Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 98): 1963 Lincoln Continental "Suicide Door" Sedan

Man I love those things....

2H4

Quoting Superfly (Reply 99): Now watch how the top retracts with just the flick of one switch.

So friggin' cool!   

cool indeed, but it looks like a funeral car

I love the 1950s / early 1960s American cars. By far the world's most beautiful automobiles at the time. However towards the mid-late 60s and 70s the gigantic boat style is not my thing.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 92): 1977 Lincoln Continental Town Car. Much classier than a Hummer. Smile Keep in mind, back then the 'Town Car' was only a trim package for the Continental. Not a separate model that started in 1982 that lived till 2002.

The first car I ever drove (mostly just parking it and things like that, no street driving, before getting a license) was a '68 Plymouth Fury that was given as a gift to my family. HUGE, one could feel how strong the metal was when shutting the doors by the sound they made. Hard metal all around, no fiberglas. No FM, only short wave, AM? radio which among the few radio stations it would pick up was Cuban-league baseball broadcasts, all the way from Cuba! Light blue outside, darker blue interior, cool vintage smell, front seats a straight bench.

Very cool to ride in it,. but soon had some engine problems and was junked. I wonder how much it would be worth today?

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 102): The first car I ever drove (mostly just parking it and things like that, no street driving, before getting a license) was a '68 Plymouth Fury

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 102): I wonder how much it would be worth today?

Not much.  
The only Plymouths from that time that are worth a lot is the Satellite / Super Bee and the only Fury of that time that would be worth much would be the convertible.
It sounds like you had a base Fury. In mint condition would still only be worth $4000 tops.
The convertibles and the Satellite / Super Bee which could be worth as much as $25,000.

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 102): I love the 1950s / early 1960s American cars. By far the world's most beautiful automobiles at the time. However towards the mid-late 60s and 70s the gigantic boat style is not my thing.

Most collectors prefer the 1950s stuff but I much prefer the 1970s models because they were much more luxurious, softer ride and has almost all luxury features cars have today.

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 102): cool indeed, but it looks like a funeral car

It might help to picture Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus in it.  

2H4

Quoting Superfly (Reply 103): In mint condition would still only be worth $4000 tops.

wow but that seems so low for a 40-year old car are you sure?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 103): the Satellite

what was different about this one?

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 104): It might help to picture Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus in it.

Now it's a lot better  

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 105): wow but that seems so low for a 40-year old car are you sure?

For a 1968 Plymouth Fury sedan? That is about right.  
That was the bottom line for full-sized Mopar vehicles. Plymouth was always the entry level, Dodge in the lower middle, Chrysler near luxury and Imperial was the top of the line luxury brand.
A 1968 Imperial convertible would be worth $20,000.
The line get's less & less valuable as you go down the line with Plymouth Fury being the least valuable full-size sedan from Mopar.
The 1968 Plymouth Fury convertible could be worth as much as $10-$12,000.
There is a guy here in San Francisco that drives around in a red one. His is a 1969 model.

The Satellite / Super Bee / Roadrunners were muscle cars. They were some of the fastest cars on the road.
For what ever reason, car collectors are more interested in performance/muscle cars than luxury cars. Most luxury cars sale very cheap when they are old. Very few luxury cars are considered collectors models.
The Plymouth Fury was not a luxury car, it was just a big car without any bells & whistles. Still a great car though.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 106):

thanks for all the info. I guess it really wasn't worth keeping after all

Stop blaming the consumer and start blaming the California CAB. It is against diesel and has consistently done anything it can to kill diesel cars. It targets them with unrealistic emission standards that forces cars off the market for having higher emissions of ONE type than a petrol engine car, even when the rest of the emissions are LOWER and the car gets better mileage, and when the technology catches up to meet those standards, it just raises the bar again with no grandfather clause and no gradual increase. They 'flip a switch' on the new rule, and whammo, the cars must leave the market immediately.

This has happend 3 times in the last 25 years. Mercedes is constantly trying to meet these standards, and has been forced to scrap selling the cars in CA multiple times. VW as well. Both are back, but we'll see for how long.

The reason CA matters so much is that they have 1/10th the population and a lot of the wealth that is going to buy new cars, and thus we are a huge car market, and also because other states set their standards based on CA. Some of the largest states like New York and now Florida just signed on. So, that means that a huge part of the market is held to a standard that is difficult to meet economically, a standard much higher than the EU.

