Your On-Line Port'o'Call
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#435678 - 09/16/08 09:23 AM "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have"
Bankonit27 Offline
Admiral

Registered: 09/08/03
Posts: 1193
Loc: Geneva, Illinois
Businessweek Article

Interesting...
_________________________
1999 Crownline 266BR
Mercruiser 7.4L MPI B3
pulled by a
2003 Ford Excursion

Top
#435696 - 09/16/08 10:31 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: Bankonit27]
captkevin Offline
Admiral

Registered: 10/02/03
Posts: 2659
Loc: Tinley Park, IL
Very interesting - tells you why the us carmakers are in so much trouble.
_________________________
2005 Rinker 232 open bow 5.7 MPI Bravo 3

Top
#435712 - 09/16/08 11:13 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: captkevin]
D-Rod Online   content
Admiral

Registered: 06/25/05
Posts: 7471
"Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline"

I don't think so!!!!!

US average per gallon of gasoline is 47 cents.
US average per gallon of diesel is 54 cents.

I wish people would cut the lying, BS crap.

Congrats to Ford...seems to be a pretty nice vehicle!
_________________________
Live your life in the Kelvin scale..........Stay Positive.

Top
#435715 - 09/16/08 11:15 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: D-Rod]
BillyB Offline
Admiral

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 7502
Loc: Peoria, Illinois
If it's not the taxes, why does diesel cost so much more then?
_________________________
I'm just happy to be here!




Top
#435719 - 09/16/08 11:29 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: BillyB]
D-Rod Online   content
Admiral

Registered: 06/25/05
Posts: 7471
Your friends in the industry, Bill. smile


Edited by D-Rod (09/16/08 11:29 AM)
_________________________
Live your life in the Kelvin scale..........Stay Positive.

Top
#435733 - 09/16/08 12:22 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: BillyB]
ajjacobs Offline
Lieutenant

Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 59
Loc: Long Island, NY
This is something that has annoyed me for a while. As far as I understand diesel is much cheaper to produce. More diesel can be produced per barrel of crude and its cheaper/eaiser to refine than gas. If all this is true why is diesel so much more per gallon?? I do know that the ultra low sulfer diesel has an extra refining step that will increase the cost, but I heard that this is minimal. Can anyone shed some light or verify/dispute any of my babble?

AJ

Top
#435743 - 09/16/08 12:44 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: ajjacobs]
Cigar Man Online   content
Admiral

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 660
Loc: The Dark Side....
There are several individuals who are runnung this device on their trucks in my neighbothood. Pretty amazing results too.

Showed me the bottle set up on his 1997 F150 Ford with the 5.7 L V-8 and his added underdash computer (not part of this device) that was tracking his miles. He had just averaged 50.1 mpg in city driving on his last tank. He said the OBD I vehicles were easier than the OBD II as you did not need to trick the oxegen sensor. Interesting [censored].


http://www.water4gas.com
_________________________
"Meet me in Cognito, Baby
In Cognito we'll have nothing to hide.
The best thing about life in Cognito Baby
Is that everybody's nobody there."
Tom Robbins


Top
#435754 - 09/16/08 01:01 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: Cigar Man]
seadog Offline
Admiral

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 3955
Loc: Stillwater, OK
The cost to refine to the new EPA standards is not excessive, but does require a refinery capable of the modifications. Because they could not be modified, many of the old refineries were shut down. That pinches the existing capacity and makes it harder to obtain enough.

As for the issues about Ford not bringing the engine here, they would make that call if and when the demand is seen as meeting the additional costs. It does not mention two things. Even without the diesel engines, the cars are coming here. What type of mileage will the cars get with a gas engine? And how much weight will it add to the cars to make them compliant with US requirements?
_________________________
03 Crestliner 2485 LSi 4.3 MPI
63 Newman 15'
01 Dakota Quad Cab 4.7L
08 Taurus


usa1

Top
#435761 - 09/16/08 01:12 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: ajjacobs]
Philr Offline
Admiral

Registered: 03/20/03
Posts: 1397
Loc: Rock Island, IL
I watched an interesting program a while back on The History Channel (I think) about this very subject, i.e. "why not just refine more diesel per bbl?"

The answer went something like this: "Our refineries have been designed/built to refine x percent of gasoline per bbl, x percent of diesel per bbl, x percent of lubricating oil per bbl ... and so on down the line. They were designed/built to meet gasoline/diesel demand ratios during a that era (in which they were built).

Don't quote me, but it seems like it was 20 gal. of gasoline, and 8 gallons of diesel, are refined from a bbl of crude (or some similar ratio).

