History repeats - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > General > General Discussion > History repeats

BLACK FRIDAY SPECIALS!! You asked, we deliver!Stainless Steel Door Hinge PinsPoly Door Hinge Bushings

Reply
Unread 11-06-2014, 11:20 AM   #1
10Xk
Registered User
2010 XK Commander 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 868
History repeats

Haven't we been down the fuel economy road before, the 70's? Is this history repeating its self with the smaller size engines attempting to get more MPG from less. Seems that the only thing didnt change is that there is no replacement for displacement.

Thoughts?

10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 11:54 AM   #2
Dngrs1
Registered User
1979 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mohave Valley,AZ
Posts: 809
Isn't technology a wonderful thing?

Just for reference/ comparison....I have a 2006 Saab 9-3 Aero 4 door sedan with a 2.8L (171 cu. in.) turbocharged V6 coupled to a 6 speed auto tranny.
It is rated @ 250HP. I have had this car to 135MPH with power to spare. On a recent trip to CA, cruise control set @ 85MPH it averaged 32MPG. City/ Hwy MPG averages 25MPG with the AC running.

Now, show me a car from the 1970's or 1980's that can compare.
__________________
I would rather have a tool I don't need, than need a tool I don't have.
Dngrs1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 12:10 PM   #3
bobjp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,383
No, it's not the same road. Cars are more powerful now than they ever have been. The road in the 1970's was just to choke engines for the sake of emissions and gas mileage. Power was sacrificed.

And there is a replacement for displacement: it's called technology. Apparently in the 1970's, 350 cubic inches was needed for 175 hp. Today, naturally aspirated 4 cylinders produce that power.

If that isn't a "replacement for displacement" I don't know what is.

And don't bring up the tired argument that the same technology applied to more cubic inches will produce more power. Nobody disputes that. But "more power" hasn't been the only end game for 45 years!
__________________
97 TJ sport.
bobjp is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 01:33 PM   #4
10Xk
Registered User
2010 XK Commander 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 868
Well let me rephrase, in the 60's good power numbers, 70's regulations killed the power.

Would this be the calm before the storm as in the power numbers are too fall as in the 70's.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bobjp
No, it's not the same road. Cars are more powerful now than they ever have been. The road in the 1970's was just to choke engines for the sake of emissions and gas mileage. Power was sacrificed.

And there is a replacement for displacement: it's called technology. Apparently in the 1970's, 350 cubic inches was needed for 175 hp. Today, naturally aspirated 4 cylinders produce that power.

If that isn't a "replacement for displacement" I don't know what is.

And don't bring up the tired argument that the same technology applied to more cubic inches will produce more power. Nobody disputes that. But "more power" hasn't been the only end game for 45 years!
Comparing a 4 cylinder of today to a v-8 of yesterday is no comparison. Compare the displacement vs power differences of the same era.
10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 02:44 PM   #5
Balvar24
Registered User
1979 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rock Ridge
Posts: 5,153
No. We saw power levels v/s displacement catch back up in the 90's. We've surpassed levels for production vehicles saw in the 60's. It would seem there's no substitute for nostalgia.

Forget the muscle car crowd for a minute and compare a F134 (2.2) Jeep engine to the base 4 cyl offered today. Or, compare a Dauntless V6 to whats available in the average econobox.

Internal combustion engines are more efficient than ever.

Variable valve timing, and all the other crap we can do with computers isn't just about emissions and fuel mileage. Emissions and fuel mileage are the result of more complete combustion.

Heck. Compare the F134 to an L134. Technology is the only difference.

The new Dodge Hellcat is what, a 392 CI? Don't think we hit 707 HP with a Production Hemi in the 60's.
A non-gas guzzle tax (I think, someone check me) 6.4 (about 392 CI) Hemi in the 2015 Challenger is rated at 485 HP. A 426 Hemi circa 1965 (Emissions? I've got a PCV valve and a muffler!) dynoed at 463 (corrected).
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/dyno-test.html

The internal combustion engine did not obtain perfection in 1969. Manufacturers are better at doing more with less than ever.

However, I think everyone will agree that Rock and Roll did in fact reach perfection in 1974.
__________________
"Work hard, rock hard, eat hard, sleep hard, grow big, wear glasses if you need 'em."
Balvar24 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 04:13 PM   #6
bobjp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Xk View Post
Well let me rephrase, in the 60's good power numbers, 70's regulations killed the power.

Would this be the calm before the storm as in the power numbers are too fall as in the 70's.
There isn't any evidence to say that power numbers are going to fall. New regulations are definitely influencing design changes, but mostly in weight and drag, not lower power. Look at Ford's lineup. It's never been more efficient or more powerful. Like I said, power fell in 70's because they didn't have a better way to reduce emission and increase economy than to just choke the engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Xk View Post
Comparing a 4 cylinder of today to a v-8 of yesterday is no comparison. Compare the displacement vs power differences of the same era.
Huh? Showing that a 4 cylinder of today can produce more output more efficiently shows that there is replacement for displacement (counter to the point you made). You can haul a family of four or a truck load of junk around with a smaller engine. That is, in fact, replacing displacement.