If you are a car company and you keep getting kicked in the shins when you offer a diesel, how much are you going to push that technology? I know I wouldn't.

The reason it's MB and VW who try to do so are because they have the same product in the EU and USA anyway (by and large) and import most of their vehicles to the USA, so the additional cost of reintroducing diesels isn't that high.

But for a Japanese car maker or a USA car maker to create put a diesel drivetrain into a USA only model would be much more costly when CA acts to kill the product. So neither the Japanese or the USA companies do diesels other than in trucks.

All the furor over "who killed the electric car" is fine and dandy, but we need to ask: "who keeps killing the diesel" as well…

Strewth.... Reading some of the posts on here on what is considered a good MPG rate, i'm never gonna bitch to my other half that she is getting less than 45MPG in her VW Golf GTI (TDI). Even my Audi 3.0litre TDI Quattro gets a combined 55MPG and never dips below 49MPG on long trips or 36MPG around town.

I have heard rumours that the new BMW Mini diesel on a motorway/freeway run will achieve 70/75MPG, but i can't verify that.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 110):

But does it really make up for the extra 20mpg you get in a diesel fiesta versus a petrol fiesta or a diesel audi (2.0TDI @ 50MPG) versus a 1.8T @ 32mpg?

One question i have always wanted to ask...(This is not having a go....just curious)

Why do american cars (Not pickups) need such big engines?, looking at the Cadillac website the 2008 DTS has a 4.6L V8!, its not like you have sections of the freeway that are not speed limited like on the German Autobahns, so the maximum (legal) speed you could possibly do is 55mph. so does a car really need a big V8 up front?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 108): Stop blaming the consumer and start blaming the California CAB. It is against diesel and has consistently done anything it can to kill diesel cars. It targets them with unrealistic emission standards that forces cars off the market for having higher emissions of ONE type than a petrol engine car, even when the rest of the emissions are LOWER and the car gets better mileage, and when the technology catches up to meet those standards, it just raises the bar again with no grandfather clause and no gradual increase. They 'flip a switch' on the new rule, and whammo, the cars must leave the market immediately. This has happend 3 times in the last 25 years. Mercedes is constantly trying to meet these standards, and has been forced to scrap selling the cars in CA multiple times. VW as well. Both are back, but we'll see for how long. The reason CA matters so much is that they have 1/10th the population and a lot of the wealth that is going to buy new cars, and thus we are a huge car market, and also because other states set their standards based on CA. Some of the largest states like New York and now Florida just signed on. So, that means that a huge part of the market is held to a standard that is difficult to meet economically, a standard much higher than the EU. If you are a car company and you keep getting kicked in the shins when you offer a diesel, how much are you going to push that technology? I know I wouldn't. The reason it's MB and VW who try to do so are because they have the same product in the EU and USA anyway (by and large) and import most of their vehicles to the USA, so the additional cost of reintroducing diesels isn't that high. But for a Japanese car maker or a USA car maker to create put a diesel drivetrain into a USA only model would be much more costly when CA acts to kill the product. So neither the Japanese or the USA companies do diesels other than in trucks. All the furor over "who killed the electric car" is fine and dandy, but we need to ask: "who keeps killing the diesel" as well…

Yes yes yes, the very best post in the whole thread. Especially the first paragraph! And thats laying all those "we have the strictest emmission standards" crap to a rest - expressed by an American.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 110): A gallon of diesel isn't the same as a gallon of gasoline. It is denser and has more energy by volume. It also takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline. It is really stupid to comapare the MPG of gasoline and diesel without accounting for the differenece in the energy content of the two fuels.

While it is true that more energy per kg fuel is inherited in diesel, it is even more important that the diesel engines has a much higher compression leading to a significantly higher degree of efficiency. Just compare the cyclic processes of diesel (by Rudolph Diesel) and those for Otto-engines. It eventually has a reason the diesel will ignite by itself (due to the high compression) while the otto fuel must be external ignited.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): Why do american cars (Not pickups) need such big engines?,

I'd say it's purely a tradition. However, sometimes I have a feeling (based on how they accelerate from intersections) that some cars have no engines at all.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): looking at the Cadillac website the 2008 DTS has a 4.6L V8!,

Bad example, the DTS is for Cadillac basically the top. Comparable EU cars are equipped mostly with large V8's as well. The only difference is availability of diesels in EU. So I'd rather ask about Passat sized cars like the Saturn Aura. Why is it only available with V6 3.6 and V6 3.9? Why is no MT available in it? The LNB engine derated to 220 hp combined with 6MT (basically same combo as the base Passat) could be quite dynamic and yet have quite reasonable fuel economy.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): maximum (legal) speed you could possibly do is 55mph

It's between 65-80 mph.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): so does a car really need a big V8 up front?

