- Joined
- February 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,476
- Reaction score
- 53
- City, State
- North East Arkansas
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 2012 F150 4x4
I am by no means old by most anyones standard, though I have owned several vehicles for a person my age, and driven virtually every kind of vehicle from vintage to the newest, most modern vehicles.
In the years past, fuel mileage wasn't a concern for me, I don't believe I ever checked my mileage on my first truck, a 1990 Ford Ranger. It didn't matter, I needed gas, I got gas. It was barely over $1 a gallon, $20 would fill it up.
My second car I checked mileage occasionally, but only for an indicator of how the engine was running. Now, I check my mileage at every tank.
Anyway, back to my theory, spurred on my Geralds post in Al's HHO thread. He said something about his old Honda cars getting 40+ mpg all the time. How can this be?? :scratch:
Let's go back a bit to the 60's, when the muscle car era came about. Big carburetor fed V8 engines, 3 speed transmissions, never overdrive. Even those cars with the exception of the big blocks got decent mileage given the cars size and weight. AKA mid teens. Trim those big heavy bodies and install a smaller carb, better mileage.
The 70's brought the fuel crunch, and the smaller cars, the initial response was smaller bodies and smaller motors- aka early Honda's, Datsun pickups, etc. Still "crude" fuel delivery and ignition systems, but ever increasing mileage.
The 80's- ugh- junk, ugly cars for the most part until the late 80's when fuel injection technology began to bloom (corvette withheld as FI began for those in the 60's) The early years of FI were throttle body, coupled with electronic ignition systems, reliability got better with new developments and advancing technology.
The early nineties were the best years for vehicles, IMO which brings me to my point. My 1993 Ranger is a multiport fuel injection system, electronic ignition, push rod V6 engine, it coupled with a 5 speed manual transmission deliveres 25 miles a gallon in nearly stock form. I have heard stories of an early to mid nineties model Crown Victoria with a 5.0 v8 and an automatic overdrive transmission getting 25-26 MPG on the highway. How is that possible when newer, more sophisticated vehicles are getting worse mileage?
It's very simple- our government agency, the EPA keeps making stricter and stricter regulations on vehicles emissions. Certain gases are allowed, others are prohibited. Some of those gases are indeed true pollutants, others are banned based on theories, some of which have been proven not to be harmful to our atmosphere.
What does this mean?
In order to control emissions, catalytic converters are used. They heat up burning "excess" gases as the exit from the engine. This secondary combustion burns the excess. As emissions regulations get stricter and stricter, the secondary burn has to be hotter and hotter to consume those gases. The only way to heat the converters is more fuel which means less miles per gallon in the end. My proof for that? The early 6.0 Powerstroke diesels were emissions controlled and had a catalytic converter. Ford engineers programmed the PCM to occasionally push some extra fuel into the converter to keep it cleaned out and warm enough to work effectively. That's when the infamous burning taipipes started happening, and a PCM reflash came out shortly after that to correct the problem.
The proof? As unscientific as it sounds, compare the mileage figures for early nineties cars vs. today's models. You'll find that most cars get the same or worse mileage as they did 15 years ago. In Gerald's case, it takes a hybrid to get the same mileage as he did 20 years ago.
Owners of newer rangers with the same engine and transmission combination can't achieve the mileage I can with my 93 model truck. The frame, beds and cabs have changed little in the life of the truck, yet mileage has gotten worse??
I saw a bit on Horsepower TV with Vic Edelbrock driving a car with a big block, fuel injected V8. He has developed a fuel injection system for classic cars and his testing showed the big block 502 cubic inch engine in his car could get 25 MPG and make 500 HP. How is that so?? The car is emissions exempt.
I am not saying we need to do away with emissions regulations or systems, rather the automakers need to start all over in their engineering. Disregard the emissions requirements, tune a modern overhead cam, variable valve timing, electronic fuel and spark engine to run at it's peak. Then and only then figure out how to make the emissions legal without altering the engine. Maybe go back and re-evaluate the gases banned for their effects to make sure they are indeed harmful.
Me, I am temped to find a 302, build it with the most advanced components available, skip the OBDII route, use a standalone fuel injection with an electronic ignition system and see what kind of mileage and power it can make.
This is all my theory, based on little to no research other than my observations and TV watching and does not represent the opinions of ExplorerForum.com, it's owner, or any of it's affiliated sites.
