"...is built in Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Engine #2 plant in Cleveland, Ohio. A slightly modified version for the Ford Five Hundred entered production at the Cleveland #1 plant in 2004."
As for small diesel engines, of course no american manufacturer have any engine developed. Diesel is a EU disease, based on higher taxes on gasoline. Keep in mind that a turbo diesel in city traffic will have a short turbo life.
In US the diesel is more expensive than gasoline. And gasoline costs 1/4 of what costs in EU. Oh well, on the flip side we don't have subsidized health care... yet.
I used to say that comfort doesn't matter when i was young and diving max 20km a day (in a country next to yours). Now I am older and drive a short commute of... 70km. I used to drive to work at some point even 3 hours daily. Comfort (seat, suspension) now is a must. My boss's brand new Audi A6, after three hours drive made me regret my comfy Taurus.
Last week I drove a rental 2012 Impala. 3.6L V6 direct gasoline injection, variable valve timing... 300HP. A dream.
Last edited:
1970s I was in a Gas station near Nice filling up my beater (story there but we'll skip it), and there was a taxi driver next to me who was washing his engine compartment with a hose. It was a "big" Fiat. Nice and shiny, well loved, good tires. "Nice car," I said, and we started talking. He had almost 500,000 k on the engine, never had a breakdown, he said. He changed the oil and filters every week and religiously did what the manual told him to do, and spritzed engine most times when he fueled. Clean engine, everything torqued just right.
Was he mad? No. He was doing @ 120 - 200 miles of city driving a day in a dusty place. A real pro.
Dejan,
Dejan, I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to russian/warpac military hardware (long story). The Yugo T-84 is in fact an export grade T-72 made under licence with some upgrades.
Export Grade means for example the Yugo T-84 for example lacks the composite Armour of the Sov/Warpac T-72's (the polish made T-72 are also "export grade" like this, as where all the Iraqui T-72/Lion of Babylon Tanks) and some other advanced features. This means the Yugo T-84 is basically a poor cousin to a real T-72/T-90.
The Ukrainian T-84 is based on the Soviet T-80 and mainly changed the Gas Guzzeling Gas Turbine for an even more powerful but more efficient Diesel engine, replaced certain soviet/russian sourced parts with ones of Ukrainian manufacture (I believe the two countries had a bit of a falling out in the 90's), changed the type of composite armour and fixed the main weakness of the original T-54/55/64/80 series the lack of extra armour for the Ammunition compartment.
The T-72 was basically an "Infantry Support Vehicle" while the T-80 was meant to counter the US Abrams M-1...
BTW, Pakistan bought Ukrainian T-84, India Russian T-90. So I expect we can see the battle-field evaluation of both in the near future. Though to be honest, there seems to be something about being muslim and commanding tanks that invariably leads to defeat.
Anyway the Yugo T-84 and the Ukrainian T-84 only share the Label, but otherwise are as different as Tubes and Solid State.
In part. Winning wars takes a winning combination of actual strength, military and civilian intelligence, quality and quantity of weaponry, quality and moral of troups, logistics, strategy and a dash of luck.
The British generally think it was because the colonists where quite unsporting in the way they conducted war... Like hiding and using "hit and run" tactics instead of coming out on an open field and fight like men...
The British did learn from that and since that debacle developed some of the most excellent anti insurgency tactics, no tanks needed, only Gurkah's. Very unsporting though, very unsporting.
Ciao T
Dejan, I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to russian/warpac military hardware (long story). The Yugo T-84 is in fact an export grade T-72 made under licence with some upgrades.
Export Grade means for example the Yugo T-84 for example lacks the composite Armour of the Sov/Warpac T-72's (the polish made T-72 are also "export grade" like this, as where all the Iraqui T-72/Lion of Babylon Tanks) and some other advanced features. This means the Yugo T-84 is basically a poor cousin to a real T-72/T-90.
The Ukrainian T-84 is based on the Soviet T-80 and mainly changed the Gas Guzzeling Gas Turbine for an even more powerful but more efficient Diesel engine, replaced certain soviet/russian sourced parts with ones of Ukrainian manufacture (I believe the two countries had a bit of a falling out in the 90's), changed the type of composite armour and fixed the main weakness of the original T-54/55/64/80 series the lack of extra armour for the Ammunition compartment.
The T-72 was basically an "Infantry Support Vehicle" while the T-80 was meant to counter the US Abrams M-1...
BTW, Pakistan bought Ukrainian T-84, India Russian T-90. So I expect we can see the battle-field evaluation of both in the near future. Though to be honest, there seems to be something about being muslim and commanding tanks that invariably leads to defeat.