It doesn't, but it's nice to have. Don't forget, the only reason for small engines in EU is the gas price.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 114): It doesn't, but it's nice to have. Don't forget, the only reason for small engines in EU is the gas price.

But the american cars are not exactly more dynamic, accelerating faster or reach higher top speeds. European manufacturers achieve the same level of driving comfort (read power) with lot smaller engines. My only guess than can be, they achieve it via more compression, better energy usage, better fuel vaporization, etc., so overall better degree of efficiency with higher technical sophistication.

So why then bother with a V8, guzzling lots of fuel and therefore steal money direct from your personal budget? Fuel is cheaper over in the US, still no need to waste money and pour it in the hands of oil exporting countries and oil companies.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 106): The Plymouth Fury was not a luxury car, it was just a big car without any bells & whistles. Still a great car though.

Which was one reason why many Mopar police cars of that era were usually Plymouth Furys.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 106): The Satellite / Super Bee / Roadrunners were muscle cars.

Which were built off a smaller mid-size platform.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 108): Stop blaming the consumer and start blaming the California CAB. It is against diesel and has consistently done anything it can to kill diesel cars. It targets them with unrealistic emission standards that forces cars off the market for having higher emissions of ONE type than a petrol engine car, even when the rest of the emissions are LOWER and the car gets better mileage, and when the technology catches up to meet those standards, it just raises the bar again with no grandfather clause and no gradual increase. They 'flip a switch' on the new rule, and whammo, the cars must leave the market immediately.

That problem is further compounded now that more states have adopted the so-called California Emissions Law(s).

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): Why do american cars (Not pickups) need such big engines?, looking at the Cadillac website the 2008 DTS has a 4.6L V8!, its not like you have sections of the freeway that are not speed limited like on the German Autobahns, so the maximum (legal) speed you could possibly do is 55mph. so does a car really need a big V8 up front?

For one thing, a Cadillac DTS is NOT a small car (though it's not as gigantic as its predecessors of the 1980s and earlier); it still weighs close to 4000 lbs. Placing a smaller engine would mean reduced acceleration given the vehicle's weight; especially if the vehicle is carrying several passengers AND cargo in the trunk.

Back in the 70s/80s, a car doing 0-60 at 10-11 seconds was considered average. Today, average 0-60 acceleration is viewed as 8-9 seconds.

FYI during the early 1980s, Cadillac offered a V6 and a 4.1 V8 in its large DeVilles and Fleetwoods (which were larger and heavier than the current DTS) and both engines was not too well-received saleswise because these engines were simply overmatched by the car's size & weight. This was one reason why many would-be Cadillac buyers flocked over to the 5.0L(302) V8-powered Lincoln Town Car at the time.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 114):

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 116):

Thanks for the answers, i chose the caddy DTS as i "googled - Big American Cars" and that was the first choice (and it does look like a nice car btw).

So with the rising price of fuel, and improving engine technology (I.E. more power from smaller efficient engines), that the days of big V8's are outnumbered in family size cars or do they have a few more years left in them yet??

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 112): Why do american cars (Not pickups) need such big engines?

They don't. But if everyone's purchases were limited to what they need, most people would be limited to driving economy cars. The people that purchase cars with big engines do so simply because that's what they enjoy, and that's what they want.

2H4

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 115): But the american cars are not exactly more dynamic,

Sometimes I have a feeling they don't know what dynamics is.  But I suspect the problem is rather between the wheel and seat than in the engine.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 115): European manufacturers achieve the same level of driving comfort (read power) with lot smaller engines. My only guess than can be, they achieve it via more compression, better energy usage, better fuel vaporization, etc., so overall better degree of efficiency with higher technical sophistication.

