lfeg Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 And people will ask what it stands for. "Well...it stands for a Ford division that hasn't existed for two decades". Reviving names from the past is fine.....when it makes sense. SVO - Special Vehicle Options Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Ford does watch this forum like a hawk, which is why I've been so careful to keep the identity of myself and my 'inside man' at Ford a very closely guarded secret, and to keep info leaks conservative and close to their public announcement. Can your guy get copies of the Erin Andrews videos? :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 SVO - Special Vehicle Options nope...flex fuel...Straight Vegetable Oil..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Fusion and Mustang will definitely get it. F-150... not 100% sure on that one. As people have mentioned here... F-150 is KIND of a big guy, and no matter how much boost you have, an I4 just might not achieve the efficiencies to make it worth the trouble. The 5 cylinder from Volvo may just be the ticket for F150...after it got the Ecoboost treatment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The 5 cylinder from Volvo may just be the ticket for F150...after it got the Ecoboost treatment I don't see Ford going there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I don't see Ford going there. me either....although isn't that the engine in the Focus RS?......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 A 2.5L EB might overtax the bottom end of the engine----close to, if not over 300hp in heavy load applications might break the engine. Just keep the rpm up. You don't need to red-line the engine. Just move the revs from 1300 rpm to above 2000 rpm. Modern day transmissions have lots of gears to make this posible without over reving the engine. Keep the revs below 3000 rpm and you won't waste fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The last guy to quote the Bible here? Pioneer. Yep. Don't think he knew he was doing it when he did, though. Nothing wrong with quoting the bible as long as you don't confuse the context of religion and science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 It'll work just fine in the right application. The truck we use at the dealership to haul body parts to the rural body shops is a 2003 GMC regular cab,long box, 2wd, with a 4.3L V6. That truck will never haul anything close to it's capacity. It just needs to haul the hoods,fenders,bumper fascias, etc. They're not that heavy but they take up space. You don't need 400hp to haul a refrigerator 8 blocks to the customers home. Will it work in a 4x4 Crewcab? No. I don't think it's intended for that. Very good point. I think Ford will try to cut some weight out of the F-150. Add in the weight reduction from using a 4 cylinder. I think it is posible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Just keep the rpm up. You don't need to red-line the engine. Just move the revs from 1300 rpm to above 2000 rpm. Modern day transmissions have lots of gears to make this posible without over reving the engine. Keep the revs below 3000 rpm and you won't waste fuel. and esactly HOW would THAt save gas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Nothing wrong with quoting the bible as long as you don't confuse the context of religion and science. tell that to Tom Cruise and the like.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 and esactly HOW would THAt save gas? Most cars today rev between 2000 to 3000 rpm 95% when under load. When not under load, then rpm is not an issue and the revs can drop to 1000 rpm. I don't see an issue of fuel efficiency. Unless you need to rev the engine to 6000 to get the power out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 tell that to Tom Cruise and the like.......... Tom Cruises beliefs are based on theory (Not Science) and not history. So it does not apply to the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Most cars today rev between 2000 to 3000 rpm 95% when under load. When not under load, then rpm is not an issue and the revs can drop to 1000 rpm. I don't see an issue of fuel efficiency. Unless you need to rev the engine to 6000 to get the power out of it. simple logic...raise revs at any given speed, consume more gas........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Haven't a clue, and I suppose it's not really relevant..... I thought I remember him stating that one time but you're right, not relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 simple logic...raise revs at any given speed, consume more gas........... Then you agree with me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 simple logic...raise revs at any given speed, consume more gas........... Not necessarily. If the engine has to do more work (ie generate more horsepower) to maintain a given speed at the lower RPM, it could very well use more fuel. If that wasn't the case, every car would be geared to run just above idle at highway speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Not necessarily. If the engine has to do more work (ie generate more horsepower) to maintain a given speed at the lower RPM, it could very well use more fuel. If that wasn't the case, every car would be geared to run just above idle at highway speed. you had to bring up diesels again didin't you....LOL! ...my point is i just DON"T fathom a 4 eco in BIG, HEAVY vehicles, the stress of inertia and having to rev to produce acceptable results would defeat ecos benefits...MPG's...and raising revs to counter the stress on bottom ends would also defeat the purpose....like I said, at least in a pickup sense, i would rather have a LARGE engine working easy than a small engine working hard.....and i have a feeling a majority of the buying public would agree....6 eco maybe, 4 NO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Tom Cruises beliefs are based on theory (Not Science) and not history. So it does not apply to the bible. wacked out theory.....and science IS application of theory last I checked Edited July 22, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 wacked out theory.....and science IS application of theory last I checked Yes, but theory alone isn't science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes, but theory alone isn't science. agreed....but one has to start somewhere I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devodev Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 It'll work just fine in the right application. The truck we use at the dealership to haul body parts to the rural body shops is a 2003 GMC regular cab,long box, 2wd, with a 4.3L V6. That truck will never haul anything close to it's capacity. It just needs to haul the hoods,fenders,bumper fascias, etc. They're not that heavy but they take up space. You don't need 400hp to haul a refrigerator 8 blocks to the customers home. Will it work in a 4x4 Crewcab? No. I don't think it's intended for that. I guess that's why the F100 rumors won't go away. OEs are really looking at how people actually use vehicles over what they just say they want, which is always tricky. Dealerships, Home Depot, etc. know exactly what they need so there's definitely a market for a decent sized 4cyl. truck. Plus CAFE rules or $3.50+/gallon gas will may create a market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 me either....although isn't that the engine in the Focus RS?......... Yes it is. Now, I don't remember what the future is for that plant. Before the announcement of the sale of Volvo, the 5-cyl was looking to be eventually phased out for the Volvo I4 (different animal from the MZR) and 3.2L I6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Not necessarily. If the engine has to do more work (ie generate more horsepower) to maintain a given speed at the lower RPM, it could very well use more fuel. If that wasn't the case, every car would be geared to run just above idle at highway speed. Yes. When comparing a 4.0L runing at 1500 rpm or a 2.0L running at 2000 rpm, I don't think you would see much difference in fuel consumption. Mean while a turbo 2.0L can kick out the same power at 3000 rpm as a 4.0L non-turbo. That gives you fuel savings. If you don't need power both engines will run at 1000 rpm. The days of 6000 rpm turbo 4's are over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes, but theory alone isn't science. You are more polite than what I was going to say. 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.