Is there any car with both the 2.3 and 3.3 that can prove it? Because for example, according to Fuelly, the difference in fuel consumption between the 2.3 and 3.7 Mustang is less than 1 MPG in the 2.3's favor (and it probably responds better to ecodriving).
Very unlikely, car manufactures don't detune a large engine and tune a small engine at the same time for obvious reason. Thus both the 2.3 and 3.7 in the Mustang have the same tuning style, the both tuned ecomonically or both aggressively. The only way to test this is to do aftermarket engine swap.
It's neat to have the option. I mean, if there are people doing winter school runs in the one I know...
It's 9.5:1, not high, but until very recently you could still get n/a motors with less in the US. At this point it's very well proven in many many vehicles that smaller turbo motors are more efficient than larger N/A. Plus the way those smaller turbo motors are built, they aren't really notably laggy either, remember these aren't sports cars, they're daily drivers. Average Joe isn't going to notice. They tend to opt for quite small turbochargers, they spool up very very quickly but by the time you hit the redline theyre giving it all they have and are now outside their efficient operation zone (and face it, driving like that was never going to be efficient in first place). Downside, not a lot of room to tune more out of them but it also wouldn't make sense from a business perspective to be putting a bigger more expensive turbo in that's worse to daily drive and not fully utilise. 2.3 Mustang often reviews better in Europe just from better weight balance making it drive on our roads better and the mountune kits available from dealer giving it the 5.0 straight line performance for less money. But i get it's a bit weird for a Mustang. Perhaps what ford should have done is platform shared the Mustang into a new Capri with the 2.3, giving a very very similar car, where the motor is more nameplate appropriate
Here comes the new Tesla Cybertruck. My problem is that it's so ugly and has such a bad name that I can't focus on the car itself. And as for the car itself, here are the specs.
Thing is, the weird angle ain't pretty but does have one feature --- Post updated --- Integrated load cover is kinda cool and being angled is at least more spacious (and side effect, it's an EV, probably has better aero)
I tell you one thing, I certainly didn't expect Tesla's truck to look anything like that. My money would've been on either the Model S, Model X, or Model Y, but as a pickup. Subverted expectations? Not bad. Looks more like a pickup that way.
Oddly enough it's actually more appropriate in the Mustang; the displacement itself is a callback to a famous special model from the 80s (with the "5.0" being the regular top dog during the same time period). The original 2.3L I4, which got an inauspicious start naturally aspirated in the Pinto and Mustang II, is actually a rather interesting engine; it's a distant relative of the Escort Cosworth engine and loves boost just as much. But the rest of your post really just proves the point I'm trying to make. These eco-turbo engines are efficient on paper, but from a driver's perspective they combine the worst aspects of all engine types - the soft response of a turbo or rev-monster, but with absolutely nothing up top like a low-rev stump puller. My old Sunbird was the torque monster with nothing up top - but it responded immediately when you hit the gas, and it pulled hard enough through the low- and mid-range that gasping for breath above 5500RPM was a forgivable offense. I loved that car; loved the sound of it, loved the torque and responsiveness, loved the fact that it was not an I4 or a Honda Civic, even loved its handling. It even got alright gas mileage, considering the way I drove and maintained it. I can't imagine how awful it would have been to drive if it'd had artificially softened DBW throttle response, on top of turbocharging, on top of less torque (because despite the torque benefits of turbocharging, the 1.4T used in its descendants never quite managed to equal its peak torque unless you factor in rating system changes and even then only maybe). Oh, and sounded boring even by I4 standards (there's a video of a straight piped Chevy Cruze somewhere on YT with before & after revs. In the "after" section you can barely tell a difference). But yet, the old engine is constantly maligned just because "it's not high-tech enough" or "it has low specific output" - this despite the fact that it 1. did its job just fine, 2. sounds way better than anyone gives it credit for, and 3. was actually kind of fun to drive too. See, that's why I have a problem with everything being about "efficiency". I don't necessarily hate efficiency - I just think that treating efficiency as an end in and of itself tends to create a perfectly boring result, with everything that could possibly make the vehicle or vehicles in general enjoyable - throttle response, exhaust noise, handling balance, style, DIY repairs & tuning, even just the concept of variety itself - strained out. 20 or 30 years ago it was literally impossible to make a car truly soulless - GM tried, with its Saturn brand, and the result still managed to feel punchy despite its underpowered engine (mainly because it was incredibly light for its size, even by the standards of the time) while also, somehow, remaining more stylish than some of its contemporaries (especially in coupe form - hey, remember coupes? They existed at one point, and they were cool for the same reasons they were "inefficient"!) With such a sharp peak it's not likely to be especially aerodynamic anyway.