That's valid for VW's TSI-line and some top notch engines from DB and BMW. Otherwise it's all the same. Well, except for the less complicated valvetrain and higher displacement. Higher displacement doesn't necessarily mean bad efficiency. Please read my reply 70.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 115): So why then bother with a V8, guzzling lots of fuel and therefore steal money direct from your personal budget?

If you never drove a V8 you won't understand. And since we don't drive fast regularly, it doesn't really hurt financially.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 117): But if everyone's purchases were limited to what they need, most people would be limited to driving economy cars.

You see, that's the right answer for Dano 1977 and NicoEDDF. Here in NA we quite often confuse the word "Need" with the word "Want".      

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 118): So with the rising price of fuel, and improving engine technology (I.E. more power from smaller efficient engines), that the days of big V8's are outnumbered in family size cars or do they have a few more years left in them yet??

I'd say there always will be a market for the V8. Even in a family car. I plan to buy one myself. However, the times when the V8 was the "The Engine" and basically standard in everything are long gone. Just compare the power rating. The 5.0 V8 in my '95 F150 is only rated at 185 hp. Nowadays it would be considered very bad. Standard V6's are all rated above it and you can find several fourbangers that not only match this but exceed it by an ample margin.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 121): Just compare the power rating. The 5.0 V8 in my '95 F150 is only rated at 185 hp. Nowadays it would be considered very bad. Standard V6's are all rated above it and you can find several fourbangers that not only match this but exceed it by an ample margin.

Those 185HP are at the low end and has lots of torque. The smaller V6 and 4-bangers that put out 185HP or more have no low end torque and can't tow anything.
You're F-150 with 185 can pull a small Church off it's foundation and drive it across country.
Drop a small turbocharged 4-banger that puts out over 200HP in your F-150 and all it would do is spin the tires and rev like crazy. The truck wouldn't move at all.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122): Drop a small turbocharged 4-banger that puts out over 200HP in your F-150 and all it would do is spin the tires and rev like crazy. The truck wouldn't move at all.

Certainly if it would spin the tires the truck would move, no?  

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 123): Certainly if it would spin the tires the truck would move, no?

Not really.
The tires would just spin out of control burning rubber. The truck wouldn't move. Maybe sway side to side but that's it.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 108): This has happend 3 times in the last 25 years. Mercedes is constantly trying to meet these standards, and has been forced to scrap selling the cars in CA multiple times. VW as well. Both are back, but we'll see for how long.

The new 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI is getting rave reviews in the automotive press: Oh, and this four-banger diesel motor makes enough torque to motivate a Ford F-150! A recent Edmunds.com article was very positive:

"Unlike other green machines, the Jetta TDI's nicely appointed interior trappings offer no clues about its green status, and only a discreet chrome TDI badge on the rear of the trunk lid lets you know that there's something other than a gasoline engine under the hood.

And that something is a turbocharged, 16-valve DOHC 2.0-liter inline-4 with a common-rail direct fuel injection for diesel fuel. It puts out 140 horsepower when twisted to 4,000 rpm, but you're probably more excited about the 263 POUNDS-FEET OF TORQUE it makes available from 1,750-2,500 rpm, enough to deliver a surge of acceleration that you wouldn't ordinarily associate with a diesel.

The engine's effortless yet clean performance is the result of the common-rail direct injection delivering a supply of ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel into the combustion chambers through high-pressure Piezo injectors. The current blend of diesel has 97 percent less sulfur than other forms of diesel, which accounts for the reduction in both emissions you can smell and those that only the EPA's sniffers can detect.

Farther downstream in this diesel setup, the exhaust system collects and filters particulates, oxidizes hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and water, and then stores NOx gases (which it later regenerates as nitrogen and water) before releasing the exhaust into the atmosphere. One big plus is that this VW system does not require the addition of urea or any other additive to scrub the exhaust clean."

Source: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=132146

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122): Those 185HP are at the low end and has lots of torque. The smaller V6 and 4-bangers that put out 185HP or more have no low end torque and can't tow anything. You're F-150 with 185 can pull a small Church off it's foundation and drive it across country. Drop a small turbocharged 4-banger that puts out over 200HP in your F-150 and all it would do is spin the tires and rev like crazy. The truck wouldn't move at all

That would depend on how you gear it. Since torque at the wheels is the result of power conservation through a gear ratio, attaching said four-banger to the four speed Ford AOD found in the truck would make towing very difficult. Attaching it to a properly-engineered six-speed automatic could make it tow very well. As automatic transmissions add more and more gears (and in a pickup you have a lot of room in which to put gears), the problem you describe would become moot.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124): Not really. The tires would just spin out of control burning rubber. The truck wouldn't move.

