silvermike Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 GM and Dodge have it so Ford get it ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Problem is its cheaper and much easier with pushrod motors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 MDS is typically employed to boost steady-state (cruising) fuel efficiency while allowing the engine to retain high output (Chrysler's 340 hp Hemi, GM's 400 HP 6.0, etc) during acceleration. Not something you really need to worry about in any current Ford product (Mustang excluded, barely). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr511scj Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 GM and Dodge have it so Ford get it ASAP. Absolutely correct! Mercedes has been using cylinder deactivation on some of its "cammer" engines for years. "The first Mercedes models to appear with cylinder deactivation were the European-spec 1999 CL600, S600 and CL500. These vehicles were powered by either a DOHC 6.0 litre V12 or DOHC 5.0 litre V8." Furthermore, Ford ASAP needs to take better advantage of its SOHC/DOHC designs by adding VTEC-style variable cam and valve timing/phasing across the board. This would allow broader torque curves, lower throttling losses, and higher redlines. Again, each of these technologies are available now in other brands of DOHC engines and are a primary reason why DOHC can be technically superior to a same-size 2V pushrod mill. Ford also should make much greater use of forced induction (supercharging, turbocharging, "low pressure supercharging & turbocharging" or Miller Cycle, depending on the specific outputs necessary to be best in class) and E85 multifuel capability. They should also be doing "crash" development on direct injection, variable compression and intake valve throttling. Ford is way behind on both performance and fuel economy. These technologies would help on both fronts. Sure, it would cost more. NHTSA estimates costs as follows Variable Valve Lift & Timing: Fuel economy gain: 1.0%-2.5% Cost :$150-$350 per unit. Cylinder Deactivation: Fuel economy gain: 1.0%-4.0% Cost: $150-$450 Intake Valve Throttling: Fuel economy gain: 0.5% - 3.0% Cost $110-$400 Variable Compression Ratio: Fuel economy gain: 2.0% - 6.0% Cost $260-$350 These advanced technologies should FIRST be introduced not on loss leaders or fleet cars, as is often the Detroit pattern. Instead, they should be in showcased in halo performance models and in optional performance engines for mainstream sedans and SUVs (which are less price sensitive, generally purchased by more technologically-savvy customers who appreciate such advances in imports, and provide opportunites to maximize bang-for-the-buck), then trickled down to the more cost conscious mainstream models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang6172 Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Doesn't Honda use MDS on the Oddesy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Doesn't Honda use MDS on the Oddesy? Yes and the Accord Hybrid, and Pilot 2wd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.