Anyway the Yugo T-84 and the Ukrainian T-84 only share the Label, but otherwise are as different as Tubes and Solid State.
In part. Winning wars takes a winning combination of actual strength, military and civilian intelligence, quality and quantity of weaponry, quality and moral of troups, logistics, strategy and a dash of luck.
The British generally think it was because the colonists where quite unsporting in the way they conducted war... Like hiding and using "hit and run" tactics instead of coming out on an open field and fight like men...
The British did learn from that and since that debacle developed some of the most excellent anti insurgency tactics, no tanks needed, only Gurkah's. Very unsporting though, very unsporting.
Ciao T
Last edited:
I am at a loss to understand how is a poorly made chassis, which flexes a lot, "fun" to drive ???
In my view, exactly the opposite is true - a stiff, unwerving chassis is fun to drive because you can do things with it that you couldn't do with a flexing one, from immediate response to cornerning to general handling.
As an example, when purchasing my bodywork from Zastava, I specifically ordered the FIA Group 4 racing version of the chassis. Outwardly, it looks exactly the same as the standard one, but it has reinforcements all over the place, and is incomparably stiffer than the standard one. This was then taken to a colleague who did further stiffening of it.
Originally, the back wheel suspension uses a transversly mounted two leaf spring and shock absorbers. This was replaced with a custom 4 leaf spring, designed to act progressively, which was not forged, but cold rolled instead, preserving the natural material flexibility. The shock absorbers were shortened and stiffened. The end result is that the back side NEVER has opinions on where to go, but faithfully follows the front part of the car. But it also helps make the car a lot harder overall, in terms of suspension. I carefully avoid the word "comfortable" because this car is as comfortable as a plank.
The only thing done to slightly offset this is that I used front seats from a Peugeot 207, which are very comfortable even if with poor side support, but do make this car at least livable in.
Frankly John, comfort is achieved at the expense of stiffness, it will make for a more relaxed ride, buit at the cost of cornering and overall handling. Since the Yugo is quite small, it is naturally more nimble than a larger car, and it has been made to turn on a dime; but larger cars naturally corner better (all other things being equal) than a small car, so the trick was to make it corner better with no wobling, no nose under or oversteer.
So, do tell, how is a wobbly car more fun to drive than a nicely stiff car?
Frankly, it may be news to Ford USA, but that type of engine has been made in Europe by everybody and their dog for at least 15 years now, in mostly 4 cylinder form, as is the European norm.
Ford Europe itself, as far as I am aware, no longer has a SOHC 8V engine on any of its models, they are all DOHC 16V 4 cylinder models. Looking at Ford's literature, I also noticed that the 3 litre V6 DOHC 24V engine is no loner being offered by Ford, although a version of it is still offered as Jaguar's netry level engine. Ot's all 4 cylinder now, the top models being turbo blown to deliver up to 240 bhp at the moment, and a more powerful version (eastimated to have 270...280 bhp) is in the works, or so Ford says.
The only odd man out is FIAT's latest 1.4 litre MultiAir angine, which is a 4 cylinder, 1.368 cc angine with just one OHC, but still 16V - it is offered as turbo blown only in several version, ranging from 120 to 170 bhp, in various FIAT, Alfa Romeo and Lancia models. It is said to develop around 10% more power with a fuel consumption drop of also about 10%, and was voted Europe's Engine of the Year last year. And their 2 cylinder, 1 litre, turbo blown engines was Europe's Engine of the Year this year.
So the 5 litre V8 Ford has for the Mustang, which is a brand new engine as far as I know, technically speaking is news in USA only - even if very welcome news. By European standards (and this in no way refelects its technical prowess), it is very much a latecomer; BMW has scrapped their V10 as used on M5, and generally all its V8s except for the 4.4 litre DOHC engine, which is now trubo blown to deliver over 500 bhp.
Even Opel, GM's most succesful European chapter (now joined with Chevrolet Europe, as GM obviously wants to make Chevrolet a world brand), has also dropped its large V6 engines, except for a 2.8 litre version, also turbo blown, and delivering 325 bhp in their sporty OPC line, with - news for Opel - four wheel drive as standard.
I imagine Ford will have a turbo blown version of the 5 liter engine for a new Shelby version of the Mustang, hopefully more seriously made than the last version, which I think was a flop overall. I would expect around 550 bhp from it, or more.
Here in the UK diesel costs more than petrol but since an equal diesel engine uses substantially less fuel than a petrol well over 50% of new cars are diesel.