I'd still bet a dozen doughnuts that an engine like I described in the paragraph above would outperform my Mounty's engine any day.
If you don't agree, that's fine, it's just a theory. :
In the years past, fuel mileage wasn't a concern for me, I don't believe I ever checked my mileage on my first truck, a 1990 Ford Ranger. It didn't matter, I needed gas, I got gas. It was barely over $1 a gallon, $20 would fill it up.
My second car I checked mileage occasionally, but only for an indicator of how the engine was running. Now, I check my mileage at every tank.
Anyway, back to my theory, spurred on my Geralds post in Al's HHO thread. He said something about his old Honda cars getting 40+ mpg all the time. How can this be?? :scratch:
Let's go back a bit to the 60's, when the muscle car era came about. Big carburetor fed V8 engines, 3 speed transmissions, never overdrive. Even those cars with the exception of the big blocks got decent mileage given the cars size and weight. AKA mid teens. Trim those big heavy bodies and install a smaller carb, better mileage.
The 70's brought the fuel crunch, and the smaller cars, the initial response was smaller bodies and smaller motors- aka early Honda's, Datsun pickups, etc. Still "crude" fuel delivery and ignition systems, but ever increasing mileage.
The 80's- ugh- junk, ugly cars for the most part until the late 80's when fuel injection technology began to bloom (corvette withheld as FI began for those in the 60's) The early years of FI were throttle body, coupled with electronic ignition systems, reliability got better with new developments and advancing technology.
The early nineties were the best years for vehicles, IMO which brings me to my point. My 1993 Ranger is a multiport fuel injection system, electronic ignition, push rod V6 engine, it coupled with a 5 speed manual transmission deliveres 25 miles a gallon in nearly stock form. I have heard stories of an early to mid nineties model Crown Victoria with a 5.0 v8 and an automatic overdrive transmission getting 25-26 MPG on the highway. How is that possible when newer, more sophisticated vehicles are getting worse mileage?
It's very simple- our government agency, the EPA keeps making stricter and stricter regulations on vehicles emissions. Certain gases are allowed, others are prohibited. Some of those gases are indeed true pollutants, others are banned based on theories, some of which have been proven not to be harmful to our atmosphere.
What does this mean?
In order to control emissions, catalytic converters are used. They heat up burning "excess" gases as the exit from the engine. This secondary combustion burns the excess. As emissions regulations get stricter and stricter, the secondary burn has to be hotter and hotter to consume those gases. The only way to heat the converters is more fuel which means less miles per gallon in the end. My proof for that? The early 6.0 Powerstroke diesels were emissions controlled and had a catalytic converter. Ford engineers programmed the PCM to occasionally push some extra fuel into the converter to keep it cleaned out and warm enough to work effectively. That's when the infamous burning taipipes started happening, and a PCM reflash came out shortly after that to correct the problem.
The proof? As unscientific as it sounds, compare the mileage figures for early nineties cars vs. today's models. You'll find that most cars get the same or worse mileage as they did 15 years ago. In Gerald's case, it takes a hybrid to get the same mileage as he did 20 years ago.
Owners of newer rangers with the same engine and transmission combination can't achieve the mileage I can with my 93 model truck. The frame, beds and cabs have changed little in the life of the truck, yet mileage has gotten worse??
I saw a bit on Horsepower TV with Vic Edelbrock driving a car with a big block, fuel injected V8. He has developed a fuel injection system for classic cars and his testing showed the big block 502 cubic inch engine in his car could get 25 MPG and make 500 HP. How is that so?? The car is emissions exempt.
I am not saying we need to do away with emissions regulations or systems, rather the automakers need to start all over in their engineering. Disregard the emissions requirements, tune a modern overhead cam, variable valve timing, electronic fuel and spark engine to run at it's peak. Then and only then figure out how to make the emissions legal without altering the engine. Maybe go back and re-evaluate the gases banned for their effects to make sure they are indeed harmful.
Me, I am temped to find a 302, build it with the most advanced components available, skip the OBDII route, use a standalone fuel injection with an electronic ignition system and see what kind of mileage and power it can make.
This is all my theory, based on little to no research other than my observations and TV watching and does not represent the opinions of ExplorerForum.com, it's owner, or any of it's affiliated sites.
I'd still bet a dozen doughnuts that an engine like I described in the paragraph above would outperform my Mounty's engine any day.
If you don't agree, that's fine, it's just a theory. :