New ecoboost ford GT has worse mpg than any comparable supercar

[13COBRA]

They aren't illegally exceeding the test, but the dyno testing methods are biased towards small displacement, small turbo motors. Its great for steady state conditions, i.e. cruising down a flat highway, coasting down hill, or sitting at a stop light. As soon as you apply a load, i.e. drive up a hill, accelerate, etc. it consumes more fuel that a properly sized NA motor.

I drive through a small mountain range every day. We never got close to the EPA estimations unless we went on long trips up I-5 where our drive is 95% flat and cruising.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying if it has to perform in Test A well, they are going to do what it takes to make it perform well in Test A.

It's not their fault they are exploiting the limits of the testing method.

 

[DHG1078]

Yes, but when people say this, it's literally the same as saying every other decision that is made on a car is a marketing decision. Every decision is a marketing decision on some level. The decision to build a car, how it looks, whatever. All I can tell you is, regardless of what else gets said, Ford really wanted to win that ****in race on the 50th anniversary. Ford is into big anniversaries.

What do you think would have been the easier pure marketing decision, seeing the (obviously predictable) controversy around the V6? Would have been a lot easier hill to climb just chucking in the 5.2L...

I'm not saying thats what they based their decision around, just saying a lot of the general public thinks that way, and manufacturers use it to their advantage.

The 5.2 would have been great marketing for the GT350, but the 3.5 benefits the entire fleet of cars. Ford would have had to have the 3.5 in some other racing series back in 2013, which is probably long before the engine was close to ready for anything.

 

[DHG1078]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying if it has to perform in Test A well, they are going to do what it takes to make it perform well in Test A.

It's not their fault they are exploiting the limits of the testing method.

I agree. I don't like it, but I would do the same thing if I was there.

 

[DHG1078]

I kinda wish Ford had programs for people to do some test driving of cars in various locations for things like performance and fuel economy. I feel like my commute would give Ford a lot of good data. lol.

 

[13COBRA]

I kinda wish Ford had programs for people to do some test driving of cars in various locations for things like performance and fuel economy. I feel like my commute would give Ford a lot of good data. lol.

I do that on the daily....lol

11.5mpgs in my 2017 F250 with a 6" lift, 22" wheels and 37" tires.

 

[DHG1078]

I do that on the daily....lol

11.5mpgs in my 2017 F250 with a 6" lift, 22" wheels and 37" tires.

lol. In all seriousness though. My commute would sample a good variety of driving conditions in a variety of temperatures. I actually see some camouflaged cars periodically during my commute. Not many, but I see them from time to time.

 

[D1984]

EPA requirements are tougher for MY 2017, some of those cars have been downgraded

 

[Coiled03]

Yes, we all agree that the prefix "Eco" being associated with this car is now somewhat awkward. Who gives a ****? Can we all just enjoy the car for what it is, now?

 

[Corbic]

Yes, we all agree that the prefix "Eco" being associated with this car is now somewhat awkward. Who gives a ****? Can we all just enjoy the car for what it is, now?

I swear to God no one actually reads each other's posts.

Ecoboost is a marketing term dreamed up to make people associate turbo engines with fuel economy.

In the past Turbo was solely associated with performance engines and thus, not fuel efficient.

Ford is a global company. This means they market and sell in countries where displacement is a major sticking point.

Outside the US almost every developed nation levies additional taxes, insurance rates and registration charges for vehicles based on engine displacement. This means that a 2.4L is in a higher bracket then a 1.6L, even if the 1.6L is turbocharged and makes more power.

Ford is not going to change its brand name just because it's super car is not a class leader in fuel economy.

You are also making the assumption that Eco is Economy and not Ecology.

Ford GT could still have better emissions then its competition.

 

[AustinSN]

Ford would have had to have the 3.5 in some other racing series back in 2013, which is probably long before the engine was close to ready for anything.

I can't tell if I'm reading this wrong but Ford was racing the 3.5 back then.

 

[DHG1078]

I swear to God no one actually reads each other's posts.

Ecoboost is a marketing term dreamed up to make people associate turbo engines with fuel economy.

In the past Turbo was solely associated with performance engines and thus, not fuel efficient.