The thing is a perfect petrol engine can only ever be 15% efficient while the perfect diesel would be 45% efficient.
In Europe BMW has just introduced the M550d: 376hp, 0-62mph 4.7sec, 545lbft of torque, limited to 155mph and 48mpg (combined)!
The other good thing about a diesel is that even redlined on the motorway it will still produce its motorway mpg because it does not rely on spark plugs and no fuel can leave the cylinder unburned.
Even Ferrari acknowledged that eventually a diesel engine will be inevitable.
As for short turbo life spans in town traffic 100 000s of european taxis and my own 18 year old city-driven Audi TDi prove you completely wrong.
Finally when it comes to tanks there is only one contender: The Leopard II.
The US army is licensing its 120mm smooth bore and the carcass for the M1A1 from Germany but decided on different tracks which tend to come off and an engine which advertises its whereabouts to every decently equipped opposing force (the reason the swiss bought Leopards instead of Abrams, they are not stupid) and makes it an unmissable target.
Also the german tank transporter uses the same engine as the Leopard which is handy at times of war when you can choose which to keep running.
(I learned this from a US-made documentary about modern battle tanks btw
The israeli tank came 2nd, the Abrams a distant 3rd)
dvv,
We can't explain why some older sports cars are so much fun. They are. Unless you have found that twisty fall road or autocrossed one, you will never know. It is about a machine that is tuned to make the most of what it is and that rewards you for using it. You have to DRIVE them. On the other hand, driving a Pinto quickly was like having lower intestine troubles. Driving a modern super car on public roads is no more exciting than driving a Camery. They are too good. You just sit there and point it. I can't get the most out of my wife's 98 Honda on public roads without going to jail.
Modern turbos last fine. Just ask any over the road trucker.
No tank is a match for a Warthog or Cobra.
Not sure about that 15-45 comment. I would love to see a reference.
We can't explain why some older sports cars are so much fun. They are. Unless you have found that twisty fall road or autocrossed one, you will never know. It is about a machine that is tuned to make the most of what it is and that rewards you for using it. You have to DRIVE them. On the other hand, driving a Pinto quickly was like having lower intestine troubles. Driving a modern super car on public roads is no more exciting than driving a Camery. They are too good. You just sit there and point it. I can't get the most out of my wife's 98 Honda on public roads without going to jail.
Modern turbos last fine. Just ask any over the road trucker.
No tank is a match for a Warthog or Cobra.
Not sure about that 15-45 comment. I would love to see a reference.
Efficency can be as good with petrol engines.
Besides , diesel being economical is not true.
Diesel being denser , one litre of diesel weigh substancialy
more than one litre of petrol , as such, comsumption related
in effective mass is comparable.
No, petrol engines are clearly not as efficient as diesel ones.
The most efficient diesel engine turns 54% of the energy contained in the fuel (as such it does not matter if diesel is denser than petrol in this comparison) into motion and the remaining 46% into heat.
The thermal efficiency of a petrol engine is at best 30% ie 70% of the energy contained in the fuel is turned into heat.
Other factors are that a petrol engine always has to drive an alternator as without electricity it will stall while a diesel does not really have to do that as it runs quite happily without, being a self-ignitor.
This also means that the combustion process in a diesel is more efficient by design as it happens everywhere within the combustion chamber at the same time. Petrol engines come up against the problem that combustion is started at one point and the flame front has to travel throughout the combustion chamber hence it is not necessarily complete when the exhaust valve opens.
For a petrol engine to be as efficient as a diesel it would have to break a few laws of physics along the way.
Diesel engines can also run on a variety of fuel. Rudolf Diesels first prototypes did run on coal dust but he later changed to peanut oil (his thinking being that peanuts can be grown all over Africa for example and hence it promised them independence from mineral oil).
My friends old Merc used to run quite happily on pure used vegetable oil without any modifications. His car did smell like a fast-food joint though.
A diesel engine is far less efficient than a petrol one. Comparing them today, to make it a fair comparison, you would need to compare equal displacement engines, BOTH with turbos, not just the diesel. BMW currently has the most powerful production diesel engine, a 2 litre yielding 204 bhp, which is roughly 102 hp/litre - but that is achieved by using two turbos and paying the subsequent cost.
Whereas a FIAT 1.75 litre engine, also with a turbo, easily produces 235 bhp as is, and a more powerful version is planned. Right now, that's an efficiency of 134 hp/litre. VW does even better, their Golf R has a 2 litre engine delivering 270 hp, or 135 hp/litre.