The conclusion presented was that it would be so complicated/expensive to alter the refining process (to manufacture more diesel/less gasoline per bbl) that the costs of both fuels would be driven even higher. That, plus said refinery would be off line for a long time, further driving costs up. Seemed to make sense to me.

Reporting from best of memory, usual disclaimers.
_________________________
'99 FW 200 Horizon 5.7VP
"I'm the luckiest boy in the World" ... PeeWee Herman

Top
#436021 - 09/17/08 10:46 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: Philr]
trooplewis Offline
Admiral

Registered: 11/10/06
Posts: 3365
Loc: San Diego
Quote:
Showed me the bottle set up on his 1997 F150 Ford with the 5.7 L V-8 and his added underdash computer (not part of this device) that was tracking his miles. He had just averaged 50.1 mpg in city driving on his last tank. He said the OBD I vehicles were easier than the OBD II as you did not need to trick the oxegen sensor. Interesting [censored].


Been seeing ads like that in comic books and Popular Mechanics since I was a kid. Most people have the attitude, "it must work or they couldn't say those things" Yeah, right, that's why they still advertise male-enhancement pills and bustline-increasing lotions.

If you could really triple your F-150's gas mileage with water, it would be legislated into action and would be on every govt on the road as well.

But I still wish it was true.

Top
#436037 - 09/18/08 06:32 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: trooplewis]
woosterken Offline
Admiral

Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 743
Loc: Wooster ohio
WHOA, the article says that he drives his semi a 1000 miles a day
dot rules are only 10 hrs driving so this thing lets him run a 100mph?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!
I had a '95 freightliner that got 5 1/2 to 6 mph if I didn't run it hard.
woosterken
_________________________
1974 MFG gypsy
1995 F150 4X4

Top
#436041 - 09/18/08 06:54 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: woosterken]
Skibrain Offline
Admiral

Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 1638
Loc: MN
From the article:

Quote:
The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles.


If this vehicle hit the market tomorrow, how many of us (BABC regulars) would buy one in the next yr? I think we would take a look at it, say it is great for someone else, and continue driving what we have because the pain isn't THAT great yet.

How many Honda Fit, Corolla drivers are there here? You know, nice cars of about this size that with a 5 spd and moderate driving will give you close to 40 mpg highway. If I were buying right now, Fuel prices might cause me to buy a 4 cyl. Camry vs a V6. But I'm not in the market for a Yaris.....know what I mean?

I think that we as a country are going to be slower at embracing the idea of moving down a size or two to smaller vehicles.


Edited by Skibrain (09/18/08 06:56 AM)

Top
#436058 - 09/18/08 08:47 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: woosterken]
seadog Offline
Admiral

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 3955
Loc: Stillwater, OK
The real truth is that fuel mileage improvement is due to small refinements to the existing process, not miracle products. An example is the new 4.5 diesel that GM is bringing out for their pickups. It is an impressive feat of enginering, but no miracle. The engineers got creative and removed the intake from the inside of the V. That allowed them to have a very short run into the turbocharger. And then to get the most efficient combustion cleanup, they mounted the catalytic converter directly to the turbo. Then with all the heat between the camshafts, they routed the air intake through the camshaft covers. This reduced the number of components significantly and produced a more efficient engine.
_________________________
03 Crestliner 2485 LSi 4.3 MPI
63 Newman 15'
01 Dakota Quad Cab 4.7L
08 Taurus


usa1

Top
#436067 - 09/18/08 10:07 AM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: trooplewis]
Cigar Man Online   content
Admiral

Registered: 01/13/03
Posts: 660
Loc: The Dark Side....
Originally Posted By: trooplewis
Quote:
Showed me the bottle set up on his 1997 F150 Ford with the 5.7 L V-8 and his added underdash computer (not part of this device) that was tracking his miles. He had just averaged 50.1 mpg in city driving on his last tank. He said the OBD I vehicles were easier than the OBD II as you did not need to trick the oxegen sensor. Interesting [censored].


Been seeing ads like that in comic books and Popular Mechanics since I was a kid. Most people have the attitude, "it must work or they couldn't say those things" Yeah, right, that's why they still advertise male-enhancement pills and bustline-increasing lotions.

If you could really triple your F-150's gas mileage with water, it would be legislated into action and would be on every govt on the road as well.

But I still wish it was true.


Actually, I don't think the auto industry, controlled by big oil, would do anything to promote this or any other device that extended the range on a tank. The jury is still out on this for me, I have since talked to about six other individuals here that are having the same kind of results. There is a small grass roots 'action' group here testing this and variations of this device for results.

