U.S. Code § 32919) also requires that "a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards".

You want to really know why FORD and others are trying to increase the average MPG of there fleet with CAFE standards..

In 2006 the rule making for light trucks for model years 2008–2011 included a reform to the structure for CAFE standards for light trucks and gave manufacturers the option for model years 2008-2010 to comply with the reformed standard or to comply with the unreformed standard. The reformed standard was based on the vehicle footprint. The unreformed standard for 2008 was set to be 22.5mpg.

To achieve the target of 35mpg authorized under EISA for the combined fleet of passenger cars and light truck for MY2020, NHTSA is required to continue raising the CAFE standards. In determining a new CAFE standard, NHTSA must assess the environmental impacts of each new standard and the effect of this standard on employment. With the EISA, NHTSA needed to take new analysis including taking a fresh look at the potential impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and assessing whether or not the impacts are significant within the meaning of NEPA.

NHTSA has to issue its new standards eighteen months before the model year for fleet. According to NHTSA report, in order to achieve this industry wide combined fleet of at least 35mpg, NHTSA must set new standards well in advance of the model year so as to provide the automobile manufacturers with lead time enough to make extensive necessary changes in their automobiles. The EISA also called for a reform where the standards set by the Transportation Department would be are “attribute based” so as to ensure that the safety of vehicles is not compromised for higher standards.

Here is the kicker..

The estimated value of the CAFE exemption gained by Toyota is $2.5 billion; Honda’s benefit is worth $0.8 billion, and Nissan’s benefit is valued at $0.9 billion in reduced CAFE compliance costs. Foreign companies gained $5.5 billion in benefits compared with the $1.8 billion that went to the Detroit Three.

So the answer is Government subsidies and how much uncle sam is going to pay them for getting better fuel economy in the fleet of cars and trucks it sells...

The EPA is just not involved in this surprisingly..

 

[FullAuto]

Screw that.

Steam power is the only choice. Steam tech has been around for over 2000 years so its tried and true.

You talk a lot of shit on here for someone who doesn't even own a Raptor.....

 

[Steele16]

My work truck is a 14 Ecoboost with factory raptor tires on it and my raptor has 37" Projects on it. The Raptor gets better fuel mileage, accelerates harder, and tows better than the EB. I'm not a believer.

 

[ARH1956]

They wont care if it proves to be 100x more reliable than the 6.2.

Turbo-charged motors due to the added components and complexity have never been more reliable than their NA counterparts. So it seems unlikely the Ecoboost motor will be as reliable as the 6.2, but 100X reliable, really? While both engines have been reliable, the current 3.5L V-6 Eco has had more issues than the 6.2L.

 

[FullAuto]

Wow man….. I made my last comment on another thread about you before I read any of this. I guess you just don’t get it. You sir are the ******.

Lets be honest here, everyone would STILL be butt hurt with a smaller v8. Why? Because 4.0 or 5.0 is smaller than 6.2, simple as that. Its a machoism thing around these parts.

People dont care that the NEW ecoboost has more power or torque. They wont care if it proves to be 100x more reliable than the 6.2. They dont care if it sounds amazing with an aftermarket exhaust. They dont care to take a bunch of weight off the front end of their trucks.

People rag on guys with big trucks and say they are compensating for something. Well, this whole crying about the ecoboost vs the 6.2 because its a smaller motor doesnt help that argument one bit.