The allure of diesel is that its fuels USED to be about half the price of petrol, and they do tend to consume less of that inferior (compared to gasoline) fuel. But governments have caught on, and last summer, Euro diesel actually cost more in Greece than premium petrol.
Diesels can be thought of as true workhorses. They are slow revving and their effectively useful power bandwidth is very narrow. On the plus side, it is more economical than an equivalent petrol engine, and, this is often forgotten, they produce considerably less CO2 than equivalent petrol engines. In all applications in which speed is not critical, which generally use a constant operating regime, such as for example ship engines, anyone NOT using a diesel is out of his mind.
By the same token, if you are a driver who wants maximum omfort and has absolutely no sporty inclinations, a diesel is probably the better choice. They are simpler engines than petrol ones, and hence more reliable. But they are not really cheaper, because they initially cost you about € 2,000 more to even buy, and their servicing can be (but is not always) rather expensive. Thus, they area good deal only for those who do a lot of miles every year, for most of us city folk, they have no economic incentive (unless we are cab drivers).
And while a diesel, like any engine, can be tuned up, for REAL fire and brimstone, nothing beats a petrol engine.
Whereas a FIAT 1.75 litre engine, also with a turbo, easily produces 235 bhp as is, and a more powerful version is planned. Right now, that's an efficiency of 134 hp/litre. VW does even better, their Golf R has a 2 litre engine delivering 270 hp, or 135 hp/litre.
The allure of diesel is that its fuels USED to be about half the price of petrol, and they do tend to consume less of that inferior (compared to gasoline) fuel. But governments have caught on, and last summer, Euro diesel actually cost more in Greece than premium petrol.
Diesels can be thought of as true workhorses. They are slow revving and their effectively useful power bandwidth is very narrow. On the plus side, it is more economical than an equivalent petrol engine, and, this is often forgotten, they produce considerably less CO2 than equivalent petrol engines. In all applications in which speed is not critical, which generally use a constant operating regime, such as for example ship engines, anyone NOT using a diesel is out of his mind.
By the same token, if you are a driver who wants maximum omfort and has absolutely no sporty inclinations, a diesel is probably the better choice. They are simpler engines than petrol ones, and hence more reliable. But they are not really cheaper, because they initially cost you about € 2,000 more to even buy, and their servicing can be (but is not always) rather expensive. Thus, they area good deal only for those who do a lot of miles every year, for most of us city folk, they have no economic incentive (unless we are cab drivers).
And while a diesel, like any engine, can be tuned up, for REAL fire and brimstone, nothing beats a petrol engine.
Power is not just bhp, you will need to take torque into consideration as well.
Also your idea of efficiency is remarkably different than mine as you seem to take only specific power output per liter engine size into account while I see efficiency as how much of the energy (fuel) fed to the engine is turned into motion.
So may I ask how much fuel does the FIAT 1.75L use to move you for 100km and how much does the BMW 2L use to do the same?
Btw BMW produced the petrol engine with the highest specific output, the F1 turbo era 1.5L used by Brabham. It produced 1300bhp but this has NOTHING to do with the engines efficiency.
Talking about BMW: You can buy a 320 petrol which does 0-60mph in 8.2secs, 170bhp, 210Nm and returns 44.1miles per gallon or a 320d which does 0-60 in 8secs flat, 163bhp, 380Nm(!) and returns 68.9mpg.
Which one is more efficient and which one is more fun to drive?
(Hint: The answer is the diesel for both questions)
Diesel in the UK has always cost more than petrol yet well over 50% of new cars are diesels, purely because their efficiency means that they are still cheaper to run than petrols ie the fuel costs 5-10% more but that is easily made up as they use around 40% less of it.
Also your idea of efficiency is remarkably different than mine as you seem to take only specific power output per liter engine size into account while I see efficiency as how much of the energy (fuel) fed to the engine is turned into motion.
So may I ask how much fuel does the FIAT 1.75L use to move you for 100km and how much does the BMW 2L use to do the same?
Btw BMW produced the petrol engine with the highest specific output, the F1 turbo era 1.5L used by Brabham. It produced 1300bhp but this has NOTHING to do with the engines efficiency.
Talking about BMW: You can buy a 320 petrol which does 0-60mph in 8.2secs, 170bhp, 210Nm and returns 44.1miles per gallon or a 320d which does 0-60 in 8secs flat, 163bhp, 380Nm(!) and returns 68.9mpg.
Which one is more efficient and which one is more fun to drive?
(Hint: The answer is the diesel for both questions)
Diesel in the UK has always cost more than petrol yet well over 50% of new cars are diesels, purely because their efficiency means that they are still cheaper to run than petrols ie the fuel costs 5-10% more but that is easily made up as they use around 40% less of it.