True, but cars like the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight or Hyundai Ioniq show that an aerodynamic car does not need to look like it's been designed in a kindergarden. --- Post updated --- I don't have time for a full response, but I can already see that you're comparing a V6 to the 1.4 turbo, whereas the real predcessors of it were the bigger NA fours. And I don't see the appeal of doing things inefficiently.
I'm thinking in terms of the cars themselves. The Cavalier/Sunbird and Cruze occupy pretty much the same spot in GM's lineup, just 20 years apart. But even from that perspective, the 1.4 turbo has similar peak numbers to some of the NA fours, but uses far more complication to achieve those numbers. I'm really not sure why complication for its own sake would be a good thing, especially when it comes at the price of any uniqueness either engine might originally have had.
Can I compare the M5 F10 to 518i E34 in my case for turbo engines? After all, we're comparing cars, not engines.
This is so disingenuous I don't even know where to start. The 3.1L V6 in the Cavalier and 1.4L I4 turbo in the Cruze both actually occupied the same slot in the respective model range - both were the "upsell engine" in their respective cars, the 3.1 to a 2.2L and the 1.4T to some 1.8 NA. Now if you want to compare base model to base model or M5 to M5, then that would be pretty much exactly what I'm doing. The 1.8 was an improvement in terms of spec over the old 2.2; tuneability is still a question mark as I don't think anyone ever bothered trying to tune either one. (the 1.8 is an Ecotec but apparently bears no relation to the "good" Ecotec from the Cobalt/G5). However, top dog to top dog, it still remains that the Cruze couldn't out-torque its predecessor of 20 years previously until they put a diesel in it!
You get about 70 lbft more and over 40 HP more, plus better gas mileage. Yes, it is better. Much better. --- Post updated --- Wikipedia says the last Cruze only came with the 1.4.
Not until 2016. Before then, it was the upsell engine, after that it can be compared to both base and upsell engines, since, well, it was the only one. Yes, it does have more power than some of the old base engines, not so much on the upsell ones. As upgraded that year it finally got more power than the old V6 and almost as much torque. Took it long enough. And you're never going to convince me talking about gas mileage because I only think in terms of "good enough" and "not good enough" there anyway. Plus, if the increase in mileage is offset by an increase in initial cost and eventual cost to repair (more to go wrong and more complex to repair when it does), then is it really worth it in the end?
I get the feeling that the cybertruck is not going to be the seller that tesla wants it to be. Is this really the type of vehicle they need to be making as a company? I do find it a little funny that they smashed both of the windows while trying to prove how strong they are. Leaving themselves to do the conference in front of a smashed up car. I am also left wondering about its drag coefficient. Equally, the rear visability is presumably an issue too with those c pillars. Pedestrian impact results ought to be interesting too, is the front of the car going to be soft enough not to maim people at 20mph impacts? Are people going to be able to fit into the back seats without hitting the roof? If so, why is the roof so much higher at the front, it's just more air to displace while driving. Not too mention that all other pickups have converged on one common design, presumably there is a reason for that. But maybe it's just me.
Roof is higher at front because of the retractable load cover, though I'm sure they could have come up with an alternative mechanism
This is more or less a scam, by adding another motor, (form dual motor to tri motor, an additional 50% numbers of motor added) the range is increased by another 66%