The common thread seems to be "Yes it does seem to work, the big drawback is that it is a hassel filling the jar with distilled water and baking soda at each tank. and you have this weird contraption attached to your motor that seems to screw with your OBD computer". Most seem to think as gas got to around $4.50 here, it would get broader support, and no one knows what the long range effect might be on engine parts.

If you read the history on this device, it is not anything new. They apparently used these on Bombers during WW2 to get extended range on bombing runs. It is pretty interesting science. But as most have said, probably too much hassel if gas isn't costing more than beer...... idn

_________________________
"Meet me in Cognito, Baby
In Cognito we'll have nothing to hide.
The best thing about life in Cognito Baby
Is that everybody's nobody there."
Tom Robbins


Top
#436125 - 09/18/08 08:49 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: trooplewis]
Parrott_head Offline
Admiral of Vice
Admiral

Registered: 01/26/03
Posts: 4179
Originally Posted By: trooplewis


Yeah, right, that's why they still advertise male-enhancement pills and bustline-increasing lotions.


But I still wish it was true.


The bustline-increasing lotion worked for me.....
_________________________
'02 Four Winns 234 Funship. 280 HP V-P DuoProp
'05 F250 CrewCab 6.0 PowerStroke
'98 Neutered Male Siamese jacked up on catnip (will give to good home)
"Hey, if I'm a Vice Admiral, which vice do I get to claim?"

Top
#436136 - 09/18/08 09:40 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: Parrott_head]
2Suns Offline
Admiral

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 1182
Loc: Peoria,IL
Originally Posted By: Parrott_head
Originally Posted By: trooplewis


Yeah, right, that's why they still advertise male-enhancement pills and bustline-increasing lotions.


But I still wish it was true.


The bustline-increasing lotion worked for me.....


My wife says the male enhancement pills worked for me....


I'm an even bigger prick now!






Sorry. More liquor induced posting.


Edited by 2Suns (09/18/08 09:41 PM)

Top
#436631 - 09/23/08 06:19 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: woosterken]
justforfun Offline
Admiral

Registered: 01/12/03
Posts: 559
Loc: St. Louis, MO
I for one am a fan of the more current diesel technologies. The article does not take real world comparrisons into account. I currently drive a 2006 Honda Pilot - at best 9with a lot of highway miles in the mix) I might average 20mpg (realistically less). My wife drives a 2001 VW Beatle Turbo Diesel - she averages around 35mpg. The break even point for the Honda to catch up to the economy of the VW would be a spread of about $2.70 per gallon (diesel over gas) - if I have a chance to pick up a similar type car when I junk the Pilot (4- months from now) - it will be a serious consideration. All that bieng said - it will have to be a good car - not a go cart tricked up to get good mileage.
_________________________
No boat at this time

Top
#436657 - 09/23/08 09:25 PM Re: "The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have" [Re: justforfun]
Parrott_head Offline
Admiral of Vice
Admiral

Registered: 01/26/03
Posts: 4179
Why could not the motors for these cars be built in an existing plant state side? I'm willing to be Cat, Cummins, NaviStar, Detroit...somebody has some excess factory capacity they would like to fill.
_________________________
'02 Four Winns 234 Funship. 280 HP V-P DuoProp
'05 F250 CrewCab 6.0 PowerStroke
'98 Neutered Male Siamese jacked up on catnip (will give to good home)
"Hey, if I'm a Vice Admiral, which vice do I get to claim?"

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Admin, Finger Lakes Boater, Opus 
Google Search
 
Who's Online
2 registered (230 Mike, D-Rod), 1 Guest and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sinking, imaduner, kevinroad, Ihab, Kristine
4071 Registered Users
November
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
New Topics
iPhone
by jjct1
Today at 12:34 AM
Close, and yet so far
by seadog
Yesterday at 11:56 PM
my tiny dancer - proud daddy
by bradyf
Yesterday at 09:22 PM
Power window help
by 230 Mike
Yesterday at 05:47 PM
Garmin nuvi vs. Garmin 76Cx
by firecadet613
Yesterday at 04:57 PM
Wireless help, USB
by Parrott_head
Yesterday at 01:27 PM
lap top and www access on boat
by sinking
Yesterday at 12:06 PM
The Preparations Begin...
by Parrott_head
Yesterday at 07:59 AM
Raystown Lake
by cattailspa
Yesterday at 07:44 AM
Zebra mussels in Utah!
by Frantically Relaxing
11/21/08 10:28 PM