Ford is a global company. This means they market and sell in countries where displacement is a major sticking point.

Outside the US almost every developed nation levies additional taxes, insurance rates and registration charges for vehicles based on engine displacement. This means that a 2.4L is in a higher bracket then a 1.6L, even if the 1.6L is turbocharged and makes more power.

Ford is not going to change its brand name just because it's super car is not a class leader in fuel economy.

You are also making the assumption that Eco is Economy and not Ecology.

Ford GT could still have better emissions then its competition.

1.6 is in a higher bracket than 1.5 in some countries, which is why the fusion switched to the 1.5 from a 1.6.

 

[DHG1078]

I can't tell if I'm reading this wrong but Ford was racing the 3.5 back then.

Good catch. I meant 5.2.

 

[HISSMAN]

I want a Turbo 4.0 I-6

That would make me happy.

 

[Corbic]

1.6 is in a higher bracket than 1.5 in some countries, which is why the fusion switched to the 1.5 from a 1.6.

Exactly. Rumor is the Coyote 5.0 will be replaced by a 4.8l. It would not surprise me if displacement restrictions is the primary driver.

 

[mrlrd1]

I just find it funny people think Ford would build a super huge pain in the ass hand-built carbon car that costs a silly amount of money because it was pure marketing for the engine.

Read what I said, and do it carefully. Because this response here shows you didn't, or were just incapable of understanding.

The engine was chosen for marketing purposes. Ford could have used a mod motor based engine with all else being equal. But they didn't, they wanted to hype the "Eco"boost. The car was built to go racing, not for marketing. Nowhere did I say that the GT was built for marketing, just that the engine was chosen for such.

You're right about one thing though: the average public doesn't know about the GT. And that validates my point. Ford failed.

Edit - Nope...no marketing here:

 

[Coiled03]

I swear to God no one actually reads each other's posts.

Ecoboost is a marketing term dreamed up to make people associate turbo engines with fuel economy.

In the past Turbo was solely associated with performance engines and thus, not fuel efficient.

Ford is a global company. This means they market and sell in countries where displacement is a major sticking point.

Outside the US almost every developed nation levies additional taxes, insurance rates and registration charges for vehicles based on engine displacement. This means that a 2.4L is in a higher bracket then a 1.6L, even if the 1.6L is turbocharged and makes more power.

Ford is not going to change its brand name just because it's super car is not a class leader in fuel economy.

You are also making the assumption that Eco is Economy and not Ecology.

Ford GT could still have better emissions then its competition.

What makes you think I don't know any of this?
Did I say I want them to change its brand name?
Why the hell did you go off on this rant based on my post?

My point was, I'm tired of people bitching about the apparent conflict between the name, and the gas mileage. It's a phenomenal car, no matter what.

 

[DBK]

Read what I said, and do it carefully. Because this response here shows you didn't, or were just incapable of understanding.

You can keep repeating your opinion over and over, and that will not make it fact.

They chose the most favorable available engine available for the class it was racing in. This is fact. Thanks.

 

[blk02edge]

What makes you think I don't know any of this?
Did I say I want them to change its brand name?
Why the hell did you go off on this rant based on my post?

My point was, I'm tired of people bitching about the apparent conflict between the name, and the gas mileage. It's a phenomenal car, no matter what.

If you don't like what could be such a simple conversation why are you on a car Forum? If you love peace and don't want to hear other's opinions you should probably just stick to car magazines and skip the forums. You could also not click this thread because what do you expect is going to be said in here?

 

[blk02edge]

You can keep repeating your opinion over and over, and that will not make it fact.

They chose the most favorable available engine available for the class it was racing in. This is fact. Thanks.

Whether that's true or not nobody will ever believe for one second that ford used the 3.5L v6 in the DP car purely to win. I know how close you are with ford but come on.

 

[DBK]

Whether that's true or not nobody will ever believe for one second that ford used the 3.5L v6 in the DP car purely to win. I know how close you are with ford but come on.

Believe it, don't believe it, makes no difference to me. They didn't put it in the DP to win, they put it in the DP to test so the GT could win.

The rules are the rules. It's not rocket science. How did the non-DI naturally aspirated cars do at LM this year? How did the GTDI cars do? What did Ford have available in 2013? Thanks.