Uh yeah. Just like dragsters don't move cuz they can burn rubber, right?  

Quoting A342 (Reply 127): Uh yeah. Just like dragsters don't move cuz they can burn rubber, right?

...and how much does a dragsters weigh compared to a full-sized pick up truck?  

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 126): That would depend on how you gear it. Since torque at the wheels is the result of power conservation through a gear ratio, attaching said four-banger to the four speed Ford AOD found in the truck would make towing very difficult. Attaching it to a properly-engineered six-speed automatic could make it tow very well. As automatic transmissions add more and more gears (and in a pickup you have a lot of room in which to put gears), the problem you describe would become moot.

Can you name me any large trucks that are availible with a small 4-banger with the properly-engineered six-speed automatic that you describe?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): Can you name me any large trucks that are availible with a small 4-banger with the properly-engineered six-speed automatic that you describe?

Of course not; there aren't any. I see no engineering reason to do this, and I see no real gain in fuel economy for a vehicle whose design and usage isn't conducive to fuel sipping anyway. It would also be a waste of resources for the auto companies to pursue this. Let's see... won't sell any extra trucks, requires hundreds of millions in R&D, adds part count and part cost to each vehicle, and won't really improve fuel economy... nope, don't do it.

My point was clearly hypothetical. Your point was that towing with a large displacement, high-torque-at-low-RPM engine is good for towing. I agree because it is easy to control torque at the drive wheels with that arrangement -- especially when the gear ratios are fairly wide, as they are in a four speed AOD. You then said that putting a high-revving four banger with equivalent power would leave the wheels spinning. I think the point you're trying to make is that the torque would pour on pretty suddenly and that decreases ease of driving. I don't really disagree with that either; it's just easier to handle large towing loads with easy-on-easy-off torque from a large displacement smog makers.

Alll of this is about torque management. That's why I said that given the proper gearing, torque at the drive wheels could be managed such that the hypothetical high-revving four banger in the truck would be suitable for towing. But they'd never do it.

People have a belief that eight cylinder engines are inherently less efficient than a six or four. That's based in observation without analysis. My 1995 Ford Escort with its 1.9L four still returns 34.5 MPG in mixed driving, even at 198,500 miles. My 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan with 3.3L pushrod V6 gets about 19 in mixed driving. Would putting the 1.9L Escort engine into the Caravan make it get better fuel mileage? Only a little for reasons that should be obvious. The Escort weighs about 2700 pounds; the van tips the scales at 4,000. The Escort has a much smaller frontal area. And it has five manual gears instead of four automatic. But people drive a Civic with a 1.8L engine, then drive a pickup with a 5.3L V8, and then they conclude that the four cylinder must be more efficient because the Civic gets 35 MPG and the truck can't trip 20. That's the "without analysis" part I'm talking about.

Then you see your buddy in his 2008 Chevrolet Corvette six-speed getting 29 MPG on the highway despite his 400 HP, 400 ft-lb motor and hopefully you have an ah-ha moment!

BTW... I learned to drive in a 1977 Oldsmobile 98 Regency, which was about 6" longer than the 1977 Pontiac Catalina wagon we also had at that time. Biiiiiiig cars. Biiiiiiig engines. 402 in the Pontiac, and 403 in the Olds. The Pontiac devoured gas at an alamring rate, never getting more than 14 MPG even in pure highway driving. The Olds was only slightly better. I much prefer small cars now, but when I see some of the cars pictured in this thread, I am taken back to my childhood...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 128): ...and how much does a dragsters weigh compared to a full-sized pick up truck?

Thanks for proving my point. Burning rubber on a heavy pickup needs much more torque than on a dragster. So if you say that a turbo fourbanger burns rubber on a pickup, then it has more than enough torque to get the job done.

Quoting A342 (Reply 130): Thanks for proving my point. Burning rubber on a heavy pickup needs much more torque than on a dragster. So if you say that a turbo fourbanger burns rubber on a pickup, then it has more than enough torque to get the job done.

You didn't have a point to begin with. I said that from the very beginning.