Hi,
Same energy input (as in fuel) in an electrical engine does.
What is really needed for performance AND efficiency is a small "burns all" engine coupled to a generator and always operated at maximum efficiency that charges the batteries, as well as using the motors as breaks to recover the power in breaking (KERS) and a bunch of batteries that allow plug in charge.
Thus electrical for fast acceleration and overtaking etc., wall current from renewable energy sufficient for "run about town" and burning diesel, chips oil or whatever is liquid and burns for long distances or when batteries are low..
That way 50 or 100 miles of batteries suffice, the combustion engine can be fairly small and needs neither clutch or drive train (the electrical motors can sit in the wheel hubs and act for drive and breaking equally). Add a carbon fibre chassis and plastic body and the whole thing can last several decades and very material and energy efficient.
Not gonna happen of course.
Ciao T
Same energy input (as in fuel) in an electrical engine does.
What is really needed for performance AND efficiency is a small "burns all" engine coupled to a generator and always operated at maximum efficiency that charges the batteries, as well as using the motors as breaks to recover the power in breaking (KERS) and a bunch of batteries that allow plug in charge.
Thus electrical for fast acceleration and overtaking etc., wall current from renewable energy sufficient for "run about town" and burning diesel, chips oil or whatever is liquid and burns for long distances or when batteries are low..
That way 50 or 100 miles of batteries suffice, the combustion engine can be fairly small and needs neither clutch or drive train (the electrical motors can sit in the wheel hubs and act for drive and breaking equally). Add a carbon fibre chassis and plastic body and the whole thing can last several decades and very material and energy efficient.
Not gonna happen of course.
Ciao T
Sounds very much like the workings of a tiny diesel-electric locomotive.
Not sure about carbon fibres lifespan though, the people who know wouldn't trust a carbon fibre chassis over a few years of age with anything. Let alone themselves or their kids.
As far as I know cf fails catastrophically, very much like aluminium. But unlike aluminium it is rather less predictable when it will do so.
Not sure about carbon fibres lifespan though, the people who know wouldn't trust a carbon fibre chassis over a few years of age with anything. Let alone themselves or their kids.
As far as I know cf fails catastrophically, very much like aluminium. But unlike aluminium it is rather less predictable when it will do so.
Hi,
Kind of, yes.
Well, then better don't fly the latest planes. My actual point was to have a lightweight, but stable chassis, made from whatever works.
Still won't happen though.
Old "Kraft Durch Freude Wagen" (Strength Through Joy Car - aka VW) had such a concept (normal chassis and body though) but it never went into production.
Ciao T
Kind of, yes.
Well, then better don't fly the latest planes. My actual point was to have a lightweight, but stable chassis, made from whatever works.
Still won't happen though.
Old "Kraft Durch Freude Wagen" (Strength Through Joy Car - aka VW) had such a concept (normal chassis and body though) but it never went into production.
Ciao T
I have a feeling that many here have a different vision of what driving an automobile should be. It is also true that our interests can change as we get older.
When I was young, I wanted a car that had some pep, would not roll over easily, open air, if possible, and fun to work on, and tweak with after-market accessories like mufflers, etc.
When I was somewhat older, I was reasonably satisfied with a sunroof, more power, better engineering, high reliability, etc. My associates just could not understand WHY I liked driving the Porsche relatively hard, compared to they way they would drive their BMW's, where they were seriously attempting to get the most MPG, but for me, that was the fun of it, to rev it, etc.
Still, older, now I am thinking of trading in my Porsche and driving my Acura on a daily basis. The Acura sits higher, and it is easier to look out, has bigger loudspeakers for the radio, runs smoother. These are 3 phases of my life, and I don't expect any one auto to be perfect for all 3.
When I was young, I wanted a car that had some pep, would not roll over easily, open air, if possible, and fun to work on, and tweak with after-market accessories like mufflers, etc.
When I was somewhat older, I was reasonably satisfied with a sunroof, more power, better engineering, high reliability, etc. My associates just could not understand WHY I liked driving the Porsche relatively hard, compared to they way they would drive their BMW's, where they were seriously attempting to get the most MPG, but for me, that was the fun of it, to rev it, etc.
Still, older, now I am thinking of trading in my Porsche and driving my Acura on a daily basis. The Acura sits higher, and it is easier to look out, has bigger loudspeakers for the radio, runs smoother. These are 3 phases of my life, and I don't expect any one auto to be perfect for all 3.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.