I love old simple V8's. I have an SBC and a big block Ford. But I can't deny the advantages of modern engines.
__________________
97 TJ sport.
bobjp is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 05:42 PM   #7
10Xk
Registered User
2010 XK Commander 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobjp

There isn't any evidence to say that power numbers are going to fall. New regulations are definitely influencing design changes, but mostly in weight and drag, not lower power. Look at Ford's lineup. It's never been more efficient or more powerful. Like I said, power fell in 70's because they didn't have a better way to reduce emission and increase economy than to just choke the engine.

Huh? Showing that a 4 cylinder of today can produce more output more efficiently shows that there is replacement for displacement (counter to the point you made). You can haul a family of four or a truck load of junk around with a smaller engine. That is, in fact, replacing displacement.

I love old simple V8's. I have an SBC and a big block Ford. But I can't deny the advantages of modern engines.
Ok you win, I give up!!!! Sure, 4 cylinders will be only engine used in the future. That's why Jeep stopped offering the 4 cylinder wrangler.
10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 05:59 PM   #8
bobjp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,383
Whatever, you were only up for using the same old Bud-Light and garage induced arguments anyway.

You're asking if power is going to decrease at a time when engines are more powerful than they've ever been in the face of more regulation than there's ever been. Given the products of the last 5 years, there is strong evidence that manufacturers are very interested in producing powerful cars.
__________________
97 TJ sport.
bobjp is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 06:52 PM   #9
2006_Sport
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sherrills Ford, NC
Posts: 10,830
Nope. 2015 mustang 4 banger eco boost will have 310 horsepower.

That's 10 more HP than the V6 model and it will most likely get 30+mpg
__________________
2011 Ford Fusion Sport
-Zach
2006_Sport is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 06:53 PM   #10
2006_Sport
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sherrills Ford, NC
Posts: 10,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Xk View Post
Ok you win, I give up!!!! Sure, 4 cylinders will be only engine used in the future. That's why Jeep stopped offering the 4 cylinder wrangler.
Jeep stopped using the 4 cylinder wrangler because it was a pile of underpowered garbage.
__________________
2011 Ford Fusion Sport
-Zach
2006_Sport is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 07:44 PM   #11
10Xk
Registered User
2010 XK Commander 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2006_Sport
Nope. 2015 mustang 4 banger eco boost will have 310 horsepower.

That's 10 more HP than the V6 model and it will most likely get 30+mpg
This is the second attempt at a four cylinder turbo for the mustang. A 2.3l turbo was first tried in the 80's. History repeating itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2006_Sport

Jeep stopped using the 4 cylinder wrangler because it was a pile of underpowered garbage.
Yes!
10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 07:52 PM   #12
Hurley91
Registered User
2006  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Xk
This is the second attempt at a four cylinder turbo for the mustang. A 2.3l turbo was first tried in the 80's. History repeating itself. Yes!
Yeah, but every manufacturer was trying turbos in the 80's. They've come a longs ways since then.
__________________
[COLOR="DarkGreen"][B][I]"Sting like a Butterfly, Punch like a Flea" - Si Robertson[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Hurley91 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 08:38 PM   #13
10Xk
Registered User
2010 XK Commander 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: , USA
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurley91

Yeah, but every manufacturer was trying turbos in the 80's. They've come a longs ways since then.
And yet every manufacture is trying it again. Evo and WRX have been pushing around 300hp for years.
10Xk is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-06-2014, 09:44 PM   #14
2006_Sport
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sherrills Ford, NC
Posts: 10,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Xk View Post
And yet every manufacture is trying it again. Evo and WRX have been pushing around 300hp for years.
Because they can be made ridiculously efficient nowadays. Evos and WRXs are a separate class of vehicles and honestly the boxer engines in subarus are piles of **** as well. The ecoboost and engines like it are game changers.
__________________
2011 Ford Fusion Sport
-Zach
2006_Sport is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 11-07-2014, 06:19 AM   #15
vadslram
Registered User
1990 YJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: VA Beach
Posts: 4,799
The old days weren't always bad or good.
I had a 79 Corolla that got 54 mpg. It didn't have airbags, power windows, A/C or pretty much anything but seats. But the stock mileage was better than anything straight gas today.
I also had a 79 Trans Am w 6.6 L It sounded like NOTHING else on the road since. The low end torque was fantastic and I coud cruise down the interstate at 85 for hours (I did regularly), but I don't think the rated HP was 350 and the mileage was abysmall.
I'd still like to have another Trans or a '69 mustang Mach 1, not because they were technically great cars but because they were VISCERALLY great cars!
vadslram is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.