ContnlEliteCMH:
No need to explain any of the above. Fully aware already.
I understand what you were saying was all hypothetical but since no truck exist, there was really no point in mentioning it in the first place.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 131): Quoting A342 (Reply 130): Thanks for proving my point. Burning rubber on a heavy pickup needs much more torque than on a dragster. So if you say that a turbo fourbanger burns rubber on a pickup, then it has more than enough torque to get the job done. You didn't have a point to begin with. I said that from the very beginning.

Uh, no you didn't. You said it won't move. Please make up you mind.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124): The truck wouldn't move.

Quoting A342 (Reply 132): Please make up you mind.

I have have. Discussing vehicles with you is useless because you are only looking for an argument.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 133): Discussing vehicles with you is useless because you are only looking for an argument.

Actually, that's not what I'm after. But it irritates me when people contradict themselves.

Quoting A342 (Reply 134): Actually, that's not what I'm after. But it irritates me when people contradict themselves.

And here's my support:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124): Not really. The tires would just spin out of control burning rubber. The truck wouldn't move. Maybe sway side to side but that's it.

Quite technical:
Movement does not only mean lateral or vertical or horizontal. Its always all of those but in a perfect world.

And in real world terms: If the engine can overcome the static friction of the tyres, then yes, there is more than enough torque. A342 supported that.
Its not that you are putting chokes under the front wheels to keep the car in position

Quoting Superfly (Reply 133): Discussing vehicles with you is useless because you are only looking for an argument.

Because you are in error?  

Just admit it, doesn't hurt. Try it out. C'mon.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 135): And in real world terms: If the engine can overcome the static friction of the tyres, then yes, there is more than enough torque. A342 supported that.

   That's the point. When the wheels burn rubber, it means there is more power available than they can transmit.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 129): Of course not; there aren't any. I see no engineering reason to do this

Quoting Superfly (Reply 131): No need to explain any of the above. Fully aware already. I understand what you were saying was all hypothetical but since no truck exist, there was really no point in mentioning it in the first place.

A342:
Not sure why you and your friend NicoEDDF insist on an argument.   

Quoting Superfly (Reply 137): A342: Not sure why you and your friend NicoEDDF insist on an argument.

I wouldn't call it an argument, we were just setting facts straight.

And there are trucks with turbocharged four-cylinder engines and at least five-speed automatics, don't know about six speed. It doesn't matter if the engine runs on gas or diesel.

Quoting A342 (Reply 138): I wouldn't call it an argument, we were just setting facts straight.

Exactly. Whats bad about learning new things?

And btw., we are only friends in so far that we are out of the same country (quite close at least...he's from bavaria  ) and share the same hobby. We don't know each others personally

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 139): quite close at least...he's from bavaria

   But right now, it seems that Bavaria is becoming a part of Germany!   

Quoting A342 (Reply 140): But right now, it seems that Bavaria is becoming a part of Germany!

:D Uhm, yes, it certainly looks like it!!

Any problem for you :P

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 141): Any problem for you

No, not for me. But maybe it is a problem for some of the "Mir san Mir und des boarische Bier" dudes.  

Quoting A342 (Reply 138): And there are trucks with turbocharged four-cylinder engines and at least five-speed automatics, don't know about six speed.

I'd rather turn the question around: what good it makes? If you haul the same weight around and have the same power available, your fuel economy will be similar regardless the engine displacement. There would be an improvement because of the engine's improved efficiency, question is how big. Mind you, the classic truck engines are improving too. One example, due to certain circumstances I had to rent an '08 F150. It had the 4.2 Triton V6 with 202 hp and 4AT. It's city fuel efficiency was 25% better than my '95 F150's (5.0 V8, 185 hp, 5MT) highway fuel efficiency. As a matter of fact, it wasn't much worse than the Lada I used to drive in the early nineties.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 143): I'd rather turn the question around: what good it makes?

None what so ever, thus the reason there aren't any such trucks. Some just like to argue for the sake of argument.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 143): I'd rather turn the question around: what good it makes? If you haul the same weight around and have the same power available, your fuel economy will be similar regardless the engine displacement. There would be an improvement because of the engine's improved efficiency, question is how big. Mind you, the classic truck engines are improving too. One example, due to certain circumstances I had to rent an '08 F150. It had the 4.2 Triton V6 with 202 hp and 4AT. It's city fuel efficiency was 25% better than my '95 F150's (5.0 V8, 185 hp, 5MT) highway fuel efficiency. As a matter of fact, it wasn't much worse than the Lada I used to drive in the early nineties.

I can partially answer your question about what good it may provide.

The available power is not really important to fuel economy since the vast majority of driving never uses wide open throttle ("WOT"). Rather, the power actually used is what's important. With regard to engine characteristics, the fuel economy at a given power level is measured by the specific fuel consumption ("SFC") which measures how much fuel is burned at a power level.

SFC is heavily influenced by factors like intake and exhaust pumping losses, compression ratio, combustion chamber shape, turbocharging, etc. Sometimes these factors work with each other and sometimes against. The interaction is complex which is why (a) car makers spend billions on engineers and Ph. D.'s in their powertrain R&D, and (b) guys who think a K&N filter will give a modern fuel-injected engine better fuel economy at part throttle, shouldn't be consulted for engine tips.

A smaller engine *may* have the potential for less intake pumping loss at part throttle, while still having acceptable exhaust losses. Pumping losses can hit SFC pretty hard. I say "may" because if a gasoline engine has a high compression ratio, high intake charge density may trigger partial knock, which may cause the engine to dial back the timing, which decreases cylinder pressure -- and could take away your advantage from pumping loss decrease. This is a general example and I don't mean it to be taken as fact; I'm using it to illustrate that (a) there could be advantage gained from a smaller engine, but (b) the factors that influence it are difficult to know if you don't have methodical testing and data.

In general, though, if you're driving a 5,000 pound pickup truck with the aerodynamics of a barn door, you're right: changing the engine isn't going to influence fuel economy like some people seem to think. It's not like you're going to suddely get 35 MPG in mixed driving out of that beast. If you want to burn less gas per mile, then drive a more fuel-efficient car.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 144): Some just like to argue for the sake of argument.

What does people push to expressing wrong "facts" and if they get reassured that they are wrong they need to point out some "sake of the argument crap"  

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 143): I'd rather turn the question around: what good it makes?

I'm not propagating the concept. A turbodiesel with lots of torque is the right engine for trucks. I posted in this discussion because one user seems to have a strange understanding of physics.

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 143): Mind you, the classic truck engines are improving too. One example, due to certain circumstances I had to rent an '08 F150. It had the 4.2 Triton V6 with 202 hp and 4AT. It's city fuel efficiency was 25% better than my '95 F150's (5.0 V8, 185 hp, 5MT) highway fuel efficiency. As a matter of fact, it wasn't much worse than the Lada I used to drive in the early nineties.

I have no reason not to believe you.  

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 146): What does people push to expressing wrong "facts" and if they get reassured that they are wrong they need to point out some "sake of the argument crap"

   Agree 100%. All of us are wrong sometimes. But some people have the balls to admit it while others don't.

Quoting A342 (Reply 147): I have no reason not to believe you.

No point in anyone having a discussion with you about his subject.

Quoting A342 (Reply 147): Agree 100%. All of us are wrong sometimes. But some people have the balls to admit it while others don't.

So I have no balls?
Gee you are so mature.
That is proof that you and your sidekick is just looking for an argument. If you and your sidekick were correct, then please provide some examples of the kinds of trucks that ContnlEliteCMH mentioned only in theory.
Even he mentioned that no such truck exist for obvious reasons.
Personally I find it foolish to make an argument over a point that is totally moot.  

Quoting Superfly (Reply 148): Quoting A342 (Reply 147): I have no reason not to believe you. No point in anyone having a discussion with you about his subject.

Uh, actually, I agree with WildcatYXU, but whatever...

Quoting Superfly (Reply 148): So I have no balls? Gee you are so mature. That is proof that you and your sidekick is just looking for an argument. If you and your sidekick were correct, then please provide some examples of the kinds of trucks that ContnlEliteCMH mentioned only in theory. Even he mentioned that no such truck exist for obvious reasons. Personally I find it foolish to make an argument over a point that is totally moot.

I was not arguing that such trucks are better than others. But obviously, you don't believe in simple physics, which I think is stunning.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124): The tires would just spin out of control burning rubber. The truck wouldn't move.

This statement is utter nonsense. NicoEDDF and I tried to explain why, but either you don't get it or you don't want to accept that you're wrong. Please tell me, what else could I conclude from your posts?